This transcript appears to be from a **Richfield Planning Commission** meeting (the text says "Ridgefield," but the staff and context match Richfield, MN). Based on the provided list of officials and the context of the dialogue, here is the formatted transcript with speaker names. *Note: Since specific timestamps were not provided in your source text, I have used sequential markers.* [00:00] **Chair (Jeff):** I'd like to call uh this December 9th meeting of the Richfield Planning Commission to order um the first thing would be the approval of last month's minutes. [00:01] **Commissioner Surma:** So move. [00:02] **Chair (Jeff):** Is there a second? [00:03] **Commissioner Canale:** Seconds. [00:04] **Chair (Jeff):** All those in favor of approving last month's minutes please say I. [00:05] **Commissioners:** I. [00:06] **Chair (Jeff):** Opposed? All right uh the um next thing on the agenda is the open Forum. This is an opportunity for citizens to address the Planning Commission typically on items that are not before the commission tonight. Have we um uh Planner Crosby—have we received any Communications before the meeting today? [00:07] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Chair, no we have not. [00:08] **Chair (Jeff):** All right. If there is no one to speak uh for the uh open Forum the next thing would be to approve the agenda for this evening. [00:09] **Commissioner Surma:** So move. [00:10] **Commissioner Canale:** Second. [00:11] **Chair (Jeff):** All those in favor please say I. [00:12] **Commissioners:** I. [00:13] **Chair (Jeff):** Opposed? Right, the agenda is approved. Um the first thing on the agenda then is a public hearing to request a zoning code Amendment regarding drive-through signs. Uh could we please get the staff report? [00:14] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Thank you Chair. Yes, um Border Foods is proposing to replace their existing menu board sign at Taco Bell with a dynamic display. The zoning code currently does not address Dynamic display drive-thru signs. The sign code permits only one per property and it limits the area of the Dynamic display to no more than 35% of the sign area. In practice, these regulations make it difficult for existing drive-thru uses to convert their existing menu boards to digital displays um as they often already have a primary Dynamic display or multiple drive-through signs. Uh the 35% limitation is also impractical as it requires um the drive-through sign to be majority static. Um the applicant, Border Foods, um has requested an ordinance amendment that would establish regulations specifically for dynamic drive-through signs. Um currently the zoning code only addresses drive-through signs within the conditional uses section of the mixed-use districts and they're not really called a sign, they're they're um referred to as order boards. They're limited to 40 square feet and 8 feet in height and they have to be located within 60 feet of the business which they serve. Um this is a little a little confusing because drive-up uses are also allowed conditionally in the C2 District, but there's no mention of order boards in the listed conditions of that District. So um for consistency and clarity we're proposing to move order board regulations to the sign section of the code. That way it would apply to any District um and also rename them to drive-thru signs. Um we are also proposing some um exemptions for dynamic display regulations that would allow drive-thru uses to have um more than one Dynamic display and um to have a sign that basically takes up—for drive-through signs specifically—that take up 100% of the sign area so you don't have to be limited to that 35% limitation. Um and yeah I think that's it. I did want to mention we got one email inquiry from um a resident but I sent them the packet when I was ready and I I never heard back from them. [00:15] **Chair (Jeff):** Before we take any testimony, is there—are there any questions for staff? Uh if the applicant is here or if there's someone else to speak to this um please approach the podium. All right sure, go ahead and uh say your names and addresses for the record then and sign in. [00:16] **Shannon King:** Shannon King. [00:17] **Andrew Davies:** Andrew Davies, 5425 Boone Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. [00:18] **Chair (Jeff):** All right um and u you represent—are you...? [00:19] **Shannon King:** I am a representative of Border Foods, franchise of Taco Bell. Okay, this is my associate; he's our signage installer, he's our expert. [00:20] **Chair (Jeff):** And do you want to explain a little bit about the situation with the sign or what you're trying to do? [00:21] **Shannon King:** Absolutely. So uh we are looking to replace our current menu board with—it's called an outside digital menu board as we reference it through Taco Bell corporate—and we are looking to replace the existing menu board on the existing foundation with the new digital menu board. Um it's a corporate roll out and this is the last Taco Bell in Minnesota that we are looking to swap that one out with the digital menu board. Uh there's no actual signage on it