Based on the context provided and the content of the discussion, here is the formatted transcript. Note: While the provided list contains City Council and Staff, the meeting is a **Planning Commission** meeting. The Commissioners identified from the dialogue are **Commissioner Stura**, **Commissioner Hooie**, **Commissioner Canal**, and **Commissioner Surma**. The staff member speaking is **Sam Crosby** (City Planner). The applicant is **Joe Bosco** (Audi Richfield). *** **[00:00:00] Chair:** I called the March 25th meeting of the Richfield City Planning Commission to order. The first item for us to consider is approval of the minutes from the previous meeting. **[00:00:10] Commissioner Stura:** So moved. **[00:00:12] Commissioner Hooie:** Second. **[00:00:15] Chair:** All those in favor of approving the minutes from the previous meeting please say I. **[00:00:18] Commissioners:** I. **[00:00:20] Chair:** Opposed? The next item on our agenda is the open Forum. It's an opportunity for the public to address the Planning Commission on items that typically aren't on the regular agenda. We do have one public hearing and a continuance scheduled for today. So if you are thinking you'd like to participate in the public hearing remotely, you can call in at 415-655-0001 and use webinar access code 2633-1163-7555 and the password 1234. Did we receive any comments or Communications from the public before the meeting today? **[00:00:55] Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Chair, no we have not. We do not have any callers for the open Forum at this time. **[00:01:05] Chair:** All right, we can proceed then with the approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda? **[00:01:10] Commissioner Canal:** So moved. **[00:01:12] Commissioner Surma:** Second. **[00:01:15] Chair:** All in favor of approving the agenda please say I. **[00:01:18] Commissioners:** I. **[00:01:20] Chair:** Oppose? The agenda is approved. The first item on the agenda is the public hearing to consider a request for an amended planned unit development for a Time extension of and Amendment to the construction agreement for a multistory parking ramp at 1401 77th Street East at Audi Richfield. Is there a staff report for this? **[00:01:45] Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Thank you Chair and Commissioners. In 2015, the city approved a new Audi dealership at 1401 77th Street East. Those approvals included the construction of a multi-story parking ramp on the property. Because Audi did not want to build the ramp with the original project, they provided $50,000 in escrow and entered into a construction agreement with the city. Since then, multiple time extensions have been granted. Now 9 years later, Audi is requesting additional time which requires an Amendment to the parking agreement that the city had entered into. Per Audi's request narrative, all signs indicate that inventory is not likely to return to pre-pandemic levels anytime soon, if ever, and they have no viable business need to build a parking ramp now or in the foreseeable future. Given the seemingly permanent change to the nature of their business, Audi has indicated an openness to pursuing other uses such as acquiring another Auto franchise or expanding their service center. They intend to use the additional time to explore the possibility of other Alternatives. Audi Representatives have presented the attached Amendment to the construction agreement which extends the application deadline to 2027 with the option for administrative one-year extension to 2028 and the construction deadline to 2028 again with an optional administrative extension to 2029. Staff recommends approval of the time extension and welcomes any questions you may have. **[00:03:30] Commissioner Hooie:** Thank you. Yeah, I was just wondering just to confirm, the three years was chosen because that was the previous extension that was granted to the applicant? **[00:03:40] Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Correct, yeah that's correct. **[00:03:42] Commissioner Hooie:** Okay. Well, there isn't any particular—that number is just because that was what was used before? There's not a particular legal or other reason that three years was chosen? **[00:03:55] Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Nope, it just seemed like a good number that we both agreed on. **[00:04:00] Chair:** Anyone else on the commission? **[00:04:05] Commissioner Stura:** I'm wondering if City staff knows why the ramp wasn't constructed when approvals were first granted. In a typical development, we don't condition approvals on something that would happen in the future. So I'm just wondering what the extenuating circumstances or the particularities of this approval was that it was not required initially. **[00:04:30] Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Staff and Chair and Commissioner Stura, sometimes development projects are phased. My understanding of it is—and perhaps the applicant can correct me because the representative here tonight was there back in 2015—but my understanding was that they kind of wanted to get the brand new dealership up and running and get their feet underneath them before then turning around and doing another financial expenditure of building this additional parking for additional inventory that then never came to