Okay, I'm going to call to order the Richfield Planning Commission meeting for August 24th, 2026. Um, I'll do a roll call. >> Kolkowski, present. >> Hoie, present. >> Charlton, present. Surma, present. >> Walls, present. >> Peterson, present. Okay. Um, before we get going with the approvals, uh, we have open forum. So, members of the public who want to speak about whatever is not on the agenda tonight are welcome to go up to the podium and begin their statements. Did we get any uh, comments from online? >> Chair and commissioners. No, we have not. >> Okay. Well, moving to close the open forum. Oh. Oh, okay. Go up there and please uh sign in. >> This is my first time coming to the planning commission, so I apologize for my ignorance. Well, I'm signing this. My name >> We got to turn it on. >> I have to turn it on or you did. >> Okay. And just a point of clarification, is this about something that is not on the agenda or is this about uh something that is on the agenda for later? >> Uh well, it's on one is on there's two items. One is the development and the other one is the uh projected or suggested CIP, capital improve improvement plan. >> Okay. >> So, you have two items that I'm interested in. >> Yeah. And if you were going to uh make comments, we'll have to wait until later in the meeting for both of those. This part's just for uh items that are not on the agenda later. >> On anything on the agenda. >> Yeah, correct. >> Got it. Well, >> then I'll be back. >> Okay. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none, I make a motion to close the open forum. >> Surma seconded. >> All in favor say I. I >> all oppose say nay. Motion carries. Uh next is the approval of the agenda from the last meeting in uh or for this meeting tonight rather. Uh Commissioner Carlson moves to approve the agenda tonight. >> Commissioner Wall seconds. >> All of those or all in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose say nay. All right. Motion is approved. Um on to the approval of the minutes from the April 27th, 2026. Commissioner Charlesson moves to approve as uh stated. >> Kolkowski second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose say nay. Motion carries. Um on to the public hearing. Uh so the first public hearing tonight is the consider of a conditional use permit at site plan A approval for a multifamily residential development of 290 units and two buildings at 6501 Portland Avenue. Um is there a staff report? >> Thank you chair and commissioners waiting. Yep. Great. Okay. Um, Pope Architects and Lupe Development are before you this evening requesting a conditional use permit and site plan approval to construct a fivestory 290 unit housing development at the former American Legion site at 6501 Portland Avenue South. The project is to be constructed in two phases. The first phase would be 130 units of workforce family housing in the eastern building and the second phase would be 160 units of senior housing in the western building. Both buildings feature courtyard amenities, underground parking, and a green roof. The main entrance Oh, you can see my mouse. That's excellent. The main entrance to the west building fronts on Portland Avenue, right about here. And the main entrance to the east building is on its southwest corner. The property will still have two access points, but the northern access opening is a little further north than the one that's there today currently sits. Also, these two access openings will be changed from oneway to two-way. Most of the turning movements will be in and out of the southern access opening. And in review of this project, the city required a traffic study and a parking analysis prepared by a professional traffic engineer. The study predicts that the trips generated by this project will be well within capacity of Portland Avenue and there are no recommended mitigation measures to improve the conditions. The city then hired an independent traffic consultant to review the traffic analysis done by the applicant and the consultant's review confirmed that all aspects of both the traffic study and the parking analysis were reasonable. The existing sanitary sewer system is not of a sufficient size for the project, but our engineering department is working on a design solution and the conditional use permit can be approved. While those details are being finalized, as underground changes are not likely to impact the above ground improvements, the project has a modern design with lots of windows and wood paneling that befits the natural surrounding of the adjacent Veterans Park. The buildings preserve a sight line to Veterans Memorial between them and the project will preserve pedestrian connections throughout the property to the to the park. Any concerns regarding um residents overlooking the pool has been alleviated by larger building setbacks on the south side, upper story stepbacks on the third and fourth floors. You can kind of see those how they wrap the stepbacks wrap the building and orienting the south building or orienting the east building, excuse me, so that the courtyard faces south rather than north. Gonna go ahead and close out of this and just switch back to Whoops. Wrangler. The subject property is zoned MR3, which is highdensity residential, and it lies within the Veterans Park Overlay district. A conditional use permit is required for all projects over a 100 units in size. And a conditional use permit allows the city to place reasonable conditions upon a project in order to implement the code or to protect adjacent properties. The following areas are where the plan does not meet code. the future connection to 66th, the signage plan, the parking setback from the east property line, and the details for rooftop screening. The draft resolution before you this evening includes conditions to bring the above items into compliance. There are also quite a few areas where the council has discretion. They are the bird collision reduction plan, electric vehicle chargers, tree preservation plan, basically all of the landscaping requirements, the amount of parking, the parking lot screening, the green space within the setbacks, and the housing variety. These areas are discussed in greater detail in the staff report, but in summary, staff has drafted the conditions in the resolution such that they will either bring the project into compliance or meet the intent of the code. The applicant has communicated that they object to five of the conditions of approval, the requirement to operate uh to cooperate regarding a future connection to 66th Street, and the first four discretionary items that were listed, which are again the bird collision reduction plan, electric vehicle chargers, tree preservation, and one of the landscaping requirements. In attempt at a compromise, staff has modified two of the four conditions originally proposed. The two are the future connection to 66th Street and a bird collision reduction plan. Staff recommends approval of the request when contingent um upon the conditions lifted listed in the draft resolution before you. Thank you. Any questions? Any questions from commissioners? >> Go for it. >> Um, talking about the connection to 66, I'm trying to envision what this would look like ideally with other property south like what would the >> what would like the golden picture of that be if it was perfect, I guess. Yeah, it's it's difficult to say at this time because we can't predict what the future will hold, but the timing would definitely have to align with um the property to the south doing some kind of um development or redevelopment um because they can't reach 66th without the cooperation on the property of the south. So, the timing is uncertain. Um the um the design is also uncertain. The main reason for the project is to alleviate or the main reason for the the connection is to alleviate uh trips to and from this project. So, um right now staff envisions that being uh more of a kind of one-way southbound kind of private drive. Um would a would a two-way scenario though serve some other purpose maybe for the development to the south in some way? Um we couldn't say but um there we tried to make the condition as generic as possible in order to um both give flexibility to the applicant and staff in the future while kind of maintaining the possibility for uh various design. Okay. And I had a second question similarly related if that's okay. Um the traffic study and and all of that. So I is the focus of the traffic study to primarily understand how this development impacts the traffic as a whole to the public or is it also to understand so like I'm imagining people you know trying to leave during rush hour and taking a left turn onto onto Portland being a bit of a a challenge. Mhm. >> Does the traffic study take into the that into consideration or is it more like how does adding you know this density of vehicles and population impact the the system broadly not the individual case of these folks? >> No, it it does uh take into consideration how the tra uh how the trips outbound might stack up on the propert on the subject site. Um it I think it it acknowledges that um because half of the project is senior housing and they keep a different maybe not 9-to-f5 stereotypical in-n-out um that is what greatly reduces the um the need for uh that outbound or the the outbound buildup. So, I know um I've been to many um work sessions with previous development proposals for this site, and I remember the pedestrian connection through the center of the site to the veterans memorial and the the pool area, the park area was always considered a pretty uh important component uh of any such development. What is the um is there some sort of condition? Is this a legal easement for pedestrian access? What is what is the nature of this like legal nature of this pedestrian connection for public and or private access? >> Um thank you, chair and commissioners. the uh vets park overlay district talks about preserving connectivity around the perimeter of the site. Um and while we had originally um in uh kind of talked about an act formal easements over the sidewalks um that is not something that staff is currently recommending. We feel that a condition that the sidewalks remain open to the public um is sufficient without um going through uh formal easement dedication. Um it does not include the sidewalk that goes between the two buildings because that is not perimeter to the project. It only includes the perimeter sidewalks. >> Any other questions from the commissioners? >> Just one follow up to it's a little tangental, but um with staff reviews, has the uh fire department or fire marshall signed off on fire access? Since most of the drive access seems to be biased towards one side of the site, they're okay with fire access to the back side. >> Yeah. Yes, chair and commissioners. Yes. >> I like yes and no questions. That's great. Thank you. >> All right, commissioners. Any other questions? Okay, we will move this to the public hearing. So, if there's anyone who would like to come up and speak about this item, uh there will be an additional opportunity to speak about item number two, which is the capital improvement budget at a later date. I know we have one who's signed in. Um if you want to start, you can go ahead and then anyone else who wants to speak, we'll have time as well. >> Chair, may I um we typically invite the applicant up. >> Oh, um my apologies. >> And they do have um I have I'm going to Vanna White for them a little bit here, so sorry about that. No, that's fine. >> My apologies. Give me one second. Okay. What does that say? >> Adobe Acrobat Reader. There we go. Okay, we got it. Uh, good evening, commissioners. Uh, my name is Greta Norris. I'm a project architect with Pope Design Group representing our team today. And thank you for the opportunity to get to talk about this project. We know that this is a very important project to the residents of Richfield and to the city staff and to the council and commissioners as well. Um we're excited about the design and we're excited that we've been able to craft this um beautiful project alongside the staff and worked pretty close collaboration with them uh to come to what we have today. Um it's been an iterative process of of listening to to neighbors and to um staff. We've had several