This transcript appears to be from a **Richfield Planning Commission** meeting. While the names of all Planning Commission members were not provided in your context list, I have identified the city staff, the council liaison, and the applicants based on the provided names. [00:00] **Chair:** I'd like to call the January 2025 of the Richfield Municipal Planning Commission to order. The first thing would be the approval of minutes from our previous meeting, and I would take a motion to approve those. [00:15] **Commissioner Charlson:** [Moves to approve]. [00:17] **Commissioner [St.]:** Second. [00:18] **Chair:** All in favor of approving the minutes from the previous meeting please say I. [00:20] **Commissioners:** I. [00:21] **Chair:** Opposed? All right. The next thing would be the Open Forum. This is an opportunity for residents and concerned others to present before the City Planning Commission generally on items that are not on the agenda. There is an opportunity ahead of time to contact the planner, Crosby, with comment beforehand. Did you receive any comments before the meeting? [00:45] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** No, we did not. [00:47] **Chair:** I would note that we did receive—that all the members of the Planning Commission did receive a letter from residents, and so that was some of the comment that we received in paper form from David Dorer and Jody Spencer, and each member of the plan commission received that. All right, if there was no other comments ahead of time, if there's anyone here who would like to comment, please approach the podium. All right, seeing no one here for the open forum, we can then go to approving the agenda for tonight's meeting. [01:15] **Commissioner:** Move. [01:16] **Commissioner Charlson:** Seconds. [01:17] **Chair:** Moved and seconded to approve the agenda for tonight's meeting. All favor please say I. [01:20] **Commissioners:** I. [01:21] **Chair:** Opposed? All right, the agenda is approved. The first item on the agenda is a public hearing to consider request for two variances for setback requirements for a garage at 6612 5th Avenue South. Do we have a staff report? [01:35] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. Anita Perkins is here this evening requesting deviation from two setback requirements in order to construct a new detached garage that is exactly the same size and in exactly the same location as the previous garage. The property is zoned R, Low Density Residential, and as such it requires a two-foot setback from the alley side, and the garage is only—or the foundation of the garage is only 1.8 feet from the property line, so it's about a 2-inch difference. It requires a three-foot setback from the north side property line and the foundation is only 2.4 feet away, so about a 7-inch difference. The reason the applicant is requesting the same setbacks as the previous garage is because the footing is still in place and in still in good usable condition. We had a building inspector go out and visually inspect the foundation just to make sure that this is the case, and being that this is pretty unique after all this time, we find that it is a physical condition unique to the site that justifies deviation from the zoning code. Therefore, we believe the requested variances are reasonable and we recommend approval of both the variances subject to the conditions listed in the resolution before you this evening. Thank you. [02:45] **Chair:** Any questions for Planner Crosby before we open the [hearing]? All right. I'd like to open this public meeting. I understand the applicant might be present; if you would like to approach the podium there and introduce yourself. [03:00] **Anita Perkins (Applicant):** Hi, I'm Anita Perkins. I just want to thank the planning committee for your time and consideration on these two variances. I appreciate that this process was available for us to use and to request this setback for the garage. We also want to thank Sam for all her guidance and support going through this, getting everything together, meeting all the requirements. Thanks for being responsive to my emails and my calls and my questions, and expanding my vocabulary on the word "impervious." This is my new word of the day—that there's a certain amount of impervious material that can be on your property. So again, thanks, and I look forward to hearing on this recommendation. [03:45] **Chair:** Any questions? [03:47] **Commissioner:** I'm curious to see if your neighbors are aware of this variance request, if there's any concerns or if they expressed any concerns? [03:55] **Anita Perkins (Applicant):** No, I talked to the neighbor that it would affect the most and there were no concerns there. They received the notices in the mail as well. So, yeah. [04:05] **Commissioner:** Thank you. I’m curious, did your previous garage or your current garage have gutters, and will there be an intention to have gutters on the new garage? I'm just curious about the footings on there, you know, keeping water away just keeping them so it's [usable in the] foreseeable future. [04:20] **Anita Perkins (Applicant):** Right. I don't know if the previous garage had eaves on it or gutters. I think we would want to have gutters on this one. [04:25] **Commissioner:** I have a question for staff if that's okay. At what point does an applicant need to seek this process when repairing a garage, and when is a garage being repaired versus when it is being replaced? If the footings and the foundation are the same, what's the line? When is it a "new ship"—how many pieces are replaced? [04:45] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Chair