This transcript is from a **Planning Commission** meeting. Please note that while your context list includes City Council members and senior staff, the Planning Commission is a separate body of appointed residents (Canal, Charson, Surma, Hooie, Alon). The staff members present include **Ruby Via** (referred to as "Planner Via" in the text) and **Sam Crosby** (City Planner). [00:00] **Chair**: I'd like to call the July 22nd meeting of the Richfield Planning Commission uh to order. In a moment we'll have the open Forum. Um if you wish to participate uh you may call in uh by dialing 415-655-0001 using the webinar access code 2631 997 2846 and the password 1234. Also online on the um agendas that are available on the city's website there are other ways to submit uh comments. Um with that being said um I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes from the previous meeting. [00:01] **Commissioner Canal**: So moved. [00:01] **Commissioner Charson**: Second. [00:01] **Chair**: All those in favor please say I. [00:01] **Commissioner Hooie**: Just—is that all minutes or just are we approving all of them? [00:01] **Chair**: That was—that was the plan. Should we—do you want to split it down? [00:01] **Commissioner Hooie**: No, I was just clarifying. [00:01] **Chair**: Okay so all three minutes, correct? I mean that we can split it—no. All right. So to clarify, to approve uh the—I understand the motion to be a motion to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting from May 29th, The Joint City Council and Planning Commission work session on the 25th, and The Joint City Council and Planning Commission work session of July 9th. All those in favor please say I. [00:02] **Commissioners**: I. [00:02] **Chair**: Opposed? Now is the time for the open Forum. The open forum is a time for residents uh to address the Planning Commission on matters generally not before the Planning Commission uh on the agenda tonight. I um I did offer the ways to dial in remotely. Has anyone—have we received any calls or emails? [00:02] **Ruby Via (Planner)**: Chair and Commissioners, there's nobody on the line at this time. [00:02] **Chair**: Is there anyone present here to address during the open Forum? Please approach the podium and uh sign in. You might need a new pen. [00:03] **Andy Carlisle**: All right, so hi. My name is Andy Carlisle. I'm the owner of Carlisle Auto Service, 7544 Lindale Avenue South, doing business as Richfield BP. Just a few concerns I have. You're going to put an automotive shop in my parking lot—I don't know if anybody is aware of that or not. We just—well I got my three minutes—we just had a business there that created a Ruckus. The alley was always plugged up, they made tons of noise. When you tried to leave my business you could not see out the exit because the lawn care business had the street plugged up. There was just no parking. There's no parking, there's no space. So if we put an auto shop there where are we going to get the new parking from? Where the new space is going to come from? We didn't have them before, where are we going to get them in the future? Because there's just no parking. [00:04] **Chair**: Uh sir, I take it to understand that you have comments about the um uh variance the hearing we're going to have for a repair shop at 7524 Lindale, is that correct? [00:04] **Andy Carlisle**: Yes sir. [00:04] **Chair**: We will—we are scheduled to have an open hearing uh for that and there will be a time for you to share your uh comments during that hearing if you'd—if all your comments are regard— [00:04] **Andy Carlisle**: Yeah, it's all directed to—well I thought this was the open forum and—okay. We still might need a new pin up here though, it's still dead. Thank you. [00:04] **Chair**: I would uh entertain a motion to approve—seeing no one else here to um provide uh open form testimony I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda for the rest of the meeting. [00:05] **Commissioner Surma**: Commissioner Surma moves to approve the agenda for the rest of the meeting. [00:05] **Commissioner Charson**: Second. [00:05] **Chair**: All those in favor please say I. [00:05] **Commissioners**: I. [00:05] **Chair**: Opposed? All right. Uh that being said the first item on the agenda is a public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit and variances for an auto repair shop at 7524 Lindale Avenue South. Uh could we please have the staff report? [00:05] **Ruby Via (Planner)**: Yes, thank you chair and Commissioners. Stall One Automotive is proposing to operate an auto repair shop at the former Barrett Lawn Care property located at 7524 Lindale Avenue South. Auto mechanical or body repair shops are a conditional use in the C2 General commercial district and they are subject to conditions listed in the zoning code. The applicant is unable to meet two out of seven of the criteria listed in the zoning code, both related to minimum buffer yards. The applicant is unable to meet minimum buffer yard requirements mainly due to the unusual layout of the building and site as related to the overall size of the site. In other words, the building does not meet front setback requirements and its size relative to the lot