working sessions and we've carefully considered each item of feedback that we've received and um we've been adjusting to bring this project into full compliance. Uh many of the site elements that are you're seeing in this project today um have been in response to conversations with the city and I wanted to just highlight a few today. So you're looking at the view from Portland Avenue. This is at that north parking lot looking at the entrance that's on Portland. And that was a key element that we uh included in the design is having that entrance. And then the other arm um a little bit further down has walk up units. So that's uh with a with a main bike trail along Portland. So that's really activating Portland. Um if you want to go to the next slide, Sam, that'd be great. >> Um I'll keep going. I think it was uh another point that Sam emphasized um in her her great presentation was prioritizing the connections to the park. And so you can see sidewalks along each side of the building that will continue the paths that are already there and uh create new ones for both residents and um neighbors that are are walking through the park as well along the side. Uh, and we created lots of ground level images to fully help everybody visualize this um, proposal and so we could see what that ground level experience would be like. Uh, you can see in between the two buildings we have interactive art that is proposed and uh, lots of lush green landscapes and amenities appropriate for the senior building as well as for the family building. Um, and the bottom right hand corner is emphasizing that connection to the 66th Street that the site plan is including as well. And Sam mentioned this as well. We did a lot of back and forth to talk about where the U of that east building would face of whether it faces north towards the park, which would mean a shaded courtyard, or if it faces south towards the pool. And eventually we decided that the southern facing courtyard would be um more usable because you get more sun for the kids who would be playing there. Um and then we also mentioned conversations that we had with the fire department and we've worked through where we would point out where the fire access and the truck would go and um that has all been worked through with the fire chief. Um, a couple other points to mention. Uh, we've already had lots of discussions about storm water and been working closely um to preserve as many trees as possible and as well as the vegetation on the site. We're we're working to provide as much as we can and um and also provide a variety of the native species and working with the sustainability co coordinator to um provide what the city is needing most as far as ve vegetation. Um next I'd like to pass it off to Jake next. Thank you, chair, commissioners. My name is Jacob Stein with the Lark and Hoffman Law Firm and uh I represent the applicant. I've handed out a uh should have enough copies there. These are proposed conditions of approval. You have a copy of our uh initial letter in response to the ARC report. Uh some of those as staff has indicated uh have been modified. So, uh, we wanted to provide an updated, uh, revision. >> Mr. Stein, I'm sorry to interrupt. I just want to make sure that there's one copy available for the public as well. Um, >> there should be available at right up at the front here. >> Thank No problem. No problem. I do want to say, uh, we we do appreciate staff's hard work on this. Uh, this has been, uh, as Greta indicated, this has been a, uh, a long process. Has been a year and a half. We appreciate the staff report. uh and in general we do agree with the conditions of approval that are included but we do have a number of objections uh and there those are mostly legal objections uh and it's fairly nuance so I just wanted to talk through those individually the first is uh condition 3C that is the bird collision reduction plan uh the city code does include a requirement that we submit a bird collision reduction plan addressing the building glass the site design and the lighting and we have uh absolutely done that in compliance with the city code. However, this condition goes a step further and it requires that the uh project be designed with a whole building threat factor of 45 or less uh based on the B3 standards or same or similar. And this is a little nuance uh and if you're not familiar with B3 standards, those are standards that go above and beyond the state building code. uh and those are applicable when a project takes state money. Uh they are not applicable here and we have no state money in this project. So uh that B3 standard is is not uh going to be relevant here. And and this is important because we don't have any way to technically meet this condition unless we remove and change the glazing of this building. And that's really important because state statute specifically preempts any statute or any city code provision, zoning code, subdivision or any other condition of approval that would be more restrictive than the state building code. Uh and this condition as it is applied and it is it is written uh asks for a higher standard uh because it is impossible to comply with unless we change uh the building system or components and that includes exterior glazing. So we have proposed some language uh that would just simply say uh that we comply with the city code. The plain language of the city code that says we submit a building plan cannot include additional restrictive language. Similarly, we do have some concerns about the EV charging uh provisions. Uh in 2023, the state legislature adopted a statute requiring the Department of Labor and Industry to implement uh EV charging requirements as part of the state building code. We anticipate that'll actually be implemented by the end of this year. And once that is implemented, it will supersede statutoily this condition of approval. and we're just asking that we simply be uh subject to state building code requirements in application at the time. A more uh pressing and and concerning condition is this 66 uh street connection. The city code uh and staff report is correct. City code uh notes that uh in the VP overlay uh the Veterans Park overlay uh any properties north of 66 66 must plan internal circulation to accommodate uh a future 66th Street North connection. Internal circulation is the language of your city code and we have done that. We've designed this project to avoid any permanent structures in this location. Uh at this point we have a walkway and we have uh uh I think it's a dog park that can be removed if and when there is ever a project. However, this condition of approval uh goes further than than the city code. It includes two different types of exactions. One requires a future easement and two requires uh the applicant or the owner uh to build that easement at their own costs. And again, this gets nuanced into state take state and federal takings law, but there's something called the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. And your condition when you have an exaction, it's not necessarily illegal, but it has to have a uh rough proportionality to the project and an essential nexus to the project. Now, the staff report notes that both uh our application and or our traffic study and the city's traffic study notes that the the project the projected daily trips are well within the capacity of Portland. There's been no individualized determination that this nebulous potential future connection uh is triggered by this project. And to the contrary, the staff report would tell you the opposite. Uh so you cannot meet those findings and it would be an unlawful uh constitution in excess of uh the city's authority in this condition. And the last three uh are really related to related to the ARC report uh conditions and I just want to touch on those briefly. So building elevations uh the city code allows uh the first floor building elevations to be designed with uh either fenestration or artwork or a combination of thereof. We've proposed artwork. Uh the uh ARC report contemplated uh that we would have to uh add additional fenestration although I think the staff report uh recognizes that the artwork is attractive and actually supports it. We just want to make sure that the conditions are married up there. Uh there's tree preservation comment under 3II. Uh and our original and this is again fairly nuance. Our original tree mitigation plan did include preservation of these trees to the north. Uh however, when that ARC report came out last week, uh it included a condition that requires a full loop uh of water going along that north property line or north of the building. And what that does is it triggers a substantial amount of excavation. And we are almost certain that these trees will not survive. And in light of that, we simply want to update this tree preservation plan to reflect uh to reflect the actual conditions of approval that have been suggested. We're happy to comply with the condition. We just need to change the tree preservation plan and propose some new trees there. We can't be held to both uh destroying the trees and then also preserving those trees. So that's a very uh reasonable ask. And the last uh relates to a condition that is integrated by reference and incorporated by reference and that has to do with mulch in the courtyard perimeter. Uh there is a specific provision that says the landscaping must be addressed with both mulch and uh landscaping. I believe we do have a fair amount of landscaping boxes but there are some challenges because this is a building roof. Uh that courtyard perimeter is actually the roof of uh the underground parking. uh we will have some landscaping but we'd like to maintain uh what was proposed. So again these are very uh reasonable conditions in uh in our view and uh wanted to make sure that you have a copy to to view uh and answer any questions. We've got our engineering team, our development team here to answer those questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. There anyone else uh from the project that would like to speak? Okay, moving on to the public comment for real this time. Um, so we had one already. You may need me stand up. Yep. >> Hello again. Okay. I always bobble when I talk. Um, my name is Kathleen Balivan and I live on 65th in Stevens. And I'm coming to this one about the Veterans Park because I adopted it eight years ago when I moved into this city. I value that park a lot. But um what I'm talking about here is they want us to take away the condition about the birds. Our birds travel between Legion Lake and Wood Lake and I think you guys know that and that's a migration back and forth and so forth and so on. Anyways, um I I heard that they also have any of their landscaping stuff a dog park, please. Absolutely no dog park. We have enough problems already. I walk my dog. I have a 100 pound German Shepherd. I walk him all the time at the VA at the VA at the vets park. But what we don't have is somebody watching out for the birds and everything else. So please, no dog parks in that property. And I'm asking us to think about what you're doing because you represent me. And as a citizen, I'm wondering just how much we can take. At what point do we saturate? My taxes went up 24% on the two-bedroom rambler. 972 square foot foot of living space. 