I'd like to call the May meeting of the city of reld Planning Commission uh to order um let me just give we have the open form and a hearing U later in the meeting I will give the way to participate virtually if you would like um you can call in to the open Forum into the hearing by calling 415-6551 and using Code 2630 712 7570 and password of 1234 for the op forum and for our hearing later in today's meeting uh the first thing would be the approval of the previous month's minutes can I make a motion to make a change suest are you moving to amend the minutes yes yes um notes that um I think it was a vice chair who called the meeting to order so okay a motion has been made to amend the minutes from last month to indicate that the vice chair was presiding over the meeting is there a second to that Mo second all those in favor of amending the minutes and adopting them please say I I opposed all right the next uh thing on uh our to do would be the approval of the agenda for tonight's meeting is there a motion I move and a second seconded all in favor to approve the uh agenda for tonight please say I I opposed all right the first thing on our agenda then is a public hearing to consider an amended planned unit development final development plan conditional use permit uh for time extension and amendment to a parking agreement at 6500 uh ni nicholet Avenue South is there a staff report thank you chair and Commissioners in April of 2022 partnership Academy was granted land use approvals to expand their Charter School the approval included a condition that they have a permanent solution for 80 parking stalls by April 12th 2024 a parking agreement with the city was drafted executed and recorded partnership Academy is now requesting additional time which requires an amendment to the parking agreement with the city in addition to a one-year extension they are also Al asking that the agreement be revised so that it may be extended annually for the next 10 years with administrative approval only they have provided a copy of their extended uh parking license with brickmore the neighboring property but it contains a 15-day termination clause and a license agreement is not a permanent solution meeting the code requirements even without a 15-day termination Clause partnership has indicated that they've been waiting for Richfield Medical Group to sell last Friday we received an email from a representative of the MIT Richfield Medical Group indicating that the property is actively on the market acquisition of the property would need to be contingent upon zoning approval as removal of the building for the construction of a surface lot would require at a minimum a rezoning a plat and PUD approval the Planning Commission has a number of options before it this evening it can either recommend approval of the request as requested including the option for the 10 years of administrative extension without any penalty it can recommend approval with modifications such as a shorter time frame with or without a prated penalty or it can recommend denial of the request triggering the full $50,000 penalty uh welcome any questions that you may have thank you um could you talk about um how the $50,000 penalty was established like who did that and how it was determined that $50,000 would be amount yeah I can um so the thank you chair commissioner sersa the um the resolution of approval required that there be a parking agreement with the city and that the agreement detail the terms and penalties of uh of the agreement so uh the city council did not necessarily set the $50,000 I um Can Only Get I looked back through the files and I didn't see any conversation about it so I can only guess that we um uh previously uh Audi dealership had a $50,000 escrow agreement for their parking structure so um I'm guessing that staff felt that the $50,000 was a comparable Fair number that was applied to a different property so it' be fair to apply it to this property is oh yeah go ahead um staff where is where are they currently or do they currently have a parking plan in place where they're doing overflow parking right now or what is that yeah um Commissioners uh and commissioner whoie they have 37 parking stalls on their site and they are they have a license agreement with brickmore the neighboring property for 60 more stalls they currently have that already yes they do and they have had that in place for pretty much the last four years almost continuously um they uh which does equal more than the required 80 stalls at the moment but yeah is the applicant or a representative here would you like to uh speak to your if you could say your if you could sign in at the podium and then say your name for the record my name is Jake Kazuki I'm the operations director at partnership Academy so um we've been working with Samantha to try to find um a resolution for some our parking issues that we have obviously 37 spaces is not enough for the amount of staff members that we have um we've been working closely with the Richfield Medical Group um we even today put in a letter of intent um to purchase that property as it went on sale last Friday um the reason why we're asking for this extension is we want to be strategic about how we're spending our money for for our students um if we were what was origin proposed two years ago to build structured parking on the property that we own um that would be $1.3 million for us which would be over $100,000 of annual Debt Service that we would take on that would come directly out of our operating budget which translates directly to teachers being lost um and it just didn't feel like that was the right thing to do when we have a huge open space at the Hub park at the Hub where there's tons of open parking and um we want to be able to purchase the Richfield medical building just based on the location of that and how our building sits up against nickolet like it's more advantageous for that parking to be um up near the front so that families and visitors can access the building as opposed to walking through um the back of our property to the front so that's why we're requesting additional time to be able to see those other possibilities come to fruition um and to not unnecessarily when we have a viable solution um to not unnecessarily sink a lot of money into a structured parking um structure is there a a reason why the uh request for the extension came after the uh the deadline um we I'm trying to remember the timing of of all of that we we had we were in conversation prior to that um Samantha and I were um in terms of why it came after the deadline I I can't recall the exact time frame of it um I think we were just going through the process of submitting the um the application and it just came in a couple weeks late um can you talk about um I have two questions actually um why you think you shouldn't have to pay the penalty because it is expired and then just the second question so you can them is um if um The Hub decided to um withdraw the agreement with the 15-day notice what would your plans be for parking what's the backup given that there's not much of a safety net um with the current agreement sorry the the first part of the question was around why we shouldn't have to pay the fee um right now we are exceeding what our parking requirements are by 17 stalls because that is in place and has been in place for the entirety that we've been at 6500 nickolet um I feel like we're we're sufficing all of the parking requirements that were were asked of us um is it the long-term solution at this point no but we have no reason to believe that brickmore is going to be redeveloping anytime soon we've been in I've been in conversation every other month with richy Palo who's head of their um development um process over there at the Hub and there's been there's been no movement especially with the financial climate the rising interest rates and stuff right now they're just not ready to make any moves um so because of that it just felt like you know we've we've done what we've needed to do to make the parking Arrangements work um understand if that's not the way that the the Planning Commission feels um because it's not true to the letter of our agreement um but just hoping we can have some agreement that like we've we've we've done our best to to fulfill that and we have in terms