leaves very little room for parking, landscaping and buffer yards. This presents a practical difficulty in complying with the 25 ft residential buffer and 15 ft abutting partial buffer. Full variances from both requirements as discussed in the policy section below are reasonable. Improvements will be made on site with regard to screening and the addition of bike racks in front of the property. Non-conforming aspects of the property such as setback and impervious surface may continue but will not worsen in the absence of required buffer yard. Staff recommend multiple mitigative measures as conditions of approval as stated in the attached resolution. This would include a requirement that vehicular circulation be retained on site, that the driveway remain free of cars to provide for adequate site circulation, and that the alley be for deliveries and other occasional use only and will not be relied upon for customer site access. If you have any questions I could probably answer them or if you'd like to hear from the applicant he's also here. [00:07] **Chair**: Are there any questions for staff before we hear from the applicant? All right. Um staff, there was something in the report about um a subdivision of the lot. Can you kind of clarify exactly what's going on? I don't think I was quite following that. [00:07] **Ruby Via (Planner)**: Yeah, so um it is a pretty complicated—so basically um if you look at the location and zoning map you'll see that I kind of marked off um a different square to what would be considered the entire property. And that entire property used to be all—it used to be considered one um it used to be lots eight and nine which are the ones that we're talking about today that the applicant is proposing to operate the car repair shop, and the southern lot was Lot 10. It was under the city's assumption for a very long time that all those three lots were were combined as one. And a few months ago we basically found out that they're not actually one lot—one unified lot—they're all separate. And they were actually only combined through tax combination; they weren't actually combined through what we would consider a legal combination. So the southern lot, Lot 10, um was basically sold off. And we talked to our real estate attorney and they reviewed the Deeds for Lots eight and nine which are the two lots that we're talking about today. And our real estate attorney basically concluded that those two lots are not combined legally either, basically meaning that um—I mean they they technically could be sold off, and at that point obviously they wouldn't be in accordance with the zoning code, they wouldn't meet minimum lot requirements. It just wouldn't make sense. You also would only have a building with no parking. So what we're basically putting as a condition of approval is to have those two lots finally legally combined through a minor subdivision combination. [00:09] **Chair**: Okay, so just so I'm clear—when I'm looking at Google Street View, the lot that we're discussing is the one with the Barrett sign with the garage door brick facade, and then directly to the north of that which is just kind of set back—there's like a wall and then some just parking behind it or whatever? [00:09] **Ruby Via (Planner)**: Yes, correct. [00:09] **Chair**: And the one that's not included is the kind of the tan building with—I don't know how you describe it—with two doors? [00:09] **Ruby Via (Planner)**: So, the southern lot that is not included in this request anymore was sold off a few months ago. [00:09] **Chair**: Okay, so combining them—I'm confused. [00:09] **Ruby Via (Planner)**: Yeah, so there's basically different levels of combinations for— [00:09] **Chair**: Oh, we're combining the top—the northern two? [00:09] **Ruby Via (Planner)**: Yes. [00:09] **Chair**: Okay, gotcha. That makes sense. Okay. Sorry, I thought you were talking about— [00:09] **Ruby Via (Planner)**: No, it's okay. It's very—it's yeah, it's very complicated. [00:09] **Chair**: I follow now. Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you for that clarification. [00:10] **Commissioner Hooie**: Commissioner Hooie here—and Planner Via, thanks for that too. So it's three properties—not three properties, one owner of three lots. The northernmost two lots are what we're discussing here today and proposing to be combined. The southernmost lot was sold and is no longer the same ownership, correct? [00:10] **Ruby Via (Planner)**: Yes. It was sold and it was also separated through a tax separation—just the two then. [00:10] **Commissioner Hooie**: Got it. Okay. And so my other question then—which um I think you know what I was going to ask is—so I'm glad to clarify that. My other question was going to be: I noticed in the site plan that there appears to be a shared—not quite a shared drive, but a shared approach off of Lindale Avenue between this property and the property to the north which is the Oriental Market grocery store. Seeing that this is shared, have the relevant folks at the Oriental Market been consulted on this? Do we know how they feel about this or is there some sort of precedent for how a shared approach like this might might be operated or accommodated? [00:11] **Ruby