Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker names and estimated timestamps. [00:00:00] **Chair:** I'd like to call the meeting of the City of Richfield Planning Commission to order. We will have the open forum in just a moment, but before we do that, I will give the options for participating. You may, of course, provide comments before the meeting following the directions on the city webpage, or you can call into the open Forum by dialing 415-655-0001. Access code 2632-769-6454 and the password is 1234. That being said, the agenda looks a little bit different. The next thing on the agenda would be the approval of the minutes from the previous meeting. If I could get a motion? [00:00:45] **Commissioner Hoey:** Commissioners, there's a motion. [00:00:47] **Commissioner Surma:** Second the motion. [00:00:49] **Chair:** All right. All in favor, please say "I." [00:00:51] **Commissioners (Unison):** I. [00:00:52] **Chair:** Opposed? All right. Now is the time for the open forum. The open forum is a time for residents to address the Planning Commission generally on items that are not already on the agenda, as we do have a public hearing scheduled for later in the meeting. So, if you have something you would like to address the Planning Commission about, please approach the podium. Did we receive any—Planner Crosby, did we receive any comments before the meeting today? [00:01:15] **Sam Crosby:** No, nobody has called in and nobody has written in. [00:01:18] **Chair:** Okay, all right. If there's no one to speak for the open forum, we'll just continue. The next thing would be to approve the agenda for this meeting. We need a motion. [00:01:25] **Commissioner Canal:** Moves to approve the agenda. [00:01:27] **Commissioner Charlton:** Seconds. [00:01:28] **Chair:** All those in favor? [00:01:29] **Commissioners (Unison):** I. [00:01:30] **Chair:** Opposed? All right. The first thing on the agenda would be a public hearing to consider a request for two variances from the lighting code requirements... 701 Harriet Avenue South. Oh, I am not looking at the updated agenda, that's my fault. There it is, I see that now, I'm sorry. All right, the next thing on the agenda then is the local sales tax presentation. [00:02:00] **Karl Huemiller:** Thank you for having us today. My name is Karl Huemiller, I'm the Recreation Services Director. [00:02:05] **Kate Aitchison:** Good evening, my name is Kate Aitchison. I'm the Communications Manager here with the city referendum that's coming up this—well, currently on the current ballot for this November. [00:02:15] **Karl Huemiller:** So, the city is putting forward a proposal for an $80 million investment plan into the parks. It covers three big projects: Wood Lake Nature Center, improvements at Veterans Park, and the Richfield Community Center. This is an opportunity for us to invest into these facilities in order to make them great for future generations. This plan didn't come out of nowhere; it came from residents. We did outreach to find out what was important to residents and then also looked at what facilities needed work as well. From that, the plan was developed. We identified different funding sources, and a local sales tax was identified as one of the best options for meeting the funding needs. After getting approval from the legislature, it's now going to be on the November ballot. [00:03:00] **Karl Huemiller:** We'll talk a little bit about the three projects, what the needs are, and then what the plan is. The first project we're looking at on the ballot is the Richfield Community Center. The current Community Center was a library donated to the city a long time ago, and you can tell it very much feels like a library. It's not really intended for community center uses. It was built 63 years ago. The foundation wasn't waterproofed, so when it rains, water comes in. We've had it come into the elevator lift room and had to shut it down. We have leaks in the roofs. There aren't spaces to meet the needs we're hearing—for instance, no gym space, no walking track space. We're proposing a $45 million investment into a new community center with gyms, a walking track, and modern spaces for youth, families, and seniors. [00:04:15] **Karl Huemiller:** The second project is Wood Lake Nature Center. The current building is over 50 years old. It’s not ADA accessible; the bathrooms are small and the entrance is barely wide enough for a wheelchair. It has a severe rodent problem, and the HVAC system is showing its age. Another big thing is we have every class from Kindergarten through first grade coming out three times a year. The current space isn't big enough to accommodate a full class. We're looking at investing $26 million into a new Nature Center building. It would have spaces for educational programming, exhibit spaces, and be fully accessible. [00:05:30] **Karl Huemiller:** The third set of projects is Veterans Park. It needs a significant amount of investment. The pool liner is 63 years old—the original liner. Every spring we cross our fingers that it doesn't drain out. There are micro-cracks and a pipe underneath is rusting away. The trail system is deteriorating. The Ice Arena needs ADA improvements, and the Pavilion roof needs to be replaced with a metal roof that would last 100 years. [00:06:15] **Kate Aitchison:** So, how are we going to pay for it? The city is proposing three primary funding sources. The first is the local