Since the provided transcript does not contain original timestamps, I have used `[00:00:00]` style placeholders to maintain your requested format. [00:00:00] **Chair**: I'd like to call this September 22nd, 2025 meeting of the Richfield Planning Commission to order. Uh for the record present are Commissioners Hoie, Teraldson, Holvik Johnson, Cersea, and Surma. The first item on the agenda would be our open forum. This is an opportunity for those present uh who may wish to speak on things generally not on the scheduled agenda for the meeting or that may have communicated to staff uh before the meeting today. Um I do know that we did receive one um communication but it's more relevant to the hearing later. Did we get any other um communications in advance of the meeting today? [00:00:30] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: Chair and commissioners, no. They were all related to public hearing items. [00:00:35] **Chair**: Okay. If anyone would like to speak, please approach the podium. All right. Uh, seeing no one here for that, uh, we go on to approval of the agenda. I will accept a motion to approve the agenda for tonight. [00:00:45] **Commissioner Cersea**: Commissioner Cersea so. Move. [00:00:48] **Commissioner Teraldson**: Commissioner Teraldson seconds. [00:00:50] **Chair**: Moved and seconded to approve the agenda. All in favor, please say I. [00:00:55] **Commissioners**: I. [00:00:56] **Chair**: Opposed. All right. The next thing would be the approval of the minutes for the regular meeting on July 28th. I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes. [00:01:05] **Commissioner Hoie**: Commissioner Hoie moves to approve the minutes. [00:01:08] **Commissioner Surma**: Commissioner Surma seconds. [00:01:10] **Chair**: Moved and seconded to approve the minutes. All those in favor, please say I. [00:01:15] **Commissioners**: I. [00:01:16] **Chair**: Opposed. All right. Um on our agenda now, we have um presentations. Um is um please go ahead. [00:01:25] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: Chair and commissioners, there are no presentations this evening. [00:01:30] **Chair**: Okay. Uh then we will go into our um our public hearing. We have a public hearing for a site plan approval for 7424 Lindale Avenue South conversion to retail. Could we have the uh staff report for that? [00:01:45] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: Thank you, chair and commissioners. Nathan Bruno doing business as Lion Cannabis LLC is before us this evening requesting site plan approval in order to convert the existing building from a service use into a retail use. Retail sales are a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. However, a change of use triggers site plan approval which is required in order to bring exterior improvements into conformance with current zoning code to the extent possible. In this case, the proposed improvements primarily affect the parking lot which will be reduced in size to meet setbacks. Uh, parking lot upgrades include seal coating, restriping, perimeter landscaping, EV charging stations, ADA compliant access ramp and parking stalls, and um, other site improvements include a 6 foot wooden privacy fence that runs the entire length of the west property line. I would like to take a moment to point out two issues. Um, one, um, we've received a few comments on is traffic. Staff anticipates that the traffic will be comparable to a tobacco shop, which will be a slight increase over the previous use of a gentleman's hair replacement salon, but not significant enough to require concern or study. With the only access to the parking lot being off of Lindell Avenue, this is not expected to have a noticeable impact on any of the adjacent streets, including Lindell Avenue, which is currently operating 20% below its peak average daily traffic levels from when it was four lanes in the past. And the current three-lane configuration has additional capacity available to handle the expected increase from the previous use to this to the current to the proposed use. The other item that I'd like to take a moment to touch upon is the city's amount of discretion with this land use application. Site plan approvals must be granted if the proposal meets the performance standards listed in the code. The city's discretion is limited to evaluating compliance with this established criteria and if the proposal complies, the standards must be met. staff cited in the report only two ways in which the code is not currently um being met and that is in relation to um the building which does not comply with 35 ft setback requirement from Lindale Avenue. It's only I think 26 ft at its closest point and the code specifically states that it is not intended to require changes that would be extremely impractical such as moving or lowering buildings. And the other item is the freestanding sign which does not the face of which does not comply with the five- foot setback requirement again from Lindale Avenue. It is a perfectly good sign that has been used for many years with no concerns for not meeting the 5-ft setback. And we plan to uh our staff's recommendation is to continue to allow the applicant to use the existing freestanding sign until it you know its life is expired and it needs to be replaced. So to reiterate, no variances are being requested with this application. It is a commercially zoned site and is a commercially proposed use that is allowed by the zoning code. um the last year um was when the rules and regulations surrounding cannabis uses were discussed and um proposed and approved. So now we are just um you know a whole year later basically and we finally have an applicant um coming forward also so people are aware um this is not our first um cannabis uh location. There is one um retail store that is further along in the process than the applicant before us this evening and is located over on Penn Avenue just south of 66. So this would be our second location and the city will only be having three um three locations. Um, I know that there was a comment received um this morning that I emailed to you and placed at your chairs as well. And I also did want to go ahead and as part of my staff presentation read into uh the record one more um comment that I did receive by email. It was after the deadline, but I'm going to make exception because it's from Commissioner Connealy. He says he supports the site plan for the Lion Cannabis at 7424 Lindale. This site is zone for commercial use and the proposal meets all the requirements. In fact, the applicant has agreed to make several improvements to the parking lot and the exterior of the business. The site is an established commercial district hightra business such as Broadway Pizza, Speedway Gas Station, and multiple options for auto repair. The surrounding roads and infrastructure can accommodate the additional retail. Cannabis dispensaries face intense regulation and scrutiny. In my experience with medical cannabis dispensaries in Minnesota, they are required to prioritize safety and security. These are not boisterous tap rooms where community members gather for a good time on a patio. These are quiet businesses that keep limited hours and often require appointments for new customers. He poses three questions that he's asked me to address. which is why I'm kind of working it into the staff presentation. He says, "Is the applicant willing to install a fence that exceeds 6 ft in height to limit visibility? We cannot require this, but I would support it should it be a result of uh the discussion this evening. And um as I have mentioned previously, it is it is something that if the commission so recommends could be worked in to the resolution of approval prior to the council meeting on the 14th of October. Can city staff walk us through the required number of parking spaces for this kind of business and show how the applicant's plan satisfies the city's requirements? So, um I would like to point out that the um the customer floor area for this type of use is extremely small. You walk in the front door, you are immediately carded because you are not allowed into this. It's not like a a liquor store where you're carted at the point of sale. You're carted immediately upon entry. And if you look at the floor plan for this um building, you are basically um in kind of immediately in the customer service area. It is very small. The rest of the building is storage and upstairs are offices and the the uh break room for the for the employees. So um the parking is required for retail at the rate of five parking stalls per thousand and uh so they're required to have eight parking stalls. They are going to have eight parking stalls. So they are exactly meeting our code but they also have two garage stalls. So they have two extra interior parking stalls. And if you look at the layout of the parking lot, they could, you know, if their parking was full and really tight, they could potentially park two more cars in front of the garage for a total of 12. And the most that um was previously on the site was 13. Um I know that um some people have counted 16. that counted one that was like on our city sidewalk and two others that um backed out into each other um that the ergonomics were not really there for those two stalls. So the parking proposed is extremely similar to the parking that was that's existing even though some stalls have been reconfigured. And then finally he asks can the city staff please state the legal age for entering a dispensary and purchasing cannabis? Um the legal age is 21 for entering uh the store and I asked the um the support services director if you could