Via (Planner)**: Um yeah, so I'll just mention really quickly, staff hasn't spoken to the owners of the Oriental Market grocery store, but I know the applicant has been in communication with them. I wouldn't be able to tell you the details, but I know there has been discussion between them. They were also within the mailing notice. And as far as shared access, um we would consider that basically non-conforming. It's been that way for a very long time. So we are adding as a condition of approval that the applicant um either shows evidence of a shared access agreement between those two properties—I haven't been able to find any in our files so I'm not sure if it exists—but we're also asking that the applicant attempts to get a shared access agreement. And we're wording it that way because it could be considered a non-conforming part of the project where it's existed for so long that we wouldn't require that the applicant get a whole new access. [00:12] **Chair**: I understand that the applicant or representative is here if you wanted to approach the podium and sign in if you have any remarks, and then we may have some questions from Commissioners. Hello. If you would state your name and address for the record please. [00:12] **Sam Buckner (Applicant)**: My name is Sam Buckner. I live at 8243 130th Avenue South. So my current shop is in Bloomington right now, 109 West 80th Street in Bloomington here just on the other side of the highway. So yeah, so that building was sold, five tenants had to get out, and so we are looking for a new spot and so we like this spot. We like a lot about the spot and so that is why we're interested. Do you have any questions from the commission? [00:13] **Chair**: All right, thank you very much. Is it all right if if we do come up with some questions that we call you back later? [00:13] **Sam Buckner (Applicant)**: Yes. [00:13] **Chair**: All right. So if there are members of the public who wish to speak to this, please go ahead and say your name again for us. [00:13] **Andy Carlisle**: Hi, I'm Andy Carlisle, owner of Carlisle Auto Service Incorporated doing business as Richfield BP. I've been serving the Richfield corner there for 25 years. I know there's a transmission shop right down the street for me, Richfield Honda is just another block away. I just don't see why we're trying to make this automotive repair shop fit where we don't need it. We could probably put something else in there. If I grabbed an old Yellow Pages, there's probably like a thousand businesses in there that would fit into this spot instead of an auto repair facility. And the only reason I'm saying this is because we had a lawn care facility there just recently and it caused an extreme mess. I don't know why none of the residents in the alley are not here, but all they heard is this noise constantly all day long and all night long because you can't do business in an Alleyway. An Alleyway is a narrow passage to get to your backyard or your garage; it is not a place to do business in. And then over the 25 years, I've never done business in the alley. I have a car wash entrance that comes around my building and stays on my property. I don't ask my customers to come down the alley to use my business because that's not what the alley is for. So that's all I'm saying. And then the parking on Aldrich Avenue during the last business that was there was insane. I don't know why any of those people aren't here because they had cars parked in front of their houses daily and nobody's here saying anything. So I'm all I'm suggesting is instead of trying to make this business fit where it's not really zoned, let's really try to find a business that's going to fit in there and really make our neighborhood great is all I'm saying. Thank you. [00:15] **Chair**: Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak to for this hearing? Commissioner Via, did we receive any comments beforehand or electronically about this? [00:15] **Ruby Via (Planner)**: We did not. [00:15] **Chair**: I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. [00:15] **Commissioner Surma**: Commissioner Surma moves. [00:15] **Commissioner Charson**: Second. [00:15] **Chair**: All those in favor of closing the public hearing please say I. [00:15] **Commissioners**: I. [00:15] **Chair**: Opposed? Right. Discussion. [00:16] **Commissioner Charson**: Yeah, I had a couple follow-up questions for staff if that's okay. Um can you speak to—so the current use—they meet the parking requirements currently, is that correct? It's just the setbacks that are the issue? [00:16] **Ruby Via (Planner)**: Yes, correct. [00:16] **Commissioner Charson**: Okay. Um can you speak to the intent of the of the setbacks and kind of what the real world impacts of of that actually is? Sorry, do you mean the buffer yards? Yeah. [00:16] **Ruby Via (Planner)**: Well the intent of it—I'm not sure that I'd be able to really give like a definite answer. I guess I'd have to go back and really see what the history of those conditions are, but I would imagine it's to mitigate noise and any other unwanted effects of a car repair shop, which are legitimate concerns—noise, odor, things like that. So I guess from that