24%. Now we keep building up and up. And on another note, when I come back, we're going to be talking about tips in our in our CIP. Okay. Since 2018, I moved in six new tip districts. Maybe that added to my 24% increase. I don't know. I'm asking you to think about that. You represent me. You were selected by the city council. You do not report to the city manager or the staff. You report to me and others like me. So think about this stuff when you decide what you're going to put in. Yes, it's their money. Yes, they bought that property, but you tell them what they can and can't do. And he he quoted our own, you know, our ordinance. You know, your ordinance this, your ordinance that. Well, we're statutory. Did he even look at our charter? Does our charter say that we can do that? You guys have more power than you think you do. All right. It's law, charter, city ordinance. That's how it works. Okay. So, have a look at the charter and see if it's statutoily required. So, thank you and I'll be back again. >> Thank you. Is there any other uh comments as you could please signing up there? Okay. Uh Brian Farmer, I just have two questions regarding the overall project in general. Uh one, typically do we know is there ever an evaluation done of what happens to existing home values when these projects are put into place? Do uh property values decrease? Do they stabilize? Do they go up? I'm just curious in general. Second question is, was there ever a noise study done on the effects of this property being put in its current location on Portland? So, looking for answers on any type of valuation regarding again property value increase, decrease, stabilization, and then second to that just noise increase, decrease ordinance. >> Staff, um, could I ask a question of you? I think you'd probably be the best expert to speak to that. >> Uh thank you, chair and commissioners. Sure. Um we do have noise ordinances in the city and if this property um were to violate those noise ordinance uh the people that are um witnessing that violation could certainly um reach out to the city and we can uh follow up uh code enforcement wise. Um in relation to the valuation of nearby homes um that is not something that our code requires uh us to uh require of the applicant. So no a study um was not done is not typically done. Um this is a conditional use permit. We have to uh basically it has to meet the rules and regulations of the code and that was not one of them. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? My name is Bea Johnson. I would like to stress that uh we have 214 different species of birds that are documented on EIRD at Vets Park. EIRD is a international scientific site and I would like to stress how very worried I am. Vets Park is on the flight path of migrating birds and um this is very troubling. Thank you. >> Thank you. And I misspoke about questions. Are there any other comments? Hi, my name's Larry Ernster. Uh, my wife and I live at 6727 Elliott and my wife and I have been our homeowners. So, let's talk taxes. Right now, Lupy is paying uh the property, the undeveloped property is currently valued at $3.4 million and they are paying $113,000 in property taxes. What happens if uh they get a tiff? Remember, I don't understand tiffs. Not my job. But what will the bottom line effect be if we offer them a tiff and they have a $40 million property? What's the bottom line effect? I might use uh Best Buy as an example. 26 years ago. We went into a tiff with Best Buy. In 2023, their property value was $116,000. and city council allowed them to reduce their property value to 62,000 who picked up US homeowners picked up that drop in property value and the assessed property taxes this year they reduced their property value from 62,000 to 32,000 the numbers might be off a little bit but 50% who's going to pick that up us homeowners. Same thing with uh if we offer a tiff to support this project. What is the bottom line impact on on us homeowners? So I have a question, a request actually from you as the planning commission. You currently have 14 active tiffs. We as homeowners have no clue the value of them to us. What I would request of the planning commission is an annual report that says here's our 14 tiffs. Here's the value provided to the citizens of Richfield. not only for this year but at project end. Now if you're going to write a contract, think of how property or business has changed and now we have AI, we have flying cars, we have jetpacks. If you can tell me what business is going to be like and you can write a contract for 25 years, you you can tell me what business is going to be like in 201. I'd like to talk to you. So that's my request. Tell us the value of your great work. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other public comments? >> Oh boy. Sorry. This is going to take a second. Long last name. Someday I will get a notorized stamp. That will be helpful. Okay. So, hi everybody. My name is Pete Straharsski and my wife and I live at 6424 Portland. We are actually directly across from the memorial. So, we're keenly interested in the project as you can imagine. Um, so I have a combination of questions. So, I don't really know how this works. If I ask a question, can I get a response? I've actually never been to a meeting before. >> Yeah, you can direct the your questions here and then we'll try to get the answers. >> Do one at a time or do I just list them? What's best for everybody? >> Um, list them. >> Okay. >> Chair cheer. Uh, it is not a back and forth discussion. You're welcome to present your questions and then staff will answer once the public hearing's been closed. >> Totally cool. Thank you. I just wasn't sure how that all worked. Um, yeah. So, I'll just ask some questions. Uh, the presentation was really helpful. Thank you. That answered some of the questions I had. So, that was great. Um, I'm super skeptical of the traffic study. Uh, I I can't get out of my driveway a lot of the time and so I'm just I'm really concerned about it. Um, so I I guess questions I have regarding that. I I didn't I'm not a lawyer, so I don't quite understand everything that the gentleman said, but just to confirm, there is going to be a road north and south on the east side of the building. That's a question I have. Um, it sounds like that would fall to the taxpayers to pay for the road if I understood that right. Is that correct? And does that mean there's a special kind of assessment to the people that live directly on Portland Avenue? So, those are questions I have regarding the traffic study. Um, comment. I think people from that parking lot will have a near impossible time turning left onto Portland. I just don't think that's really gonna happen. They'll have to go to 64th Street and make a left turn. So, comment. Is there any way we can make the light cycle faster because it's just kind of rough. We just sit there and wait and wait for Portland. It just Yeah. Anyway, um yeah, I guess I have follow up with some what the general ladies had said about the bird watching. I just know there's a ton of people that go there on Sundays and do the bird watching. Like, is this going to dramatically change the I mean, we're going to have like tons of dead birds. Are they going to have to go somewhere else? Like, I mean, I know they're birds, but is this going to like make them not come to Veterans Park? I'm just not sure what that practically means. So, that's a question. Um, that was good. Oh yeah, just more concerns. Um especially with we've heard that Nicollet is no longer going to cross over 494. Um I don't know if that's true. So that's a question if that's true. Oh, okay. So it may not be true, but if it's true, how does that impact traffic? Uh and then another question was why didn't the city purchase the property in accordance with the 2040 plan? Okay, so those are all my questions. Um I just have a comment and and I actually have goodwill towards the team. I know how construction can go. It's tough. So this is no disrespect to your design or anything like it, but I I'm pretty disappointed. Uh, I may have been one of the few people that supported Veterans Village. And the thing that I really liked about that was there's going to be like a nice patio on the north side of the building. There's going to be a restaurant. There was going to be stuff that drew the whole community there. And housing people super important. I don't want to diminish that. I just really feel like this project is not connecting the community more to the park. I really wish we had that element. Um, so I I'm just again the building design is great. It looks good. It's just I feel like we missed an opportunity. And uh what I'd also like to say is in the future I I would really like us to look at our zoning because we're going to develop more buildings around the park. I I really would love to see it as a way to draw the community to the park. Um so if we can change zoning laws, anything like that. And I guess I do have one final question that came to mind. Sorry. And then I'll be done. Um, so with this development on the east side of Portland, are there plans to develop condos on the west side of Portland? So should I just plan on selling my house because we're just going to build condos around the park? I mean, that kind of makes sense to me, but I don't know what the vision is. So if anybody could share kind of the vision of what the rest of Portland's going to look like, because it's just kind of tough to drive around that area. So, thank you for your patience. >> Thank you. Um, important clarification for staff is this. Should we close the the public comments and then address all these questions? >> Okay, >> chair. I would just make sure that there's no one else here to speak. We obviously have a lot of people here and looks like there's at least one. So, okay. Thank you. Hello. Um, I'm Sandy Clay. I live with my husband at 6600 Columbus just along 66th Street and um so we've been very interested in what's going on with the building. Um we walk the park a lot and just enjoy everything that it has to offer. And um one of the things I'm wondering about is who owns the sky? Who owns the sunsets in Richfield? When we moved here, it was just mostly one-story or twotory houses, and everything felt really open and beautiful that way. Uh, in the 30 years that we've lived here, uh, we've seen many highrises creep up further and further into the sky. I used to walk at, uh, Richfield Lake, nice and open, and now I feel watched. There are apartment buildings hedging in on the park. And now it's happening at Veterans. That makes me sad. I liked walking and looking out at trees. Where can we do that in Richfield? Think about it. We are putting big buildings next to our public free spaces, our parks, our natural areas. We have Veterans, we have Wood Lake Nature Center and Augsburg. Those are really our three big parks. Adams Hill, kind of big, a little bit of Donaldson, that's a lot of park for baseball games and that kind of thing. Veterans was our natural park along with some wonderful amenities. We've got the pool. Who's going to want to send their daughter to the pool in what teenagers wear bikinis and wonder who's watching from above? And I know there's a setback on the top, but it's six stories high. And in the back, even though the ground is sloped, the building is up still at the ground level from the street as far as I know. And that means that that building is really seven stories. Think about that. When you walk and you want to see a sunset, we don't get to see that in its entirety anymore. And that's not fair. There should be some zoning about how close these tall buildings can hedge in on our parks because that's for our community and that's what draws people to our community and our city. I'm also concerned about the traffic, the traffic flow. I sit and look out my window and I see the traffic at 7 and 8:00 a.m. going by 66th Street and the traffic is backed up past our street. I cannot imagine how 800 more people or whatever it is, 800 more trips coming in and out is going to affect that. East Ridgefield has been uh slammed, ignored, treated unfairly. We no longer have access to get on to 62 to go west. We have to wait until Lindell Avenue. Do you know how long it takes to get through all the roundabouts and traffic and patience just to get onto the cross town? We used to hop on right at Portland. We did not get a roundabout or a way to get west. We patiently had to go all the way to Lindale. We can't even get there from 66 way around because the traffic is so slow on the cross town. So all the people that are living in this place that need to get to work will be taking lefts because they can't go west, going right and going north. They will be going left and there's hardly any way that they can get out because people can't even get out on 66th Street. How is a extra road going on 66 from this private drive going to help? You're one block from a roundabout that is nonstop full. Have you looked at it? I have. Have you sat there at the morning time or in the evening? Pull up a chair and watch. Sit on one of the benches and watch. There are a lot of people going through that roundabout and it's hard to get through it. and it's backed up to the Dairy Queen on 66 coming from the west going