go in with parental permission if you were younger that like if your parents literally standing right there can you go in and her understanding of um the state rules were that only if it's medicinal could you go in as a minor. Even with parental, you have to have your parent there still. But if it's uh and then if with medicinal, you have to have a prescription. So it has to be doctor prescribed. So with all that, I will again reiterate that no variances are being requested. staff finds that the proposal aligns with the current code to the extent practical and therefore strongly recommends approval of the request subject to the conditions listed in the draft resolution before you. Thank you. [00:08:30] **Chair**: Any commissioners have questions to staff before we open the public hearing. [00:08:35] **Commissioner Hoie**: Commissioner Hoie, I have a question. Um this is about one of Brendan's questions if that's okay. Is this appropriate for that? Um he mentioned a fence. I'm curious, you know, um some folks might appreciate a taller fence, some neighbors might not. Um the one concern with like if they want to build a fence, I don't think we should require one if they want to. How do you like get that approved with all the neighbors? What is that process? I don't want, you know, one neighbor happy there's a taller fence and one neighbor frustrated there is. That sort of thing. [00:09:10] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: Chair and commissioners, that that's a good point. There may be a neighbor that doesn't want an 8- foot tall fence uh along the property line, but um I was envisioning that um the planning commission could include that recommendation uh if you were so inclined and we could write a variance for them that they would then have available to them if that was something. and they could probably also speak to their inclination towards offense this evening and we can work it out in the discussion. [00:09:40] **Commissioner Cersea**: I appreciate the background that you gave around the use um the cannabis use just because it's a new use for the city of Richfield and for the state of Minnesota for recreation um even though it is not in the purview of the site plan but um to the concerns that we've heard uh from comments already submitted is on-site consumption permitted? [00:10:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: Um on-site consumption is not permitted. I did um I should probably stop there, but I'm not going to. Um I did also talk with the support services manager about where you can smoke. And you certainly cannot smoke in the building. We have an indoor clean air act. Um smoking on site is not permitted. Smoking in parks is not permitted. Smoking at any events that are city spons are not permitted. But smoking on a sidewalk is permitted. Just like you can walk down the street and smoke a cigarette, you can walk down a street and smoke cannabis. So that is hopefully gives a more robust answer to that question. [00:10:40] **Commissioner Cersea**: Thank you. [00:10:42] **Chair**: Is the applicant uh here? Yeah. If you wanted to approach the podium and sign in and say your name for the record please. [00:10:50] **Nathan O'Brien (Applicant)**: Hi, my name is Nathan Brewan O'Brien. Um, and I'm the applicant uh on the agenda today. [00:11:00] **Chair**: Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? [00:11:05] **Commissioner Teraldson**: Hi, thanks for joining us. Um, I guess you know, we've received a number of of responses from folks here and just kind of curious um, have you engaged in any conversations with neighbors or anyone in the community and would you mind sharing about any of those those conversations or experiences, please? [00:11:20] **Nathan O'Brien (Applicant)**: Yeah. So, we're I'm in somewhat new territory. So, just transparently, I brought um my business partner here. Uh, his name is Daniel Yarro. Um, do you want him to sign in? Okay. Um, so I've been a general contractor in the Richfield, Bloomington area for the last 10 years. Uh, and ran a painting business before that. I had a real estate license prior to also. Um, I haven't been advertising this as I have my previous businesses before quote unquote opening the doors. Um, just because it's such new territory and I didn't want to um, I wanted to go through the proper channels before I really started having those conversations. So short answer, I haven't talked to anyone outside of my personal circle. Um and certainly would love to and start attending more meetings like this because I understand the stigma around this and um you know potential concerns. I've communicated a bit indirectly with some Richfield residents um that have been emailing Sam uh just about some concerns and uh one was a big concern about traffic um and you know we sort of discussed how this is a pretty in and you know um and Danny you can certainly speak to this if you'd like but this is a pretty in-n-out sort of retail business um it's not like a bar or restaurant where there's a lunch rush or anything like that people come in they they buy they make their purchase and and they leave so I I don't foresee the parking lot being full ever and if it was um you know we could certainly address it at that time but long-winded answer to your question no I haven't had extensive discussions because I didn't know what would come of this meeting and and just this is all pretty new so [00:13:00] **Commissioner Teraldson**: no that's fine thank you I was just curious [00:13:02] **Nathan O'Brien (Applicant)**: yeah no problem [00:13:05] **Commissioner Cersea**: thank you for the application and for being here tonight I'm wondering if you um again we're reviewing a site plan which is not about the use, but want to get it out in the open to address any of the concerns that we've heard. Can you talk about how um Sam spoke a little bit to it, but like how you would anticipate a customer interacting with your business, how long they're on site, if you expect that there would be odor emanating, just kind of like walk through if I'm a customer, what that looks like. [00:13:35] **Nathan O'Brien (Applicant)**: Yeah, absolutely. Um I could take a stab at it. Uh Danny's been running uh dispensers, several dispensaries and businesses in Washington for a long time. That's why I brought him. I'm going to let Danny address that because he has a lot of experience. [00:13:50] **Daniel Yarro (Lion Cannabis)**: My name is Daniel Yarro. I have a dispensary currently in Spokane, Washington. So Nate brought me on to kind of like help him go through all the systems and tools and place like that. For example, you were talking about a customer come in and Sam mentioned this too. We have a security guard working the front door. As soon as they walk in, they have to be carted and then once they go through that, they go to the counter and they they deal with quote-quote a bud tender. That's what they're called. That's the people working the counters. And then when they work the counter, their ID gets scanned through the POS system. And if the ID doesn't get scanned through the POS system correctly, the purchase can't go through. So they get kind of like a double check. So the security guard at the front door checks them before they come in. Anyone under age of 21 cannot come in. Um we do recreational use and medical use. Uh so they get double checked at the front door and then when they go to the counter the POS system scans their card, scans their ID and then if it's sometimes IDs that are of the legal age and they still won't go through we can't the P system locks up. It won't let us sell to them. So that's kind of like our double verification way of coming in and out. Um there's no there's no use on site. So usually when people come in they know what they want. come in, purchase, they in out. Um, like Nate was saying, there's no lunch rush, dinner rush, stuff like that. So, at my store currently, you might not, it's hardly ever more than two cars there. It's like one car, two cars just sort of throughout in and out throughout the day. [00:15:30] **Nathan O'Brien (Applicant)**: She mentioned the odor, too. I don't know if you want to address it. [00:15:35] **Daniel Yarro (Lion Cannabis)**: Oh, okay. So, in Washington, and I assume everything's going to be the exact same here, so I'm speaking for what I currently do in Washington. Everything's prepackaged. you know, everything's prepackaged, sealed. So, there's it's not like the medical days where they had jars, they opened it up, people smelled it, there's odor. Everything is prepackaged. It's uh the state tests everything and then once it's sold to the once it goes to the stores, everything prepackaged. You you can't even allow to open up the package on site. So, if they purchase something, they open it up at home, it doesn't work. There's nothing we can do about it. Everything is prepackaged and sealed. [00:16:15] **Commissioner Cersea**: it sounds this would be similar to an interaction that someone might have in like one of our municipal liquor stores. Like they come in, they look at the product except with the added security of someone at the door. [00:16:30] **Daniel Yarro (Lion Cannabis)**: Exactly. Um they make their selection, they purchase, and they leave. Yeah. And then another thing they do now is you can look online to see because there's different strains this that other that come through like the farms and stuff. So they can look online, see what they want, this, that, and other, and then they can come in expecting the product to be on the shelves and stuff. These liquor stores usually have the exact same product with cannabis. Might