standpoint, it's just basically seen as things that would help to mitigate the effects of such a use. I would kind of point you towards some of the conditions that we've listed in the resolution as part of the conditional use permit. In absence of the buffer yards, we're proposing some pretty strict conditions in regards to like the use of the alley, the way that access on the site will occur. We also have a condition about overflow of parking onto residential streets, and that's actually a direct response to the prior use that was here. We are aware that there was overflow of parking onto residential streets. So I would say that, yeah, the buffer yards are important, but I would also say that the conditions we are putting on are pretty strict and I think they'll be adequate. [00:17] **Commissioner Hooie**: Thank you very much, I appreciate that. So I I heard the concern about um the alleyway parking situation, the use of the alley, and I think there are some conditions here in the resolution about screening in the alley and fencing. Could you elaborate on exactly—just—I read the packet just for everybody here—could you elaborate a little bit more on what those requirements will be for the alleyway fencing and screening? [00:18] **Ruby Via (Planner)**: Yeah, so um there will be a fence um along pretty much half of the rear of the property directly along the northern part of the property. It will be a 6-foot opaque privacy screening fence. And um there will also be fencing towards the front of the property and that's to basically meet the other parts of the buffer yard conditions that can't be met, which is actual distance of the buffer yard, but we're trying to meet the other requirements which are screening requirements. So that's another part of that—it will be the screen fence. So yeah, there will be screening in back along the alley at least at least half of the property, and then the other half will remain open mainly because that's where the entrance to the building is for the garage. So the only other way to get fencing there would be to basically entirely relocate the entrance to the garage of the building, which isn't really reasonable. [00:19] **Chair**: All right staff, I'm reading here in the conditions of the permit that like the garage doors need to be closed while the um cars are being worked on and that there's no parking off on-street. You know, all some some I think very relevant conditions that speak to some of the concerns we heard in the public hearing. What happens if if those conditions aren't met? What happens if there's continuous work with the garage doors open or if um cars are parked on the street overnight on a regular basis? Like what is the—what can the neighbors do if they see that situation occurring? [00:20] **Ruby Via (Planner)**: Um well, first obviously they put in a complaint with us and the way our code enforcement works is it's complaint-based. So that that would probably be the best way. But if staff noticed it we'd also address it. But basically it would start off as sending violation letters to the business owner or to the owner, actually the property owner. And um if that didn't work it would eventually go to prosecution and we may revoke the conditional use permit. But it's a process, and it's not something that like automatically—you know, there's one complaint and we automatically revoke the conditional use permit. We try to work with business owners and property owners and see how to figure things out. [00:21] **Chair**: But I think for the sake of neighbors and community members, the city does have a robust process for handling um concerns where a business is not following the conditions of their permit, correct? [00:21] **Ruby Via (Planner)**: Yes, there is a means to get compliance, yes. [00:21] **Commissioner Hooie**: Thank you. Um so I I do hear what was said in the public hearing and I agree that—I do live in the neighborhood actually quite close to this area—and I I do agree with the sentiment that with the previous business there were vehicles parked in inconvenient places and sometimes intruding on entrances and causing a nuisance at times, to be honest. So I have seen this firsthand and I do agree that that was an issue affecting neighbors in the neighborhood. I do think that what's being proposed in the conditions here is okay. Generally speaking, I like the idea that a fence and screening would be required in the alley in the back of the business to better delineate the perimeters of that business so that there isn't that kind of spillover into the alleyway. Because I think I know from firsthand observation that that was happening before—that there being no perimeters, there were vehicles and maintenance and other things happening in areas where they they really shouldn't have been and even spilling out onto Lindale. So I think the conditions laid out here are sufficient, um but I I do understand where they're coming from and I think the city has addressed those and I'm hopeful that we can come to a reasonable accommodation here. [00:23] **Commissioner Charson**: With that, I guess I like this—just to refer back to some of the comments we heard—that it's not like we're rezoning this