east. The same kind of thing. It's slow and it's really not fair to the people that live here already and now we're going to have more congestion. Think about those things. I'm concerned about the water usage. Will the water pressure drop with that many more people using water? Is it designed for that? the waste system. Same thing. Maybe there's a problem with that. We're not the lowest house on the block, thankfully. There's someone across the street that has even a lower basement and septic system situation or a sewer situation. I mean, if they get the water backing up into their basement, you know, I feel bad for them. I wouldn't want to be that. I don't know how all that works because I'm not a planner, but I certainly think about it and get concerned. My husband said he didn't want to talk tonight because he said nothing changes. No one listens. We've been here for 30 years and we can see that people are pretty much set in what's right and wrong and what they think is going to go through to funding. That concerns me. How does that help us? There's just a lot of things that I think about and thinking about the access to the park that certainly serves the people that move in. Does it serve the community? Can we just walk on that nice sidewalk that connects to the old parking lot? Why didn't the city think of buying that property and making it part of the pool or part of the park or more parking for the events that are held there like the um Saturday um farmers market? We can't hardly get parking there. Is there any designated parking for community at this new place? No. No, there's nothing. They get to take from the park, but they're not giving to the park. They're not giving to the community. That concerns me too. There's a lot to think about before saying yes or no to this. I am worried about birds. I love watching nature and wildlife and taking pictures. And I do see people walking who also enjoy the birds and the wildlife. And that also concerns me. They're already changing the park plan with a lot of different new bike routes that are going to affect the park and that's a whole different story. But I'm just sad to see Veterans Park getting hit in so many ways. And long ago at say the 1980s or 70s when this park was envisioned, a lot of change happened and people lost their homes. There were homes on Portland Avenue. There were homes that people had to leave so that the park could be expanded. The park, not an apartment building, a park. Do we get tax money from parks? No. But it's something that people need. We need parks. We need our skies. We need our space. A three-story building, we can still see over it. It can kind of hide in the trees, but a six-story building, it stands out like a sore thumb on a beautiful picture of a sunset. People lost their homes and gave up their homes to make Veterans Park bigger. And people have voted to protect the parks. You know what the voting was when we approved? Yes, we want more money for our parks. Yes, we're willing to pay for parks. Just think about how you're preserving parks and what you're allowing to encroach on our small but very, very valuable and sacred natural space. Thank you. >> Thank you. There any other public comments? You have to go back up there. But yeah, um after after this film is done. Yes. All right. I wrote fast. I have a short last name. So Sy's my wife. She just got done speaking. and she said I wouldn't speak, but she talked me into it. Um, yes, I feel that the city's good at listening. There's been meetings with the developer. They listen. Certainly, things have changed, but I sort of go back to this can't change significantly because of the where it's at and I understand that, but I guess um the 20 what's the last 20 240 plan I think is the one that's currently in place. I went to those meetings. I've lived in that house for 31 years. Um, I don't know that this is what was envisioned for the plan to have larger, taller buildings. Also, once it's gone, it's gone. So, I guess the thing I'd like to just really focus on is we missed an opportunity. When we voted to fund Wood Lake and all the other parks, I put money down that the city would have said, "Yep, we'll buy that property. Now, it's being developed." So, I don't like that. >> Thank you. We had one other question. >> Yeah. Sorry, super quick. If we think of stuff after tonight's meeting, is there a place we can submit things? I know I've been to your website and submitted stuff. Is there just if we don't think of something or we had neighbors that couldn't make it, is there a way we give additional feedback? >> That is a great question and I will ask Sam about that. >> Um yes, uh chair and commissioners um they can submit questions if they go on the city's website um to this project. They can find my email address which I just provided there. Um it's srosby richchfieldmn.gov and um I'm happy to um give somebody a call, have a conversation. >> Is there any other public comments? Mr. Chairman, uh, commissioners, my name is Doug Olsen. My wife and I live at 66th in Clinton. Um, been a resident of Richfield for many years. I going back even to the 60s when I used to walk to the pool when we lived on 71st in Columbus. um very concerned about the impacts that this proposed development is going to have in terms of the density. Um I'm not aware of any other housing in Richfield that has 270 almost 280ome units in it. Uh I'm just astonished at trying to cram the size of this development uh into the space that's provided by the existing uh old veterans post uh that my parents were both members of. Um I'm concerned that uh in most developments, if this was new for this size project, they would have to demonstrate some green space. I see very little green space here. they're relying on the park. Uh adding that many more uh users right on the doorstep to me uh provides a real problem. I'm concerned about honoring the veterans too, the memorial that's just to the north. I think it's almost sacriiggious to put this size development next to it. I'm also very concerned about the condition that city staff is trying to encourage for a right of way out of the development onto 66th Street. Um would there be lights? What would they have? There are many youth that families drop off in that parking lot to go either to the swimming pool or to use the hockey arenas. uh what protection is going there going to be for them if you basically created a shortcut. Um and what would there be to prevent people from going into that development uh from 66th Street? Um and then cutting through to get to Portland. Um just a lot of questions. Um, I think that if it was put to a vote of the residents of Richfield, it would clearly be voted down. Um, I would hope that you as commissioners would consider that in making your recommendation to the full council because I don't think it's consistent with the existing city plan. Um, and the comments today that have been made, I think would be echoed by many in the city and supported by them. It's this is the wrong development for this space. I would uh really encourage you to not uh recommend approval to the council. Thank you for listening. >> Thank you. >> Are there any other public comments? Okay. I move to close the public hearing. Um have a second. Pretty sure who he seconds. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> Okay. Um, all oppose say nay. >> Okay. I have a question for staff. Um, I actually am also very interested about the roadway. I am very worried about um I know the capacity for Portland is addressed in the plan, but from someone who has to drive there from time to time, it is brutal to try to get through that roundabout as it is. And I don't know how many more cars this would add. Um, and I also don't know what kind of options there are for readressing traffic flow with the light. Um, I also agree about the the lefth hand turn there. I think would be extremely difficult without reworking the light. So, I guess um that would be a question for staff is what kind of options are there to address that? And also, what would happen if we were to add a new street to 66? How would that would that be an assessment or how would that funding work? chair and commissioners, I'd like to take a moment to um put up on the um on the screen a graphic. Um I think that um perhaps uh there may be some confusion about uh the future connection to 66 Street. Um here is a concept that the applicant has provided. As you can see, it would be a straight shot south through the funeral home site to then connect um near to where about where Oakland Avenue is. Not quite. There is currently um an access opening there now. um it could use that existing access opening or um or that might be redesigned slightly, but the idea is to create um an an additional avenue for for the property to egress. Um the how how it works. Um we were originally um hoping for the applicant to um just going to kind of bookmark this and participate if and when this ever comes to pass. We don't know that um what will trigger it um whether it would be um changes that might be made to Portland by the county or redevelopment uh or change of use in the subject site. what there's nothing that requires uh them to re to to remain a senior housing which is a low driving population in the future for wherever to be a change of use to regular market rate apartment buildings that might increase um the traffic coming from this site. Um, we just want to retain the option to maybe one day have a reliever other than the two access points onto Portland Avenue. What exactly that looks like, it is difficult for us to say uh because we don't it hasn't it hasn't been it hasn't been designed yet. >> Do you want to add anything to that response? >> Uh, traffic flow. So, is there anything that can be done with that light there? Is that something that's in the city's purview or what how would that work? >> What do you mean? >> Well, I mean, if so, right now there's there's always traffic that backs up in rush hour along Portland um and 66 and if we had more traffic there, can that light timing be changed to address additional traffic or what? How would that be handled? And I realize you're also not traffic engineer. So that you know, >> uh, Commissioner Teraldson, members of the board, uh, this these are county roads, so we would have to work with Henipin County on that, but Henipin County has been willing to adjust signal timing to address, um, traffic traffic issues throughout the community. Um, Henipin County has reviewed these plans. the roads are designed to handle this amount of traffic. Um I I think you know staff agrees and would like to preserve this option for the 66 street connection because we too have some concern about particularly that left turn movement out of the site um going forward. So does that answer the question? >> Yes. >> Okay, great. >> Uh commissioners, are there any other questions? I have a question um as far as the historical context um about the process of uh making this available for a bid for development. Um, since I'm this is my second commission meeting, was there context to that that I'm missing here as far as like when it was proposed to be zoned this or continue the existing zoning versus was mentioned like maybe purchasing it or something. Is there any context that I'm missing? Does that question make sense? >> Um, no. I'm sorry. I'm having a hard time hearing you. If I'm if I'm understanding you, you're asking about how long has the property been zoned residential? more along the context of like when it was decided to put the bid out there for residential more for this project. Is there any additional context? >> Commissioner Commissioner Peterson, I I believe what you're asking is how long has been has this been zoned this way? Did the city consider purchase like some of the public hearing? Right. So, uh the the site has been privately owned for many many years by the Legion. it has been guided for highdensity housing for at least two comprehensive plan cycles. So going back to the 80s, um when the Legion began to express um interest in selling the property, uh the city did put a moratorum on all of the sites surrounding the parks, this entire area. uh the community recognized that it was a special area and as part of that study they adopted the Veterans Park Overlay district. So that retained the comprehensive plan designation that was there. It just added some of these additional layers of zoning rules because it is a special site immediately adjacent to the park. For instance, we do not require a bird collision plan in other areas of the city. The city at that time did consider purchasing the site. The city council did have work sessions. We asked our financial analysts to take a look and the city council decided that uh they were not going to make an offer on the site at that time. I believe I believe that was 2020 um when that was happening. >> Thank you. >> Thank you chair. Um, one more question for staff from me. Could you bring the site plan back up and clarify that connection that's down by the hockey arena drive? It's labeled on the applicant's plan as fire and EMT access gate. I'm just wondering, is it blocked for traffic normally? >> Chair commissioners, I'm sorry, but could you speak into the microphone a little bit more? For some reason, I'm having a really hard time hearing you. >> Sure. I was asking about the um on the applicant's uh site plan, it's labeled is fire an EMT access gate. >> Just wondering what if that's blocking normal >> resident traffic and used only for EMT access at that driveway that's connecting to the parking lot. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you, chair and commissioner. So right here where the um southside parking lot and drive aisle um there is uh like con we're propos or um we've talked about concrete ballards that would um be removable for emergency vehicle access to be able to cut through and use the drive aisle on the hockey arena parcel. Um but those concrete ballards would um be in place uh for uh you know like not permanent because they are removable but they they'd pretty permanently be there to try to block um vehicular like everyday vehicular traffic. So residents cars and and people from the hockey arena would not be able to go through the site and residents of the site would not be able to cut through to the hockey arena. It would be for emergency vehicle access only. Thank you. >> Is there any other discussion amongst the commissioners about the site or the plan? >> I had a few questions. It's okay. Um I'm curious from the from the city attorney. Um could you kind of speak to your thoughts and considerations of um of the uh applicants, you know, attorney's perspective on some of these items and um Specifically, I'm curious about the um the the bird the anti- I can't remember what's phrase. I'm sorry. Uh condition 3.0 with the bird collision reduction standards and how that plays into um I guess legally speaking. I'm curious about that. And then from city staff, I'm curious um is there that change in their language? Do we believe that that's going to have a dramatic impact on what we had presented and what they are requesting us to change it to? >> Uh thank you uh Commissioner Huey and uh rest of the commission. Um so the uh developers attorney raised a number of points earlier. Um I I just want to note too for the record that the developers attorney to pass out some proposed changes to um some of the conditions that are in the the resolution before you. This is something we did just receive right before the hearing. So, it's not something that staff or myself have really had time to discuss. So, I want to just basically put that out there. We have had conversations with Mr. interesting uh leading up to this uh here hearing and staff has obviously worked with the developer as well to try and figure out um you know some middle ground on some of these conditions. I'll I'll I'll touch on um the BERT collision reduction plan because I think that was the main focus of your question. Um and I I just do have a couple thoughts on that. Um, so the first thing I'll point to is that the overlay district does refer to this uh requirement. It talks about um that that proper properties in the overlay district will submit uh bird uh collision reduction plan addressing the impacts of the building's glass lighting and site design on birds as part of their development application. So, it's a specific requirement in your city code. That was a legislative decision um when that overlay district was uh adopted. Uh the proposed condition uh does not necessarily require the developer to follow a specific uh standard. What it does is it basically tries to get uh the um what's called a whole building threat factor to 45 or less. I'd have to defer to staff on like what that actually means, but um in in my understanding is that this is not a specific requirement uh for building materials. It's uh a requirement to basically um lower the overall threat to birds. in the surrounding areas and we heard from some of the public comments that this is a particular um area where there's bird migration and um you know concerns from the public about that. So, um, the gist of what I'm saying is that this is I'm the the developer is making a technical legal argument about the bird collision plan and uh I don't necessarily agree with the idea that it is superseded by the state building code. There's some risk there. the developers attorney can make some arguments about that, but uh staff's position is that um what's been proposed is not necessarily a um a building code requirement. It's a requirement to reduce the the overall bird threat. And I'm happy to answer any of the other questions you had about some of these conditions. I know you've also received a copy of uh what the developer is proposing. Um, and I know that the developers attorney made some other legal arguments before the public hearing as well. >> I think that was my primary concern. Thank you, >> Chair Telson. >> Yeah. >> Uh, maybe we could go through the answers to the questions that were posed during the public hearing and then if the commission has additional questions, we can go from there. >> That'd be great. Great. Okay. Um so um in relation to uh the um in relation to the road I I believe we've kind of already addressed that one. Um uh the noise we commented on. Um, oh, I will say that, um, in relation to TIFF, it's important to keep in mind tonight that TIFF has not been requested by the applicant and is not currently being considered by the city for that reason. And um, really what's before you this evening is the land use approvals. And that is what you should base your uh uh recommendation on is whether they are not whether or not they are meeting the um the requirements of the code. Um we did talk with the developer originally about trying to get a restaurant on the site. Um there's not there's just not a lot of um commercial uh development happening right now in general. Um, so that um that really didn't go very far pretty quickly. Um, and then, uh, we don't currently have any, um, plans to do anything on the west side of Portland Avenue, but I will make a plug for the comprehensive plan is a thing that we uh, we look at the entire city once every 10 years and think about how do we want to grow and develop, where do we want things to happen, how will this impact things like water and sewer and traffic. And that is that process is starting right now. So if you have interest in these types of things, I would encourage you to get involved with our comprehensive plan update um where these types of questions are um asked and and answered. Um uh what what else was there? Uh does do you have any >> I got Yep. I got a few more. Okay. So, there was a question about who would pay for the road as it's written now. Uh pay for that extension, that reliever as the conditions are written now. That would be assessed to the property owner. Um so, it would be those immediately adjacent. It would include this property and if the others were developing as part of that, those properties that would benefit from it. Um birds. The question was, will this building change anything for the birds like migratory um patterns? I I honestly cannot answer that question. What I what I can say is that the the bird collision reduction plan is supposed to address things that would make the birds fly into the building or or kill the birds by by the nature of it being there. Um there are also landscaping things that are taken into account as part of that where you place water. Um those kinds of things. There was a question about Nicollet no longer crossing 494. Nicollet will continue to cross into Bloomington over 494. There will not be ramps onto 494 from Nicollet. That is the change. The ramps will be from Portland and Lindale. Um let's see. There were some concerns about water pressure and waste systems. Those are things that are addressed through the utility plan. Um, as commission or as planner Crosby mentioned, there is a concern with the storm water or I'm sorry, sanitary in this in this area and um, public works is working with the developer to address that. Um, that would be addressed as part of the project. But all of those things are evaluated. Water pressure would not be affected by the addition of the project. Um the the building is five stories tall. There were some comments about six and seven, but it it is five stories tall. And the even before the moratorum where we looked at zoning on this site and adopted overlay district guidelines, the zoning allowed for five stories on this site. So that was not changed as part of that process. It certainly wasn't increased. And I I think those that's all I had. I think we've addressed the others. >> Thank you. Um, I guess for my own personal discussion here, I I'm really conflicted. Um, I hear I hear the comments about um having a large building so close to Veterans Park and on Veterans Park. Um, but I also know that we have been around and around and around with discussions about what to do with this. Um, what to do with other areas in the city. Um, and I I just go back and forth on is this any worse than having a VFW that's been closed and just sitting there for years. Um, and I I don't know. That's what I'm struggling with. So, that's my own personal take on this. Is there any other uh comments or any proposals? >> Commissioner Kolkowski, I too am also conflicted. I think on one hand, right, we I personally care for the birds, big native plant gardener. Um on that case I think working with the sustainability commission to plant more native plants will certainly help. Um I don't just basic research don't think it'll affect the micatory path especially if we get native plants it might even entice birds to you know nest there and so forth. Um when it comes to the bird collisions. Um on the other hand I'm a homeowner as well. My husband and I moved here in 2021 and we see our taxes go up. Um, but I think it's hard not to see that anywhere. Um, so it's kind of like understanding what we control from a city council and planning perspective and what we can't. Um, and on the other hand, I think this type of development is exactly what the comprehensive plan for 2040 calls for. Sometimes it requires you to take a step back and think about life in 2040 and who's going to be living here and what we want the city to look like. So, um, more housing for seniors. I think 50, what is it? 55% of the units are going to go towards seniors and maybe that'll be some of you guys who want to stay in the city longer, right? Um, the other 35% are going to be fourbedroom units and that's really hard to find. um especially if you're, you know, a family trying to look for somewhere affordable, trying to get to that uh home or home ownership step. So, I kind of just agree. I empathize with all of you guys. I'm just asking everybody who's who's presented to kind of take a step back, think about 2040, think beyond kind of the next couple years. Also concerned about the traffic as well. Um I've seen it. I think um I've seen that congestion and backup on 66th and Portland. Um so I would kind of just ask that we be mindful of that and be mindful of where we're pushing that traffic as well. >> Um commission I have a question for staff quick and then I would like to kind of share some thoughts. Um first of all at this point we are evaluating the the the conditional use permit whether we want to grant these things and whether we believe that these things are appropriate. Correct. Yeah. Um, >> yes. >> I just, >> this has been a project that we've