be this time of the year, this thing came out, or this time of year, this came out. It just, it just depends on like the flower and concentrates, whatever happens. [00:17:10] **Commissioner Surma**: One more question. When do you anticipate opening if um all the approvals go as planned? [00:17:15] **Nathan O'Brien (Applicant)**: We have a lot of construction to do. Um, we are both contractors. Um, so I have a lot of connections with laborers. I think the biggest thing is we have to remove some asphalt. Um, and we want to do as much as we can before the winter 60 days after approval. [00:17:35] **Daniel Yarro (Lion Cannabis)**: Well, I guess this is all like this all new. So, we're we have we have like a huge step-by-step thing. We have to go through the OCM Office of Cannabis Minnesota. We then we have your guys' stuff we have to go through. So we would don't really know exactly how many steps we go through and how long it's going to take. [00:17:55] **Nathan O'Brien (Applicant)**: We were provided a road map and what we do know is once we have approval from our local municipality um we have to send I believe the site plan to OCM and then they come in for a safety inspection and that's when they grant the license. And I what I'm unclear on I actually sent them an email today is are they coming in to check out the site before we do work or do we do all the work and then they come in and approve it. Um, but regardless, we would the construction is probably the biggest thing. And is the inspection after construction or before? So, I'm waiting on answers on that. [00:18:30] **Daniel Yarro (Lion Cannabis)**: And then with security concerns and OCM when they come in and do the inspection, they'll ask the security system. They have access to the cameras all the way to 6 months back. They can come in any times, check the cameras out, and they do in they were probably going to do an inspection in Washington. They do inspection every single year just to check your cameras out. pull stuff off, but they can come in anytime they want. [00:18:55] **Commissioner Cersea**: Thank you. I um I hope you if you stay available in case we there are some questions after the hearing that you might be able to answer. [00:19:05] **Nathan O'Brien (Applicant)**: Oh, sure. Absolutely. Yep. Thank you. [00:19:10] **Chair**: All right. At this time, I would like to open the public hearing. Um if you are here to uh uh make a comment or speak to this matter, please approach the podium. [00:19:20] **Sean Foley (Resident)**: Hi, I'm Sean Foley, uh 7421 Aldrich Avenue South, uh directly behind the the proposed site. Um and uh we've appreciated all the the information and uh the thoroughness with which the city staff has replied to the questions that the neighbors have had. Um as indicated uh you know the site has been zoned for commercial since I believe 1999. Um and so but I think it's important to put in context for the neighborhood that um it's I think it's been the hair restoration clinic that entire time. Um and they talked, you know, it's going to be relatively low traffic, but uh it's going to be exponentially greater than the previous use had. Um and so I think that's partly just the change that has people concerned at least a little bit. Um uh we personally, my wife and I personally appreciate some of the site planning that's gone in. Um we definitely appreciate the fact that the the trees are staying. Uh Richfield's losing a lot of trees and we appreciate that those are staying. We appreciate the thought of the the fence. Um I believe most of the yards that abut the the proposed site already have 6-foot property fences and so although the thought is nice, I'm not sure it quite adds a whole lot to the to the feeling. Um I haven't talked to all the neighbors, but uh we personally would definitely be in favor of an increased height. Um, I I haven't talked to anyone else about this, but I also think it would alleviate some concerns if there were fences on more than just the west side um on the back of the lot. I don't know if that has been considered or would be allowed um or not. As far as the traffic goes, I appreciate all the information about Lindale and the way it can support it. Think part of the concern of our block, the 7,400 block of Aldrich is that uh we've had a lot of concerns about the traffic on 75th long before this business was proposed. Um and I think we'll be submitting another request to consider a stop sign uh four-way stop at 75th and Aldrich. Um there are always a lot of cars parked on the block the 7500 uh the on 75th street between Aldrich and Lindale. There's a school bus stop on the south side of Aldrich um uh on on Aldrich on the south side of 75th. Um it's always just very dicey when kids are trying to cross uh 75th with all those cars to the east. Um it's very hard for people to see cars coming across that intersection. Um and so even if this business doesn't add um a lot of traffic to the intersection, we're still concerned about that intersection. And I guess sort of regardless of this, um, I think that's it. Uh, again, we appreciate all the information and I I guess we'll be seeing you out our backyard potentially. So, it's nice nice to meet you. So, thank you. [00:22:15] **Brad Diamond (Resident)**: Good evening. My name is Brad Diamond. I live at 7409 Aldrich Avenue South, a couple doors down from the Foley's. Um, the primary concern that I have again is traffic. And you know, I'll reiterate, I don't want to recover what Sean's already talked about, but parking and traffic is a a significant concern. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a traffic study done in many years on the Lindell side. Maybe I'm incorrect on that, but especially since we've gone to the three lane traffic configuration on Lindale, people have taken to using Aldrich Avenue South as a bypass. They want to avoid the stop lights down on 76th in Lindale. So, they'll come on 74th and on 75th and on 76th and run uh Aldrich Avenue south down through those blocks. So, we've got significantly more traffic there from outside traffic outside being non-resident of that partic of our particular neighborhood. So, that I have a concern that that will be increased. Um Sean did discuss the fact that there was a low traffic volume at the hair restoration place. I obviously wasn't a customer. Um however, any retail establishment, even as described as being relatively low volume at any given time, is going to increase that traffic volume as well, which may again lead to more bypass traffic on Aldrich Avenue South. Um Sean mentioned the bus stop down on 75th in Aldrich. I frequently am walking my dog in the morning at about the time the kids are down there. Traffic comes through there pretty quickly. There's very limited sight lines and you know the folks who live on the block know you know know those kids are going to be down there take it pretty easy but any of that rerouted traffic is a significant risk to those children. Uh I go down through those intersections myself regularly. Obviously when I'm driving, I'm very lo to go through that 75th and Aldrich intersection. So any additional traffic routed through there, any additional overflow parking, I don't necessarily expect overflow parking from the proposed business or any additional traffic down there just adds to that risk and that burden on the neighborhood. So, those are my primary concerns. I, you know, listen discuss their business plan. I have no objections to um what they're doing, you know, selling marijuana. Great. Um I wish them well. It's just the particular specific location that I'm concerned about. Thank you for your time. [00:25:00] **Anastasia Grieman (Resident)**: Hello. Uh, I want to first address the people from Avenue—Oh, yes. My apologies. My name is Anastasia Grieman and I live on 7435 Lindel Avenue. I live in the apartment complex there. Um, I want to first say thank you to the people in Aldrich Avenue for giving your opinions. I don't know what it's like on that street. So, it's very nice to hear your concerns about the traffic. And I agree that maybe something should be done about that, like maybe more stop signs so people are forced to be slower on those streets so that way they can be more careful for the children there. Of course, I also would like to say some other concerns about traffic, specifically foot traffic. I mostly walk and bike and I actually take care of all the bus stops that are in this area. So, um, I pick up all the garbage there and I get free bus passes through the Metro Transit thing that they do. Anyways, I wanted to say that I have had many encounters, especially as of late, crossing the um, lit up foot traffic thing and people will speed up to go through it completely ignoring the flashing lights. Like I will be in the middle of it and someone will be like, "It's yellow. I can go." So, it's very annoying. And I feel like if people are going to possibly be coming here from the bus stops, then um if someone's coming from the north side, then they're going to have to cross the street to go back north when they come to visit this place. And if someone is coming from perhaps Penn Avenue and they're taking the four all the way around, then they're going to be on that side again. So, they're going to have to cross the street. And I feel like if we're going to install a business that might attract people from other places, even if they're not coming by car, um it should be made to be more safe for the pedestrians there because I've had too many negative experiences with people just speeding through when the lights are flashing and that's only on one side of 75th. The other side