fruition. **[00:05:10] Commissioner Surma:** Yeah, so what was the impetus for requiring this ramp to be constructed right? Is it City parking minimums that required this to be a condition? **[00:05:25] Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Commissioner Surma, the zoning code for the zoning District that the dealership is located within requires buildings to cover 50% of the lot. Without the parking structure or some other building on the property, the dealership only covers 29% of the lot and the proposed parking structure would increase the coverage to 44%, so they'd be a lot closer to meeting the 50% requirement. **[00:06:00] Commissioner Surma:** So wait, so it has to do more with the percentage requirement rather than the actual parking requirement? **[00:06:05] Sam Crosby (City Planner):** That's correct. **[00:06:08] Chair:** Oh, interesting. I understand that there's a representative from the applicant here. If you have any statements or comments, if you want to approach the podium there and say your name for the record, and we might have some questions as well. **[00:06:25] Joe Bosco (Audi Richfield):** Sure. My name is Joe Bosco, I'm the general manager at Audi Richfield. We opened—we're just coming up on our seven-year anniversary—we were given our occupancy permit April 13, 2017. Took us about a year and a half to build the facility. Interesting, I'm listening, you're taking me back in history from the time when we first started construction on the building. If you've ever been down 77th Street there and seen our dealership, we were fortunate enough to build just a magnificent building. We're 96,000 square feet, we're on three levels. The vast majority of our inventory is upstairs in a third-floor showroom. We employ 55 employees. It's a beautiful, beautiful facility and we keep the property up as best we can. We were issued that conditional occupancy permit under the agreements that we're all discussing here today. The world changed. We went into that dealership in the entrepreneurial car business and we thought we'd come in and be the biggest best giant Audi dealership ever, and that we were going to need that structure. As we hit COVID and then we hit the semiconductor shortage, availability of inventory has decreased considerably. Making it a parking garage right now would be an empty parking garage to fulfill the agreement. So we've certainly had discussions about what we can do in that area. We'd love to put another dealership. Putting in a dealership there would make perfect use of the property. The difficulty is finding a dealership to put in there; there's lots of franchise laws and the manufacturers don't always just want to open up new car dealerships. That's why as we hit this point, we're respectfully requesting an extension of the agreement that we have and we hope that you can approve that. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. **[00:08:45] Commissioner Canal:** I have a question. What is the typical timeline for getting a dealership up and running would you say? Is it within that three-year extension period or will we need to redo this exercise? **[00:08:55] Joe Bosco (Audi Richfield):** Good question. So the Audi dealership, from them giving us the approval to get it, selecting property, and then building—that all started in about 2013 and then we opened in 2017. So that was about three and a half, four years. It wouldn't be that difficult this time around. We already have the property, it'd be a significantly smaller building, and we have most of the staff that could run it already. So I think if we can come up with a franchise, we can certainly do it within the three to four years that we're speaking of. **[00:09:40] Commissioner Hooie:** I'm just curious, what sort of timeline would you need to commit to doing something? You know, if we can't get it done in this three-year period of time, I understand that things take time, but I want to see some progress and not just keep kicking the can down the road. If it's three years you're like "all right we got something" then it's going to be another four years until we open it. What is the carrot that will keep you moving along on the project so it doesn't sit stagnant? **[00:10:15] Joe Bosco (Audi Richfield):** For us, being a car dealer, we would love to put another franchise in that spot. I would tell you that if the city of Richfield said, "Audi Richfield, you absolutely positively have to build that parking garage right now," we would have an empty parking garage sitting there with nothing to put in it. We're constantly talking to local dealers that may want to change their business footprint and maybe sell us a franchise. It's a great piece of property right next to our building. Two doors down is a beautiful Land Rover building. A couple of miles down is a state-of-the-art Honda store. Manufacturers would absolutely love to be there. So I don't think we're looking to necessarily kick the can down the road. I think we've changed our mindset a bit from 2015 from "let's build a parking garage" to "let's put in a new car dealership." **[00:11:15] Commissioner Hooie:** As a follow-up, I would much rather see another dealership there than a parking garage for sure. But if we said you've got a year to get a letter of intent on a next step rather than a full three-year extension, what does something like