sales tax, which would generate $65 million. We’re combining that with $15 million from state and federal funding already secured. Local sales tax was chosen because it helps share the cost with non-residents who use these facilities. According to the University of Minnesota, 55% of that sales tax revenue will come from non-residents. We’re estimating that Richfield residents will fund approximately one-third of the total cost. [00:07:00] **Kate Aitchison:** If approved, this will begin next April. We estimate residents' contributions will be just under $4 per month. The tax is not permanent; it lasts a maximum of 20 years. Also, local sales tax is exempt from essential goods like food, clothing, and medicine. On the ballot, you will see three separate questions. The sales tax is not cumulative—it’ll be 1/2% regardless if one, two, or three projects are approved. If it fails, the Council will have to make decisions about how to move forward, and we would be at risk of losing that $15 million in dedicated funding for Wood Lake. Please visit legacyourfuture.org for more information. [00:08:00] **Commissioner Canal:** Thank you for the really educational presentation. I was at the League of Women Voters meeting this weekend where this was discussed. The tours that the city is hosting are of particular interest. I’m wondering if you know those dates of upcoming tours? [00:08:15] **Karl Huemiller:** The next tour is at Wood Lake on the 24th. On the 25th, we're doing an open house for the Wood Lake project. On October 1st, another tour of Wood Lake, and on October 7th, a tour of the pool and the Ice Arena. [00:08:35] **Commissioner Canal:** Thank you. Regarding the three separate questions—if one passes and two don’t, does that project get funding? Is it all or nothing? [00:08:45] **Kate Aitchison:** You pick what you think the community should have. If one passes, we do that project. Each has to pass individually. [00:08:55] **Commissioner Canal:** One more question: if all three pass, would the 0.5% be stacked, or is it a half percentage point regardless? [00:09:05] **Kate Aitchison:** It is one singular half-percent sales tax. If only one project is approved, the tax will just end much sooner because we'll have funded that project. [00:09:15] **Chair:** I will say that when I've spoken to some neighbors, the thought of it being cumulative is really present. That’s probably one of the bigger communication problems because people think it’s going to stack. [00:09:30] **Kate Aitchison:** That’s helpful feedback. We will have a city-wide mailing going out landing in mailboxes in the next few weeks. [00:09:40] **Commissioner Surma:** Thank you for coming and explaining everything. As a father of three young kids, I’m visiting all three of these locations each week. They’re tripping on the pavement at Vets Park, and there’s not a whole lot to do at the Community Center except scream and yell. I really look forward to supporting all three. [00:10:00] **Chair:** All right, now we're ready for our public hearing to consider requests for two variances of the lighting code requirements at 701 Harriet Avenue. Staff report? [00:10:10] **Sam Crosby:** Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. Premier Lighting is before us on behalf of Richfield Public Schools requesting a deviation from the lighting code to install two new light poles in the parking lot between the High School and Spartan Elementary. The code limits parking lots to a maximum of 4 foot candles; the applicant is proposing 4.7. The code limits the uniformity ratio to 20:1; the applicant is requesting 47:1. The existing lighting is already non-conforming, and this would actually bring much of the lot into compliance with safety standards. Staff recommends approval. [00:11:00] **Chair:** Is the applicant here? If you could state your name for the record and sign in. [00:11:05] **Greg Eric:** My name is Greg Eric and Premier Lighting is who I represent. There’s a need for light in the parking lot and we did all we could to get to code, but we feel this is a fair compromise. [00:11:20] **Chair:** One thing I wondered about is urban light pollution. When I saw the 4.0 to 4.7 increase, that’s not a significant increase, is that right? [00:11:30] **Greg Eric:** Correct, it's very minimal. You wouldn't even notice it. All fixtures are dark-sky compliant. [00:11:40] **Commissioner Hoey:** Would that minimal effect extend to residents in the neighborhood as well? [00:11:45] **Greg Eric:** There will be no issue with the residents that I can see. [00:11:50] **Chair:** I'd like to open the public hearing. Did we receive any comments beforehand? [00:11:55] **Sam Crosby:** One resident emailed asking for info. I sent the photometric plans and never heard back. [00:12:00] **Chair:** I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. [00:12:05] **Commissioner Surma:** So moves. [00:12:06] **Commissioner Charlton:** Seconds. [00:12:07] **Chair:** All in favor? (I). Opposed? Discussion? [00:12:15] **Commissioner Surma:** I’m okay with this. Knowing the lot is in the center of the school property makes me more amenable to it. I don't foresee a huge impact on the residences to the west. [00:12:30] **Commissioner Charlton:** I completely agree. Being dark-sky compliant is a good step. [00:12:40] **Chair:** We would need a motion to take the recommended staff action. [00:12:45] **Commissioner Charlton:** Moves to accept. [00:12:47] **Commissioner