been discussing for a very long time and I think every time that this comes up to the public, it's easy to be like, "Hey, we're going to like decide on this right now." Like, as a whole thing, we talking about specific elements of this project right now. Um, I've been in work sessions on this. Um, seen multiple revisions of this plan. Um, as Planet Crosby had said, like, you know, the time to like, you know, think about a lot of these things is unfortunately well before they're here. And we're making big we're making big sweeping conversational statements about something that's been in in progress for years that we've been working on. Um, as a whole, I'm supportive of this project. I think it fits with our with our comprehensive plan. I think it fits with the vision that many of us in our community share for Richfield. I believe that we should be welcoming more people. Um I appreciate your comment. Um who does the sunset belong to? I think it belongs to all of us. It does not belong to someone who bought a house on Portland next to the park. It does not belong to people who inhabit these. Um, I spent an hour today among thousands and thousands of trees in Richfield and I loved it. I've seen countless sunsets. This does not scare me. Um, I think it's going to add to our city as a whole. Um, I have some concerns about the bird collision plan and I'm not ready to roll over on that. I think that's a really important provision that we should be considerate of. Um, but as a whole, this this development I think is is important to our community and I think we need to at all times think how can we make our community wider and more open and bring people into it. Um, I think the density is a good thing. It it makes cities more affordable. It increases tax base and just the right thing to do. Um, so valid concerns. Traffic is annoying. Um, and then I guess the last thing on that is more more will this particular project make traffic on 66th in Portland better or worse. Um, I live very very close to this development um about a half mile away just to the south. Um, and I'm at that intersection all the time and it's frustrating for a very small part of the day and the rest of the time I don't even notice it. So, I get it. Um, but the question is, will this development dramatically change that or not? And it's the traffic study is saying that it won't. So, should we fix that? Yes. Does trying to shut down this project at this point of it going to fix it? No. Um, so that's kind of my perspective on that. But, um, yeah. Thank you. >> Is there any other discussion from the other commissioners? Yeah, I just want to put my bits in here too. I conflicted as well. I'm appreciate Commissioner uh Hoie's responses here. I think there is a way to have this development but also stick to our guns on conditions here. I think there are some pretty good conditions such as familiarating traffic and the bird um collision reduction plan. I just um um uh urge my fellow commissioners here. think we should probably uh stick to our stick to our guns when it comes to city's recommendations and really uh push for the best type of development that uh that that this could be uh for the city because I think our our city staff knows pretty well what uh what will help u mitigate any uh sort of impacts and I'm open to other ideas from our my fellow commissioners about uh their thoughts on on the certain mitigation measures and conditions. I know it's a little more detailed discussion but this is a pretty big project and there are a lot of details here. So, I welcome further discussion on that. >> Point of order for staff. Um, can we add in our concerns about the traffic and about the bird collision plan in our recommendation? >> Sorry. Yeah. Yes, you can recommendation how however you see it. Um, if there's no other discussion from other commissioners, I would move to accept the proposal as written, adding in our concern about the road reduction plan and about the traffic impacts and timing of that traffic light that would require Henman County's um involvement. Do I have a second? >> Commissioner Hoie seconds. >> All those in favor say I. Well, could we clarify exactly the word of the motion? >> I think Sam's going for that, too. I had the same concern. >> Yeah. >> Uh, chair and commissioners, can um can you please reward the motion? So, you're saying that it's accepted as presented by staff in the proposed resolution? >> Yes. And then adding in that we are also very concerned about that bird collision reduction plan and the timing of the traffic light and the impact to traffic on 66 in Portland. >> Can I make a comment to that? Yes. >> Um I would >> the staff recommendation is that the um the bird collision plan complies with the overlay district. That is my personal feeling. And so I guess the only comment I would make is that we do not alter that recommendation at the city council stage. Me >> members of the board, if I may, um I would recommend that you make a motion. Um if you're supportive of the conditions that are proposed, then I would just read the motion from your report that says we uh recommend approval of the plans with the conditions as proposed by staff. and then separately advise staff to take your concerns regarding uh the traffic signal and um the bird collision pen. We can take those separately. They don't need to be within the motion. What I would ask though uh Chair Terson is that you could clarify exactly what of the traffic is your concern so that we can clearly articulate that to the council. >> Okay. Step one then, um I move to approve the recommendation as presented by city staff. >> Commissioner Hooy seconds. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> All those opposed say nay. Motion carries. Um, I would like to move on with noting um that the bird that the concern of the bird collision reduction plan and also the fact that city staff did not have an adequate response. Um, and that's something I I I do think and I guess I don't know how to properly word this, but um I guess maybe my proposal is just that we note our concern with the bird reduction plan and that it be further reviewed by the city council. And um is your cons your concern is with their proposed language with the developers proposed language because city staff has proposed language that says that they have to meet the threat factor of 45 or something similar. We um and so we we have proposed that language. Do you have concern with that or you have concerns with the developer alternative proposal? >> Uh with the developers alternative proposal just >> thank you for clarifying. >> Yes. >> And then the concern about the traffic is the signal and was there another concern particular to the traffic? >> Just did this include the egress to 66 street as part of your agreement? >> Yes. >> We I I would like to stick with trying to push that from the city's perspective. >> Okay. Was that was that part of the discussion? I assumed it was. I just was not it was not stated. >> Yeah. Yes, it is. >> Okay. So, clarifying the connection to 66 Street, the reliever connection to 66th Street. Is that what is that what the commission is asking us to stress to the city council? >> I move that we that we that we stress that that that be maintained as a future option. >> Thank you. >> Agreed. >> Is that okay? >> Yep. So, those would be my two. So, um concerned with the bird bird collision reduction plan and what has been proposed to to mitigate it and also um ensuring that there is a connection or at least evaluated connection to 66 street. >> Do I have a second? >> I second those motions, sir. Second. >> All those in favor say I. I >> I All those opposed say nay. Motion carries. Okay. Um on to the second part of the agenda, the capital improvement budget. Uh is there a staff report? I Yeah. Is there a staff report for Okay. >> Sorry, I'm just switching gears here. >> No worries. Um, thank you chair and commissioners for the um for the I can't I can't find in my my bookmarks aren't working. Sorry about that. Um, one more second. Oh my gosh, I'm so close. >> Thank you, chair and commissioners. Each year, the city manager makes a recommendation to the city council regarding the capital improvement budget for the upcoming year and presents a capital improvement plan for the upcoming years. The CIB uh the capital improvement budget is how the city funds the construction and maintenance of infrastructure. The planning commission is responsible for reviewing both the CIB and the CIP for consistency with the city's comprehensive plan. Upon consideration, the planning commission makes a recommendation to the city council, finding that the budget and the plan are consistent or recommends necessary changes. Our um budget cash and debt manager, Steve McDaniel, is here with us this evening. Um and um I'm going to switch the display over to him for the PowerPoint presentation. We'll see if this works. If not, we can switch it back to me and I can Vanna White for him. No, it should be It should show what's on his screen. Let me tap it one more time. Nope. Oh, nope. I'm sorry. I did hit the wrong button to be fair. That that one was me. >> Okay. Uh members of the planning commission, my name is Steve McDaniel, budget cash and debt manager, and I'm here to present the 2027 capital improvement budget and the 2028 to 2031 capital improvement plan. There are essentially four categories that all capital projects are broken down into. Um and for 2027 that accounts for $26.3 million. Um about 38% of that goes to public works right ofway projects. 36% goes to public works uh utility projects. Um 3.7 million is buildings fleet and technology projects. And then 3.2 million is recreation and open space projects. And for those projects there are various funding sources. Um, for the most part there may sometimes be um just because there's so many different buckets I try to line up uh correctly, but I think we'll see on a few slides here there may be some uh things I need to uh communicate if if something isn't in the right bucket. But essentially um the the largest C uh funding sources is uh bond bonds, utility bonds, and that is 6.827 million of which um we'll get into some of these larger projects on um future slides, but that 6.827 827 million is made up of uh 3.91 million for a water system interconnect and then 2.5 million uh for a water plant generator and then there's also uh 8% of the 26.8 26.3 million is related to sales tax bonds uh for the Vets Park project and then 16% is uh property tax bonds and that's related to uh for the most part Nicollet Avenue uh reconstruction. There's various um other sources as well. Those are kind of the the bigger buckets. Um so then looking at the the next four years 2028 to 2031 um capital improvement plan then uh that accounts for $137 million in any given year. It's usually somewhere between 20 to $30 million. And why um for 2028 to 2031 that averages a little bit higher. there is the uh $55 million community center project and a lot of the the work at that uh community center is going to happen um in 2029 2030. So that large project uh tips the scales a little bit for why um the next four years is going to be um a little higher than that typical 20 to $30 million threshold. Again we have the four categories. the public works right ofway. Um the recreation open spaces which contains the community center project, the buildings, fleet and technology um is about $20 million and then 12 million is the uh public works utility projects. Again, various funding sources. This is where it looks like the um the 6% that is fleet special revenue. Um that purple is really the bonds utility projects. So that one should have been um just the wording is in the wrong spot then. Um but again the uh 38% bond sales tax projects a big chunk of that is related to the community center projects. So again um this puts into context all those expenses and the the funding sources for them uh for various departments then provided um the next few slides. Then um and what we'll look at first is projects related to um buildings and it has to do with the the city-owned buildings. At the end of 2025 uh the city hired WL architects and engineers uh to conduct a comprehensive facilities assessment. And what W was tasked to do was look at the aging infrastructure and