doesn't even have the flashing lights. So that's a concern that I have personally about the traffic in that area. Um, beyond that, I think that this is a great idea, but that's just me. And, uh, yes, I think that's all I had to say. [00:27:30] **Chair**: Thank you. Yes. Thank you. All right. Um, in addition to the, um, just for the record, we did we did receive multiple emails, correct? you had forwarded those on and then um there was another one left for us on the chairs today. [00:27:45] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: Yes, chair and commissioners. There were about um four different households represented uh in the comments that were received and forwarded by email. [00:27:55] **Chair**: Seeing no one else uh here to speak, um I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. [00:28:00] **Commissioner Surma**: Commissioner Surma so moves to close the public hearing. [00:28:03] **Commissioner Hoie**: Commissioner Hoie seconds. [00:28:05] **Chair**: All right. Moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor, please say I. [00:28:10] **Commissioners**: I. [00:28:11] **Chair**: Opposed. All right. Um, discussion. [00:28:15] **Commissioner Hoie**: I guess I I had one question if that's okay. Commissioner Hoie, um, staff, what is the lighting situation in the parking lot? Um, I know we talked about lighting codes and stuff before. I'm sure this has to comply with all that, but just to be clear, what will the lighting look like in the parking lot and just how will that, you know, affect the neighbors? [00:28:35] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: Yeah. Um, chair and commissioners, we do not have a lighting plan from uh the applicant as of yet. It's um we do have code requirements with minimum and maximum foot candles and they are proposing some lighting um because conceptually so we will take a look at that in greater detail as they get towards building permit. Um that's pretty much all I I can say I I we we will be analyzing it. We just don't have those details at this point in the process. [00:29:00] **Commissioner Hoie**: That's fine. Yeah. Um if it's okay if I ask a couple follow-up questions. Um another one, um we talked about the fence. Um I I'm fully supportive of, you know, an option to do a higher fence with support of all the neighbors. Um I just want to make sure that, you know, it's not peeving somebody while pleasing somebody else. So, um, if we did want to explore that or give them that option as a community to kind of resolve and say everyone wants to do it, they can do it, but I don't think anyone should be forced to. Um, and then, um, yeah, I I think I'm I'm very supportive of this project. I think the conversations around traffic are very legitimate. I wish that was in our purview to fix today. Um, as a frequent pedestrian myself, I also think that people just don't regard our our our crosswalks, but that's another problem for another day. But, um, thanks you for presenting. [00:29:55] **Commissioner Surma**: Commissioner Surma here. Yeah, and I I agree with you what Commissioner Hoie mentioned about the traffic safety situation. I agree. I I I live very close by in this neighborhood as well and I cross these crosswalks quite often and yeah, there's flashing lights and often drivers don't stop for them and I notice like the flashing lights that were embedded in the pavement originally are no longer functioning. And I would I would I don't think it's really in our purview, but I would just say as a friendly thing to staff, please pass it along to public works that the flashing light infrastructure at 75th in Lindale just says me and the person mentioned it as well needs to be uh needs to be looked at um for safety because that is a legitimate safety concern in this area um and and is worth addressing. I agree with the the what was said about the fence scene. I think it should be explored a bit more. I don't want to impose it on anyone who may not want it. Uh and I'd also encourage the applicants to um work with uh if possible the the part of my building next door that is directly adjacent and overlooking this this lot if um if there's any sort of desire for fencing or screening or any sort of of of buffer there. I don't know if there is or not, but it hasn't been mentioned yet today. So, I wanted to uh encourage conversation around that side of of the property as well. [00:31:15] **Chair**: Um Crosby, I was just curious, we've been talking about a variance for offense, but I'm would this meet the the the legal standards that we have to grant a variance? That would be my question. [00:31:25] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: Um, chair and commissioners, um, there I I do not see a true practical difficulty. However, uh, the city does have discretion to, um, allow deviation from code when it is the result of a conversation during a public hearing that is the intent to protect neighboring properties. So, um it it is within your purview um to do without or to at least recommend without a viable practical difficulty in this case. Does that make sense? Did I articulate that well enough? Um, while we're on the fence issue, was there what like I was on the site today and I did I noticed that all of the residential property had six foot fences on the back? Like what is the logic of putting a fence on the back and not on the sides? Like what was Can you speak a little bit more to that? [00:32:15] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: Yeah. Um, thank you. The the logic is that the fence is supposed to be screening. it is not supposed to be you know a barrier for traversing the neighborhood. So, um, in as much as, uh, the true hardships for such a fence height variance might be if there were a deck and people were lingering outside and then they were raised up by 30 in because they were standing on top of the deck and then they had better views into people's backyards, then, you know, a higher fence might compensate for that. Um or if uh there was a situation where the 25- ft buffer from the residential property line was not being met either by the parking lot or by the building in some way, then maybe to compensate for that closer proximity, you would have a taller fence. Um those are not um those are not circumstances in this situation, but um I don't see the fence as being meant to like keep people moving around. Must not have been clear. So, oh, sorry. [00:33:15] **Commissioner Cersea**: And I'm actually um pretty reluctant to support an 8 foot. I don't see uh uh like other than adding stigma to the site, I don't know um what benefit that would give properties around it. Um I guess my question though is like if there's already an existing six-foot fence, why are we asking them to build their own six-foot fence in the same location? And why are we like that apartment building overlooks I mean like their windows overlook the parking lot like why are we not requesting it on the north or south side of the property I guess were my questions. [00:33:50] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: Okay. So the north side of the property is another commercial lot. So, and um the code just as that's where the code requires it from the low density residential. Um but the um so the reason why you'd want the commercial property owners to install the six foot tall fence even though there's already six foot tall fences right there is because then the maintenance is on the commercial property owner. And if the single family residential property owner didn't uh uh their fence was falling down, they didn't have the funds to replace it, they would still have the screening in place without having the responsibility of maintaining it. So that's why even though it does create a little bit of a hardship for that like one foot of space in between the two fences. [00:34:30] **Commissioner Cersea**: yeah and so if I'm hearing you correctly and then I'll I'll let this point but like so we require it on single family residential but we don't require it on multifamily residential. [00:34:40] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: I believe that's correct. [00:34:42] **Commissioner Cersea**: and do we have discretion on that? Um, as a as a planning commission today, do we have discretion—if it came as a result of a public hearing about this item that an 8 foot tall or six even six foot tall fence was desired between the multifamily and the commercial use, then yes, that there's something instinctual that doesn't feel good that um, you know, single family homes should have a buffer between a commercial use in a way that multi-family homes shouldn't. like that doesn't feel good to me. I don't know if that creates a whole host of other problems or if it's a concern for the apartment building dwellers or not, but like there's something that doesn't sit very well with me on that in terms of the 8 foot issue. Um we could try to get consensus for the homeowners in the back now, but if there was turnover, what would that mean? Like I just think that it's a can of worms that perhaps we don't want to open and I'm not seeing a real need. And then just some quick comments to move my part along. I am supportive of the site plan review. Um, I think it is compliant to all of the things that we require. Um, I uh don't see any reason why we wouldn't approve this. Um although I do have questions about that fence, but um all of the other um staff recommended improvements I think are spoton and I'm um happy to see that site being used again. Um it may be a more intensive use um than what was previously there, but it is still something that is permitted within our our city