site for this use. This is a use that just requires a conditional use permit. I think it is an appropriate use of the site. I think that the buffer issues that we have are not being created by this proposal; they are an existing situation. So I am hopeful that the conditions on the permit address the issues that the previous business created in the community. So um I am supportive of this conditional use permit and I would recommend approval of a conditional use permit and variances to allow for an auto repair shop at 7524 Lindale Avenue South. [00:24] **Chair**: Yeah, I just want to say I too am pleased. It looks like the city staff and the applicant spent significant time considering these and the conditions are detailed, the drawings we have are very detailed. And I do think on Lindale Avenue this is a very appropriate type of business for that location and I feel like I would support that as well. Any other discussion? [00:24] **Commissioner Surma**: Yeah, just a question. I do appreciate the well-thought-out design of traffic flow. My question to staff is how will these measures—right, we've got a lot of conditions for this—how will it be enforced and monitored? Do we want to have a check-in after a couple of months after a couple of weeks to see how it's going and reassess and see if we need to redesign traffic flow going into and out of the business? [00:25] **Ruby Via (Planner)**: Um yeah, so the way it works is um typically when when we grant land use approval there's typically things that the applicant has to do prior to a certificate of occupancy or prior to opening or prior to some timeline. And sometimes those things aren't finished so then we usually collect an escrow—I guess this is getting into the details—but basically yes, we do follow up when a business has opened. We basically follow up to make sure things like in this case—the physical things such as the fencing and the screening—are done. Landscaping is done. So at that time we we would also check up on how the site is working. And then there's obviously the complaint-based system that we have for code enforcement as well. [00:26] **Commissioner Surma**: And another quick question: just looking at the design, do you know if the applicant took into consideration like capacity based on current business volume or what types of things did they consider when determining the number of parking stalls and flow? [00:26] **Ruby Via (Planner)**: Um do you mean—well, the parking stalls, the parking requirement comes out of the zoning code based on what we require on car repair shops. There's some notes in the report but basically the requirement for this property would be 10 parking stalls, but the transit reduction reduces it to nine, and then there are two on-street parking stalls directly in front of the building that our code allows the applicant to use as part of a reduction in the parking requirement. So basically all of that is to say that we kind of decided the parking solely based on just zoning legal requirements and not like a time study of the business itself. And for this use, the code says that you need four as a base for a car repair shop and then you need two per service stall. There would be three service stalls for this car repair shop, so I think it's kind of worked into the requirements already. [00:27] **Melissa Poehlman (Community Development Director)**: Chair and Commissioners, if I could also add on to that—this is basically like a type of a business that could be run by appointment. So the owner of the business does have control over the flow of the cars coming in and if he can't fit people into his schedule because he's already got the maximum number of cars for his lot, then he would be looking to regulate his business to fit within the site that he desired to be at. [00:28] **Commissioner Surma**: Okay thank you, that's the answer that I wanted. [00:28] **Chair**: Could I ask a quick question of the applicant? If you would please. I just wanted to ask: you've been operating in Bloomington for several years, correct? In that time have you ever received any code violations or notices from the city about not following the conditions that Bloomington has laid out for you? [00:28] **Sam Buckner (Applicant)**: No, not a single one. [00:28] **Chair**: All right, thank you very much. [00:28] **Commissioner Alon**: Just kind of a followup to to the other commissioner's question. In a situation where you did have a need for more space than you have here, what would you do in that case? Can you kind of talk through that process? [00:29] **Sam Buckner (Applicant)**: Yeah, there's a lot of parking inside also, and so there's probably room for another 10 cars inside the building. I'll have three stalls and then there's the whole 110 ft all the way through where I could put cars at if need be. So that would be the plan, and then at night time we bring a lot of our cars inside overnight anyways. But yeah, there's a lot of room there—there's 4,400 square feet, so it's a pretty big shop. [00:29] **Commissioner Canal**: I have one question as well. Just—I'm not super familiar with auto repair shops. Do you typically have an agreement with a customer to pick up their car by a