of the number of spots and then the second part of your question was can you remind me again sorry what would happen if the Hub said that g VI the 15-day notice that um the parking agreement was no longer in place what would you do for parking um right now we would have our 37 spaces that we have and then we would we would work on developing our Structure Parking we already have the um we worked with ran um we were in contact with them earlier this week to say like if we needed to get going on this thing how fast could it happen it's not it's not a huge project it would be several months um as long depending on you know what time the Year we're able to break ground on it but it wouldn't be a huge project for them to to move forward on it so we would we would be out of parking for a little bit of time um there is some street parking across from 65th that we could utilize um we have a lot of Staff members who live close to the school so we could work on getting vouchers bus vouchers for them to be able to take you know public transportation and incentivize car pooling and things like that do you have a sense of how many parking spots at the Hub are regularly used right now about well I mean during the school year about 50 of them about 50 of them okay and to clarify with that letter of intent um you're you're hoping to purchase the the building and hoping to make it Park uh surface parking or in the short term or could you clarify what that intent what the intention is so our letter of intent is obviously to purchase the building um as long as our agreement with brickmore is in place it's still were we would have the option of always demolishing going through the um the steps with the city of course um but because we have pieces in place we we want to be able to preserve that building for potential office spaces it's a medical building right now so we could have our school nurse run vision and hearing screening and use the building there's what I would guess to be about 20 parking spaces in that for that building right now um and then if we have if if the city says you know we need you to have the 80 guaranteed spots we could certainly move forward with demoing um and creating surface parking but that would be in in it would be preferable for us to be able to keep that building for other uses until it's necessary to that surface parking unless the city thought otherwise for I'm Larry ernster I I just had a question I did read the proposal and in there there's also uh a part where they plan the academy to build out the current building and I just wanted to comment that and how does that fit in with the parking problem sure at at this time we don't have any um we don't have any expansion Plan before us so our hearing today is limited to the existing uh to the uh the existing proposal for Amendment so I mean if you want if you would like to I think I can just briefly clarify that is so in the the staff write up or in the Planning Commission agenda there's multiple versions of the amendment that we've had with brickmore one's coming from 2022 which is when we were planning um the expansion of our building which has already been approved and completed so that that addition is already existing um so we still have the 37 parking spaces that we own right now and that is after the addition was approved two years ago and we finished it last year planner Cosby have we received any emails or other comments chair we no we have not all right I would if there's no one else here to speak to this item I would entertain a motion to close the hearing commissioner Canal I motion I move to close the public hearing s second seconded by Ser it's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing all in favor please say I IED right discussion on the application guess some comments um I guess as far as like the topic of like whether to extend or not I'm less concerned about extending it more just concerned about like figuring out like what the plan is going forward or giving them opportunity the plan place um ,000 seems I guess punitive I'd rather just give this you know give them opportunity to figure this out in in an effective way um rather than just you know slap on the wrist with that but if the long-term plan for purchasing that to turn into surface lot I guess I know that we have to discuss that when it comes up but I don't know if that doesn't exactly get me excited um about a use of that space um I'd rather see that remain a viable bus you know something that could be used better that would be a better use of the l space as it is now or structure there um so I'm not super excited about bulldozing that to make more parking space um I guess it seems like the the existing plan or to put a structure on there and make better use of the land space would be kind of get that SPM some expensive but would be the best land use and so I I don't know I'm just trying to trying to wrap my head around all the options and and it's it's kind of funky trying to like decide now for something that's like three steps ahead but um like to avoid a big parking spot big parking lot and would like to see them you know resolve this with the with the plan they originally had in place if um with that structure if possible this is a question for my other right my co- Commissioners um when we discussed the parking structure at the Audi dealership I I'm trying to remember the resolution we landed on during our last um meeting planner Crosby correct if I'm wrong but I think we determined that they were going to we gave them an extension and then they were going to document their efforts to come to a final permanent solution that's correct and then at the end of that extension we would address it then if they were to report back with the efforts or with the uh have a report for you on the uh progress that they've made in the efforts that they put forward for developing that parcel remind me was that a two-year extension uh it was but with an an actually I think yeah it was twoe two-year extension but it had a one-year like administrative option to renew so technically threeyear extension thank you very much for helping us out um I'm glad we have that text as we discuss this further I mean I speaking personally I'm not a huge fan of uh more creating more surface parking either and I don't think that's in line with the direction that our policy makers in the city have been leaning towards so to tell them to you know if they're about to acquire a building to to in direct them to tear down that building and then make more surface parking seems like not a good use of our time um or I mean of our resources as a city so I I I mean I I personally am apt to grant them the extension but it is again this issue of Are We G are we setting ourselves up for indefinite extensions in in my mind it's like use it while you can but the hope is that the Hub is redeveloped and that doesn't becomea you know getting a plan B in place would be would be a good idea and if I don't know if if kicking that can down the road I guess that's up to them like if if they want to continue use that space I'd be curious what the what staff thinks of that um I don't see any issue with it just knowing that hubot is so un unused right now like if it's there it's there I don't have any um personal issues with that but if it comes up is is no longer a feasible option then I would like to see them ready to roll with Plan B and um that should be kind of laid out in our in our response to this in my opinion thanks commissioner whoie for mentioning that I think that might that might dovetail with kind of the precedent we did last month with the Audi dealership perhaps a path forward would be to Grant some length of exemption but also require some sort of documentation of like what a plan B might look like uh if they were to lose that Arrangement doesn't sound like that is imminent but like I said it's not likely permanent but it's also not near either so I kind of looking for a some some sort of path forward for that where we could Grant an extension but also also like require some sort of Plan B involved yeah right right now it's it's clear that brickmore is happy to lease the parking and that can change at any time but I I think several of us at least we we agree that um there's so much parking in that area that requiring or building