Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I'm going to call to order the Richfield Planning Commission meeting for August 24th, 2026. I'll do a roll call.

Kolkowski, present.

Hui, present.

Tarleton, present. Surma, present.

Walls, present. Peterson, present.

Okay, before we get going with the approvals, we have open forum, so Members of the public who want to speak about whatever is not on the agenda tonight are welcome to go up to the podium and begin their statements. Did we get any comments from online?

Chair and commissioners, no, we have not.

Okay, well, moving to close the open forum. Oh, okay, go up there and please sign in.

This is my first time coming to the Planning Commission, so I apologize for my ignorance. While I'm signing this, my name... Yep, we've got to turn it on. I have to turn it on, or you did? Okay.

And just a point of clarification, is this about something that is not on the agenda, or is this about something that is on the agenda for later?

Well, there's two items. One is the development, and the other one is the projected or suggested CIP, capital improvement plan. Okay. So you have two items that I'm interested in.

Yeah, and if you were going to make comments, we'll have to wait until later in the meeting for both of those. This part's just for items that are not on the agenda later.

On anything on the agenda?

Yeah, correct.

Got it. Okay. THEN I'LL BE BACK. OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. SEEING NONE, I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE OPEN FORUM.

SERMA SECONDED.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED, SAY NAY. MOTION CARRIES. NEXT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FROM THE LAST MEETING IN OR FOR THIS MEETING TONIGHT, Uh, Mr. Carlson moves to approve the agenda tonight.

Mr. Wall seconds.

All of those are all in favor. Say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say nay. All right. Motion is approved. Um, onto the approval of the minutes from the April 27th, 2026. Mr. Carlson moves to approve as, uh, stated.

Kolkowski second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye.

All opposed say nay. Motion carries. On to the public hearing. So the first public hearing tonight is the consider of a conditional use permit at Site Plan A approval for a multifamily residential development of 290 units and two buildings at 6501 Portland Avenue. Is there a staff report?

Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. Yep, great, okay. Pope Architects and Lupe Development are before you this evening requesting a conditional use permit and site plan approval to construct a five story, 290 unit housing development at the former American Legion site at 6501 Portland Avenue South. The project is to be constructed in two phases. The first phase would be 130 units of workforce family housing in the eastern building. And the second phase would be 160 units of senior housing in the western building. Both buildings feature courtyard amenities, underground parking, and a green roof. The main entrance, you can see my mouse, that's excellent. The main entrance to the west building fronts on Portland Avenue. right about here, and the main entrance to the east building is on its southwest corner. The property will still have two access points, but the northern access opening is a little further north than the one that's there today currently sits. Also, these two access openings will be changed from one way to two way. Most of the turning movements will be in and out of the southern access opening. And in review of this project, the city required a traffic study and a parking analysis prepared by a professional traffic engineer. The study predicts that the trips generated by this project will be well within capacity of Portland Avenue, and there are no recommended mitigation measures to improve the conditions. The city then hired an independent traffic consultant to review the traffic analysis done by the applicant. And the consultant's review confirmed that all aspects of both the traffic study and the parking analysis were reasonable. The existing sanitary sewer system is not of a sufficient size for the project, but our engineering department is working on a design solution and the conditional use permit can be approved while those details are being finalized, as underground changes are not likely to impact the above ground improvements. The project has a modern design with lots of windows and wood paneling that befits the natural surrounding of the adjacent Veterans Park. The buildings preserve a sight line to Veterans Memorial between them, and the project will preserve pedestrian connections throughout the property to the park. Any concerns regarding residents overlooking the pool has been alleviated by larger building setbacks on the south side, upper story step backs on the third and fourth floors. You can kind of see those, how the step backs wrap the building. And orienting the east building, excuse me, so that the courtyard faces south rather than north. I'm going to go ahead and close out of this and just switch back to, whoops. The subject property is zoned MR3, which is high density residential and it lies within the Veterans Park Overlay District. A conditional use permit is required for all projects over 100 units in size. And a conditional use permit allows the city to place reasonable conditions upon a project in order to implement the code or to protect adjacent properties. The following areas are where the plan does not meet code. The future connection to 66th, the signage plan, the parking setback from the east property line, and the details for rooftop screening. The draft resolution before you this evening includes conditions to bring the above items into compliance. There are also quite a few areas where the council has discretion. They are the bird collision reduction plan, electric vehicle chargers, tree preservation plan, basically all of the landscaping requirements, the amount of parking, the parking lot screening, the green space within the setbacks, and the housing variety. These areas are discussed in greater detail in the staff report, but in summary, staff has drafted the conditions in the resolution such that they will either bring the project into compliance or meet the intent of the code. The applicant has communicated that they object to five of the conditions of approval. the requirement to cooperate regarding a future connection to 66th Street, and the first four discretionary items that were listed, which are, again, the bird collision reduction plan, electric vehicle chargers, tree preservation, and one of the landscaping requirements. In attempt at a compromise, staff has modified two of the four conditions originally proposed. The two are the future connection to 66th Street and a bird collision reduction plan. staff recommends approval of the request when contingent upon the conditions listed in the draft resolution before you. Thank you. Any questions?

Any questions from commissioners?

Go for it. Talking about the connection to 66, I'm trying to Envision what this would look like ideally with other property South like what would be? What would like the golden picture of that be if it was perfect?

I guess yeah It's it's difficult to say at this time because we can't predict what the future will hold But the timing would definitely have to align with the property to the south doing some kind of development or redevelopment because they can't reach 66th without the cooperation of the property of the South. So the timing is uncertain. The design is also uncertain. The main reason for the project is to alleviate or the main reason for the connection is to alleviate trips to and from this project. So right now, staff envisions that being more of a kind of one way southbound kind of private drive. Would a two-way scenario, though, serve some other purpose, maybe for the development to the south in some way? We couldn't say. But we tried to make the condition as generic as possible in order to both give flexibility to the applicant and staff in the future while kind of maintaining the possibility for various design.