certain date? [00:29] **Sam Buckner (Applicant)**: There is, yes. So in my notice it is two days—48 hours. I know the city's is 96 hours I believe, and so I'm pretty strict about that too. I don't want cars on a lot looking stale. It's kind of one of my pet peeves to get the cars in and out. I don't want the place looking stale. [00:30] **Chair**: If there are no other comments from Commissioners, we could have a motion to approve the recommended staff action. [00:30] **Commissioner Charson**: I'm making a motion to recommend approval of a conditional use permit and variances to allow for an auto repair shop at 7524 Lindale Avenue South. [00:30] **Chair**: Is there a second? [00:30] **Commissioner Hooie**: Commissioner Hooie seconds. [00:30] **Chair**: All those in favor of sending this recommendation forward please say I. [00:30] **Commissioners**: I. [00:30] **Chair**: Opposed? All right, thank you very much. Liaison reports. City Community Services Advisory Commission? [00:31] **Commissioner Surma**: Yes, so the commission reported on park building rentals restarting after eight years, saying that staff took inventory, determined conditions and opened up rentals for three of the enclosed buildings. They received good feedback on the rentals we've had so far this year and they anticipate a lot of great usage. They feel a need for weekend usage of a building for events like small birthday parties, co-working spaces and food preparation space. It's also been floated as a potential place for programming for Wood Lake while that undergoes construction. And then with the Wood Lake renovation project, planning is well underway. They received four responses for construction manager at risk rfps. They've also completed Wetland delineation which revealed that they actually have more room to build than they originally anticipated. They had an open house that served 100 attendees and began site concept and design meetings. [00:32] **Chair**: Uh, the City Council at its last few meetings—obviously it's had the work sessions with the Planning Commission. There's also was evaluations of the city manager's performance, but I wanted to especially highlight that at the last two meetings there were positive comments about recommendations that the Planning Commission had made to ordinance and to an approval. So I was pleased to see that our process was working and that it seems like our deliberations are being taken seriously by the city council. So I think that's to do with the good work that the staff—the information the staff gives us—and all of our work together. So I was really pleased to see that at the last two Council meetings. Housing and Redevelopment Authority? [00:33] **Chair**: HRA approved a preliminary development agreement with Jo Companies for the 40 units of affordable housing on 6525 Penn Avenue. So this is just to indicate that they are willing to request assistance from the HRA for a total of 1.5 million. Most of that is in the land cost and what the HRA would sell the land for. But Jo Companies is just about to submit an application for additional funding, so we'll see how that application rates. But the HRA did approve the preliminary development agreement for that project that we've talked about. School Board? [00:34] **Commissioner Canal**: Thank you Chair. June 24th superintendent presented to the school board and the budget for 2024-2025 was reviewed. At the school board's July 15th meeting, Health Services Supervisor Michelle Whiteside presented and superintendent Yanowski shared data related to board goals and the board discussed their self-evaluation. [00:34] **Chair**: Transportation Commission? [00:34] **Commissioner Hooie**: I believe it was last week, along with Richfield Public Works and Hennepin County, they held an open house at the community center discussing the recommended layout of Nicollet Avenue for proposed reconstruction between 66th Street and 77th Street in 2026. The new design included one lane each way with a center turn lane and sidewalks with one-way bike lanes on each side, as well as roundabouts proposed where the signalized intersections currently are as well as at 73rd Street. There seemed to be good attendance. I attended this meeting as well and I'm sure staff received robust feedback on that. [00:35] **Chair**: Thanks. The Chamber of Commerce? [00:35] **Commissioner Alon**: I have nothing to report. This June meeting was canceled, so nothing to report. [00:35] **Chair**: All right, next item on the agenda is the city planner's report. [00:35] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: Thank you Chair and Commissioners. I really don't have much to report at this time except that Ruby was promoted to Planner! So, yay! She's awesome. If at all I look halfway decent, it's usually because of what a great help she's been. [00:36] **Chair**: All right. Our next meeting is scheduled for August 26. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. [00:36] **Commissioner Alon**: Commissioner Alon moves to adjourn. [00:36] **Commissioner Hooie**: Commissioner Hooie seconds. [00:36] **Chair**: All those in favor please say I. [00:36] **Commissioners**: I. [00:36] **Chair**: Opposed? We stand adjourned.