physically but there is rolling signage that slowly goes across the screen in between orders. Happy to answer any questions you guys might have. [00:22] **Andrew Davies:** And it's actually smaller than the original that's going up. [00:23] **Chair (Jeff):** Yeah, that's what I was going to ask. It looks like it's significantly smaller than the current signage. [00:24] **Andrew Davies:** Correct. Size goes from 7-foot-2 to 6-foot-1 and then square footage goes from 40 square footage to 25 square footage. So it is a smaller board. [00:25] **Chair (Jeff):** Any questions from Commissioners? Thank you so much. [00:26] **Shannon King:** Thank you. [00:27] **Andrew Davies:** You're welcome. [00:28] **Chair (Jeff):** If there were no comments received beforehand and no one else is here to speak, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. [00:29] **Commissioner Canale:** So moved. [00:30] **Commissioner Surma:** Second. [00:31] **Chair (Jeff):** Right, any discussion? All those in favor of closing the hearing please say I. [00:32] **Commissioners:** I. [00:33] **Chair (Jeff):** Opposed? All right um do we have any questions for staff or any further discussion? [00:34] **Commissioner Canale:** For discussion, I just think this is really straightforward especially since McDonald's already has one of these approvals. I feel like it doesn't make any sense to pick and choose which vendors get this or not. So that's my two cents, I'm strongly in favor of this. [00:35] **Commissioner Surma:** I guess I do have a question for staff. I see the recommendation—I was just trying to find it in the staff report. Um the—so I'm not going to get the language exactly right but um I know that you're um recommending that we permit two boards when there's two lanes and I'm just wanting to clarify: is it two boards when there's two lanes or is it two boards regardless of how many lanes are there? [00:36] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Um it is two boards per drive-up lane, which is a little confusing because there's only one fast food restaurant in Richfield that has two drive-up lanes. So the majority of um users will only have one drive-up lane which would mean you can have the two that equal 50 square feet in total. Um but if they decide to do only one sign, it can't be more than 32 square feet. And what we're trying to do with that is basically um provide some freedom with um choosing how big you want either one. So like if you want to have two 25-square-foot signs then that's fine. Um if you want to have one larger one and one smaller one that's fine. We just don't want a really big 50-square-foot um sign if that makes sense. So yes, it's two per drive-up lane but it won't really apply to many uses in Richfield already. [00:37] **Commissioner Surma:** Um and I guess in terms of comments like this—for this specific use it makes all the sense in the world. Um I appreciate that staff um looked at cleaning this up and making it more up to date but I do think it opens up um—I mean much of our C2 district is abutting residential. Um and so I want to be very mindful of the fact of signage by residential um and wanting to make sure that there's still um opportunity uh through the conditional use permit or CUP process that we would be able to have um conversation for new proposals. And I'm correct in understanding that it's still a CUP process for C2 districts or is it just a CUP process for mixed use? [00:38] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** It's a CUP for um mixed use and C2. It's just that mixed use has a lot more conditions. [00:39] **Commissioner Surma:** Sure. Okay. Yep. As long as we still have um it's still a CUP process for C2 I'm comfortable with these changes and I appreciate the work that was done to um bring these up to current standards. [00:40] **Chair (Jeff):** Go ahead [to Planner Crosby]. [00:41] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Jeff, if I may, I just want to clarify that um while a drive-thru is a conditional use permit, the sign itself is not a conditional use permit. A sign—if any location that's already existing as a drive-thru wants to change their sign to be dynamic now after this is adopted—they could just do so with a sign permit. Just making sure that's clear. [00:42] **Commissioner Surma:** Sorry, that opens up another question. Um sorry to belabor this but so I noted in the—so noting that this now kind of grandfathers—grandfather is not the right word—but um the list that was in the staff report of the um 17 properties there were 17 properties that the city identified that has a drive-up window and then there there was a list of um drive-throughs with sign sizes but that did not include all of the drive-through signs in the city. What was the or what was the difference? Like um like uh Dunkin' Donuts has a sign but it wasn't listed in under historical context. [00:43] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Yes so um that was—we used the table for the historical context, we used um old sign permits that we have on file and um that was all we could find. So if we would have gathered the information for all the other ones