more is not ideal for this this building for this school um I I remember talking about the expansion a few years ago and not wanting to prevent it from happening due to parking I I definitely uh am interested in in making an extension work can I ask a question of sta um when this was originally granted what was the what was like the the end game with this extension or this was just that like if push to shove they would build a structure is that yeah um the chair commissioner huie um in their um 2022 uh submitt they they basically said give me a second there it is in the event that partnership Academy is unable to secure the site at 6440 nicholet Avenue currently owned by the Richfield Medical Group partnership Academy will complete the proposed structured parking to meet the parking needs required by the city so they I mean their their goal along has been to acquire the neighboring property and if that's not possible then that that's when they're going to they it appears to me that that's when they feel that they their only option is to construct thank you for the clarification I I think um seeing movement on that property neighboring them is good thing I would concur with um what other Commissioners have said about um hating to see the idea of a building demolished for parking um really does not align with the um values of what the city is working towards right now I don't think um I would also say that I would um I don't want any agree not that any in place there is any in place right now but I would hate to see any agreement that would make it more difficult for the Hub to redevelop when Redevelopment plans come forward so I would hate for us to require anything that would make it difficult for the Hub to get out of this agreement um as Redevelopment inevitably will occur um but so I would support um the um extension I I think um perhaps 10 years is not is a little too long um and that we have a really nice precedence um with what we've done with Honda and um I would feel more comfortable with a time frame closer to that I was thinking the exact same thing I I think it'd be you know more reasonable to have the two with an extension of one year um but I also think you know the the $50,000 penalty seems that it should not be applicable here especially with a school um and like what you just said with the constructing anything in an area that might be redeveloped in the future I think is not a good use to funds it's not a good long-term plan it could be detrimental but um the other thing too is like what's already been discussed that area is wide open there's a ton of parking that's not being used and I know that's not permanent nor is it you know in their control but I think that's also the reality until something gets changed and I don't I think yeah that's my thought I wanted to make sure to call attention to something in the staff report um about Pro rating the that's what I was just okay well yeah the staff report uh recommends prorating the $50,000 by the for the two months of noncompliance um so I mean that's one option do what do Commissioners feel about that as an option or feel about I would be comfortable waving the penalty I agree with that too waving it my understanding and I I just want to make sure that I understand correctly here um is that the penalty is in place because there wasn't a plan to either purchase the neighboring property or build the structure for parking that is correct now there is a letter of intent to purchase the property but um I I would like to discuss more the the the prated penalty and and what purpose that serves right the penalty is to enforce the terms of the of the agreement with the city yeah they couldn't make an offer on a property that wasn't for sale sure but I think also um planer Crosby correct me if I'm wrong the um I mean that would be satisfied if they had a a long-term parking agreement and instead of the like a covenanted agreement instead of the 15-day agreement as it is currently that is correct um I does anyone else um I guess in my opinion this is kind of what I think a potential solution might be is let them use the the land as long as it's available but if that their 15 days gets called on or that is comes to a term then I would expect to see uh a solution immediately brought and like with a more strict timeline of like they need to like be ready to roll on building that structure or something um as far as like buying that land and turning into surface lot to me that's just not a feasible option that I'd like to see and who knows when the time comes like might be a whole new group of people up here and a whole new group of people on City that doesn't comply with our comprehensive plan doesn't seem like resonate with that so um that doesn't seem like a good option so it's kind of continue use this or build a structure that's kind of the Crux of it so the use of the these these license Lots breaks more spots you can Beil I want to see action on on the structure I guess so I'd like to see something in the agreement that kind of like pushes that issue here's the well I I my question was could we uh propose an extension but require that because of this 15-day notice thing require um for example gr say we Grant the extension for one year with and give staff authority to extend it for an additional year um if uh if the school uh has provided with a a contingency plan should they lose that that additional parking so the effect to give them the effect would be to give them the a two-year extension but um at the halfway point they need to have have a plan in case they lose those uh spots um uh chair and Commissioners I'm not yeah I'm not sure what a contingency plan would look like it sounds to me that the commission um might be in agreement that the structure is on on their own site is the preferred um option so if the time extension is granted then instead of a report on progress of of conversations had like Audi perhaps they could come forth with like concept like uh because there's different levels of development plans there's um like concept development then there's um like plan level development and then there's construction level development so it takes periods of time to get to the point where you're ready to there's plan iterations of buildings before you're ready to construct a building so you could um ask that they be working towards like a concept level development plan or construction plan um within that time frame since there's there's not conversations to be had with other entities like there was with Audi that that's a thought can I ask a clarifying question of the Commissioners are is anyone suggesting that a um rant be built prior to the hub development is that the goal of any Commissioners since since the Hub Redevelopment plan is so unknown at this time such a question mark I wouldn't Advocate that at this time I would be reluctant to require a plan for the parking structure in a year or two um but my thought was not so much a concept for a parking structure but more if the if they lose the you know if they get the 15-day notice what's the what's the immediate plan that was more my concern than the concept of a parking structure because personally I think it would be premature for at this point but just that they have that they have some kind of formalized plan should they suddenly lose that space so that we aren't disrupting the the surrounding neighborhood I have a clarifying question if bricks Moore terminates that contract will the school need to come back to the Planning Commission with this updated plan we haven't approved any plans for parking structure and I believe that Brooks or in the staff report it said something that um partnership Academy is required to notify the city if Briar gives notice um but at this point we've not approved a parking structure for that correct um so the uh their plan as uh Jake mentioned when uh when he spoke was that if they receive determination from brickmore their plan is just to park on city streets and then hurry up and start designing a structure so but that takes a really long time to start designing this the structure and then to get to the point where you're actually ready for construction it's could be up to a year so um but yeah I I don't know if that if well that speaks more to your question chair um they um they are