and other deferred maintenance on uh city-owned buildings and come up with uh different priorities for when some of this uh maintenance needs to be performed on these projects. On the next slide, we'll see that um there are these different priorities and near the top the anything that fell into zero to two years or two to five years, those are really the the health and safety concerns. Um and there are other priorities then as well and but really focusing on those health and safety concerns is what we'll see in the the CIB for next year as well as the next um four years of the uh capital improvement plan then. So all of the funding for the the facility assessments was already included on previous slides but what we wanted to do here was give a context of these um different sources of the uh facility assessment projects. them. So, uh, the 57% of $20 million is roughly $1.5 million, and that would be, uh, a property tax bonds. Uh, some other funding sources are the the city has an internal service fund, which is a building special revenue fund. Um, there is some reserves available in that fund that would fund some of these projects as well. The other funding, the 27% for the most part comes from um liquor the liquor stores and the special revenue that the the liquor stores have. And then there is a small portion that would be a county grant. Then looking at the uh facilities assessment um building services, it this first slide has to do with um city hall, the m municipal building here. The planned um projects for city hall would be uh carpet replacement in 2028. In 2029, it would be the chiller boilers and pumps. And in 2031, the fire alarm and BAS control um projects then and that comes to a total of $8.7 million. And for the most part, that would be funded through uh property tax bonds, but as also the uh the internal service funds, the the building fund um reserves at the liquor stores. All of the uh projects at the liquor stores would be funded through uh liquor special revenue funds and that comes to $3.7 million. This for the most part is looking at uh different water intrusion as well as some roof replacement. Um there is in your packet um a large report. It's 102 pages, but it does go into much more detail on these uh individual projects. as well. At the public works building, um there are projects uh again related to water intrusion as well as roof replacement and then some carpet and office remodel in 2031 and that comes to $4.68 million for parks and recreation. There are projects at the ice arena. Um the larger projects are going to be in 2029 rink uh one with the roof replacement as well as in 2029 the dehum dehumidifier for rink 2. And the uh sources of funding for the recreation services projects is geob bonds um liquor special revenue and um some long-term capital reserves which also falls into that um other funding source that we saw in that uh previous pigraph. And so total project costs there are $3 million. And that uh wraps up the building projects. So next we'll um go into the public works projects and we'll start with right of way. Uh the project that is ongoing currently is Nicollet Avenue reconstruction. Um the total project cost is close to $19 million of which the the city share is 7 million. And that 7 million city share um is split between uh property tax bonds, utility bonds, but there was also a $2 million state grant that uh was approved by the legislature at the end of this uh back in May of the 2026 uh legislative session. Other public works projects, um 73rd Street and Diagonal Avenue, um in 2027, the expenses are $1.3 million. Um just to provide a background on those um funding sources, it is all it was fully funded by municipal state aid and a state grant. Uh 64th Street Sidewalk um with $1.3 million in 2027. Again, that is fully funded with municipal state aid and a state grant. Starting in 2028 and 2029 is the Penn Avenue Reconstruction Project. Uh again, this is a a project similar to Nicollet Avenue where it's a shared project between the city and Henipin County. Um so the total project cost is 32.6 million and the city share is $12.8 million. Uh that 12.8 million the sources are 7 million property tax bonds, 5 million utility bonds, and then 800,000 is municipal state aid. Um it is currently in the design phase, but then uh construction is happening in 2028 and 2029. Another public works project that they wanted to highlight was uh traffic signal replacements over the next three years. Uh this is again fully funded with municipal state aid. Uh 2.665 million and there are um three different uh projects in included in there Meridian Crossing, 12th Avenue and Newton Avenue um over the next three years. In 2028 um construction, there is the 69th Street reconstruction project. Uh this project would be funded with a $3.24 million uh property tax bonds and $4.45 million in utility bonds. In 2029 as well, there is the 76th Street um/Nox Avenue roundabout project of which 2 point um almost $7 million is federal funding and the remainder uh the other 1.663 million is property tax bonds for all of those um public works projects. I know there is um extensive public engagement that goes on that public works does in those various um areas as well. Um we're now moving shifting gears into other public works projects and these are the utility projects. Um this one is uh currently underway but most of the construction would be starting in 2027. So I believe right what's happening right now is the design work and this is a $5 million project uh for an emergency water interconnect and there is federal funding for this project of just over $1 million. The remaining $3.91 million is funded with utility bonds. And what the the emergency water interconnect would do is if there were a catastrophic failure, um connecting to another city's water system would create the needed level of service redundancy. And this project um would be tapping into the the Minneapolis water. Then some other utility projects at public works are a sanitary sewer lining. that's an annual project that uh costs uh close to $900,000. A water treatment plant elevator that is a $200,000 project. And then lastly, there's a water treatment plant generator and that's a $2.5 million project. Again, that project is um in the design phase as well and that would be fully funded with a utility bonds. The final category is recreation service projects. And um one of the highlights that recreation services wanted to put do for a slide was the parks master plan. Um for those not familiar, every 8 to 10 years, recreation services updates the park master plan within the city's overall comprehensive plan which outlines the overall philosophy around park management and development. Uh the plan was last updated in 2018 and staff of will hire a consultant to help coordinate the update which will involve an extensive public engagement process. So that's happening over the next two years. There are the uh local sales tax um funded projects at Veterans Park that are ongoing. Um and so far I believe there's been about $4 million that has been spent um in 2026. And then um additionally there will be $1.8 million at the ice arena lobby and then $3 million for Trill Pavilion and building. So the total funding um there at Vets Park is $9 million and this is the next 5 million that will be spent. Then there is also an electrical panel $220,000 project um and that's fully funded by uh by by a Henipin County grant. And lastly, in 2027, there's the Adams Hill Park project, and that's $150,000, and the funding for that comes from um the annual liquor contributions that uh recreation services receives. These outdoor pool and ice arena improvement projects are related to are funded by a um annual general fund transfer. And the goal is of the general fund transfer that comes to the ice arena and the pool is to be spent on uh capital projects. So, a few that the recreation services wanted to highlight was um an umbrella canopies, pump and boiler refurbishment, uh pool filter sand, as well as shade and birthday structures that other cities um are currently uh I believe Edina has the shade and birthday structures and uh this could be an extra source of revenue for the pool is what the the plan is with the shade shade and birthday structures. At the ice arena, there's rink one locker room improvements and rink one flooring as well in next year 2027 um rink two locker room improvements. And the last slide that uh we have today is the community center um local sales tax project. The design of that would begin in 2027. The main construction would happen um starting in 2029 then and it's fully funded with local sales tax uh local sales tax bonds of $55 million um of which 45 million is actually local sales tax. The remaining 10 million would be uh property tax bonds. Uh that concludes the slides I have for the planning commission and I uh can now um certainly answer any questions that anyone will have. Go ahead, Commissioner Hu. >> Thank you. That was thorough. Appreciate it. Uh, could you go over all 210 pages? Um, so I there's a lot of money coming from other places and grants and things like that. I'm just as a curiosity like how much of this is things that are just by default handed down to us by these governing bodies and how much of this is like things that like our staff has to like seek out funding for apply for and things like that because it seems like we're getting quite a bit which I appreciate for a lot of these projects because they're great. So I'm kind of curious with how that process works. >> Sure. Um thank you for the question uh commissioner. Um I I definitely would probably want to defer to public works and recreation services on that. Um my my take on it would be that um any of these projects um I I know there's a lot of planning and design that goes into even putting one of these um projects out here and to include in the CIBC CIP. Um I I think their first avenue would always be to seek extra funding whether it's through the federal or state partners. um as a fallback then it goes into um some kind of bonding then but definitely looking for um other funding sources uh would be the initial step but if you wanted more information I certainly can circle back with departments on it then >> mostly just curious because it feels like a lot of that money is coming from other places which I appreciate and I just it seems like it's probably a lot of work from staff to do that and so I'm thankful and I'm wondering if all cities are like that or if it's just I don't know we're just you I I I do believe that um the public works in particular and I'm sure it's other departments. I I know they uh they're very familiar with that grant writing process and um I I think they've written some some good um project proposals out there that they were able to to get that funding and they they've done that kind of work previously then and it just kind of continues year over year. >> Thank you. you appreciate I appreciate them being scrappy. >> And I do have a question too. Um you had mentioned property tax bonds. Is that something that is new revenue that the city is seeking or what exactly does that mean? >> Um thank you commissioner for the the question. Um yeah I I think I would have to look at the uh so it's Nicollet Avenue reconstruction which is probably the the next project where there would be property tax bonds. Um that would involve um so while we have that uh project going on in 2027, at some point in 2027, we will um work with our um financial consultants on issuing bonds. And um that that is revenue that um the city then receives and then we have to pay that uh that debt off over the next usually 20 years. We usually have about 20 years to pay off that debt. Um and um does that kind of help to answer the question? Okay. Um so yes, so it would be revenue coming in to pay for that project which then we have to pay that back over the next 20 years then. Okay. >> Have a question. Speaking of bonds, could you could you explain utility bonds in brief? That's a word that came up here, but that's not we don't that's not one we really hear about a lot. >> Sure. Um yeah, thank you again, Commissioner, for the question. So utility bonds would be uh kind of go through a similar process. um instead of hitting the actual uh property tax levy, how those are paid back is um through um anytime I I'm not sure if at the city if it's a monthly bill that you get or if it's a quarterly bill, but it's paid through um with that kind of utility revenue related to um your water bill. That's the the funding source. Again, you would have that uh period of time where some of these projects, if it's the bond is a 20-year project, using that utility revenue to to pay that off over the next 20 years. So, >> thank you. Any other questions, commissioners? >> Yeah, again, follow up on that. Um, do we have a project projection for the increase in that that amount for those um for that bonds that would be um put onto the citizens of Richfield? Do we have projections for that at all? >> Um, thank you, Commissioner, for the question. Um, as far as the projections, there is a 10-year plan um for the uh the city. Uh, it's a financial management plan and was presented uh during a work session. Um, and that does include all new property tax bonds. Um, as it relates to the utility bonds, I I know there were um discussions um earlier this year uh for P public works. They had utility rate studies and and they've incorporated any of these projects into their uh utility rate study. Um that I believe at the very least goes over the next three years 2027, 2028 and 2029. Um I don't necessarily have that information uh today then but it uh has been discussed at um previous whether it's work sessions. Um it yeah I believe for the most part it was work session. So happy to follow up with more information. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um any other questions from commissioners? If not uh public comments. >> Yep. chair, just keeping in mind that this is not a formal public hearing, but um uh since they are here this evening, I I think it's appropriate to take their comment and um we are looking at the plan in relation to whether or not uh any of the things are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. >> Yep. >> So pleased to speak so many times tonight. Um, my name is Kathleen, as I mentioned earlier, and um, a lot of my questions have been answered through other people's communication and this gentleman's explanations, but I was, this is my first time here, and um, what I was going to say is I did not realize that you guys were going to be looking at the CIP and, you know, capital improvement plan or whatever. Um, at this meeting I looked at your agenda strictly for the uh veterans park stuff. And when I saw it, I was surprised. There's a lot of money there. Quite a bit a lot of money. Now, when we talk about the economy, what's going on in today's world, and I was sitting here and listening about the TIFF stuff, and I mentioned or somebody else did, it doesn't matter whether it was for the Vets Park or whether it's for the capital improvement plan. At what point do we saturate? Okay. At what point can't we s support the growth any longer? Now, this gentleman is talking about a financial plan that you guys are working on that I didn't know about, but I'll ask for it when I get home. I'd like to see a copy of this master plan about the financials because I'm concerned about the future. You know, we have we send with all due respect to my mayor because that's her name, but we have we have Peter for taking from Peter to pay Paul and then we send Mary out to borrow more funding money. You know, we're always has a stipens to funding money. Okay. So, we're not always looking at when we look at these capital improvements, what are the long-term maintenance costs behind that? What are we really asking for? What are we really getting? And what are we going to have to pay for in the future? Now, do we really need a $55 million community center? I don't think so, personally. I mean, we only have 3,000 kids, and the community community center does provide opportunities for some of the adults, but do we really need it? So, when we look at these capital improvements, what's the value? What is the long-term value? And who is really going to use it? Now, I've been looking at the recreational department and I must say they're really they have a lot of money that they're spending. And then I turn around and I look at my taxes and yeah, they're spending a lot of money. And then who's using it? Okay. I mean, right now, we built this beautiful uh swimming pool area, put in a brand new splash pad, and then we put two ouses right smack dab in the middle of our children's splash pad area. I asked the director, "What happened there? How come we have toxic biffies in the baby's pool splash area?" "Oh," he says to me, "Well, they have that's a free area and they need to have bathrooms and we leave the fence open 24 by7 so people can use it all the time." I have to think about that a little bit. What I'm guessing, what I'm trying to say is when you look at this, ask them to cut back, not add add. Now, we saw I saw that we have a a large budget for some more vehicles for the police department or for the city department. They turn over their vehicles all the time. I'm driving, personally, right now, I'm driving a 200 a 2003 Toyota Highlander. A 2003. Yeah. It has 164,000 miles and she's still chomping along. Now granted, we need a little bit better than that for our police department and our fire department, but we don't need to have spiffy cars for every single department. You know, we don't need to turn them over every three years. I guess what I'm saying is please look at this and start picking it apart and asking them to cut back. You know, when I used to work in corporate, my my boss told me straight out I had to pay for myself. If I made $100,000 a year, I had to save $100,000 a year. I had to pay for myself, otherwise I needed to be replaced. That's what I was told. And at that time, I was the director of proof and ATM operations for the state of Minnesota for TCF Financial. I know budgets. You gentlemen have and lady have a nice day and thank you for listening to me. Look at the budgets. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. There another comment. >> Sorry, very very quickly. Uh again, I'm I'm Larry Ernster. Uh I just you're going to also consider the traffic problem uh at the development and I understand that uh Portland is a county road, but rather than building an additional egress road, why not put a roundabout uh in front of Veterans Parkway down where they have the Saturday morning farmers market. Then no one would ever have to make a lefthand turn. Everybody could make a right-hand turn, go around the roundabout and go back out. And I'm sure that uh Lupy would be rather than building an egress road, they'd contribute to and anyway, just wanted to put it on your radar. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, I guess I I I appreciate staff. Like that was a a great report and I don't personally have a lot of I I do worry about taxes going up, but I also see that a lot of this is coming from nonpropy tax sources and also things that, you know, were up for public referendum and we passed overwhelmingly as a as a electorate. So, um I guess my two cents is that I'm not too terribly worried about the city's planner or about this um capital improvement budget and I'm welcome to any other discussion. >> I just want to add that reason, you know, big reason we're seeing everywhere across the board everyone in their daily lives to every city is that the stuff we normally do just costs more now, a lot more. especially capital improvements, especially construction materials, especially fuel, especially cement, you name it. Building materials of any kind, cost a lot more than they did just a year or two or five ago. So even this does seem like yeah, a lot of money, a lot of it is just the stuff we do anyway just costs more. >> Other comments, commissioners, >> Mr. Chair and staff just to clarify that what we're being asked is to compare this against the comprehensive plan. I assume that it's not a dissection but sort of a more global view of the plan. >> Uh members of the commission that is correct. You are asked to consider whether really the question is are these projects inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. you aren't actually considering the budget numbers and the specific projects. Um, you are making a finding regarding whether or not this budget as a whole is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan in your view. >> There's no other discussion. I would make a motion that uh this plan is in this capital improvement budget plan is consistent with the city uh comprehensive plan and should move forward. >> Surma seconds. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> All those opposed say nay. Motion carries. Um let's see. We are on to Leah and reports. Um city council and I believe that's >> Eddie. Oh okay. Uh couple updates from city council. No meeting in I think July. Last meeting they talked about the Boulevard tree planting contract that was awarded. So the council approved a contract with North Metro Companies for USDA funded Boulevard tree planting. This is tied to um some goals along with a claim action plan and for Nicola Avenue reconstruction financing was approved. It's a major corridor project. Um and yeah, it'll finance the 2026 to 27 Nicollet Avenue project. >> Thank you. Um community services commission liaison. >> That's me. Um I did not see anything um of note to bring to this commission from it. >> Okay. Um housing and redevelopment authority. H >> I have no report today. >> Richfield school board believe that's not present. >> School board. >> Yeah. >> Um their last meeting was last uh Monday. Uh it was mostly administrative um and procedural items. They did appoint a vacancy Tim Polus or Pollus. Apologies to Tim if I've said it wrong. Um but otherwise it was all sort of housekeeping type items. >> Okay. Uh transportation commission. >> Yeah. So the transportation commission has been involved in the status updates of the big nicollet reconstruction project which is currently taking place south of 70th street. Uh, other big news is that last week, I believe it was, Henipin County released the draft plan for Penn Avenue. Uh, yes, there are roundabouts in case you were wondering. U, you can take a look at the proposed plan yourself on the Henipin County website and there's a interactive map tool to give feedback uh, on that there. And there's also uh, in the works the transportation commission was giving some preliminary ideas and discussion of a city plan to uh, reconstruct 69th Street between I believe it's Penn and Xerxes. that is currently planned for 2028 and is now in the preliminary design phase. >> Thank you. Uh Chamber of Commerce believe absent and I have no report from the sustainability commission. Uh so last but not least, city planners report. It is comical at this point. I apologize. Okay. Thank you for your patience. Um I wanted to report that um TC2 was selected as our consultant for the comprehensive plan update and a joint work session with the city council and planning commission will be held on Tuesday, September 8th at 5:45. Um, also we have put out a call for volunteers and have assembled an advisory committee that will include nine city board and commission representatives, six community organization representatives, one property owner representative, Bricksmore, and two agency representatives, the county and the school district. The first advisory committee meeting will be Monday, September 14th, and public engagement is planned to kick off at PennFest on Sunday, September 20th. Also um I want to report that uh the uh planner one Ruby Villa accepted a position with the village of Itasa in Illinois and um our new planner one is named Will Story and he started today. >> Well, I appreciate you not forcing him to be here all night. >> Um next meeting, do we have that on the schedule? uh planning commission meeting. Um we do have the work session in September. Um and we have not formally cancelled the meeting yet though because um uh we don't I don't like to cancel it until the deadline for publication just so I'm really sure that nothing's coming forward. >> Thank you. Okay. I make a motion for adjournment. >> Commissioner who seconds. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All those opposed say nay. Eyes have it. We are adjourned.