Okay, and then the second question, semi-related, if that's okay. The traffic study and all of that. So is the focus of the traffic study to primarily understand how this development impacts the traffic as a whole to the public? Or is it also to understand, so I'm imagining people trying to leave during rush hour and taking a left turn onto Portland being a bit of a challenge. Does the traffic study take that into consideration, or is it more like how does adding this density of vehicles and population impact the system broadly, not the individual case of these folks?

No, it does take into consideration how the trips outbound might stack up on the subject site. It acknowledges that because half of the project is senior housing and they keep a different, maybe not nine to five stereotypical in and out, that is what greatly reduces the need for that outbound or the outbound buildup.

So I know I've been in many work sessions with previous development proposals for this site and I remember the pedestrian connection through the center of the site to the Veterans Memorial and the pool area, the park area, was always considered a pretty important component of any such development. Is there some sort of condition? Is this a legal easement for pedestrian access? What is the legal nature of this pedestrian connection for public and or private access?

Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. The Vets Park Overlay District talks about preserving connectivity around the perimeter of the site. And while we had originally kind of talked about formal easements over the sidewalks, that is not something that staff is currently recommending. We feel that a condition that the sidewalks remain open to the public is sufficient without going through formal easement dedication. It does not include the sidewalk that goes between the two buildings because that is not perimeter to the project. It only includes the perimeter sidewalks.

Any other questions from the commissioners?

Just one follow-up, too. It's a little tangential, but with staff reviews, has the fire department or fire marshal signed off on fire access? Since most of the drive access seems to be biased towards one side of the site, they're okay with fire access to the back side?

Yes. Chair and commissioners, yes. I like yes and no questions. That's great. Thank you.

All right, commissioners, any other questions? Okay, we will move this to the public hearing. So if there's anyone who would like to come up and speak about this item, there will be an additional opportunity to speak about item number two, which is the capital improvement budget at a later date. I know we have one who signed in. If you want to start, you can go ahead. And then anyone else who wants to speak will have time as well.

Chair, may I? We typically invite the applicant up.

Oh, my apologies.

And they do have, I have, I'm going to van a white for them a little bit here. So sorry about that.

No, that's fine.

My apologies. Give me one second.

Okay.

What does that say? Adobe Acrobat Reader?

There we go. Okay, we got it.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Greta Norris. I'm a project architect with Pope Design Group representing our team today. And thank you for the opportunity to get to talk about this project. We know that this is a very important project to the residents of Ridgefield and to the city staff and to the council. We're excited about the design and we're excited that we've been able to craft this beautiful project alongside the staff and worked pretty close collaboration with them to come to what we have today. It's been an iterative process of listening to neighbors and to staff. We've had several working sessions and we've carefully considered each item of feedback that we've received and we've been adjusting to bring this project into full compliance. Many of the site elements that you're seeing in this project today have been in response to conversations with the city, and I wanted to just highlight a few today. So you're looking at the view from Portland Avenue. This is at that north parking lot, looking at the entrances online. Portland and that was a key element that we included in the design is having that entrance and then the other arm a little bit further down has walk-up units so that's with a with a main bike trail along Portland so that's really activating Portland. If you want to go to the next slide Sam that'd be great. I'll keep going. Another point that Sam emphasized in her great presentation was prioritizing the connections to the park. So you can see sidewalks along each side of the building that will continue the paths that are already there. and create new ones for both residents and neighbors that are walking through the park as well along the side. And we created lots of ground level images to fully help everybody visualize this proposal. And so we could see what that ground level experience would be like. You can see in between the two buildings, we have interactive art that is proposed. And lots of lush green landscapes and amenities appropriate for the senior building as well as for the family building. And the bottom right-hand corner is emphasizing that connection to the 66th Street that the site plan is including as well. Sam mentioned this as well We did a lot of back and forth to talk about where the you of that East building would face of whether it faces north towards the park which would mean a shaded courtyard or if it faces south towards the pool and eventually we decided that the southern facing courtyard would be More usable because you get more Sun and for the kids who would be playing there and then We also mentioned conversations that we had with the fire department, and we've worked through where we would point out where the fire access and the truck would go, and that has all been worked through with the fire chief. A couple other points to mention, we've already had lots of discussions about storm water and been working closely to preserve as many trees as possible. And as well as the vegetation on the site, we're working to provide as much as we can and also provide a variety of the native species. And then working with the sustainability coordinator to provide what the city is needing most as far as vegetation. Next, I'd like to pass it off to Jake next.

Thank you, Chair, Commissioners. My name is Jacob Steen with the Larkin Hoffman Law Firm, and I represent the applicant. I've handed out a I should have enough copies there. These are proposed conditions of approval. You have a copy of our initial letter in response to the ARC report. Some of those, as staff has indicated, have been modified, so we wanted to provide an updated revision.

Mr. Steen, I'm sorry to interrupt. I just want to make sure that there's one copy available for the public as well. There should be one available right up at the front.