supposed to it like basically if brickmore withdraws the the license agreement and they don't have brixmor parking anymore the $50,000 is due okay and they keep paying it every year until they have something permanent in place that's what the agreement says is there a predicted risk level of brickmore terminating this license agreement leasing agreement they didn't want to get rid of the 15-day termination clause and that was the reason that the um that it was delayed in coming to you because uh we were hoping and I think they I hope they were hoping that uh they could negotiate with brickmore to get that 15-day termination Clause removed but they couldn't this is an unfair question so tell me that it's an unfair question but how long can like uh plans sit on the Shelf before they become obsolete in in the sense that like say the Hub isn't totally throwing out hypothetical numbers say the Hub isn't redeveloped for 10 years and we've asked them to design a parking structure that won't be used for another 10 years can you pick up plans that were developed eight years ago and construct them I mean like are we asking them to do something that they wouldn't be able I yeah I understand your question chair Commissioners and that's why I was recommending a or not I don't I know that was recommending I not recommending anything I was suggesting like a concept level of design not a full-blown construction documents level of design it shows progress but yet is still malat and isn't too much money to put forward and those have a shelf life like they're conceptual so they could be they could be further worked on at at the point at which they get designed to a Construction level great I'm not familiar so I just wanted to know like it's I didn't want them to go through an exercise that would just collect dust if like that is an exercise that then in eight years they could pick up to be that much further ahead in the game of constructing a ramp that does seem like a um interesting option I think that that seems like a reasonable middle ground for this go ahead sorry I have a question like I don't know I is it do we really want to like play police of like giving them homework and doing it like I would rather just say like hey if your parking situation ends here's a feasible amount of time to build a structure get it done or you're fine um I don't really want to be like go do a concept bring it that feels like I don't know it feels like busy work like if they want to do that work knowing that this is what's coming and that's they they have they feel that that is like a good use of their time and they have their head that's their project to manage I don't care you know but I just want to have a plan like okay 15 days you got 15 days what's a feasible like you need to break ground on this project within I don't know six months a year like and so then that's up to them to have their plan in place to do that but I think the issue is that is if if the 15 days is granted the $50,000 is due when when the agreement breaks but I think at least what I what I was trying to sus out was that we take the the you know we take we take the immediacy of tomorrow brickmore terminates the agreement and then they they owe $50,000 next month we take that away and and say okay uh by next year um have a concept or a plan of some sort a contingency plan or a concept and then staff can extend it another year um and to push and to give a two-year total extension but that's that's a year of not having a parking lot in place and that's that's a long time to burden the whole neighborhood with you know 60 some spots I guess of street parking I totally agree and that would be something that I'd be concerned about and I also think that it like to me the six months seems like a good number too because if you go shorter than that something were to happen in say January and you can't physically construct until you know the ground thaws something like that I mean I I think three months might be too aggressive if you get everything done so I think six would be a good time and just have that as a stipulation so what you're proposing a six-month or like what are you suggesting them I I would say that they would need to be able to build that structure within six months should something happen and leave it at that and I don't know if that would require what kind of plans it would require and everything it's not my expertise to know that so I think that that's a good middle ground I think the applicant had mentioned um timeline of of building the structure um would you mind commenting you'd mentioned something about like it wouldn't be that complicated instruction we could get it done in X months so we've worked with our architect to already have concept drawings of this prior to the 2022 time when we came to talk about the addition um so those are already in place um like I said we've spoken with our contractor and the physical building of the structure is only a couple of month process um but then there's obviously financing and things like that that need to be in place too so I I can't speak to the exact time frame but um we we already do have concept drawings we know how many spots that we can get in that space um and our architect has already created those so finances were in order and you everything was clear to break ground you could build the thing in three months you think question it's a lot of if if doing a lot of work there his if he but also like financing if financing is in place that's a bit I mean like that's a not a short I mean to be totally fair like this was the plan we had in place already so I'm just trying to like get something figure out AR there's rest with us and it would be unrealistic I think personally that if they get notice if this Council thinks that they can have or if this commission thinks that they could have a parking ramp built within six months I think is um I don't think that that's realistic the only risk we're discussing though however is whether or not they have to pay money because the risk is real right now if 15 days comes to term then they've got to figure something out and we're only really discussing whether or not the agreement says they have to start paying 50 Grand a year this thing right so the situation you're describing is is at is kind of right now I would argue the consequences to the neighborhood if they is also a risk that we need to weigh I'm sorry I'm not clear though but like that is the risk right now right like if if they're if they get called on 50 they can only use that so I'm what do you you I I'm not sure what you're saying I thought that I heard you that the the only risk that we're talking about right now is the $50,000 no I'm saying that's the only that's the only difference between the current plan and a new plan like the risk to the neighborhood is already a thing right now that I'm concerned about it was it was a thing when this was approve two years ago yeah so like that isn't improving or do you have a plan to like lose that risk or I personally do not to reduce that risk no I do not I mean I I think personally I think like the agreement is is already broken so I do think what you're saying is right that it is right right now it's coming down to this $50,000 penalty because the the Covenant the deal uh the agreement is already broken so if we give an if we were to give an exension that's basically maintaining the status quo so right now is the commission comfortable with the status quo I mean if this were if the agreement were dated to expire a year from now instead of right now would we be concerned as concerned about this situation I think the main difference in my eyes is that this the agreement ended now but their their alternative parking solution is still available to them but once that becomes not available that's when like it becomes an issue and so I would like a solution in place that better lays out what to do there and if that's just saying you know what sorry you got to build your structure we need to F the sphere now then that that is an option to say like this needs to be done Tak care of here's a bill for 50 Grand you know and I think the the question then to the commission is whether we think it's a wise a wise idea to be building surface parking or parking structures considering the larger Redevelopment