Here is the transcript with speaker names assigned based on the context of the Richfield Planning Commission meeting. **Note:** Based on the names mentioned in the transcript and official records for this period, "Commissioner Whoie" refers to **Commissioner Benjamin Hulke** and "Commissioner Sersa/Cersa" refers to **Commissioner James Surma**. [00:00] **Chair:** All right, here we go. I call the November 27th meeting of the Richfield City Planning Commission to order. Before we get started, I'll just note the ways you can participate remotely. If you wanted to call in with any comments during the meeting or the hearing during the meeting today, you would call 415-655-0001—that's 415-655-0001—with the access code 2631 822 6457 and the password of 1 2 3 4. That being said, I would entertain a motion to approve the previous minutes. Commissioner Hulke motions to approve the minutes from last month. Commissioner seconds. All in favor please say aye. [00:00] **Commissioners:** Aye. [00:00] **Chair:** Opposed? All right, the previous minutes have been approved. Now is the time for Open Forum. The open forum is a chance for residents of the city to address the Planning Commission generally on matters that are not scheduled to be before the commission today. Do we have any remote comments or emails? [00:00] **Michelle Friedrich (City Clerk):** Chair, we do not. [00:00] **Chair:** All right, we'll wait a moment just in case. Let's move on to the approval of the agenda. If someone should call in remotely we can go back to that. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda? Commissioner Surma moves the approval of agenda. Surma seconds approval of the agenda. All in favor say aye. [00:00] **Commissioners:** Aye. [00:00] **Chair:** Opposed? The agenda has been adopted. We have a public hearing to consider an ordinance amendment to allow micro units as an accessory use for religious institutions. Could we have the report from Planner Crosby, please? [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. During their 2023 legislative session, the legislature passed a bill authorizing religious institutions to construct micro unit dwellings on their property. Development of these micro unit dwellings are being referred to as sacred communities and they are intended to provide an additional means for Faith communities to serve chronically homeless and extremely low-income individuals living in community with volunteers. The new law sets some minimum standards for these developments. Micro units are defined as no more than 400 square feet in size. The units are required to have a toilet, electricity, and smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. Between 1/3 and 40% of the units must be occupied by designated volunteers and they must provide the city with a plan that outlines water and sewer management, parking, lighting, and access by emergency vehicles and security and severe weather protocols. The law permits cities to designate these settlements as either conditional or permitted uses but defaults to conditional uses if not otherwise stated. If allowed to default to a conditional use, the city would have no ability to impose any conditions which would make the public hearing rather pointless. Therefore staff is proposing an ordinance that would allow sacred communities as an accessory use to our religious institutions. This would avoid a very frustrating public hearing and would also make it so that the settlement would not continue if the religious institution were to cease. The current zoning code allows religious institutions as a conditional use in three residential districts: the R, the MR2, and the MR3. Religious institutions are also allowed as permitted uses in the C2 General commercial zoning district. The ordinance before you this evening creates a definition for the term sacred community and adds language to each of these four districts to specify that these communities are allowed as an accessory use to approved religious institutions. I welcome any questions. [00:00] **Commissioner Surma:** Commissioners, I have a few questions. Would it be easier if directed at staff? Would it be easier to ask them all at once or do you want to go one by one? [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** No problems. [00:00] **Commissioner Surma:** Okay, yeah. Do you know how many sites in Richfield this would apply to? [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Yes, Chair and Commissioner Surma, there are currently 16 religious institutions throughout the city of Richfield. There are, in addition to those 16, there are two that are the permitted use on a commercial property. I don't know if it's currently there anymore, but it appeared that the Hub used to have a church in it and then there was one down in Kensington Park, but I don't think either of those would qualify because it has to be on the church property unless they got permission from the landlord and that's pretty highly unlikely. So the straightup answer is 16. [00:00] **Commissioner Surma:** Thank you. And then how is it determined how many units are permitted on each site? Like are there any setback requirements within the site or any width requirements between the