I'm sorry for the interruption. No problem. No problem. I do want to say we do appreciate staff's hard work on this. This has been, as Greta indicated, this has been a long process. This has been a year and a half. We appreciate the staff report. And in general, we do agree with the conditions of approval that are included. But we do have a number of objections, and those are mostly legal objections. And it's fairly nuanced, so I just wanted to talk through those individually. The first is condition 3C. That is the bird collision reduction plan. The city code does include a requirement that we submit a bird collision reduction plan addressing the building glass, the site design, and the lighting. And we have absolutely done that in compliance with the city code. However, this condition goes a step further, and it requires that the PROJECT BE DESIGNED WITH A WHOLE BUILDING THREAT FACTOR OF 45 OR LESS BASED ON THE B3 STANDARDS OR SAME OR SIMILAR. AND THIS IS A LITTLE NUANCE, AND IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH B3 STANDARDS, THOSE ARE STANDARDS THAT GO ABOVE AND BEYOND THE STATE BUILDING CODE. AND THOSE ARE APPLICABLE WHEN A PROJECT TAKES STATE MONEY. THEY ARE NOT APPLICABLE HERE, AND WE HAVE NO STATE MONEY IN THIS PROJECT. that B3 standard is not going to be relevant here. And this is important because we don't have any way to technically meet this condition unless we remove and change the glazing of this building. And that's really important because state statute specifically preempts any STATUTE OR ANY CITY CODE PROVISION, ZONING CODE, SUBDIVISION OR ANY OTHER CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT WOULD BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE STATE BUILDING CODE. AND THIS CONDITION AS IT IS APPLIED AND IT IS WRITTEN ASKS FOR A HIGHER STANDARD BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH UNLESS WE CHANGE THE BUILDING SYSTEM OR COMPONENTS AND THAT INCLUDES EXTERIOR GLAZING. SO WE HAVE PROPOSED SOME LANGUAGE THAT WOULD JUST SIMPLY that we comply with the city code, the plain language of the city code that says we submit a building plan. It cannot include additional restrictive language. Similarly, we do have some concerns about the EV charging provisions. In 2023, the state legislature adopted a statute requiring the Department of Labor and Industry to implement EV charging requirements as part of the state building code. We anticipate that will actually be implemented by the end of this year. And once that is implemented, it will supersede statutorily this condition of approval. And we're just asking that we simply be subject to state building code requirements in application at the time. A more pressing and concerning condition is this 66 street connection. The city code and staff report is correct. City code notes that in the VP overlay, the Veterans Park overlay, any properties north of 66th must plan internal circulation to accommodate a future 66th Street north-south connection. Internal circulation is the language of your city code, and we have done that. We've designed this project to avoid any permanent structures in this location. At this point, we have a walkway, and we have, I think it's a dog park that can be removed if and when there's ever a project. However, this condition of approval goes further than the city code. It includes two different types of exactions. One requires a future easement, and two requires the applicant or the owner to build that easement at their own costs. And again, this gets nuanced into state and federal takings law, but there's something called the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. And your condition, when you have an exaction, it's not necessarily illegal, but it has to have a rough proportionality to the project and an essential nexus to the project. Now, the staff report notes that both our application and our traffic study and the city's traffic study notes that the projected daily trips are well within the capacity of Portland. There's been no individualized determination that this nebulous potential future connection is triggered by this project, and to the contrary, the staff report would tell you the opposite. So you cannot meet those findings, and it would be an unlawful constitution in excess of the city's authority in this condition. And the last three are really related to the ARC report conditions, and I just want to touch on those briefly. So building elevations, the city code allows the first floor building elevations to be designed with either fenestration or artwork or a combination thereof. We've proposed artwork. The ARC report contemplated that we would have to add additional fenestration, although I think the staff report recognizes that the artwork is attractive and actually supports it. We just want to make sure that the conditions are married up there. There's a tree preservation comment under 3i. And our original, and this is again fairly nuanced, our original tree mitigation plan did include preservation of these trees to the north. However, when that ARC report came out last week, it included a condition that requires a full loop of water going along that north property line or north of the building. And what that does is it triggers a substantial amount of excavation. And we are almost certain that these trees will not survive. And in light of that, we simply want to update this tree preservation plan to reflect the actual conditions of approval that have been suggested. We're happy to comply with the condition. We just need to change the tree preservation plan and propose some new trees there. We can't be held to both. destroying the trees and then also preserving those trees. So it's a very reasonable ask. And the last relates to a condition that is integrated by reference and incorporated by reference, and that has to do with mulch in the courtyard perimeter. There is a specific provision that says the landscaping must be addressed with both mulch and landscaping, I believe. We do have a fair amount of landscaping boxes. But there are some challenges because this is a building roof. That courtyard perimeter is actually the roof of the underground parking. We will have some landscaping, but we'd like to maintain what was proposed. So, again, these are very reasonable conditions in our view and wanted to make sure that you have a copy to view and answer any questions. We've got our engineering team, our development team here to answer those questions. Thank you.

Thank you, is there anyone else from the project that would like to speak? Okay, moving on to the public comment for real this time. So we had one already, you may stand up, yep.

Hello again. Okay, I always bobble when I talk. My name is Kathleen Balaban and I live on 65th and Stevens. And I'm coming to this one about the Veterans Park because I adopted it eight years ago when I moved into this city. I value that park a lot. But what I'm talking about here is they want us to take away the condition about the birds. Our birds travel between Legion Lake and Wood Lake, and I think you guys know that. And that's a migration back and forth and so forth and so on. Anyways, I heard that they also have in their landscaping stuff a dog park. Please, absolutely no dog park. We have enough problems already. I walk my dog. I have a 100-pound German Shepherd. I walk him all the time at the VA. At the vet's park. But what we don't have is somebody watching out for the birds and everything else. So please, no dog parks in that property. And I'm asking us to think about what you're doing because you represent me. And as a citizen, I'm wondering just how much we can take. At what point do we saturate? My taxes went up 24% on a two-bedroom rambler, 972 square foot of living space, 24%. Now, we keep building up and up. And on another note, when I come back, we're going to be talking about tips and our CIP, okay? Since 2018, I moved in six new TIP districts. Maybe that added to my 24% increase. I don't know. I'm asking you to think about that. You represent me. You were selected by the city council. You do not report to the city manager or the staff. You report. to me and others like me. So think about this stuff when you decide what you're going to put in. Yes, it's their money. Yes, they bought that property, but you tell them what they can and can't do. And he quoted our ordinance. Yeah, your ordinance this, your ordinance that. Well, we're statutory. Did he even look at our charter? Does our charter say that we can do that? You guys have more power than you think you do. All right? It's law, charter, city ordinance. That's how it works. Okay? So have a look at the charter and see if it's statutorily required. So thank you. And I'll be back again.