has planned for that type of use on that property. So, I don't think we can um not consider it because it might um provoke more traffic. But I do really appreciate that the city staff was quick to um tell residents about the traffic form that we have where you can request a review of um traffic calming measures. I forget the exact form, but I think that I saw that in the staff report and I hope that the neighbors um take advantage of that process because um it looks like there's a lot going on in that neighborhood and you know safe biking and walking and all of those things is really important. So, I really do hope that you guys take advantage of that process. I think that process is separate than what we're reviewing today and I'd be supportive of the application. [00:36:55] **Commissioner Teraldson**: I really think this traffic question is something like there's a lot of a lot of noise about that and I think there's some credence to that and same experiences walking around there have had you know flashing lights don't seem to slow people down. Um my question mainly for planner Crosby is what is the exact process to address that? I think that the issues there are likely not directly related to this project but I I do think that you know getting these emails and the comments we've heard tonight that there's some credence there. I just don't know what the process to address that is and if that's something we can even touch. [00:37:30] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: Chair, Commissioner Teraldson, the traffic control committee um which is the form connect the people behind the form that you just mentioned um is comprised of various of people from various departments across the city. Um and we receive and I say we because I'm on it we receive requests from residents and we sometimes do speed counts or car counts. um our our engineering department has the ability to do those things and we do have rules and regulations from the state like standards that you know maybe certain signs or like a a traffic light can't be put up without certain conditions or a stop sign cannot be put in without certain conditions. Um so there are some rules and regulations that we kind of have to adhere to when reviewing these requests. Um, I will say in relation to a four-way stop at 75th and Aldrich, I reached out to our traffic engineer and he says that this area has been evaluated several times over the past decade in response to complaints and um just the crash history and um kind of general configuration of the intersection does not warrant a four-way stop. However, um parking has been reduced in this area to increase visibility of the pedestrians trying to cross in that area. And we can continue as we receive more requests in the future, we can continue to look at it to monitor it to make sure that thing that the conditions aren't changing and that maybe at some point a four-way stop would be warranted. Um but yeah, just keep filling out the forms and we'll keep doing it. [00:39:05] **Chair**: planner Crosby, how do you Now, Lindale is a county road, correct? At that point. [00:39:10] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: No, it's not. No, it's Yeah, it's ours. Yeah. Sorry, I had to think about it. No. [00:39:20] **Commissioner Surma**: Commissioner, I have another question. Um, we mentioned um building setback and the sign. the the code is already built in with the building setback in mind that we do not need to write in an additional variance that variance is just— [00:39:30] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: that's correct [00:39:31] **Commissioner Surma**: by the fact—is there one for the sign does one need to be added for that [00:39:35] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: um no I would not um recommend that because we would look for the sign to come into conformance if and when it you know reaches the end of its useful life so we wouldn't want to and since variances kind of um keep going with the property I I I would not suggest that they can continue to use the sign post and mounting as a non-conforming thing. They're allowed to change the signage without a variance. [00:40:00] **Commissioner Surma**: Okay, perfect. [00:40:02] **Chair**: Um I I just wanted to say that I agree with Commissioner Cersea about the 8 foot thing. I am not inclined to start giving variances for high fences because there is a reason that we have a 6-ft limit and I don't want to set precedents of granting you know higher fences all over the place and and I hadn't thought of the multif family screening issue and I I I think that's a legitimate um a legitimate question maybe for looking at the code in general but for this for this site as well that if we are going to screen for the um single family homes that we should similarly screen for the um multi-family home as you know it's an issue of of equity really um so I mean can we we would just need to to amend the recommended action to add that correct—I mean to—I'm sorry are you suggesting that um the planning commission add to a recommend recommendation to look at the code in relation to this issue. Um, yes, in general, yes. Um, but specifically for this site, um we could just amend our our resolution that we forward to the city council. Correct. [00:41:15] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: Yeah. Yeah. You can you can include whatever details in the recommendation the planning commission sees fit. [00:41:22] **Commissioner Cersea**: I just hate to not take advantage of having someone who lives in that apartment building on um uh like is that if you care to comment, do you think that that would be welcome? Does it do you see any benefit to that? If you have no comment on it, that's fine too. Just curious since you mentioned it that you live in the apartment building. [00:41:40] **Anastasia Grieman (Resident)**: I don't live in the direct— [00:41:42] **Commissioner Cersea**: Very good. Very good. people in there. [00:41:45] **Anastasia Grieman (Resident)**: Okay. Sorry about that. Thank you. [00:41:48] **Chair**: Yeah, I think we would need a motion to take the staff recommended action and then we would need we could have motions to amend that recommended action. [00:41:55] **Commissioner Hoie**: Since I brought up the fence earlier, I guess I just wanted to kind of follow up on that on your comments. Um, I I I see your perspectives and and thinking about I am wondering, you know, what does an eight fence fix that a six foot fence doesn't fix? Um, I don't have incredibly strong feelings on either way. If the consensus of the commission is that there's no need to make any exceptions for an 8 foot fence, I'm I'm fine with that. I don't know if anyone else has any strong opinions either way. [00:42:25] **Commissioner Cersea**: Commissioner Cersea is going to make a motion to recommend approval of the proposed site plan to convert the existing building at 7424 Lindell Avenue South to retail sales. [00:42:35] **Commissioner Teraldson**: Commissioner Teraldson seconds. [00:42:40] **Chair**: It's been moved and seconded. And I would like to move to amend the recommendation to add that the that fencing be required on the side facing the the multi-family housing as well. [00:42:50] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: I'm sorry, chair and commissioners, please forgive me. Was the Did the motion include a fence along the west property line? [00:42:58] **Chair**: It does, doesn't it? [00:43:00] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: It does because I'm putting forward staff report and staff report had the west, didn't it? Oh, I'm sorry. An 8ft fence along the—No, you're just saying only—Thank you for clarifying. I'm sorry. I must not have heard correctly. [00:43:12] **Chair**: Yeah. Okay. Thanks. So, I'm moving to amend the recommendations that we forward to add a requirement for six foot along the multi-family. Is there a second for that? [00:43:22] **Commissioner Cersea**: So moved, Commissioner Cersea. [00:43:25] **Chair**: Okay. Any discussion on the amendment? [00:43:28] **Commissioner Cersea**: I would just ask that um any practical difficulties, any like anything that comes up and uh recommending this that that be brought forward to the council discussion just because we're um there could be unintended consequences with this that we haven't thought through. So just anything that comes up post this meeting that that be brought through to city council. [00:43:50] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: Okay. Yes. [00:43:52] **Chair**: All right. With no other discussion, the motion before us is to amend the recommended action for the to add a requirement for fencing on the multi-family side. All those in favor of the amendment, please say I. [00:44:05] **Commissioners**: I. [00:44:06] **Chair**: Opposed. All right. The amendment is adopted. We're back on to the main motion of the recommended action. Any other discussion? [00:44:15] **Commissioner Surma**: Yeah. Can we mentioned earlier about recommending that the city council look at the code again about fences along multi-family. Is that within our purview to just recommend to the city council that they revisit the issue and study that issue? [00:44:30] **Chair**: Yes. I don't think it would be attached to this proposal, but there's nothing to keep us from asking city staff to pass our concerns to— [00:44:38] **Commissioner Surma**: Yeah. Because that seems like something that came up quite a bit here. And I would like to yeah just pass it along to city staff that we are concerned that that's not a part of the city code right now and would just friendly