that everyone hopes occurs in that area and so on a personal level I think it would be premature to start building um parking ramps or worse yet surface parking because there might be whatever concept or plan comes up in the next few years might make that completely oppos and wouldn't be a good use of anyone's time or resources I agree it seems to it seems to me like the applicant is well cognizant of this risk and as said already has architectural renderings in place of a potential ramp I think the applicant's well aware of the risk they're facing with their park and what the requirements will be of them if they lose that space uh so I I think there's not a huge change to the status quo by extending this by a few years because they're all we're all well aware of the risks and we're all tolerating them right now it's not a perfect situation but there's always the the there's always the reality that if this changes in the future and in a few years time this will come back before the city and the Planning Commission again to review I know it might seem like kicking the can down the road and I suppose in some ways it is but also it's a way of letting ourselves come back to review this situation again when information changes in the future or doesn't and if if it doesn't then we make a decision or whoever's on this commission at that time makes that decision then so I I I I'm not trying to I want to sound like I'm trying to punt on this issue but I think some sort of shortterm extension solution is probably the way forward keeping in mind that we're all aware of the risks of this situation I think they've been sused out here pretty well and we've had a really good conversation about that I'd also think about you know the reasons that they gave about not doing any development at the Hub site now or interest rates in the climate of development I don't think that that's going to change in the next year or maybe even two years like that's that change will be gradual um and so I think you know a one year with an extension of one year might be a good way to handle this and it is punting it but I think there's just too many other variables and above all else you don't want to do harm and potentially you know limit what could be done with the Hub site which I think has a lot of potential rather than punting this as we call it I I think that by granting an exception we're allowing them to continue to manage a difficult situation without interfering um they've done an adequate job managing their parking and they have a new opportunity next door to find solutions that don't involve building a ramp right so I'm I'm happy with an extension if that's our decision um maybe instead of the considering all the length of time of all the developments and planning and so forth right now one of the staff suggestions was to make it up to 10 years um with sta you know uh including the option for 10 years of administrative extensions without any penalty what if considering the long time frame but also not making this forever and ever what if we were to say something like five years instead of 10 years um and that might be more realistic to some kind of you know change in economic conditions or plans for hubber I mean I feel like in five years there might be a better idea of what's going to happen um 10 years seems like a long time maybe five years is a little bit more reasonable I agree I agree I'm even we granted a a twoyear extension to the dealership that a similar extension would be consistent I don't know that it's completely analogous though because the dealers ship all of that is under their I mean Mo that's most that's land they own it's it's kind of it's it's it's more under their control and this we're talking about other moving pieces of larger developments that don't that aren't dependent necessarily on what the school does so I think there's the different it's a similar but also dissimilar situation because there's more moving pieces here I hear you so I don't know personally I feel I I feel like five years might be reasonable I don't what is the feeling of people in the commission I think five years is good so it seems like we have at least some support for that um so then the other question really is about a recommendation about the the penalty and one staff suggestion was to prate it I I meant I heard another commissioner suggest waving it what are the thoughts on that I'm still in support of waving it it's a school I think that that's would be a bad use of their funds and it seems to be punitive when I think they're doing due diligence and and honoring our agreement and you know they have plans in place I I agree that a $50,000 fee would be punitive and and I look at this as um these are the terms of the agreement and the prated portion is fair in my op how much was the prated portion was was uh 8,333 so I mean telling you know as as a as a employee of a school district as a teacher like that's a significant amount of money for a school now is it so that I mean that's is it is it they broke the penalty yes they are also um a tax funed institution with a requirement to use the taxpayers funds and do public good so I don't know is that the best use overall of public funds to give us to give the city $8,000 for this parking issue uh chair just to um get the conversation moving um I'm going to make a motion to recommend approval as requested including the option for a five year of five years of administrative extensions any penalty due so I'm making a motion for zero penalty and we'll see where that goes commissioner Charles in seconds all right so there's a motion in a second to uh take the staff suggestion of administrative approval but reducing it to five years and then also uh no penalty due is there any discussion on on that motion just staff does that cover what we need to cover in a motion we leave anything out I understood the motion okay is there any discussion about that all right all in favor of that action please say I I Clos all right uh the motion carries um thank you very much thank you uh due to my due to my error when I was reading over the um on my notes for the agenda I neglected the open forum and so I apologize for that um so if if uh with the if with unanimous consent of the um commission I will propose that we do that now all right so the public forum is an opportunity for members of the public present um or virtually present to express um their opinions or uh thoughts on issues generally not on the agenda for the evening is there anyone here uh who would like to address the commission all right were you here to address the commission about something else okay all right all right uh did we get any calls or any emails chair we did not okay so so that uh we can move on and then uh resume the approved the agenda as approved um the next thing would be um the consideration of resolution whoop sorry I'm on wrong the ordinance Amendment requiring adjusting parking requirements is there a staff report on that there is thank you chair and Commissioners at its April 2023 work session on policy topic priorities the city council directed planning staff to examine parking requirements staff added the research to our 2024 work plan and in February a joint work session was held between the Planning Commission and the city council the draft ordinance before you this evening updates the city parking requirements as follows to reduce the requirements for a class three restaurant from 17 stalls per thousand to seven stalls per thousand to create a requirement for libraries museums and art galleries as there currently is none it would be for 3.33 stalls per thousand square feet of floor area to expand the council's flexibility in relation to non-driving populations there currently is some flexibility written into the code for senior housing and the proposed amendment adds the following language and other similarly low driving populations including but not limited to households earning below 60% Ami people who are NE diverse Andor people with disabilities next to adjust the parking requirement for multif family housing to be consistent across all zoning districts at 1.25 stalls per unit and to eliminate the language for discretion based on context such as pedestrian orientation on this one I must point out that this is the change that staff still has