Thank you. Is there any other comments? If you could please sign in up there.

Brian Farmer. I just have two questions regarding the overall project in general. One, typically do we know, is there ever an evaluation done of what happens to existing home values when these projects are put into place? Do property values decrease? Do they stabilize? Do they go up? I'm just curious in general. Second question is, was there ever a noise study done on the effects of this property being put in its current location on Portland? So looking for answers on any type of valuation regarding, again, property value, increase, decrease, stabilization, and then second to that, just noise, increase, decrease, ordinance.

Staff, could I ask a question of you? I think you'd probably be the best expert to speak to that. Sure.

Thank You chair and commissioners sure we do have noise ordinances in the city and if this property were to violate those noise ordinance the people that are witnessing that violation could certainly reach out to the city and we can follow up code enforcement wise in relation to the valuation of nearby homes That is not something that our code requires us to require of the applicant. So no, a study was not done, is not typically done. This is a conditional use permit. Basically, it has to meet the rules and regulations of the code, and that was not one of them.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions?

My name is Bianca Johnson. I would like to stress that we have 214 different species of birds that are documented on eBird at Wetzpark. eBird is an international scientific site, and I would like to stress how very worried I am. Wetzpark is on the flight path of migrating birds, and this is very troubling. Thank you.

Thank you. And I misspoke about questions. Are there any other comments?

Hi, my name's Larry Ernster. Uh, my wife and I live at 6727 Elliot and my wife and I have been our homeowners. So let's talk taxes right now. Lupe is paying, uh, the property. The undeveloped property is currently valued at 3.4 million and they are paying a hundred and $13,000 in property taxes. What happens if they get a TIF? Remember, I don't understand TIFs, not my job. But what will the bottom line effect be if we offer them a TIF and they have a $40 million property? What's the bottom line effect? I might use Best Buy as an example. 26 years ago. We went into a tiff with best buy in 2023 their property value was $116,000 a city council allowed them to reduce their property value to 62,000. Who picked up as homeowners picked up that drop in property value and the assessed property taxes this year. They reduced their property value from 62,000 to 32,000. The numbers might be off a little bit, but 50%. Who's going to pick that up? Us homeowners. Same thing with if we offer a TIF to support this project. What is the bottom line impact on us homeowners? So I have a question. request actually from you as the Planning Commission. You currently have 14 active TIFs. We as homeowners have no clue the value of them to us. What I would request of the Planning Commission is an annual report that says, here's our 14 TIFs, here's the value provided to the citizens of Richfield. Not only for this year, but at project end. Now, if you're going to write a contract, think of how property or business has changed. And now we have AI, we have flying cars, we have jet packs, If you can tell me what business is going to be like, and you can write a contract for 25 years, you can tell me what business is going to be like in 2051, I'd like to talk to you. So that's my request. Tell us the value of your great work. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other public comments?

Oh, boy. Sorry. This is going to take a second. Long last name. Someday I will get a notarized stamp, and that will be helpful. Okay. So, hi, everybody. My name is Pete Straharski, and my wife and I live at 6424 Portland. We are actually directly across from the memorial, so we're keenly interested in the project, as you can imagine. So I have a combination of questions. So I don't really know how this works. If I ask a question, can I get a response? I've actually never been to a meeting before.

Yeah, you can direct your questions here and then we'll try to get the answers.

Do one at a time or do I just list them? What's best for everybody?

List them.

Okay. Chair, it is not a back and forth discussion. You're welcome to present your questions and then staff will answer once the public hearing has been closed. Totally cool. Thank you. I just wasn't sure how that all worked.

Yeah, so I'll just ask some questions. The presentation was really helpful. Thank you. That answered some of the questions I had, so that was great. I'm super skeptical of the traffic study. I can't get out of my driveway a lot of the time, so I'm really concerned about it. So I guess questions I have regarding that. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't quite understand everything that the gentleman said, but I Just to confirm, there is going to be a road north and south on the east side of the building? That's a question I have. It sounds like that would fall to the taxpayers to pay for the road, if I understood that right. Is that correct? And does that mean there's a special kind of assessment to the people that live directly on Portland Avenue? So those are questions I have regarding the traffic study. Comment, I think people from that parking lot will have a near impossible time turning left onto Portland. I just don't think that's really going to happen. They'll have to go to 64th Street and make a left turn. So comment, is there any way we can make the light cycle faster? Because it's just kind of rough. We just sit there and wait and wait for Portland. It just, yeah, anyway. Yeah, I guess I have a follow-up with what the general ladies had said about the bird watching. I just know there's a ton of people that go there on Sundays and do the bird watching. Is this going to dramatically change? I mean, are we going to have tons of dead birds? Are they going to have to go somewhere else? I mean, I know they're birds, but is this going to make them not come? veterans park i'm just not sure what that practically means so that's a question um that was good oh yeah just more concerns um especially with we've heard that nicolet is no longer going to cross over 494 um i don't know if that's true so that's a question if that's true Okay, so may not be true, but if it's true, how does that impact traffic? And then another question was Why didn't the city purchase the property in accordance with the 2040 plan? Okay, so that was there all my questions. I just have a comment and And I actually have goodwill towards the team. I know how construction can go. It's tough and So this is no disrespect to your design or anything like it, but I'm pretty disappointed. I may have been one of the few people that supported Veterans Village, and the thing that I really liked about that was there was gonna be like a nice patio on the north side of the building, there was gonna be a restaurant, there was gonna be stuff that drew the whole community there. And housing people, super important. I don't wanna diminish that. I just really feel like this project is not connecting the community more to the park. I really wish we had that element. So I'm just, again, the building design is great. It looks good. I feel like we missed an opportunity. And what I'd also like to say is... In the future, I would really like us to look at our zoning because we're going to develop more buildings around the park. I really would love to see it as a way to draw the community to the park. So if we can change zoning laws, anything like that. And I guess I do have one final question that came to mind. Sorry, and then I'll be done. So with this development on the east side of Portland, are there plans to develop condos on the west side of Portland? So should I just plan on selling my house because we're just going to build condos around the park? I mean, that kind of makes sense to me, but I don't know what the vision is. So if anybody could share kind of the vision of what the rest of Portland is going to look like because it's just kind of tough to drive around that area. So thank you for your patience.