suggest that it be examined and discussed. [00:44:55] **Chair**: Okay. Any other discussion on the main motion? [00:44:58] **Commissioner Teraldson**: I'd also ask for an amendment or at least a note u passed on by planner Crosby to the the council about the traffic issues and just so people are at least heard at that level. I know we can't do much here but I want to be sympathetic to that. [00:45:12] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: Can you say that again? I'm sorry. [00:45:15] **Commissioner Teraldson**: Uh just passing along that you know we heard a lot about traffic in that area and you know I know it's not really our purview but I would like to pass that along like specifically call it out in the resolution. [00:45:25] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: Yes, I can do that. [00:45:28] **Chair**: All right. Seeing no other discussion, all those in favor of taking the recommended staff action as amended, please say I. [00:45:35] **Commissioners**: I. [00:45:36] **Chair**: Opposed. All right. um carries. The next thing on the agenda would be resolutions and I don't believe we have any before us. Is that correct? [00:45:45] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: Um hold on. Oh, no. No. This the next item is under other business. [00:45:50] **Chair**: All right. Yeah. So then other other business, do we have a staff report for that? Did you move it to him? [00:46:00] **Steve McDaniel (Finance)**: Turn that on to start with. My name is Steve McDaniel. Um I'm the budget cash and debt manager. And um as far as the staff report goes, I I would believe that would fall to somebody else. I I could be wrong. Am I supposed to present the staff report or was that supposed to be uh Sam Crosby? [00:46:25] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: I I—So this is my first time being here. Um and I was watching last year's and I don't recall if I presented the staff report or not, but uh happy to to present a staff report if I'm supposed to. I do have a PowerPoint presentation, but I do apologize. Steve, I think you can just go ahead with the presentation. I'm pretty sure that's how I went on last. [00:46:45] **Steve McDaniel (Finance)**: Yeah, sounds good. Um, to begin again, my name is Steve McDaniel, budget cash debt manager, and I'm here to present the 2026 capital improvement budget and also the 4-year, which is 2027 to 2030 capital improvement plan. To begin, the 2026 capital improvement budget totals just under $22 million. And there are four different areas that make that up. There is recreation and open space which is $6,725,000. Then what we'll see on a few slides past these main charts are a few projects that make that up. But, to begin with, the Veterans Park complex, which is funded by a sales tax bonds, makes up $5 million of that $6.7 million number, as well as, um, one an additional $1 million for the Woodlake Nature Center, also funded by, um, sales tax bonds. Uh, those are the main components. There's also an additional $725,000 in there. For the right of way, um, that is $9.9 million or roughly 45%. um for 2026 that's made up of a main piece of that is going to be $7.5 million for the Nickeola reconstruction project. Um there are a few other projects in there as well and we'll get to those on the next few slides for public facilities or utilities. $1.5 million. Um $900,000 of that is related to a multi-year sanitary sewer main lining project. That's an annual project that's ongoing. And lastly in the yellow there is 17% or $3.8 million related to buildings fleet and technology. About $1.65 million of that is related to multi-year fleet purchases. So purchases of vehicles for the city. An additional $1.475 million of that amount is related to the public works storage facility. What we'll see on this next slide is um of that $22 million where are the funds coming from then? Um the main bulk of it as I had mentioned before for in the green there 27% is sales tax bonds and that's related to the Veterans Park complex as well as an additional 1 million for the Woodlake Nature Center in 2026. Uh in the purple is the geo bonds utilities. um in 2026 that's 18% let's see what the main components of that's going to be. It's going to be the multi-year nickel reconstruction project are are funded by geobonds utilities. The other big piece is going to be the 16% property tax bonds and that again is related to the nicllet reconstruction project. 3.5 million in 2026 is related to that. Those are kind of the big pieces of the pie. There's also some some additional pieces in there and happy to answer any questions if there are any at the end or as we go throughout this presentation then. So looking then at the next four years 2027 to 2030 we we have a a larger number here of this $132 million. And generally if you saw in the last slide $22 million if you multiply that by four years you're going to be at about $88 million. So why is this coming in somewhere between $30 to $40 million more than that on average? Um and the main piece of that's going to be in the recreation and open space in 2029 and 2030 is when we're planning to do the community center project and that's where it's going to be um $45 million in sales tax bonds and then $10 million in property tax bonds. So that makes up a big piece of this larger amount on average then. So that's takes care of the recreation open space. Um that that's a majority of those costs is the 55 million related to the community center. The right of way improvements of $46 million. Um again it's related to the ongoing nickel reconstruction project as well as the pen project then as well. And I'll get to those on a few slides from here. Um in the utilities right ofway projects and utility projects sometimes are related to the same project. So, there's going to be pieces in there related to nicid and and pen reconstruction as well. Lastly, the buildings and fleet. Um, I think what was new this year, I almost think that fleet was usually just putting together a one-year budget, but what we're starting to get fleet to do is what is it going to look like for the next four years. So, roughly about $1.5 million is about the assumed ongoing purchases of vehicles for the next four years on average, but about $1.5 million or so. Again, we'll see this larger pie chart in your packet. As I was looking at the PowerPoint presentation, I did make one little change and it's related to the purple used to show 6% related to fleet special revenue. When I was looking at it visually, that seemed wrong. So, fleet special revenue is supposed to be in the yellow. um the purple is the geo bonds utility projects. um again, for the next four years, we're looking at that $132 million number. the bond sales tax in the green, that's the biggest piece of that related to the community center, um which is $45 million in bond sales tax. Uh the additional 10 million for the community center is in the blue 21% which is the property tax bonds. And again, on this slide, just wanted to highlight that I I did make a mistake in the packet. um hopefully that's just the only mistake then, but just wanted to update for the record. The purple should be the 16% and the yellow is the 6% for fleet special revenue. On this next slide, we'll start to see some of these bigger projects. Um, I've talked about the Nicollet Avenue reconstruction project and these all this information is gathered from departments. We do some vetting of these projects, understand the cost and the impact of it then as well. And these slides are prepared by departments then. um so this the Nicollet Avenue reconstruction project does have an estimated cost of about $25 million. of that there is there's a county cost share agreement that the city has with Hennepin County and as of now that the the city share is estimated to be 11.5 million. So that project is ongoing for 2026 and 2027. The other big project that I referenced before is the Penn Avenue reconstruction project. Here it's estimated to be 32.6 million starting in years 2028 to 2029. So, it showed up as part of that overall part of that $132 million pie in years between 2027 and 2030. The estimated city share is $12.8 million. Again, the construction starts in 28 to 29. There may be some costs in prior years that may range I think it's between $200,000 and $300,000 then. And my understanding is that most of those costs are related to more soft costs. These are the hard costs of the construction costs in these outer years, but in the earlier years could be some engineering and design kind of projects, project costs. This next slide for public works is related to some sidewalks and safe routes to school projects. There are three different projects here. I think for the most part they are occurring in 2026. one of them may continue into 2027. We have a 64th Street sidewalk project, the 73rd Street sidewalk project, and the Sheridan Hill safe routes schools project. What you'll see is there's state grant funding of $2.4 million, then city funding of $770,000. So kind of ends up being close to like 25%. It's not exact, but that's kind of the breakdown of those numbers. The city's contributing 25% of the project or so. um with a state grant and that through the competitive bid process the state is funding about $2.4 million. There is a $5 million project slated in 2027 related to the emergency water interconnect. And what this project's going to do, I know a lot of these every one of these projects has its own project sheet in your packet. I I know there's 100 plus pages of of materials for the planning commission today. Then um I forget the exact page this one is on, but