[music] >> Good evening and welcome to this April 23rd meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. The Planning Commission advises the City Council on development proposals, development standards, long-range planning, and transportation issues. Some items before the Planning Commission are study items where we will not take formal action, while other items before this commission are public hearings where we where we encourage public testimony. If you would like to testify on an item, you can do so here in chambers or online by following the instructions on your screen. We have two public public hearings this evening. Some items are final decisions by the Planning Commission subject to appeal to the City Council, while other items have Planning have the Planning Commission act in an advisory capacity to the City Council where they will make the final decision. The Planning Commission is made up of seven volunteer residents of the City of Bloomington. Each Planning Commissioner has been appointed to serve a 3-year term with a two-term limit. We have six commissioners in chambers here tonight and one joining virtually, so we do have a quorum. Our first order of business this evening is the Pledge of Allegiance. Please rise if you are able. Item number one this evening is a public hearing for a rezoning at 8030 Cedar Avenue South. Planning Manager Nick Johnson is here with the staff report. Thank you, Acting Chair Cunningham. Pinch-hitting for Liz O'Day tonight. She had a conflict. The subject property is located in eastern Bloomington right along Trunk Highway 77. It's across the highway from Mall of America. So, located at the intersection of Old Cedar Avenue South, which is a collector road and East 80th Street. So, it is a two-story office building. It has many different tenants, mostly just office and medical office type uses. The site is zoned FD2. And that is what brings us here this evening. So, the property owner would like to add a salon and spa tenant to the building. With its current FD2 zoning, retail is not a permitted use in the FD2 zoning district. So, following conversations with staff, the property owner, you know, weighed various pathways or options of how to pursue this retail tenant, including a privately initiated city code amendment or just rezoning the property. Ultimately, they decided to move forward with rezoning the property. They're requesting rezoning to B1. In the B1 zoning district, retail is allowed as a limited use. In our code, a limited use is similar to an accessory use, but it allows for a little bit more floor area, up to 25% of a a total building. So, should the application be approved, this particular tenant would take up 6% of the floor area of the building. So, no concern there with respect to the compliance with that limited use designation. So, as noted before, the existing site is FD2. They want to go to B1, the neighborhood office zoning district. The B1 zoning district is really intended as a transitional commercial district, kind of lower intensity transitioning between residential uses and other commercial uses. And you can see that the sites to the south of this property are already zoned B1 designation. There's some residential properties to the north and west of this property. Get into the comprehensive plan and think about connection to the zoning map. So, the comp plan guides this area as office, so very much consistent with the existing building. The current zoning is FD2. One aspect of the staff's analysis that informs our recommendation is just that the B1 district is actually in greater conformance with the comprehensive plan with the office designation. So, something to think about and informs the staff recommendation in this case. So, just to summarize, the office land use category in the comp plan, it's intended to allow professional and business offices and there's some allowances for accessory retail and other similar uses. The proposed B1 zoning district is more compatible with this designation than FD2. FD2 is technically under our industrial uh sub list of zoning districts. It does allow warehousing and manufacturing, for example. So, staff does feel the B1 is more consistent with the comp plan in addition to the surrounding sites and land uses. So, finally, just to put a button on the proposed use, it's not anticipated to create an excessive burden at this location. It's served by a collector road. There's adequate capacity in the utilities that serve this site. And there is a compliant amount of off-street parking to address the retail use. So, staff is recommending approval. As Chair Cunningham noted, making a a recommendation in this case to the City Council. So, have a proposed motion for you on the slide and happy to take any questions. And the property owner is here as well. Should you have any questions for them. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Before we get to the applicant, any questions for staff? Seeing none, if the applicant would like to come forward, uh please enter your details on that pad there just so we have it for the record. And anything else you'd like us to tell about the tell us about the application would be appreciated. I'm not writing as fast tonight as I should. Sorry. I probably should have done this in advance. I don't have much more. Mr. Johnson summed it up really well. This is we have an opportunity to bring it's really hate to say on trend, but to have some of these beauty services. We have them in other offices. They're really great tenants. And we'd like the opportunity to bring this great business into a space. It's right by the mall. It's it's a wonderful location for for what we're looking to do. So, that is that is why we've asked for this and been guided by staff. Thank you very much. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. >> Thank you. I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in chambers that wishes to testify on this item? Seeing none, Ms. Brown, is there anyone online? All participants online are staff. Thank you. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. I move to close the public hearing. Second. We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on item one. Ms. Brown, would you please call the roll? Cunningham. I. Isse. I. White. I. Lenay. I. Monster. I. Summers. I. Cookton. I. That motion passes 7-0. Discussion. Commissioner White. Mr. Chair, thank you. I just I think it makes a lot of sense. It seems to bring the zoning in line more with what's in the neighborhood. It seems like a great use of space. And uh I don't have any particular concerns about it. Thank you. Commissioner Lenay. Thank you, Chair. Or Acting Chair. I concur. I think it's a excellent use of the space and great to see another business coming into that part of Bloomington. Thank you. I would echo that sentiment. I think that this is a a good use of staff's time and appreciate all the work you guys put in to guide this applicant. And I'm in support of this motion as well. If there's no further discussion, uh I would entertain a motion. Commissioner Lonae. In planning case PL2026-48, I move to recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning the property at 8030 Old Cedar Avenue from FD2 Freeway Development to B1 Neighborhood Office. I second. We have a motion and a second. Uh do I need to do discussion? You can. Any further discussion? Miss Brown, please call the roll. Cunningham. Aye. Esey. Aye. White. Aye. Lonae. Aye. Munster. Aye. Summers. Aye. And Cookton. Aye. That motion passes 7-0. That action is a recommendation to the City Council um and will be heard via a public hearing on May 18th, 2026 in Council Chambers. Moving on to item two. Uh item two is a conditional use permit for a heavy equipment sales uh business at 9545 Penn Avenue South, and Mr. Kareem Sherard is here with the staff report. Yes, thank you uh acting chair and commissioners. Here for a uh conditional use permit approval uh for Forklifts of Minnesota located at 2201 West 94th Street. So, just to provide a background of where the site is located, it's located just north south of Yep. Thank you. So now, everybody can see what I'm seeing. The site is located just south of Forklifts of um Minnesota. So, they're looking to expand to um accommodate the expanding business. Um so, just to provide a focused view, Forklifts of Minnesota is looking to expand onto the former Hoglund bus site. Um it's located next to um Penn Avenue and close proximity to West 94th Street. So, basically, the applicant received um CUP approval Forklifts of Minnesota at the existing facility in 2009, and they intend to expand their heavy equipment sales and service at the former Hoglund bus site, which is immediately south of their existing facility. Um to note that the current site is in full compliance on with screening, landscaping, and lighting requirements. So, I don't anticipate um much need for um Forklifts of Minnesota to make improvements to the site because it is in current um conformist to our standards. It's a pretty straightforward application, and we are in full support. I do want to note that the uh Forklifts of Minnesota does anticipate um to have a shared access uh connection between the two sites in the future, um but that will only require a final site and building plan um with approval by the planning manager. So, um this is a pretty straightforward application, and we find that this is um compatible, and we definitely recommend um recommendation. So, this is our recommendation here. Thank you, Mr. Sherard. Any questions for staff? All right, seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Sherard. Um Oh, excuse me. So sorry, Commissioner Cookton. Please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I do have a question for staff. So, I noticed on the application there's no um re-platting happening here. The parcels aren't being combined. How does staff work with an applicant to determine whether they should combine two parcels and and re-plat the site or just keep them separate? That's a great question. I will defer it over to Planning Manager Johnson. Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you, Chair Cunningham and uh Commissioner Cookton. It's odd to me to say that. Um it's a good question. I think there's pros and cons both ways. Ultimately, it is a private decision. So, uh for whatever reason, say Forklifts of Minnesota uh wanted to uh sell this property at some point in the future, keeping them separate uh makes more sense. There's more rational that way. Um there's really as long as you have a joint access agreement or easement across the properties, there's really not a significant um uh planning and development uh reason to combine the sites. You certainly are combining uh tax records and maybe uh making your accounting and your record keeping a little bit easier, but um no, there's there's not a there's not a significant reason from a planning and zoning perspective uh to to recommend or push the applicant to go one direction or the other in this case. Thank you, Commissioner Cookton. Any follow-up on that? No, thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, thank you. Any other questions for staff? Clarifications? All right. Thank you, Mr. Sherard. Yep. Um if the applicant is or applicant or representative of the applicant is here tonight, uh and you'd like to step forward, please do so. Hi, good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Megan Rogers with Larkin Hoffman. I'm here on behalf of Schubert Holdings, which is the entity that owns this property. Uh I think uh Chair uh a Chair away from us >> [laughter] >> uh Cookton for the question with regards to how these properties function together. Um potentially at some point in time in the future, uh the Forklifts property and the Schubert property uh may have an adjoining drive aisle that would be submitted to your staff for review as part of a final site and building plan. Um they are a uh two different line business lines, and so that's the reason that we are keeping