Thank you.

Important clarification for staff is this.

Should we close the public comments and then address all these questions? Okay.

Chair, I would just make sure that there's no one else here to speak. Yep. We obviously have a lot of people here, and it looks like there's at least one. Okay. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Sandy Clay. I live with my husband at 6600 Columbus, just along 66th Street. So we've been very interested in what's going on with the building. We walk the park a lot and just enjoy everything that it has to offer. One of the things I'm wondering about is who owns the sky? Who owns the sunsets in Richfield? When we moved here, it was just mostly one-story or two-story houses. And everything felt really open and beautiful that way. In the 30 years that we've lived here, we've seen many high rises creep up further and further into the sky. I used to walk at Richfield Lake, nice and open, and now I feel watched. There are apartment buildings hedging in on the park. And now it's happening at Veterans. That makes me sad. I liked walking and looking out at trees. Where can we do that in Richfield? Think about it. We are putting big buildings next to our public free spaces, our parks, our natural areas. We have Veterans. We have Wood Lake Nature Center and Augsburg. Those are really our three big parks. Adam's Hill, kind of big. A little bit of Donaldson, that's a lot of park for baseball games and that kind of thing. Veterans was our natural park, along with some wonderful amenities. We've got the pool. Who's going to want to send their daughter to the pool? what teenagers wear, bikinis, and wonder who's watching from above. And I know there's a setback on the top, but it's six stories high. And in the back, even though the ground is sloped, the building is up still at the ground level from the street, as far as I know. And that means that that building is really seven stories high. Think about that. When you walk and you want to see a sunset, we don't get to see that in its entirety anymore. And that's not fair. There should be some zoning about how close these tall buildings can hedge in on our parks because that's for our community. And that's what draws people to our community and our city. I'm also concerned about the traffic, the traffic flow. I sit and look out my window and I see the traffic at 7 and 8 a.m. going by 66th Street and the traffic is backed up past our street. I cannot imagine how 800 more people or whatever it is, 800 more trips coming in and out is going to affect that. East Richfield has been slammed, ignored, treated unfairly. We no longer have access to get onto 62 to go west. We have to wait until Lindale Avenue. Do you know how long it takes to get through all the roundabouts and traffic and patients just to get onto the Crosstown? We used to hop on right at Portland. We did not get a roundabout or a way to get west. We patiently had to go all the way to Lindale. We can't even get there from... 66 way around because the traffic is so slow on the Crosstown. So all the people that are living in this place that need to get to work will be taking lefts because they can't go west going right and going north. They will be going left and there's hardly any way that they can get out because people can't even get out on 66th Street. How is a extra road going on 66 from this private drive going to help? You're one block from a roundabout that is non-stop full. Have you looked at it? I have. Have you sat there at the morning time or in the evening? Pull up a chair and watch. Sit on one of the benches and watch. There are a lot of people going through that roundabout, and it's hard to get through it. And it's backed up to the Dairy Queen on 66, coming from the west, going east, the same kind of thing. It's slow, and it's really not fair to the people that live here already, and now we're going to have more congestion. Think about those things. I'm concerned about the water usage. Will the water pressure drop? With that many more people using water, is it designed for that? The waste system, same thing. Maybe there's a problem with that. We're not the lowest house on the block, thankfully. There's someone across the street that has even a lower basement and septic system situation or a sewer situation. I mean, if they get the water backing up into their basement, you know, I feel bad for them. I wouldn't want to be that. I don't know how all that works because I'm not a planner, but I certainly think about it and get concerned. My husband said he didn't want to talk tonight because he said nothing changes. No one listens. We've been here for 30 years and we can see that people are pretty much set in what's right and wrong and what they think is going to go through. To funding that concerns me, how does that help? There's just a lot of things that I think about and thinking about the access to the park and THAT CERTAINLY SERVES THE PEOPLE THAT MOVE IN. DOES IT SERVE THE COMMUNITY? CAN WE JUST WALK ON THAT NICE SIDEWALK THAT CONNECTS TO THE OLD PARKING LOT? WHY DIDN'T THE CITY THINK OF BUYING THAT PROPERTY AND MAKING IT PART OF THE POOL OR PART OF THE PARK OR PARKING FOR THE EVENTS THAT ARE HELD THERE LIKE THE SATURDAY FARMER'S MARKET? WE CAN'T HARDLY GET PARKING THERE. IS THERE ANY DESIGNATED PARKING FOR COMMUNITY AT THIS NEW PLACE? No, there's nothing. They get to take from the park, but they're not giving to the park. They're not giving to the community. That concerns me too. There's a lot to think about before saying yes or no to this. I am worried about birds. I love watching nature and wildlife and taking pictures, and I do see people walking who also enjoy the birds and the wildlife. And that also concerns me. They're already changing the park plan with a lot of different new bike routes that are going to affect the park. And that's a whole different story. But I'm just sad to see Veterans Park getting hit in so many ways. And long ago, at, say, the 1980s or 70s, when this park was envisioned, a lot of change happened, and people lost their homes. There were homes on Portland Avenue. There were homes that people had to leave so that the park could be expanded. The park. Not an apartment building, a park. Do we get tax money from parks? No. But it's something that people need. We need parks. We need our skies. We need our space. A three-story building, we can still see over it. It can kind of hide in the trees. But a six-story building, it stands out like a sore thumb on a beautiful picture of a sunset. People lost their homes and gave up their homes to make Veterans Park bigger. And people have voted to protect the parks. You know what the voting was when we approved? Yes, we want more money for our parks. Yes, we're willing to pay for parks. Just think about how you're preserving parks and what you're allowing to encroach on our small communities but very, very valuable and sacred natural space. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other public comments? You have to go back up there, but yeah. After this gentleman's done, yes.