if you're familiar with this project, it is to create some redundancy with the city of Minneapolis. The goal is that we the city of Rfield's relying on its own water system and in case of some kind of failure having this redundancy with the city of Minneapolis is what the the public works is suggesting with this project. Then there's a few other projects. Then the annual cost to the sanitary sewer line of $900,000 that's in 2026. It was in previous years then as well and it's ongoing and annually. Water treatment plant elevator construction project of $175,000 in 2026. And lastly, the water treatment plant generator project of $2.5 million being funded through utility bonds in 2027. We're now moving on to the recreation services projects. Then there are projects at other departments on as well. It has some some small projects and fire and police each have some some projects then as well. But these are highlighting kind of that that big pieces of the overall $22 million in 2026 and $132 million in years after that then. So most of those usually come from public works and recreation services. um the big one that should be wrapping up in the winter of 2026 is the Woodlake Nature Center. This had a project budget of $26 million. um 12 million of that was from state grant funding and that was in previous years. Then 11 million is from bond sales tax. 10 million of that was in 2024, I believe. Then and we're asking for we're receiving the additional $1 million in sales tax bonds coming up here at the end of the year. um the additional 3 million was related to a federal grant then. So, that's where the 26 million came from. For the Veterans Memorial Park Complex, a $9 million project funded by the sales tax bonds as well. The pool is estimated to be 4.25 million. um work for that did begin. um, I think it's starting right about now then and is going on into the spring and I think it should wrap up in the spring as far as I know. um, park improvements, $2.6 million, and the ice arena is $1.7 million. So, these projects are in 2026 and into 2027. Then, as well, the new community center building, the $55 million is slated to begin for the most part in 2029. There may be some smaller costs in 2028, but the bulk of it is 2029 and 2030. $45 million again funded through sales tax bonds with 10 million being funded with property tax bonds. One of the last updates for recreation services is that there is this parks master plan and this is estimated to be $180,000 and what recreation services is planned to do is evaluate the existing park system develop a shared vision for the park system develop prioritization strategy to guide decision-making and investments and establish a detailed implementation program. With that being said, previously scheduled was the Donaldson Park building and playground project that was estimated to be about $1.8 million. Because of the parks master plan, this is being paused for now. um, it may come into fruition through what they see through the parks master plan, but as of right now, this project is on hold, but may resume depending on the outcomes of the parks master plan. That concludes my presentation. Apologies on the confusion on the staff report at the beginning, but I'm here to answer any questions. [01:00:30] **Commissioner Cersea**: Commissioner Cersea, I really nice job on the presentation like you can actually understand what is being planned for. Um and I just felt like it was a really easy report to read. So, thank you for that. Um very excited to see the parks master plan. I know it's a small item in a very big capital improvement budget, but very excited to see that. Was very excited to see the sidewalks that are being planned and was curious. This might be a little outside of your scope, but do you know how it was decided which sidewalks the city would put grant or like apply for those grants or like kind of a little bit more about that and if there's any talk of like a sidewalk master plan that is being proposed? [01:01:20] **Steve McDaniel (Finance)**: Sure. Yeah, I I could try to answer it, but I see Katie Rodriguez, city manager, standing up, so I I'll defer to a friend here. [01:01:30] **Katie Rodriguez (City Manager)**: Yes, thank you. Um, and did you want me to read the staff report? We're spoiled. Staff are spoiled at council meetings because the council members actually read the staff reports. So, would you like me to? I didn't have it I didn't have it up, so I didn't I wasn't ready to do it, but I'm happy to do that. I think the presentation answered it and and the other aspect would be what why what we're required to do and that would be to make a finding about this at the end. So I think we're good. [01:01:55] **Commissioner Cersea**: Okay. Thank you. [01:01:57] **Katie Rodriguez (City Manager)**: So we had a pedestrian master plan that was put together in 2018 and then more recently that helped inform an active transportation plan that the council passed in 2024. And so that guides, you know, overall it guides this work that we're doing. But then the individual projects we are submitting. There's um a safe routes to school program that you can apply to a competitive grant program through MINDOT, but then there's also one that is run through the Met Council regional solicitation project. And so depending on the criteria for both of those programs, we're trying to pick projects that are going to compete well. Uh and we've done really well over the years and I give all the credit to public works staff. We're also working with Richfield public schools. um they have a safe routes to school coordinator and so they are also telling us what the school needs are. So uh that collaboration plus our guiding documents and the you know trying to be competitive with the programs. That's what guides the the projects that get picked and awarded. [01:02:55] **Commissioner Cersea**: Thank you. Mhm. [01:02:57] **Commissioner Teraldson**: Ditto with the the presentation is wonderful. Um I digging into the numbers and stuff is always fun, but um it looks like there's not a lot of federal funding in here and and so I was curious if if that is the case and then two is that mean that we're fairly well protected from any instability from federal funding? [01:03:15] **Katie Rodriguez (City Manager)**: Yeah, I can take your question. I don't have the spreadsheet up in front of me. Um but we've been tracking it for the council and I can certainly follow up with you. Uh as a percentage it is lower. Uh we are we did lose a grant. We lost a public health grant about a half million dollars. It was mostly a pass through to Bloomington public health. So the loss is really good programming that Bloomington Public Health was doing about vaccine hesitancy. um but it wasn't that the city had staff that they had to lay off or anything like that. Um, we are continuing to monitor it. um, for these particular grants that are federal that are coming through the Met Council, we have been told that that that is not going to get clawed back at this point. [01:03:55] **Commissioner Teraldson**: Thank you. [01:03:57] **Commissioner Hoie**: I'm going to unless there's any other comment. I was going to make a motion. Are we ready for it? I was going to make a quick comment. Yeah, I just wanted to um wax poetic about city planning for a minute. Um I feel like a lot of our work here feels very mundane and signing papers and like looking at like codes and things, but like all of these things are to create a healthy city with a healthy tax base that pays for stuff like this. And I'm literally getting choked up thinking about this like sidewalks for my kid to go to school is really um it's really great. And I'm just um I love when we get to look at these budget reports. Great presentation um just because it's it feels like the that's why we're doing it. [01:04:45] **Commissioner Hoie**: Commissioner Hoie says uh I would like to motion um to take the staff action to accept the report as presented. Thank you. [01:04:55] **Commissioner Cersea**: Commissioner Cersea will second. [01:04:58] **Chair**: Any discussion? All those in favor please say I. [01:05:01] **Commissioners**: I. [01:05:02] **Chair**: opposed. All right. Um the next thing on the agenda would be liaison reports. Um and first one community services advisory Hoie. [01:05:12] **Commissioner Hoie**: Yes we actually talked about a handful of the projects in the presentation. Big one is there's no more Woodlake Nature Center. Um that's fully demolished. The park is still open. You can't you have to use some different ways to get into the park, but um exciting to see some major progress over there. [01:05:30] **Chair**: All right. Uh the city council um related to what we were just discussing, the city council has a work session this week where they're going to talk about safe routes to school and also um gun violence. So, um, uh, you know, relevant to some of the things we've been discussing. They also, proclaimed Hispanic Heritage Month at the last meeting. And then there was some issues with the municipal consent, uh, you know, the city approving to move on some of the 494, reconstructions, the next phase of that, as well as one about feeding wildlife. And I have to I have to read more. I didn't read the the the staff report about that one, and I want to because that seemed particularly interesting. Next is housing and redevelopment Cersea. [01:06:15] **Commissioner Cersea**: The HRA at its last meeting accepted a bring it home Minnesota funding award of over a million dollars for over two years. Um the money is comes from the metro area sales tax that dedicated a portion of the funds towards state