homes? [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** There isn't. I think that mostly the number of units each religious institution has may be more guided by their resources and how much they can fund or how much they can staff. But generally there is no distance separation between each unit and only a 10-foot setback from the outside property line applies. They do have to provide a kind of report to the city, that plan to the city in advance that talks about sewer and water capacity, so those elements might give us an idea of how many units and how they're going to be laid out. And we do have to have emergency vehicle access to these units so there will be a little bit of a forethought into the layout, but we don't generally have too much control. [00:00] **Commissioner Surma:** So if the city moves towards a permitted use approach, when would the city know that a community was underway and when would it have those conversations about making sure that there's appropriate access for emergency vehicles? [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** They must provide us with that plan. So I would imagine that that would be done in the beginning prior to them being on site. Or could they be on site and then approach the city and say they're on site? It's not written. [00:00] **Commissioner Surma:** Yeah, that's true. [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** It doesn't specify, but we would certainly hope in good community that they would give us the heads up ahead of time before pulling permits. [00:00] **Commissioner Surma:** And I know in other communities people pay some money to live in the units. So does that mean that they would be required to go through a rental licensing that we require here in Richfield, or is this not considered rental? [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** No other permitting applies. So rental licenses would not apply either. [00:00] **Commissioner Surma:** And is that because of the way the state law is written or is that just the way the City Attorney interpreted it? [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** I believe that that was the intent behind the law. And that part isn't specifically written either, but as it went through the legislative process, the intent was to make these as unregulated and as easy and financially viable for the religious institutions as possible. So that's why we're interpreting it that—or our understanding is that—a rental license is not required. [00:00] **Commissioner Surma:** And one last question, thank you for answering all these. Has there been any interest expressed in the city at any of our religious institutions to have a sacred community? [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** I have not received any calls, no. [00:00] **Commissioner Surma:** Those were my questions, thank you. [00:00] **Chair:** Thank you. Commissioner, I'm asking a question here. So I understand these, from what we've heard in the interpretation here in the packet, is that these would apply to properties directly adjoining sacred spaces of worship. My question is: do these also apply to properties not directly adjoining a house of worship but that are also owned by a religious institution? Because I know of several here in Richfield, residential properties that are owned by religious institutions not directly adjoining their sanctuary. So does this apply to those types of properties as well? [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Am I understanding that it needs to be on the property of primary worship or directly contiguous to? So if there was a parish house—like a house for the head parishioner—that was directly adjacent to the church, then they could also be on that parcel as well. Does that answer your question? [00:00] **Chair:** So it has to be directly adjoining the house of worship? Like if there's a pastor's house and the pastor's house is three blocks away from the church, they could not be over there? [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Correct. It has to be directly adjoining the sanctuary. [00:00] **Chair:** Okay, thank you. Go for it, Commissioner Hulke. [00:00] **Commissioner Hulke:** So the summary here says that if we defaulted to conditional use, I guess I wasn't understanding exactly what the issue with "pointless and feudal public hearings" was. Can you talk about what the intention was there? [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Yeah, sure. So a public hearing is usually to review a request and then determine if there's any negative aspects of that request and to try to mitigate those negative aspects by imposing conditions of approval—such as visibility with a fence or setback issues. And we don't have control over—we can't require a fence or more parking and we can't impose any conditions at all. So to hold a public hearing to impose conditions when we're not allowed to impose them would be a waste of time and money on the applicant's part. It would be making them go through a process for no good reason. [00:00] **Commissioner Hulke:** Sure, that makes sense. Thank you. [00:00] **Chair:** We don't want to do that to them or to ourselves. No one else? I have a couple questions... [00:00] **Commissioner