concerns with some areas of the city have rideways that are less than 36 fet wide overflow parking onto these streets from new development particularly on East West Roads makes emergency vehicle access tight when there's snow on street parking ends up being restricted or eliminated completely leading to police enforcement issues and pushing parking deeper into neighborhoods resulting in complaints staff recommen staff's recommendation on this revision continues to be to not only to retain the existing discretionary language but to expand it to include roadway with and orientation next there's a a new change that was not discussed at the work session staff is recommending this due to the removal of the discretionary language for multif family that are just mentioned staff is recommending adjusting the parking maximums for multif family housing from instead of being a percentage of the overall amount of parking required changing it to 1.5 stalls per unit this would help ensure that new multif family residential development has the flexibility needed to secure Financial Funding and then finally we're also recommending a couple of minor housekeeping changes to apply traditional rounding and to allow on street parking to count towards off Street requirements by right rather than by Council approval um with that I'll entertain any questions you may have if there are no questions from Commissioners we can open the public hearing um if you would like to speak come up to the uh podium please hi again I'm Larry erster uh 6727 aliot Avenue South uh first I need to comment on the staff report uh it was really one of the best one of the most thorough most comprehensive most thoughtful and well-written uh reports it's ironic however that tonight we're talking about parking at Park mhip Academy uh because parking is a challenge and they don't have enough and can't get enough and simultaneously you're talking about eliminating or minimizing some parking requirements uh I would recommend that the ordinance be left as they are especially as regard to multif family homes if you reduce parking and staff is right to be concerned about that if you reduce parking by 40% what you're going to do is push cars from on Street to off street parking or off Street to on street parking and um so that's my thoughts leave it alone thank you is there anyone else here to speak to that have we received any calls or emails regarding this no we have not I would entertain a motion then to close the public hearing uh commissioner charlson makes a motion to close the public hearing seconds all right all those in favor of closing the public hearing please say I I opposed right the hearing is closed discussion I really like the staff report um I I also share the the thought though if you do change the rules on parking around restaurants are you going to push a lot of these cars in the neighborhoods I think the city council was thinking that it would push more people to explore other modes of transportation to those areas I don't know if that's totally feasible I know like where I live on the east side it would be hard for me to take public transit to a restaurant on the west side as opposed to just driving um so I I do agree with that with that thought and I also I'm concerned you know comparing Richfield to Minneapolis trying to find restaurant parking around you know a lot of these areas is really challenging and you end up parking in front of someone's house so I'd be sensitive to that but everything else um in the staff report I agree with have a question regarding that so that number is going from 17 for thousand to S um do you have any um examples of restaurants in Richfield and the amount seating they hold just to get a a real world how many spots are we talking about here CL which isre um and more like um just casual sit down restaurants um I wouldn't uh I mean it does also apply to like drive-thru restaurants I have it in the um Workshop so I'm scrolling for it right now um because it is in the packet somewhere and my computer just froze up on me so 17 per thousand is is very high by um by a lot of different sources we looked at a number of different um uh kind of author authorities uh you know and compared to other communities and then we did do a comparison of like similar restaurants in so we looked at Joy Paya and um the uh the thing that's turning into the chicken Coupe and uh a couple of other the Standalone restaurants around town and we did base our recommendation off of existing restaurants within the city as well as comparisons to what other Municipal codes uh in in adjacent cities require and what the standards are so um I I can't pull it up at the moment but it it's it's in the packet I I guess like for example like a restaurant that can hold say a 100 people losing 10 spots per thousand so you're losing one spot in that situation which to me is like okay like that's that's a per per per square square footage per thousand square feet sorry sorry um so like I don't know like it seems like a small amount I don't know um I I believe that these recommendations reflect the work that we did with city council during our work session and I'm excited about them I concur I really appreciate the staff report I love the conversation that we had um I love the conversation that we're having now I love that this is on the table like this is important work um this is why I want to be on the Planning Commission because I want to approve projects and not regulate parking so I like love that we're talking about this I have some specific questions and I'm feeling like um the stuff like this PDF is different than the PDF at home so I'm like not finding what I'm but like the optional um uh reduction of parking requirements around Rapid Transit is that in this require or in this recommendation chair and commissioner stura no it's not um we brought that up as a um things to keep talking about for future like visioning towards future projects but that is not currently on the table no it is only reductions to existing parking regulations um that are in the the ordinance uh the proposed ordinance thank you for that clarification a couple other questions a that's really disappointing but um I hope we keep the momentum on that because I think that's important work um I'm wondering if you can have two questions um comment on um the continued issues about um police enforcement around multif family housing and um cars on the street my understanding is that some of that had or I had been kind of through talk heard that a lot of that had been worked out with um signage of parking on just one road or one side of the road and I'm curious if that's the solution or if there continues to be issues and that's the um staff reservations about um chair and commissioner sta the staff reservation is just that with each development that comes forward um without the abil without the discretion in there then we're kind of working it out after the fact um so if um it may be that we would need to restrict parking on one side of the road or restrict parking on both sides of the road either way that's a conversation with the neighborhood letting them know erecting the sign then enforcing the sign people getting adjusted to the new rules and regulations and all that is happening um because um we don't we no longer have the discretion um to require more or less parking based situationally but on a caseby Case basis so in relation to Novo um for example uh yeah the parking has uh you know uh parking's been restricted on one side of the road and uh snow removal is better emergency vehicle access is better but um there were site uh like site triangle issues of you know pulling out a driveways and or pulling up to intersection and then so we kind of had to adjust where the signs were and it is just more work for staff um in the long run but not just planning but uh Public Works and um police so that it was a collective decision to uh to try to retain the um ression so is the city um utilizing signage of limiting parking on one side of the road is that an acceptable is that something the city staff considers acceptable and something cons that we can consider or is that something that that we are trying to avoid at all cost um I don't know that we avoid it at all costs if um we um we want it's easier to not have to do those