Surma:** Seconds. [00:12:48] **Chair:** All those in favor? (I). Opposed? Thank you. Next item is the public hearing for an ordinance amendment establishing zoning regulations for cannabis businesses. Staff report? [00:13:00] **Melissa Poehlman:** Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. Last year the state legislature legalized adult-use cannabis. Local authorities have until the end of this year to establish regulations. Tonight we consider zoning. The proposed ordinance divides businesses into retail and non-retail. Retail would be allowed in C2, MU, and PUD districts subject to being 500 feet from schools, 250 feet from residential treatment, and 250 feet from park attractions used by minors. Also, 1,000 feet from each other. Non-retail (industrial) must be interior to a building. Currently, no parcels in the city are zoned industrial, so it would require a plan amendment and rezoning. Event organizers would be allowed as an office use. Lastly, we clarified definitions for breweries to include low-potency hemp drinks. Jennifer Anderson, our Support Services Manager, is here for questions. [00:15:00] **Chair:** What is the similarity between these restrictions and restrictions on bars that serve alcohol? Are the buffer zones similar? [00:15:15] **Melissa Poehlman:** I don't know if we have buffers around bars. [00:15:20] **Jennifer Anderson:** Our liquor establishments and tobacco retailers do not have buffers that I'm aware of. [00:15:30] **Chair:** Was there direction to treat cannabis businesses differently than alcohol? [00:15:35] **Jennifer Anderson:** Yes, the legislature allows it and the council felt it was prudent. These buffers are actually smaller than what we *could* otherwise impose. [00:15:50] **Commissioner Surma:** I recall we talked about the number of businesses. What did the Council settle on? [00:16:00] **Jennifer Anderson:** Based on population, the Council settled on three retail establishments, with an option later to consider a municipally-owned dispensary. [00:16:15] **Chair:** We will open the public hearing. Any comments received? [00:16:20] **Melissa Poehlman:** Three people called with general questions during the work sessions, but I sent the report and heard nothing back. [00:16:30] **Chair:** I would take a motion to close the public hearing. [00:16:35] **Commissioner Hoey:** Moves. [00:16:36] **Commissioner Canal:** Seconds. [00:16:37] **Chair:** All in favor? (I). Discussion? [00:16:45] **Commissioner Hoey:** I think this reflects our work session. The report was very straightforward. I do think it is a conservative approach, but since it's new, maybe that makes sense. [00:17:00] **Commissioner Surma:** Looking at the maps, it appears there’s plenty of commercial space for the three businesses we might see. [00:17:10] **Commissioner Charlton:** I agree it’s a conservative approach. My bigger issue is the difference between alcohol and cannabis rules; to have no buffers around alcohol but have them for cannabis kind of demonizes the substance. But we only need room for three. [00:17:30] **Commissioner Hoey:** I agree with that sentiment, but if we dropped the buffers, we’d only gain a couple more parcels anyway. [00:17:45] **Commissioner Surma:** This reflects what was discussed. If we went too restrictive, we could get into legal trouble. This is a reasonably considered ordinance. [00:18:00] **Chair:** I don't really see a huge distinction between selling hemp edibles at a tobacco shop versus cannabis, but I appreciate the work that went into this. Motion? [00:18:15] **Commissioner Hoey:** I recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. [00:18:20] **Commissioner Surma:** Seconds. [00:18:25] **Chair:** All in favor? [00:18:27] **Commissioners (Unison):** I. [00:18:28] **Chair:** Opposed? (None). Abstentions? [00:18:30] **Commissioner Charlton:** I abstain. [00:18:35] **Chair:** All right. Next item is liaison reports. City Council? The Council has been busy with collective bargaining agreements and reviewing community survey results. They passed a resolution for Hispanic Heritage Month and went over the city audit. Planning and zoning fee schedules were also amended. Housing and Redevelopment Authority? They met and approved the five-year public housing plan. School Board? No report. Transportation Commission? [00:19:15] **Commissioner Surma:** They met to discuss pedestrian safety near 70th Street and the STEM school, and heard about grant funding for pedestrian access around schools. [00:19:30] **Commissioner Charlton:** Chamber of Commerce met; Pennfest was the large portion of the conversation. Sustainability Commission? Zach McCarthy is the new solid waste specialist, and they are working on the post-Halloween "trash walk." [00:19:50] **Chair:** Planner Crosby, Planner Poehlman, do you have reports? [00:20:00] **Sam Crosby:** On September 10th, City Council approved the request for Loma Bonita grocery store at the former Rainbow Foods site. Currently, we have no land use items for the October agenda, so keep an eye out for a possible cancellation email. [00:20:20] **Commissioner Charlton:** Any word if Pollo Campero has been responsive? [00:20:25] **Sam Crosby:** No, it’s been pretty quiet. [00:20:30] **Chair:** I would entertain a motion to adjourn. [00:20:35] **Commissioner Hoey:** Moves. [00:20:37] **Commissioner Canal:** Seconds. [00:20:40] **Chair:** All in favor? (I). Stand adjourned.