that do? **[00:11:30] Joe Bosco (Audi Richfield):** No, I understand. I can't stand up here and tell you that I have a manufacturer waiting for us to build them a facility. I can't tell you that I can get you a letter of intent in a specific time frame. **[00:11:45] Commissioner Canal:** Thank you. I agree that an empty parking ramp is in nobody's best interest. I appreciate that you're looking for other options. On that note, aside from a new dealership, what other options might be possible? **[00:12:00] Joe Bosco (Audi Richfield):** Yeah, I know some people have floated some other retail space. Sadly, the only thing we really know is the automobile business. We can take that space and eventually make it additional service for our facility, a detail facility. Past that, as you go higher, the only thing to match the level of the current store would probably be parking space that we really wouldn't have inventory for. **[00:12:30] Commissioner Stura:** Chair, in light of that, to me the request seems reasonable that after a certain amount of time things might clarify. I certainly appreciate that the world changed. **[00:12:45] Chair:** Well we need to open the public hearing. If you would remain available in case we have any questions after the public hearing, that would be great. **[00:12:55] Joe Bosco (Audi Richfield):** Sure, be happy to. I'll just take a seat. **[00:13:00] Chair:** So we are now opening a public hearing to consider the request for an amended planned unit development for time extension. Have we received any comments regarding that or any calls on the line regarding that? **[00:13:10] Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Chair and Commissioners, we have not received any calls or emails about this particular request and there is nobody on the line at the moment. **[00:13:20] Chair:** I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. **[00:13:25] Commissioner Stura:** I so motion that we close the public hearing. **[00:13:27] Commissioner Canal:** Seconded. **[00:13:30] Chair:** All in favor of closing the public hearing please say I. **[00:13:33] Commissioners:** I. **[00:13:35] Chair:** Opposed? All right, the hearing is closed. Discussion on the proposal and staff recommendation. Commissioner Hooie? **[00:13:45] Commissioner Hooie:** Yeah, I think what they're asking for is reasonable. I just would—I don't know if there's any sort of mechanisms in place that we can put in now to avoid having the same conversation in three years. What happens if we didn't approve this? What would the endgame on each path be? **[00:14:10] Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Chair, Commissioner Hooie, you would make a recommendation of denial to go to the City Council, and then the City Council would decide. The applicant could construct the garage or try to come back with a PUD Amendment application to not have to build it at all, and then we'd kind of be sitting in a very similar situation. **[00:14:40] Commissioner Surma:** Commissioner Surma here. I have to say to the Planning Commission, this is one of the stranger issues I've probably dealt with. Seeing that they required this whole requirement to build a parking garage as a way to fill the 50% occupancy ratio on the site... it seems a little bit like our rules are maybe at odds with some of our own goals here within the city. We have this setup that could potentially force someone to build a parking structure that would be underutilized and be a not best use of the land when, in theory, we could have a facility there that would employ people and engage in commerce. Some incentives are at odds with what we're trying to do here as a city. **[00:15:30] Chair:** I too agree that building a parking garage is not the best use of space in our city right now, but I am also concerned that this has been a continuous push pushing the dates back further and further. I am wondering if the commission might consider amending the extension to two years, and after two years requiring the applicant to present a plan for disposition of the property—like what they want to have happen. So they get two years and then they need to come back and have some kind of plan so that this isn't just year after year after year we have good commercial space that is not being utilized. I'm curious what the other Commissioners think about that. **[00:16:15] Commissioner Stura:** Chair, please. I would be supportive of that. I'm concerned that the site is being underutilized at this point. Like others, I don't think a parking ramp makes sense, but also having an underutilized lot in our city for this amount of time is unfortunate. It's unfortunate that it was staged this way. I think a two-year term is appropriate. **[00:16:45] Joe Bosco (Audi Richfield):** [From audience] May I speak? **[00:16:47] Commissioner Stura:** Could I quickly interject? We had a training this past week where we learned that the body needs to vote on whether a public hearing is open for additional public comment. Am I correct in stating that, Sam? **[00:17:00] Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Yes, that is correct. **[00:17:05] Commissioner Stura:** I'll make a motion to reopen the public hearing. **[00:17:10] Commissioner Canal:** Seconded. **[00:17:12] Chair:** All in favor please say I. **[00:17:14] Commissioners:** I. **[00:17:15] Chair:** Opposed? If