All right, I wrote it fast. I have a short last name. So Sandy's my wife. She just got done speaking. She said I wouldn't speak, but she talked me into it. Yes, I feel that the city's good at listening. There's been meetings with the developer. They listen. Certainly things have changed, but I sort of go back to this can't change significantly because of where it's at, and I understand that. But I guess the 20... What's the last 2040 plan, I think, is the one that's currently in place. I went to those meetings. I've lived in that house for 31 years. I don't know that this is what was envisioned for the plan to have larger, taller buildings. Also, once it's gone, it's gone. So I guess the thing I'd like to just really focus on is we missed an opportunity. When we voted to fund Wood Lake and all the other parks, I put money down that the city would have said, yep, we'll buy that property. Now it's being developed. So I don't like that.

Thank you. We had one other question.

Yeah, sorry, super quick. If we think of stuff after tonight's meeting, is there a place we can submit things? I know I've been to your website and submitted stuff. Is there, just if we don't think of something or we had neighbors that couldn't make it, is there a way we give additional feedback?

That is a great question, and I will ask Sam about that.

Yes chair and commissioners They can submit questions if they go on the city's website to this project They can find my email address, which I just provided there. It's s Crosby at Richfield MN comm and I'm happy to give somebody a call have a conversation Is there any other public comments

Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Doug Olson. My wife and I live at 66th and Clinton. Been a resident of Richfield for many years, going back even to the 60s when I used to walk to the pool when we lived on 71st and Columbus. Very concerned about the impacts that this proposed development is going to have in terms of the density. I'm not aware of any other housing in Richfield. that has 270, almost 280 some units in it. I'm just astonished at trying to cram the size of this development into the space that's provided by the existing old veterans post that my parents were both members of. I'm concerned that in most developments, if this was new for this size project, they would have to demonstrate some green space I see very little green space here. They're relying on the park. Adding that many more users right on the doorstep to me provides a real problem. I'm concerned about honoring the veterans to the memorial that's just to the north. I think it's almost sacrilegious to put this size development next to it. I'm also very concerned about the condition that city staff is trying to encourage for a right-of-way out of the development onto 66th Street? Would there be lights? What would they have? There are many youth that families drop off in that parking lot to go either to the swimming pool or to use the hockey arenas. What protection is there going to be for them if you basically created a shortcut? And what would there be to prevent people from going into that development from 66th Street and then cutting through to get to Portland. Just a lot of questions. I think that if it was put to a vote of the residents of Richfield, it would clearly be voted down. I would hope that you as commissioners would consider that in making your recommendation to the full council because I don't think it's consistent with the existing city plan And the comments today that have been made I think Would be echoed by many in the city and supported by them. That's this is the wrong development for this space. I would really encourage you to not Recommend approval to the council. Thank you for listening.

Thank you Are there any other public comments Okay, I move to close the public hearing. Do we have a second? All in favor say aye.

Okay, all opposed say nay.

Okay, I have a question for staff. I actually am also very interested about the roadway. I am very worried about, I know the capacity for Portland is addressed in the plan, but from someone who has to drive there from time to time, it is brutal to try to get through that roundabout as it is. And I don't know how many more cars this would add. And I also don't know what kind of options there are for readdressing traffic flow with the light. I also agree about the left-hand turn there I think would be extremely difficult without reworking the light. So I guess that would be a question for staff is what kind of, options are there to address that and also what would happen if we were to add a new street to 66 how would that would that be an assessment or how would that funding work chair and commissioners i'd like to take a moment to um put up on the um

on the screen a graphic. I think that perhaps there may be some confusion about the future connection to 66th Street. Here is a concept that the applicant has provided. As you can see, it would be a straight shot south through the funeral home site to then connect near to where, about where Oakland Avenue is, not quite. There is currently an access opening there now. It could use that existing access opening or that might be redesigned slightly, but the idea is to create an additional avenue for the property to egress. How it works, we were originally hoping for the applicant to just kind of bookmark this and participate If and when this ever comes to pass, we don't know that what will trigger it, whether it would be changes that might be made to Portland by the county or redevelopment or change of use in the subject site. There's nothing that requires them to to remain a senior housing which is a low driving population in the future for wherever to be a change of use to regular market rate apartment buildings that might increase the traffic coming from this site. We just want to retain the option to maybe one day have a reliever other than the two access points onto Portland Avenue. what exactly that looks like, it is difficult for us to say because it hasn't been designed yet. Do you want to add anything to that response?

traffic flow. So is there anything that can be done with that light there? Is that something that's in the city's purview or what, how would that work?

What do you mean?

Well, I mean, if, so right now there's, there's always traffic that backs up in Russia or along Portland, um, and 66. And if we have more traffic there, can that light timing be changed to address additional traffic or what, how would that be handled? And I realize you're also not traffic engineers that, you know, uh,

Commissioner Terrelson, members of the board, these are county roads, so we would have to work with Hennepin County on that, but Hennepin County has been willing to adjust signal timing to address traffic issues throughout the community. Hennepin County has reviewed these plans. The roads are designed to handle this amount of traffic. I think staff agrees that and would like to preserve this option for the 66th Street connection because we too have some concern about particularly that left turn movement out of the site going forward. So does that answer the question?

Yes. Okay, great. Commissioners, are there any other questions?

I have a question. As far as the historical context about the process of making this available for a bid for development, since this is my second commission meeting, was there a context to that that I'm missing here, as far as when it was proposed to be zoned, or continue the existing zoning versus As was mentioned, like maybe the city purchasing it or something like that. Is there any context that I'm missing? Does that question make sense?