Rudolph:** Oh, sorry, I've got one question. Did the legislature allow us to require like shower facilities? You know, for someone to be able to clean up and maintain... [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** So the legislature does require a toilet. [00:00] **Commissioner Rudolph:** Yeah, I saw that. [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** But it doesn't specify what kind of toilet it could be. It doesn't have to be a water toilet; it could be a composting toilet or some other type of toilet that's allowed by the various aspects of the building code. So each unit does not have to have running water. They could choose to have a shower and sink—like a sanitation or hygiene building—that is shared for the entire community. So each unit does not have to have running water. [00:00] **Commissioner Rudolph:** Okay. Is there a requirement for at least the community to have running water? [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** I believe so. [00:00] **Commissioner Rudolph:** Okay, that would be a concern of mine, that's all. To make sure that there's facilities to maintain hygiene for—it's a human right. [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Yes. I think that if they don't have like a separate facility for hygiene, then they would have to open up the church itself and let the community use the facilities in the church in the primary church building, like the bathrooms and the showers in there. [00:00] **Commissioner Hulke:** Yeah, I didn't see anything about—sorry Commissioner [Rudolph]—I didn't see anything about heat as a requirement. Is there any sort of requirement there? [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** It's not specified. It does require electricity, but how they're going to heat these is not dictated. So they do have pretty good building insulation requirements, but obviously in Minnesota some sort of heat source would be prudent. And again, like with the toilet, it's up to them kind of how they get that done. [00:00] **Chair:** I had a couple questions. One, it says that the permitted use or the conditional use would end if the religious institution closed. I have a concern. Like where I grew up, we recently had a few churches disbanded without a lot of warning. My concern would be: would there be some period of grace, or could we add that into our ordinance or code, so that should a church close, the people living there would have some stability and it wouldn't be us closing down the community right away? [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** I'm not sure that that would need to be added into the ordinance per se. That is a good thought. Usually, when they know they're going under or they're going to relocate, they usually know about it a few months in advance and I would hope that they would be good stewards of their tenants and give them fair notice themselves. I don't know that that's on us to do that, but we can certainly make note of that internally as a policy and work with our church communities to not force anything that's unreasonable. [00:00] **Chair:** But if the community closed, would it require some action by the City Council or staff to begin the process of closing the community, or would they suddenly be out of compliance and code action could be taken immediately? [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Well, we always give notice. It wouldn't be necessarily something that the City Council would need to do, but from a staff perspective we would reach out to them and let them know. There'd be many iterations of communication before anything turned into something that might be of concern. [00:00] **Chair:** Thank you. And then my last question: it said that in Richfield we do not regulate mobile homes, but those setback requirements—if we did regulate mobile homes—we could impose those on these communities. I mean, is a 10-foot setback what you would recommend as a planner? [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Yeah, we thought about that. We do have in our residential districts something called "cluster homes," and cluster homes allow a few single-family attached or detached homes on one property. They're usually quite small, so it's the closest comparable thing that we have to a mobile home type regulation. Our setbacks for cluster homes are 5 and 10 feet, so it is very similar to probably what we'd end up recommending if we were to write it into the code. That's why we're not recommending we make any changes at this time. [00:00] **Chair:** Thank you. Any other questions? All right then, I will open the public hearing. If there's anyone here who wants to address, please come over to the podium. Otherwise, did we receive any comments? [00:00] **Michelle Friedrich (City Clerk):** We did not receive any phone calls or any emails and there are no participants on the line. [00:00] **Chair:** Still okay. I would entertain a motion then to close the public hearing. [00:00] **Commissioner Hulke:** I motion we close the public hearing. [00:00] **Chair:** Is there a second? [00:00] **Commissioner Surma:** Commissioner Surma seconds that. [00:00] **Chair:** All right, it's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. [00:00] **Commissioners:** Aye. [00:00] **Chair:** Opposed? All