the property uh separate at this point in time in terms of not having ownership underneath one entity. Um but [snorts] they very much will work together and have uh similar staffing needs between them. Uh we thank uh staff for their excellent summary of the application that we've put forward here. Uh part of the reason that we sought a new CUP for this site is that much of the Hoglund uh CUP focused around the bus storage and parking um and ensuring that there is compliance with the screening conditions uh and requirements of your code in that regard for Forklifts and Forklifts small Forklifts operation. That's what Schubert does. Slightly smaller Forklifts than the Forklifts adjacent. Uh and and happy to answer any questions that you may have uh about this project or our application. Thank you. Uh any questions for the applicant? All right, seeing none. Thank you so much, Mr. Sherard. >> much. All right. Um I will open the public hearing. If there's anyone here in Chambers that wishes to testify about this item, please uh come on down. And seeing no one coming forward, Miss Brown, is there anyone online? All participants online are staff. Thank you very much. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner White. I move that we close the public hearing. I second. Second. We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Miss Brown, are there any further discussion? Miss Brown, please call the roll. Cunningham. Aye. Esey. Aye. White. Aye. Lonae. Aye. Munster. Aye. Summers. Aye. And Cookton. Aye. That motion passes 7-0. Uh public hearing is now closed on this item. Any discussion? I can lead us off. I think this is a relatively straightforward application. Um it seems like a a business is expanding and growing in Bloomington. This is is excellent to see. And uh doesn't seem to have any adverse land use uh effects on neighbors or neighboring uses. So, I'm in favor of this application. Commissioner Lonae. I concur, and I think uh it says a lot that the company wants to continue to stay in Bloomington, and that's a positive sign for the neighboring businesses as well. So, I also concur. Excellent. If there's any other discussion, uh uh if there's no further uh discussion, I would entertain a motion. Commissioner White. In case number PL2026-43, having been able to make the required findings, I move to adopt a resolution approving the conditional use permit allowing a heavy equipment sales and service facility located at 9545 Penn Avenue South, subject to the conditions and code requirements listed in the resolution. I second. We have a motion and a second to uh approve this recommendation. Uh any further discussion? Miss Brown, please call the roll. Cunningham. Aye. Esey. Aye. White. Aye. Lonae. Aye. Munster. Aye. Summers. Aye. And Cookton. Aye. That motion passes 7-0. That item is a final decision of the Planning Commission unless an appeal is received at City Hall by 4:30 on April 28th, 2026. Our final item of the evening is our regular planning commission policy issues and updates. Thank you, Chair Cunningham. Uh, just previewing your next two meetings. On May the 7th, you have three public hearings scheduled. Uh, for our next meeting, uh, the first item is final site and building plans and a preliminary and final plat for a 16-unit detached townhome uh, development at 11140, 11208, and 11216 Bloomington Ferry Road. It's at the south end of Bloomington Ferry. Second public hearing is a rezoning preliminary and final development plans uh, for Gallery Apartments at 7900 Xerxes uh, Avenue South. Um, and the third public hearing would be a variance uh, to our freestanding sign standards for a freestanding sign at Southtown uh, shopping center at 7803 Penn Avenue. Previewing the May 21st item, we have four public hearings uh, scheduled. We have uh, rezoning of the Telegraph Hill Office Park going from R1 PD to B1 PD at 7805 Telegraph Road. Public hearing for reguiding rezoning a conditional use permit uh, for an existing airport parking uh, operation at 3700 and 3750 American Boulevard East. That's Park and Fly. Uh, the same application type um, for uh, an existing another existing remote airport parking facility at 7901 International Drive. That's Park and Go. And then finally a public hearing on a city-initiated city code amendment uh, for the corner lot standards. Something you saw in study session not too long ago. Uh, the only other updates I can offer is again the Bloomington Home Fair is this Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. So, if you are a resident looking for um, additional support or resources from staff on projects uh, your home and there's a lot of other activities um, food trucks, other things uh, for kids. I think it's going to be uh, quite a festive atmosphere and some tabling for the 2050 comprehensive plan. Um, and then just a reminder that the planning commission application window is still open through May the 6th. So, encourage the public to apply uh, to sit up here on the dais. That's all I got. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Any additional questions or comments for staff? Commissioner Cookton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, a couple of things. Uh, first just wanted to say thank Mason. stepping in for me this evening. And at 7:20 or 6:21, I don't think you all will ever let me chair um, again. Pretty impressive stuff. Um, Mr. Johnson, where is Telegraph Road? Yeah, thank you uh, Chair Cunningham uh, former absent Chair Cookton. Uh, Telegraph Road is in the very northwest uh, corner of Bloomington on the south side of 494. So, it is a very small um, office complex that was developed uh, as part of a residential uh, future phase of a residential development there in northwest Bloomington. So, it's right along 494. Um, uh, kind of near Friendship Village if you're familiar with that area. Thank you. Uh, any other questions for staff? All right. With that, I will end this uh, April 23rd meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. Good night. >> [music]