you have some things you'd like to respond to, step to the podium please. **[00:17:20] Joe Bosco (Audi Richfield):** I just wanted to make a comment and note that the property in question isn't a vacant lot. It's the property adjacent to our car dealership. It's paved, it's lit, there's a fountain area and seating. We do have a number of our used cars parked out there, so the property is being used. I just wanted to make the point that it's not a vacant lot. We've paved it and we keep it up. **[00:18:00] Commissioner Canal:** If you didn't have access to that space right now, would it change your business? **[00:18:05] Joe Bosco (Audi Richfield):** I would say yes because our service parking is there where we keep the vehicles that we're working on. **[00:18:15] Commissioner Canal:** If you were to acquire an additional franchise at some future point, where would all that parking go? **[00:18:25] Joe Bosco (Audi Richfield):** I do believe that if we acquired another franchise and built a facility that would generate revenue, we could build up and take some of that used car inventory and use it for that space. We could probably fit most of our used cars inside our three-level dealership, but it gets a little tight. **[00:18:45] Chair:** Thank you. I would entertain a motion to re-close the public hearing. **[00:18:50] Commissioner Stura:** Moved. **[00:18:52] Commissioner Canal:** Seconded. **[00:18:55] Chair:** All in favor of re-closing the public hearing please say I. **[00:18:57] Commissioners:** I. **[00:19:00] Chair:** Opposed? The hearing is closed again. I appreciate the applicant's response, but I still think that the land is being underutilized. Whether it's a paved lot that is underutilized to me is still not good use of the land resources. I still feel that it would be reasonable to amend the request to two years. **[00:19:30] Commissioner Surma:** Yeah, I'm not convinced how that though would help this keep moving forward. I understand that these business decisions take years to get going. I'm not sure how two years would really help in this current environment with high interest rates and everything. I don't see how right now shortening that period would actually meaningfully advance our goals. I think three years is fine. **[00:20:15] Commissioner Canal:** Chair, I understand both sides of this. Whatever we can do as a Planning Commission to recommend that an alternative use is explored in a timely manner, I support. Even if there isn't a dealership, a fountain and a public space that's well-lit seems desirable to me in some regard as well. I'm not eager to force a resolution on this situation as much as I am eager to see a good thing happen here. **[00:20:45] Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Chair and Commissioners, if I may, you might consider recommending a condition of approval that says that if and when they do come back, if they don't have a development project for construction, they then submit a history of the conversations that they have and the efforts that they've made to at least show that they have been doing something in this three-year period. **[00:21:15] Chair:** I get the sense that there's some thought that that might be reasonable. Is there someone who might offer an amendment to the recommendation to that? **[00:21:25] Commissioner Hooie:** Chair, I would motion that we make that Amendment—that some sort of log of efforts made for some sort of progress be made at the end of this period to the current Amendment. **[00:21:40] Chair:** You're moving to move the recommendation forward with the following Amendment? **[00:21:45] Commissioner Hooie:** Yes. I motion that we accept staff's recommendation with the amendment that the applicant, if they need to approach for a new extension, provide history and documentation within the three years. **[00:22:00] Commissioner Stura:** I'll second that. **[00:22:05] Chair:** All right. All does that make sense to staff? You understand that clearly? **[00:22:10] Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Yes, followed. **[00:22:12] Chair:** All right. All those in favor of approving the recommended staff action with the amendment to require a history and documentation of attempts made by the applicant before the expiration of the next three-year period, please say I. **[00:22:25] Commissioners:** I. **[00:22:27] Chair:** Opposed? All right, the action has been approved. Thank you, thanks for talking with us. The next item on the agenda is to continue a public hearing to consider a request by partnership Academy to amend their planned unit development. Is there a staff report for that? **[00:22:45] Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Yes, thank you Chair and Commissioners. In 2018, the city approved a classroom expansion for partnership Academy at 6500 Nicolet Avenue South. The project did not meet the parking requirements, therefore the approval included a condition that the property be brought into compliance within 2 years. Partnership Academy is working to finalize application materials. The applicant had hoped to have everything ready for this meeting, however, additional time is needed. So staff is recommending that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, take any testimony if there is any, and then move to continue the public hearing to the April 