level rental assistance. um and the grant award for the cities that applied for it or the HRAs that applied for it. um is based on the amount of income eligible households in the community. So, the funds are expected to serve about 35 to 45 households in Richfield with ongoing rental assistance and it's likely to launch in 2026. So, pretty cool to see that. [01:06:55] **Chair**: transportation Surma. [01:06:58] **Commissioner Surma**: Yes, a transportation commission recently went on a tour to Richfield bike ride, if you want to call it that, touring some of our new transportation infrastructure and future future projects. Uh the last like regular meeting here at city hall, I attended I believe it was in early August, there was a presentation by planner from Metro Transit about their study for future arterial BRT corridors. They spoke about Penn Avenue, Bloomington Avenue and 66th Street as candidates for that and the commission gave feedback on those ideas. There was discussion of safe routes to school plans which were we I think we just talked about and saw in the presentation just now that was discussed there and there was a project update from staff from Hennepin County about planning for the Penn Avenue reconstruction and beginning the community engagement for that process as the planning and design phase gets underway for 2028 construction. [01:07:55] **Chair**: and sustainability Teraldson. [01:08:00] **Commissioner Teraldson**: uh the sustainability commission is getting a new youth commissioner from Richfield High School. They will be starting next week or next month rather. Um other note was outreach to condos and apartment buildings um just about cleaning up the waste stream and making sure that things don't end up in the trash that shouldn't be there. um and there will be a tree health awareness event coming up in the fall pending ongoing litigation with surrounding suburbs. [01:08:30] **Chair**: Thank you. Um, and the agenda next is the city planners report. [01:08:35] **Sam Crosby (City Planner)**: Thank you, chair and commission. Um, on September 9th, the city council approved the MR2 MR3 zoning code updates. So, um, that was basically a year in the process. um it's also exciting that La Bonita grocery store is nearing completion and um they are talking about aiming for an October 1st opening. um we'll see if they get there maybe October 3rd. Anyhow, um also MIC is currently in for sketch plan review. That's the type of approval. It's not an approval. It's a type of process where they just kind of talk with staff about the rules and regulations um while before a formal land use application is made. um they do expect to be applying for formal land use before the end of the year and they are having a neighborhood open house on Tuesday, October 7th at their location at 2000 West 76th Street. and I can forward you the official invite when it comes out. And then also um we were thinking about how to just provide you additional information about what we do on a daily basis because development cases kind of come by you know here and there and I don't know if you're wondering what are we doing with our time in between all that but um Ruby had put together a brief overview of code enforcement. We enforce the sign subdivision and zoning codes. Um apart from our code enforcement division which is housed under our police department. We have our own—we do our own code enforcement. So here we—thank you. Um so let me just open this up really quick. [01:10:15] **Ruby (Planning Staff)**: Um, so like Sam said, we we put this together. I don't know how to whatever. I I'll just leave it like that. Uh, we put this together a couple months ago and it actually came out of um we have like a new online permitting website. Um, and we have started to put in our code enforcement cases in there um starting in 2023. So we have a way of kind of now we have like a full year's worth of code enforcement data and we were kind of curious to see like what like what has been going on um in the in the past few years or at least for 2024 where we have a full calendar year worth of code enforcement cases. Um, so before I go into this a little bit, maybe I could talk about a little bit about how the process kind of goes on in Richfield. So we have a complaint based system and what that means is that typically we won't really—we're not like out looking for cases. We kind of wait for the complaints to come in. Um, and that's partly because we don't have like dedicated code enforcement staff. At least not the planning and zoning division. And I say we cuz it's it's only Sam and I. Like it's a two person division. So it's not it's not a lot of us. Um, so we're complaint based and um we pretty much just wait for complaints to come in. Sometimes complaint violations are noticed by like housing inspectors doing inspections or building inspectors when they're out in the field. Um so that's kind of um like an overview I guess of how that goes on. And the process to basically simplify it is it starts off with staff will send a couple letters and we give like two weeks in between letters that we send. they're basically notices telling homeowners that they basically need to comply or that there's something going on in their property. Um, and if they don't comply, it eventually reaches the city prosecutor and that's simplifying it because a lot of the time um we work with homeowners to give them more time and for different reasons within reason we will give people more time. um, a lot of times if it's something that was opened like during the winter, um, like I don't maybe a driveway was poured wrong or something, we will give them like until the spring to rip out your driveway basically. So that's kind of how the process works. Um, and this is just kind of an overview of code enforcement cases in 2024. And I believe I had talked to you chair in the past about um I think you had asked a question about code enforcement before and I had mentioned that I thought it was like home occupations that were the most that I've dealt with since I've been here and yeah that's true. Um, so in 2024 we had 66 resolved and ongoing cases. Um, so by ongoing is just like some like basically like something that we were still working on at this point. um, as of when I made this presentation, we still had seven that were still open and ongoing at various stages in the process. So we had either granted an extension or it was with the city prosecutor. Um, and if it's with the city prosecutor, it can be at different stages like maybe we sent a demand letter asking that a property owner complies within 30 days or they've been charged and we're waiting for arraignment or we're waiting for a trial. Like it can be at various stages and once it reaches the city prosecutor, it just kind of drags on even more because the courts are so backed up, it's a long time to get a hearing. Um, so in 2024 we had of the 66 that were resolved or ongoing as of when I made this 10 had reached the city prosecutor. Interestingly, 10 cases of the 66 were unfounded or cases where we worked on them, but by the end of it, there pretty much was no violation to continue like we couldn't there's not—it's not necessarily that there wasn't a violation—we just couldn't find evidence of one and that that's at most common for home occupations and for over occupancy. Those are really hard to prove because there isn't necessarily like the violation won't always be there. It's not like a fence that was built wrong—like I don't know there might not always be outside storage. There might not always be people coming and going. We don't have cameras in people's homes, so we don't we don't know if there are actually truly an over occupancy issue. Um, but we regardless we look into all complaints if if a complaint is given. One other interesting thing, the longest code enforcement case out of the 2024 all 2024 cases took about a year to resolve. Um, and that did reach the city prosecutor. It didn't reach trial, but it did go on for an entire year. Of closed cases, the average length of time taken to comply was about 3 months. Um, and that sounds pretty standard to the typical process that we go through with sending two letters, allowing two weeks in between letters, and then sending a demand letter. Um, and then in 13 of the 66 cases in 2024 staff—so that means Sam or I—conducted an on-site visit with the property owner or representative of the property. Um, and that is significant because it's outside of—so with these code enforcement cases, we're constantly doing inspections, right? We send a letter. We inspect. If it's something not complied with, we send another letter. We inspect again. So, we're constantly inspecting. Um, but these on-site visits are something where we specifically like the property owner requested, "Can you come on site and come talk to me about this issue?" Um, and it's not necessarily something that is going to resolve the case, but it just helps them to kind of understand like where they're at, what is exactly going on. and it can help us also just get more information. um, so that was in 13 cases we went out and met with somebody and yeah I didn't really have anything else but if you have any questions. [01:16:30] **Chair**: thank you very much. All right. Um, the then I would I would entertain if there's nothing else I would entertain a motion to adjourn. [01:16:40] **Commissioner Hoie**: Commissioner Hoie so move. [01:16:42] **Commissioner Surma**: Commissioner Surma second. [01:16:45] **Chair**: All right. All those in favor please say I. [01:16:50] **Commissioners**: I. [01:16:52] **Chair**: opposed nay. We are adjourned.