things and um to not have the conflicts in the neighborhood um so we would like to minimize those but I I don't think uh I think where it's appropriate we're willing to do it I just I do think that it is an appropriate mechanism um in certain situations and I would hate for us to ignore that option um but to the other question about um and again I'm not finding in this PDF but the sidewalks I really appreciated the comments about um that staff made but um as more people are parking on the streets we need to be more mindful of the lack of sidewalks in a lot of the areas of Bridgefield and I think the city has done and um the council has done an excellent job in requiring developers to um build sidewalks on their property um and I see developments where the sidewalks end um when their development ends and I'm wondering if the city has a policy a plan any sort of um budget for how we think about sidewalks in the city with these developments not on the development site but around the site if that makes sense yeah we have thought about this I wouldn't say we have a plan we've kind of talked internally about what can we do to get more right now this was interesting for me to learn so thank you for asking it but right now we do not have any set funding source for new sidewalks annually in the city budget there basically there is a master plan for pedestrian uh improvements throughout the city but there's no priorities set it basically is when uh a funding opportunity comes along we look at the plan and think what might fit well what could we get funding for oh we got funding for this project well I guess that's our priority now is this project because now we have money for it so um uh as far as um oh the other only option is that a neighbor like a certain block or Street could band together and petition the city to build sidewalks and then um they would they would be taking on a special assessment to pay for those sidewalks so that's not really a a viable other option so um we think at least at a staff level minim somewhat you know not completely but somewhat the discretion that we're looking to have that we uh recommend be retained is helpful to negot negotiating for additional improvements beyond the property line such as extended sidewalks so if people are going there's a there's a direct link there if people are going to have to walk further to where they parked they need a path to safely get there in the winter time when there's snow and on the ground and things like that so um it's not necessarily always like that's a this for that uh it doesn't you know doesn't necessarily work that way but it does help if um the there's some negotiation there that that is taking place in exchange for what they desire and what what we need I feel strongly about um sidewalks um and I would recommend that we make a Rec we um include some sort of action regarding sidewalks I think it's irresponsible for us to say um let the developer do what they do and then not have any responsibility on the city to whether it's start discussions of developing a plan or financing or funding sources or um to do further study of the issue but um I think that we're negligent if we don't put a recommendation in our motion to emphasize our need for improving the sidewalks in the city planner Crosby um that kind of I mean that would be something we're making a recommendation on this existing ordinance but a larger discussion about City priorities with sidebox is the city council um policy decision right so I mean in our can in what we send to the city council can we add that the Planning Commission recommends the city council begin a sidewalk plan um chair Commissioners I I don't know that you'd necessarily include that in the motion but everything that you do gets forwarded by way of minutes to the city council and you could certainly like you know kind of take an informal poll and all maybe all agree that yes this is important and we're we're conveying that message to the city council certainly I would recomend putting it in AEM motion but also I would support that as well I just think um we need to make sure that the if other people on the mission agree with me um I think it needs um this is something that's been in the background for a while that's rumbled and like as we're seeing projects and we're living in this space I feel like it's time to put a little bit more energy around this topic not just Just Energy but and not just because of parking conversations but because of the general environment around driving and and you know as someone who grew up in Minneapolis that was one of the shocks when I moved to Richfield is that there is not um the easy accessibility of sidewalks um and with an aging population and consideration for people with disabilities who don't drive and also from a level of you know reducing the driving I I think it would be worthwhile um I I agree with commissioner uh uh that it would be worthwhile to put in the the minutes uh our strong or our feelings that the city council should be addressing sidewalks I agree I also think we're kind of on a tangent and so um to to bring it back is there a way way where we can carve out just I guess this is this is for City staff is there a way where we can carve out um just restaurants class through restaurants with drive-throughs or is it all or nothing type of a thing um I'm sorry I don't understand the question completely what do you mean by carve out so if you were to change the the requirements for a restaurant and say that if it has a drive-thru we would reduce the number if it does not not reduce the number oh I see what you're saying yeah thank you sorry um so yes yes we can do that um right now condition uh it's a conditional use permit for a drive-thru um so like the idea of having a drive-through is kind of separate from having the idea not not every restaurant has a drive-thru um so we could put the parking requirements yes we can separate it out I can figure out how to do that okay for the sake of uh can I make a motion so so what I'm gathering is you want to carve out you want to keep everything the same except for drive-throughs when it comes to restaurants yes so my my motion would be to accept staff report staff recommendation with the exception of maintaining the current parking for non- drive-through so only change reduce it for drive-throughs is there anyone who would second that yeah yeah so the class three restaurant seems to be a rather broad generalization and so I I do think that you could I mean just going around town if a restaurant has a drive-thru usually it's empty parking lot and so I think it makes sense to reduce the the amount of parking there um but for restaurants that do not have a drive-thru and would be more sit down I think that keeping the things the way it is leaving parking for people people I think is important so I'd suggest keeping current language for those that do not have a drivethru and this is what we just heard was that the current levels are quite High compared to our right right okay I just wanted to make sure I was tracking but I mean the report here says you know St Paul Minneapolis are have lower but then again when I try to go fair I just wanted to connect the dots in my yep I hope that makes sense all right so is there a second for that motion before we proceed I feel like there's a lot of other things in this staff report that that that's one thing I I have a question about like kind of the 36 foot RightWay thing okay why don't we let's right now limit ourselves at this moment there's been a motion made about carving out restaurants so let's address that and then we can go back to the main motion so I correct so that's but isn't that isn't this a broad motion to accept the whole I was interpreting it as a a um a motion to amend the recommendation then we would move on the reg the rest of it okay sure is that is that a correct interpretation yeah I so I I also think the RightWay that what was brought up by staff about the RightWay is important for emergenc is there a second on the restaurant on amending the recommendation for a restaurant all right hearing no second uh there's you know that that's it for that so now we you wanted to go back to yeah um with the 36 foot my question was making a broad ruling it seems like a lot of these situations where you