and Commissioners, one year is the answer to that question. It's a time period, not necessarily an amount. [04:55] **Commissioner:** Oh, I misinterpreted. I thought the garage was already demolished then? Okay, I think I missed that. [05:01] **Anita Perkins (Applicant):** Yes, that's right. [05:02] **Commissioner:** I'm sorry, no problem. [05:04] **Anita Perkins (Applicant):** Actually, the garage was demolished sometime between 2009 and 2012. [05:08] **Commissioner:** Okay, I missed that portion. Thank you. [05:10] **Anita Perkins (Applicant):** Thank you so much. [05:12] **Chair:** Thank you. Is there anyone else present who is here to speak to this? Seeing no one else to comment, I would entertain a motion to close the hearing. [05:20] **Commissioner:** [Moves to close]. [05:21] **Commissioner Charlson:** Seconds. [05:22] **Chair:** Moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor please say I. [05:25] **Commissioners:** I. [05:26] **Chair:** Opposed? All right, the public hearing is closed. [05:30] **Commissioner:** [Inaudible correction]. [05:32] **Chair:** You are correct, thank you. All right, so we would need a motion to adopt the staff recommendation about the variances. [05:40] **Commissioner:** [Motions]. [05:41] **Chair:** Any discussion on the motion? [05:43] **Commissioner:** I just want to state that I think it's a good idea, primarily not just because of the economics of keeping the foundation, but also just the environmental impact. I think is very important. I was asking about gutters not because I'm a dork, but because I think it's important that we're thinking about this from a sustainability foundation in the future. So having this in the future, I'm in support. [06:05] **Commissioner:** Yeah, I just want to say thanks for coming and telling us what you need. I strongly support that too. Tearing out the concrete and rebuilding it is one, [increasing] the impervious area quite a bit, and two, generating a lot of waste that you don't need. [06:20] **Chair:** Any other discussion? All right, so we do have a motion and a second to adopt the staff recommendation for the detached garage variances at 6612 5th Avenue South. All in favor please say I. [06:35] **Commissioners:** I. [06:36] **Chair:** Opposed? Now we can move on to the next item in the agenda, which is a public hearing to consider requests for site plan approval of the new Wood Lake Nature Center on Lakeshore Drive. Do we have a staff report? [06:50] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Chair, we do, thank you. HGA, on behalf of the Richfield Recreation Services Department, has submitted an application for site plan approval to construct a new Wood Lake Nature Center building at 6710 Lakeshore Drive. As with most parks in the city, the property is zoned R, Low Density Residential. Governmental buildings are a permitted use in this district, but site plan review is required due to the construction of a new building. The proposed site plan is designed to provide a new one-story building that will be more than twice the size of the existing facility. The new building will be 40 feet farther from the lake and 80 feet closer to the street. It will be characterized by dark brown wood siding and green roof forms. The parking lot will be improved through the addition of landscaping, perimeter plantings, and electric vehicle chargers, but it will remain mostly unchanged. Construction is set to begin in the spring of this year with completion in the spring or summer of 2026. No variances are requested as part of the project, but there are certain modifications necessary in regard to landscaping requirements as discussed in the policy section of the staff report. Staff finds these modifications reasonable based on the unique nature of the property and the project’s sustainability and energy reduction features. Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the conditions listed in the draft resolution of approval. The applicant is here: Karl Huemiller, the Recreation Services Director, and a representative from HGA that has worked with them throughout the process is also here. So if you'd like to hear from them... [08:15] **Karl Huemiller (Recreation Services Director):** Chair, Commissioners, thank you. I'm Karl Huemiller, I'm the Rec Services Director. The whole department is really excited to be managing the design and construction of this building. It should really enhance the park and will provide a lot more space for education, for community building, for people just to spend time and enjoy and be out in nature. The process for the new building started back in 2021. It's gone through a long design process with a lot of community engagement involved in it. It will be one of the most sustainable buildings in Richfield with geothermal heating and cooling, bird glass, the green roof, and lots of native plantings as well. The new building expands the education space so we can have more school groups come and do a lot more programming. We'll have an event space with a large deck so that we can have an event space in the city, which there currently isn't really, and then we'll have community spaces like a quiet bird-watching lounge and a coffee area where people can spend time and hang out as well. And then the exhibit space will be expanded as well for more educational opportunities. So I'm here, and Andrew from HGA is here as well. We're happy to answer any questions. [09:35] **Commissioner:** I really appreciated the chance to review this. This is an exciting project for the city. I noticed in the staff report that 75 trees are being