22nd meeting. **[00:23:45] Chair:** I will go ahead and open the public hearing. Did we receive any comments regarding this previous to the meeting? **[00:23:55] Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Chair and Commissioners, I did not receive any emails or phone calls and there is nobody on the line at the moment. It doesn't appear that anyone is here in person. **[00:24:05] Chair:** I would entertain a motion to continue the hearing until our next meeting. **[00:24:10] Commissioner Stura:** So moved. **[00:24:12] Commissioner Canal:** Seconded. **[00:24:15] Chair:** All those in favor of continuing the public hearing to our next meeting please say I. **[00:24:18] Commissioners:** I. **[00:24:20] Chair:** Opposed? The hearing is continued. Other business—do we have a staff report for the bylaws and meetings? **[00:24:30] Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Yes, thank you Chair. Part three section three of the Planning Commission bylaws requires that the commission review the bylaws each year. Staff is no longer recommending a change this year. At last month's regular meeting, the commission provided feedback indicating a preference for amending the bylaws to allow for yearly rescheduling of Planning Commission meetings that fall on City observed holidays. Staff does not believe an amendment is necessary for such a task. Staff recommends rescheduling the May meeting to Wednesday, May 29th. While the December meeting for 2024 does not fall on a holiday, the Planning Commission has traditionally voted to reschedule this meeting to two weeks earlier due to end-of-year travel arrangements. Staff recommends rescheduling the December meeting to Monday, December 9th. **[00:25:45] Commissioner Stura:** Question—I noted that for the December meeting we'll be meeting two weeks before. Is there a likelihood that new business will come up in two weeks? It seems like a really quick turnaround, but those I guess are more comments than questions. **[00:26:00] Commissioner Hooie:** Is the idea that we would move it to that and if nothing comes up, cancel the meeting? **[00:26:15] Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Commissioner Hooie, I think that's correct. Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman mentioned that traditionally the December meeting has been scheduled two weeks earlier because there's usually a conflict with the HRA meetings. **[00:26:30] Commissioner Hooie:** I'm fine with it. **[00:26:40] Chair:** Do we need a motion to reschedule the meetings and adopt the staff action? I would entertain a motion. **[00:26:45] Commissioner Surma:** I'll motion to adopt the staff recommendations to reschedule both our May and December 2024 meetings as recommended. **[00:27:00] Commissioner Canal:** Seconded. **[00:27:10] Chair:** All those in favor please say I. **[00:27:12] Commissioners:** I. **[00:27:15] Chair:** Opposed? Liaison reports—Community Services advisory? **[00:27:20] Commissioner Stura:** Yes, the Community Services Commission is currently prepping for the upcoming spring and summer season. They revamped the recreation fee assistance program; it's now open to Richfield residents at 200% of the federal poverty level or below. **[00:27:40] Chair:** City Council would be me, but I erred and I followed the—I read the school board report again because I wasn't thinking, so I don't have a report this month. Housing and Redevelopment—the HRA heard a year-in-review at its last meeting. If anyone wants a 45-minute recap of all activities, I’d strongly recommend that. In that conversation, it came out that the development at 7700 Pillsbury (the old Public Works site) did not get the tax credits they needed and they are no longer pursuing that development. Commissioner Canal with the school board? **[00:28:30] Commissioner Canal:** Chair, I don't have a report for the school board. **[00:28:40] Chair:** Chamber of Commerce? **[00:28:45] Commissioner Surma:** I don't have anything to report. **[00:28:50] Chair:** Transportation? **[00:28:55] Commissioner Hooie:** Transportation Commission met earlier in March. They discussed the proposed Nicolet Avenue reconstruction scheduled for 2026. There was an open house at the community center where Hennepin County staff presented concept designs for bike facilities. They also had a discussion with Metro Transit about bus stop locations in the Route 4 corridor along Lyndale and Penn Avenues. **[00:29:15] Chair:** And now if we could get the City Planner's report. **[00:29:20] Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Thank you Chair and Commissioners. We held a workshop to discuss parking regulations last month. We have decided to put a hold on those until the end of the legislative session because there's a lot moving around at the state level in relation to parking. I also wanted to remind you that there's a joint work session coming up with the City Council and HRA on Monday, April 15th at 5:45 p.m. And of course, we have a meeting next month because you tabled an item to it. **[00:30:00] Chair:** Is there a motion to adjourn? **[00:30:05] Commissioner Hooie:** Motions we adjourn. **[00:30:10] Commissioner Surma:** Seconded. **[00:30:15] Chair:** All in favor of adjourning the Planning Commission please say I. **[00:30:18] Commissioners:** I. **[00:30:20] Chair:** Opposed? We stand adjourned.