know it seems like it might be better address Case by case rather than just a broad ruling of I don't know if like adjusting the parking is necessar going to like fix that problem like I could still see like those examples that were noted those comply with current code for parking right and that's still an issue chair and Commissioners um no the three uh recent multif family projects where we've had on-site issues did have the reduction down to 1.25 stalls per unit sure and staff feels that a broad you know a broad ordinance would would fix those in all same situations and do you J Commission staff feels like we're learning as we go and we have learned from a few mistakes and we'd like to the preference is to not make them again sure any other discussion on any part of the recommendations all right then I would yeah you you should ask the commission if they would we could is there would would does someone want to move to reopen the public hearing to allow for additional public comment is there a is there a second second all right it's been moved and seconded to reopen the hearing for additional public comment all those in favor say I I oppos no um that uh the motion carries the hearing is reopened and you may address the commission this is a big issue uh again I'm lar 6727 Elliot South and uh this is a huge multifaceted uh many dimensioned issue and it's going to take hours as I mentioned before uh you know leave it alone because the every first of all what you're not going to change McDonald's parking it's already there this only would apply to new development and if you leave things the way they are the the city has the option for variance for all new projects new developments and let that deal with the nuances of each new development rather than trying to set Global rules that are fraught with failure I would a motion to close the public hearing again so moved sha seconded all those in favor of closing the public hearing please say I I I opposed all right the public hearing is closed is there uh any disc we would need a motion then to move the recommendation to the city council I'll move that um we recommend approval of an ordinance amending an ordinance Amendment adjusting parking regulations I want to make an amendment do I do that right now before you would make this motion then okay um and I'd like to um in the motion uh so you you you want to before you move this you want to make a motion to amend the what we recommend to the city council well if I I mean if that's how you want me to do it I can do that um I want um to make an amendment that says um to encourage uh staff to study the creation of a comprehensive sidewalk policy and um to continue conversations and study of um reducing parking along Rapid Transit could I make a suggestion that we make that a separate motion like for a sense of the commission and ask uh planner Crosby to um relay those um those the feelings of the commission to appropriate um uh appropriate to the city council and appropriate City staff and we separate that from this um recommendation about the ordinance I mean that's not my preference but if that's the preference of the commission um of course I support that it just seems cleaner and because like this is a specific thing that we have to do about for this uh am and both of the amendments are very related to parking regulations um both of them were one was discussed in the work session and the other one was discussed in the staff report to me very relevant and I think that um by including them in the emotion uh they it highlights the importance but again that's just me if we want to you know just pass it along that's fine too um but my preference would be that it is um part of the action that we take tonight I would also be I like I like splitting them I I don't know if I want to put the sidewalks in with everything else that's here where this is fairly narrow um um and the sidebox thing I I completely agree with you and it's just I don't know if we want to throw that in with this and jeopardize all these other changes with that I well I think our planner Crosby are I mean this our requirement right now is about is about this specific ordinance and this ordinance is dealing with the parking requirements I mean how just from a logistical standpoint what do you think it would makes would it be logical for us to put an amendment into this recommendation about asking for sidewalk plans or would that make more sense to do as a separate like resolution for the sense of the commission it could be done either way it's just a recommendation so it could be done either way not to make it more confusing for you guys sorry no yeah so yeah I if you want to Okay so second in by tlon so right so you so let's let's go back to that you so you are moving that we um accept the recommended uh that we um accept the recommended staff act the staff recommended action with the with the addition of um additional study for sidewalk policy um and funding and additional study of the reduced parking requirements around rapid trans or around Transit I should I think Sam knows what I'm getting at but I don't want that conversation to end like the conversation we had in the work session I don't want us to lose momentum on that I was disappointed it wasn't part of these recommendations and so I just want us to continue talking about it it's okay the point of that right is there a second I already seconded it okay so we have um so let's let's split this up first as an an amendment you're proposing to amend the recommended you're proposing to to amend the staff recommended action to include about okay about and so we have a second for that so all those in favor of amending that recommendation please say I I opposed okay now we can move on to the main motion and then we would need a motion to to adopt the amended resolution commissioner cersa makes a a motion to recommend approval of an Amendment adjusting the parking regulations with the two approved amendments all those in favor thank you very much sorry all those in favor please say I I I opposed nay all right next uh on the agenda it would be um um liaison reports um community service advisories Commission uh city council is me um at the most recent meeting the were uh again discussion about the safe routes to school um which overlaps with what the school board had been discussing recently as well um and then a joint Powers agreement uh with the city of Edina um about 911 dispatch and responding to certain emergencies with mental health providers um and creating a partnership with Edina about um dispatch for those issues and then um the cross town uh the barrier for a noise reduction um to contract with mindat um about proceeding with that um housing and R Development Authority the H approved a donation for um the Metro Sales um land um around 494 and um 77 that was talked about no um that was talked about um where the vome location um is being discussed um it was the mathwig trust donated the two additional properties for a total of a um land value of $4.2 million so it was a pretty significant land donation um and the H is expected to hear about um the vome plans given the lack of a bonding Bill approval I st this year um at their upcoming meeting they're going to hear the status of that all right uh School Board all right uh Transportation Commission no report chair Chamber of Commerce report all right and the sustainability commission uh small report just that most of the trees sold at the tree sale there's 18 left and they're figuring out a way to more Equity like dist distribute the left equitably uh rain barels was sold out and there was a compost drop on May 3rd which I think is now gone so that's it um city planner report um just that we are uh we are having we are now actually is it is 100% On The Joint Planning Commission and Council work session to discuss um uh Minnesota independent community colleges plans um on Tuesday June 25th at 5:45 pm um the and then there's a second joint work session between the Planning Commission and City Council on July 9th at 6m to discuss regulating cannabis dispensaries it's gonna be fun very fun so all right uh I would entertain a motion to during the meeting so moved surma seconded can all those in favor of adjourning the Planning Commission please say I I opposed We Stand adjourned e for