we could have gotten, we would basically have to go out and measure or get information from the fast food users. Um but we also wouldn't know if they were approved or not—sometimes signs change without getting sign permits um so that's that's the difference. Um but we um—this wasn't included in the staff report but um of the 11 fast food drive-throughs only four abut Residential Properties. Um and three of the 11 um don't meet the 150-foot separation that we require between Residential Properties and Dynamic displays. So if um if an existing drive-thru use has a non-conforming sign—like their sign doesn't meet the 150 foot—they would not be able to like convert it to Dynamic display without um putting it further back or or solving that in some way. Um so they would have to just not do it or get a variance. Um so I don't know if that's... so they would not be permitted to automatically go to Dynamic sign like Dunkin' wouldn't be able to. [00:44] **Commissioner Surma:** No? [00:45] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** No, Dunkin' doesn't meet it. Um that was one of the the three that we identified. [00:46] **Commissioner Surma:** Thank you for the clarification. [00:47] **Commissioner Charlon:** I just wanted to say too, I—for this location this use it it's very logical and again that there is obvious care put into the proposal. My concern is just like the um with the sign at the park you know several months ago is the maximum lighting emission because these signs can be—you know you all know if you have your phone on and it's not in dark mode and you're in a dark place it can be very very bright. So my—I feel like we should have clear standards on the total light emissions from these kinds of things at night, but in terms of this proposal this makes sense and for this applicant. [00:48] **Chair (Jeff):** Any other discussion or questions? But to clarify what we're approving is not just this applicant, right? [00:49] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Chair, I do just want to mention really quick um we do have brightness standards. Um like when we approve a new Dynamic display we ask for proof that um that this sign has um capability, ambient lighting capabilities. Um but that is something we've identified for the future um we don't have specific like um like some cities have um maximum foot candles that you can have from a certain point away from the sign and we don't have that. Um so that's something we've identified we just haven't got into it, but we do have some—we do have brightness standards. [00:50] **Commissioner Charlon:** Thank you for the clarification. And yeah I would think that perhaps clear um standard of maximum light in a measurable objective way might be helpful for future um changes to the code. [00:51] **Chair (Jeff):** Any other discussion? All right um we would need a motion to approve the staff recommendation. [00:52] **Commissioner Surma:** I'd like to... Commissioner Surma moves to approve the staff recommendation. Is that sufficient information? [00:53] **Chair (Jeff):** Okay. Is there a second? [00:54] **Commissioner Charlon:** Commissioner Charlon seconds. [00:55] **Chair (Jeff):** Any other discussion? All those in favor please say I. [00:56] **Commissioners:** I. [00:57] **Chair (Jeff):** Opposed? All right. Community Services advisory commission? [00:58] **Commissioner (Liaison):** No report for this month. Uh the commission is not meeting in December either. [00:59] **Chair (Jeff):** All right um City Council? That's me. Um the City Council has had a um a few work sessions and um a joint session with the school board. Um at the most recent council meeting they were um doing some routine um approval of election results and also considering a proposal about not having to count um all write-in votes unless the candidate has requested their write-in votes to be counted. Um and then uh approving uh beginning the process to assess the sales tax that was approved by the voters. Housing and Redevelopment? [01:00] **Melissa Poehlman (HRA Director):** No update since the last... [01:01] **Chair (Jeff):** School Board? [01:02] **Liaison:** No report, Chair. [01:03] **Chair (Jeff):** All right. Transportation? [01:04] **Liaison:** No report. [01:05] **Chair (Jeff):** Chamber of Commerce? Oh yeah of course that makes sense. Um and uh sustainability commission? [01:06] **Liaison:** Uh only update from sustainability is that the city is planning on putting solar uh power infrastructure on top of the new public Arena um and that will save the city about $72,000. [01:07] **Chair (Jeff):** All right um the City Planner's report? [01:08] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Being there's only two weeks since our last meeting I don't have any updates at this time. [01:09] **Chair (Jeff):** All right. We um we'll resume at our next at our normal cycle next month. Um I would entertain a motion to adjourn. [01:10] **Commissioner Canale:** I move to adjourn. [01:11] **Commissioner Surma:** Seconded. [01:12] **Chair (Jeff):** All those in favor please say I. [01:13] **Commissioners:** I. [01:14] **Chair (Jeff):** Opposed? We stand adjourned.