No, I'm sorry. I'm having a hard time hearing you. If I'm understanding you, you're asking about how long has the property been zoned residential?

More along the context of when it was decided to put the bid out there for residential for this project. Is there any additional context?

Commissioner Commissioner Peterson I believe what you're asking is how long is this has this been zoned this way did the city consider purchase like some of the public hearing right so the site has been privately owned for many many years by the Legion it has been guided for high density housing for at least two comprehensive plan cycles so going back to the 80s when the Legion began to express interest in selling the property The city did put a moratorium on all of the sites surrounding the parks, this entire area. The community recognized that it was a special area. And as part of that study, they adopted the Veterans Park Overlay District. So that retained the comprehensive plan designation that was there. It just added some of these additional layers of zoning rules because it is a special site. immediately adjacent to the park. For instance, we do not require a bird collision plan in other areas of the city. The city at that time did consider purchasing the site. The city council did have work sessions. We asked our financial analysts to take a look, and the city council decided that they were not going to make an offer on the site at that time. I believe that was 2020 when that was happening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair, one more question for staff from me. Could you bring the site plan back up and clarify that connection that's down by the hockey arena drive? It's labeled on the applicant's plan as fire and EMT access gate. I'm just wondering, is it blocked for traffic normally?

Chair and commissioners, I'm sorry, but could you speak into the microphone a little bit more? For some reason, I'm having a really hard time hearing you.

Sure. I was asking about the, on the applicant's site plan, it's labeled as fire and EMT access gate. I'm just wondering what, if that's blocking normal resident traffic and used only for EMT access at that driveway that's connecting to the parking lot.

Yes, okay, thank you, Chair and Commissioner. So right here, where the, south side parking lot and drive aisle, there is like, we've talked about concrete bollards that would be removable for emergency vehicle access to be able to cut through and use the drive aisle on the hockey arena parcel. But those concrete bollards would be in place for, you know, like not permanent because they are removable, but they'd pretty permanently be there to block vehicular, like everyday vehicular traffic. So residents' cars and people from the hockey arena would not be able to go through the site, and residents of the site would not be able to cut through to the hockey arena. It would be for emergency vehicle access only.

Thank you.

Is there any other discussion with the commissioners about the site or the plan?

I had a few questions, if that's okay. I'm curious from the city attorney. Could you kind of speak to your thoughts and considerations of the applicant's, you know, attorney's perspective on some of these items? And specifically, I'm curious about the bird, the entity, I can't remember what it's phrased, I'm sorry. Condition 3.0 with the bird collision reduction standards and how that plays into, I guess, legally speaking, I'm curious about that. And then from city staff, I'm curious, is there that change in their language? Do we believe that that's going to have a dramatic impact on what we had presented and what they are requesting us to change it to?

Thank you, Commissioner Huey, and the rest of the commission. So the developer's attorney raised a number of points earlier. I just want to note, too, for the record, that the developer's attorney did pass out some proposed changes to some of the conditions that are in the resolution before you. This is something we did just receive right before the hearing, so it's not something that... staff or myself have really had time to discuss, so I want to just basically put that out there. We have had conversations with Mr. Steen leading up to this hearing, and staff has obviously worked with the developer as well to try and figure out some middle ground on some of these conditions. I'll touch on the bird collision reduction plan, because I think that was the main focus of your question. And I just do have a couple thoughts on that. So the first thing I'll point to is that the overlay district does refer to this requirement. It talks about... THAT PROPERTIES IN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT WILL SUBMIT A BIRD COLLISION REDUCTION PLAN ADDRESSING THE IMPACTS OF THE BUILDING'S GLASS, LIGHTING AND SITE DESIGN ON BIRDS AS PART OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. It's a specific requirement in your city code that was a legislative decision when that overlay district was adopted. The proposed condition does not necessarily require the developer to follow a specific standard. What it does is it basically tries to get the what's called a whole building threat factor to 45 or less. I'd have to defer to staff on what that actually means. But my understanding is that this is not a specific requirement for building materials. It's a requirement to basically lower the overall threat to birds in the surrounding areas. And we heard from some of the public comments that this is a particular area where there's bird migration. CONCERNS FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THAT. THE GIST OF WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THE DEVELOPER IS MAKING A TECHNICAL LEGAL ARGUMENT ABOUT THE BIRD COLLISION PLAN AND I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THE IDEA THAT IT IS SUPERCEDED BY THE STATE BUILDING CODE. some risk there. The developer's attorney can make some arguments about that, but staff's position is that what's been proposed is not necessarily a building code requirement. It's a requirement to reduce the overall bird threat. And I'm happy to answer any of the other questions you had about And so with these conditions, I know you've also received a copy of what the developer is proposing. And I know that the developer's attorney made some other legal arguments before the public hearing as well.

I think that was my primary concern. Thank you.

Chair Taraldson? Yeah. Maybe we could go through the answers to the questions that were posed during the public hearing, and then if the commission has additional questions, we can go from there.

That'd be great.

Great.

Okay. So in relation to the road, I believe we've kind of already addressed that one. The noise we commented on. I will say that Relation to TIF it's important to keep in mind tonight that TIF has not been requested by the applicant and is not currently being considered by the city for that reason and Really what's before you this evening is the land use approvals and that is what you should base your Recommendation on is whether they are not whether or not they are meeting the the requirements of the code. We did talk with the developer originally about trying to get a restaurant on the site. There's just not a lot of commercial development happening right now in general. So that really didn't go very far pretty quickly. And then we don't currently have any plans to do anything on the west side of Portland Avenue, but I will make a plug for the comprehensive plan is a thing that we We look at the entire city once every ten years and think about how do we want to grow and develop? Where do we want things to happen? how will this impact things like water and sewer and traffic and that is that process is starting right now and So if you have interest in these types of things, I would encourage you to get involved with our comprehensive plan update, where these types of questions are asked and answered. What else was there? Do you have any? Did I miss anything? Yep, I got a few more.