right, now we can move on to the main... we need a motion to approve the staff recommendation. Is there further discussion? [00:00] **Commissioner Surma:** Yeah, of course. I applaud the creativity of this solution, or of this one piece of the puzzle. We obviously need to be doing more to house people. And where I struggle with this just in the slightest is that... I guess the points that I struggle on are not actually relevant to what we have before us. I do think that it does not do anyone any service to have a conditional use on this. We've had public hearings in the past that were—I can remember a liquor license where the community really did not want us to approve the liquor license but our hands were kind of tied and it was just a really unfortunate conversation and situation. I would have no desire to put another board in a situation of having to hold a public hearing when your hands are tied and you can't really require anything or respond to any of the concerns. So I would support these as permitted uses. [00:00] **Chair:** Discussion? Sorry, I'm trying to find my place here in the packet... are we ready to move forward? [00:00] **Commissioner Surma:** Commissioner Surma here. I'm sorry, I'm trying to find my place in the pack and I lost my place. I just would like to make it clear in our proceedings that it's stated here that the units must be directly adjacent to or on the property of the institution's primary house of worship. The exact language here—it's on page 11 of the packet—it's in the statute here that a sacred community must be established on or contiguous to the grounds of religious institution's primary worship location. I just want to emphasize that section. I think that's really important because I know religious institutions can own many different types of property throughout the city and the region. I don't know if it needs any particular call out for our motions, but I just wanted to specify that that is a key component of this: that they have to be directly adjacent and contiguous to the place's house of worship. [00:00] **Chair:** Any other discussion? We would need a motion to proceed then to approve the staff recommendation. [00:00] **Commissioner Surma:** Chair, I would like to make a motion to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment to allow micro units as an accessory use to religious institutions. [00:00] **Commissioner Hulke:** Second. [00:00] **Chair:** Commissioner Hulke seconds. Any further discussion? All in favor of adopting that recommendation please say aye. [00:00] **Commissioners:** Aye. [00:00] **Chair:** Opposed? All right, the motion carries. Liaison reports. Community Services Advisory Commission? [00:00] **Commissioner:** No meeting. [00:00] **Chair:** City Council? [Council Member] is not... oh, that's right. Housing and Redevelopment? [00:00] **Commissioner Surma:** The HRA is accepting applications for seats on the HRA and EDA through December 15th, so if anyone's interested, there's information on the city's website on how to apply. At its last meeting, the HRA approved an MOU with the owners of La Vita Mexican Market to continue discussions of the development at 1430 66th Street, which is the lot right next to Frenchman's. And the HRA also approved an MOU with Lyndale Gardens with the HRA agreeing to contribute up to $500,000 for capital costs and a financial match for sewer charges to help facilitate a commercial development on the last remaining parcel that's yet to be developed in that site. Thank you. [00:00] **Chair:** I don't have a report from the School Board. Transportation Commission? [00:00] **Commissioner:** Right, Chair, there's nothing to report on. [00:00] **Chair:** Chamber of Commerce? [00:00] **Commissioner:** Nothing to report on. [00:00] **Chair:** Sustainability Commission? [00:00] **Commissioner:** Nothing to report on. [00:00] **Chair:** All right. City Planner report? [00:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Chair and Commissioners, I just wanted to remind you that the first reading for Astra Commons was held on the 14th of November. There were just a few people from the audience that stood up in support of the request, but as first readings go they did not discuss the item. The second reading and the rest of the request will be decided by the City Council tomorrow night. Also, we had no land use applications for the month of December, so we will be able to cancel our December Planning Commission meeting. Happy holidays. [00:00] **Chair:** Commissioner Rudolph, is this your last meeting with us? [00:00] **Commissioner Rudolph:** My last meeting will be January 22nd. [00:00] **Chair:** Oh, all right. Well, we will save the [tribute] till then. Thank you, Commissioner Rudolph, though I do want to thank you nonetheless; it's a pre-thank you. All right, well if there's nothing else on the agenda, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. [00:00] **Commissioner Hulke:** So moved. [00:00] **Commissioner Surma:** Second. [00:00] **Chair:** It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All in favor please say aye. [00:00] **Commissioners:** Aye. [00:00] **Chair:** Opposed? We stand adjourned.