cut down and another, I think, 13 are going to be moved. I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about the 75—where they are on the site, what types of trees they are, their condition, and then also how it was decided that the 13 could be moved? [10:00] **Karl Huemiller (Recreation Services Director):** Yeah, so we have a map hopefully we can put up that shows the location of the trees. The majority of the trees are either Cottonwoods or trees that have sprung up—just kind of taken root. When the building was initially built, they didn't plant very many trees, and so everything that has grown up is a volunteer tree and just kind of gone up. The large trees you do see on site are all really large Cottonwood trees that have a lifespan of about 50 to 70 years, so they're all kind of reaching the end of their life. A lot of the big Cottonwoods have also grown close to the building, so they endanger the current building and the [new] building as well. The ones that are the large Cottonwoods in place where they would endanger the building, we would be taking those down. It's the trees that would endanger the building because the footprint of the building is expanded. We've expanded it mostly into open space, but there are spaces where it impacts trees. We do need to raise the floor of the building so that we're out of potential flooding, and so water runs away from the building. By raising the soil depth, a number of trees get covered by that, and if you increase the soil depth around the trees, in the long term it kills the trees. So we're going to be taking some out and replanting instead. And then the trees that we're keeping are smaller, younger trees that can sustain the trauma of being moved. Most of those are on the west side of the site. There's a small Maple grove that was planted a number of years ago and those trees we'll be transplanting so that we can use them for maple syruping programs in the future. We are doing our best to keep as many of the trees as we can, and we have been able to keep a number of the large Cottonwood trees as well as some of the Birches and other trees around there as well. On the map here, you can see it has the current building there and then as you go west along the lake... those trees that are being removed are mostly being removed either because the building's going there or the grading is happening and we're raising it. [12:15] **Commissioner:** Thank you. I have a question on irrigation. It looks like the modification of the original plan states that you need to have an underground mechanical irrigation system, but you guys are planning on putting in drought-tolerant native plantings. Is that basically a French drain, or can you kind of describe that type of irrigation system you are putting in? [12:35] **Karl Huemiller (Recreation Services Director):** So, because it's within a park and we're putting in drought-tolerant plants, we weren't going to have any irrigation system. We will have spigots on the building that we can use when it's extreme drought conditions to water the plants. As part of our funding through B3, if we did put in an irrigation system, after five years we are not allowed to use it; otherwise, it threatens our [funding]. And because it's within the park, you get into the question of how far should the irrigation go? If there is a drought, things are happening, then it's going to be impacting the whole park. You'd have this circle of green at the parking lot and then everything else would be not so lush. We do have staff who are dedicated to maintaining the grounds and the whole entire park, actually, and they'll be focusing on ensuring that those plants get well established and are able to survive. [13:35] **Chair:** Any other questions of City Staff? Then I would like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone present to speak on this matter? Crosby, did we receive any comments about this ahead of time? [13:50] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Chair, we did not. [13:52] **Chair:** Seeing no one here to comment, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. [13:55] **Commissioner Charlson:** Moves to close. [13:56] **Commissioner:** Seconds. [13:57] **Chair:** Moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor please say I. [14:00] **Commissioners:** I. [14:01] **Chair:** Opposed? Public hearing is closed. Now we would need a motion to adopt the recommended staff action. [14:10] **Commissioner:** Moves to approve the recommended staff action. [14:12] **Commissioner:** Second. [14:13] **Chair:** Any discussion? [14:15] **Commissioner:** My only thought is that all the reasons that we listed for these variances are well-rationed, especially the drought-tolerant plants. I think it really serves that natural aspect of the park really well. And I also think that, you know, this was up for referendum and the voters passed it, and so I think it's important to respect that as well. [14:40] **Commissioner:** I'll just add that I think it is beautiful. I love that it is tucked away but closer to the road. I love that it incorporates almost all of the ideas that we had dreamed up. I appreciate that it reflects that. I think what's being requested is reasonable and deviations are appropriate for the site, so I'll be supporting. [15:00] **Chair:** Any other discussion? All right, we have a motion before us to adopt the recommended staff action and findings. All those in favor please say I. [15:10] **Commissioners:** I. [15:11] **Chair:** Opposed? The next item on the agenda would be liaison reports. Community Service Advisory? [15:20] **Commissioner/Liaison:** The board of directors of Wood Lake is taking applications for members—Board of Director members. So they've gotten one application so far and they reviewed that in the meeting. [15:30] **Chair:** All right. City Council? [15:32] **Sean Hayford Oleary (Council Member):** That's me. So the city council had their organizing meeting. They swore in new members at a special meeting, and then they had their first regular meeting where they selected Council Member Hayford Oleary as the Mayor Pro Tem in case Mayor Supple is outside the city limits, and some general organizational tasks like that. They also approved a collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters that represents some of the members of the police force. [16:00] **Chair:** All right. The next liaison report would be Housing and Redevelopment. [16:05] **Commissioner/Liaison:** Last week the HRA approved a memorandum of understanding to support financial assistance and 4D tax status for Hempel Real Estate. The apartments—the New Orleans Court, Richland Court, and Winston House—are 236 units of naturally occurring affordable housing market. Hempel has approached the city or the HRA to partner in preserving their affordability, and the action last week was the first action to provide financial assistance and to support the 4D tax status. It's going to be in front of the Council tomorrow and then HRA will review it again in February. We took some public comments on it, so it's something that I think the community is more engaged in and it will be an interesting conversation. [16:55] **Chair:** All right. Richfield School Board? [16:58] **Commissioner/Liaison:** Thank you, Chair. School Board met on January 6th to elect new officers. The Superintendent presented on enrollment throughout the district as well as matters at the high school. The School Board met again on January 21st. The Superintendent presented on extended learning options including after-school programming for elementary, middle, and high school students. Same date there was also a study session presenting on the school district's legislative platform this year. [17:25] **Chair:** All right. Transportation Commission? He is not here. Chamber of Commerce? Nothing pertinent to the chair. Sustainability Commission? Nothing from the January 23rd meeting has been posted yet. All right, now we have the City Planner reports. [17:45] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. The first reading for the text amendment to allow dynamic drive-through signs went before the City Council on January 14th. They did have a couple minor comments and the second reading will be held tomorrow evening. Their minor comments have been incorporated into the ordinance. Basically, it was that if a dynamic display is already existing on the property, they would not get dynamic drive-through signs. And then conversely, if there are already dynamic drive-through signs on the property, they would not get a dynamic sign in like a freestanding pylon or their main advertising sign. [18:25] **Commissioner:** Can I ask a quick clarifying question? Is that you can only have one sign with dynamic language or is it first come, first served? Like if they already have a dynamic sign then they can't add one? [18:35] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** I think, sorry to clarify—no problem—I think the intent is that it was originally only one dynamic sign per property. And even though we allow drive-throughs to have more than like one menu board, they're much smaller in size, so it's pretty comparable. So it's one or the other: either it's on your main pylon or it's on the drive-through. I did want to also mention that there is a work session scheduled for February 24th, the same evening as the February Planning Commission meeting. Now, we don't actually have any land use applications for February to review, but there are a number of administrative items such as the bylaws, the calendar, electing the Chair and Vice Chair. So I thought I would leave it up to you guys whether or not you want to push those administrative items to March and cancel the February meeting, or since you're going to be here anyways for the work session, just go ahead and meet in February for the administrative items even though there's no actual land use requests. [19:40] **Chair:** Thoughts? My thinking is that we're here anyway and that way if there's nothing for March we could potentially cancel the March meeting, but even if there is, we would have one less thing on the agenda. We wouldn't have to do the administrative task. So my thought is we should just have it anyway. What are your thoughts? [20:00] **Commissioners:** Agreed. Agreed. [20:02] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Okay, thank you very much for the feedback. I appreciate it. We'll go that direction. And that's it for my report. [20:10] **Chair:** All right, so we do have that work session on the 24th and the meeting. There's nothing else on the agenda for tonight. [20:18] **Commissioner:** What's the work session topic? Do we know? [20:20] **Sam Crosby (City Planner):** Yeah, it's MR-2 and MR-3 zoning code updates. [20:23] **Commissioner:** Thank you, good question. [20:25] **Chair:** All right. Yeah, I think that that's a good... I'm glad we're gonna have a meeting. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. [20:30] **Commissioner Charlson:** Moves to adjourn. [20:31] **Commissioner:** Seconds. [20:32] **Chair:** Moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor please say I. [20:35] **Commissioners:** I. [20:36] **Chair:** Opposed? All right, we stand adjourned.