Okay, so there was a question about who would pay for the road as it's written now, pay for that extension, that reliever as the conditions are written now, that would be assessed to the property owner. So it would be those immediately adjacent. It would include this property. And if the others were developing as part of that, those properties that would benefit from it. Birds, the question was, will this building change anything for the birds, like migratory patterns? I honestly cannot answer that question. What I can say is that the bird collision reduction plan is supposed to address things that would make the birds fly into the building or kill the birds by the nature of it being there. There are also landscaping things that are taken into account as part of that, where you place water, those kinds of things. There was a question about Nicollet no longer crossing 494. Nicollet will continue to cross into Bloomington over 494. There will not be ramps onto 494 from Nicollet. That is the change. The ramps will be from Portland and Lindale. Let's see. There were some concerns about water pressure and waste systems. Those are things that are addressed through the utility plan. As Planner Crosby mentioned, there is a concern with the stormwater, or I'm sorry, sanitary in this area. And Public Works is working with the developer to address that. That would be addressed as part of the project. But all of those things are evaluated. Water pressure would not be affected by the addition of the project. The building is five stories tall. There were some comments about six and seven, but it is five stories tall. And even before the moratorium where we looked at zoning on this site and adopted overlay district guidelines, the zoning allowed for five stories on this site. So that was not changed as part of that process. It certainly wasn't increased. And I think that's all I had. I think we've addressed the others.

Thank you.

I guess for my own personal discussion here, I'm really conflicted.

I hear the comments about having a large building so close to Veterans Park and on Veterans Park. But I also know that we have been around and around and around with discussions about what to do with this, what to do with other areas in the city. And I just go back and forth on, is this any worse than having a VFW that's been closed and just sitting there for years? And I don't know. That's what I'm struggling with. So that's my own personal take on this. Is there any other comments or any... Proposals.

Commissioner Kulkowski, I too am also conflicted. I think on one hand, I personally care for the birds, big native plant gardener. On that case, I think working with the sustainability commission to plant more native plants will certainly help. I don't just basic research, don't think it'll affect the migratory path, especially if we get native plants that might even entice birds to nest there and so forth. when it comes to the bird collisions. On the other hand, I'm a homeowner as well. My husband and I moved here in 2021 and we see our taxes go up, but I think it's hard not to see that anywhere. So it's kind of like, understanding what we control from a city council and planning perspective and what we can't. And on the other hand, I think this type of development is exactly what the comprehensive plan for 2040 calls for. Sometimes it requires you to take a step back and think about life in 2040 and who's going to be living here and what we want the city to look like. More housing for seniors, I think 50, what is it? 55% of the units are gonna go towards seniors and maybe that'll be some of you guys who wanna stay in the city longer, right? The other 35% are gonna be four bedroom units and that's really hard to find, especially if you're a family trying to look for somewhere affordable, trying to get to that home ownership step. So, I kind of just agree, I empathize with all of you guys. I'm just asking everybody who's presented to kind of take a step back, think about 2040, think beyond kind of the next couple years. Also, concerned about the traffic as well. I've seen it, I think, I've seen that congestion and backup on 66th and Portland. So I would kind of just ask that we be mindful of that and be mindful of where we're pushing that traffic as well.

Commissioner Huey, I have a question for staff quick, and then I would like to kind of share some thoughts. First of all, at this point, we are evaluating the... the conditional use permit, whether we want to grant these things and whether we believe that these things are appropriate. Correct? Yeah. This has been a project that we've been discussing for a very long time. And I think every time that this comes up to the public, it's easy to be like, hey, we're going to decide on this right now as a whole thing. We're talking about specific elements of this project. Right now. I've been in work sessions on this. I've seen multiple revisions of this plan. As Planet Crosby had said, the time to think about a lot of these things is unfortunately well before they're here. And we're making big sweeping conversational decisions statements about something that's been in progress for years that we've been working on. As a whole, I'm supportive of this project. I think it fits with our comprehensive plan. I think it fits with the vision that many of us in our community share for Richfield. I believe that we should be welcoming more people. I appreciate your comment. Who does the sunset belong to? I think it belongs to all of us. It does not belong to someone who bought a house on Portland next to the park. It does not belong to people who inhabit these. I spent an hour today among thousands and thousands of trees in Richfield and I loved it. I've seen countless sunsets. This does not scare me. I think it's going to add to our city as a whole. I have some concerns about the bird collision plan, and I'm not ready to roll over on that. I think that's a really important provision that we should be considerate of. But as a whole, this development, I think, is important to our community. And I think we need to, at all times, think how can we make our community wider and more open and bring people into it. I THINK THE DENSITY IS A GOOD THING. IT MAKES CITIES MORE AFFORDABLE. IT INCREASES TAX BASE. AND IT'S JUST THE RIGHT THING TO DO. SO VALID CONCERNS. TRAFFIC IS ANNOYING. AND THEN I GUESS THE LAST THING ON THAT. will this particular project make traffic on 66th and Portland better or worse? I live very, very close to this development, about half a mile away, just to the south, and I'm at that intersection all the time, and it's frustrating for a very small part of the day, and the rest of the time I don't even notice it. So I get it, but the question is, will this development dramatically change that or not? And the traffic study is saying that it won't. So should we fix that? Yes. does trying to shut down this project at this point of it going to fix it? No. So that's kind of my perspective on that. But yeah, thank you.

Is there any other discussion from the other commissioners?

Yeah, I just want to put my bits in here too. I'm conflicted as well. I appreciate Commissioner Hui's responses here. I think there is a way to have this development but also stick to our guns on conditions here I think there are some pretty good conditions such as familiar rating traffic and the bird collision reduction plan. I just urge my fellow commissioners here, I think we should probably stick to our guns when it comes to city's recommendations and really push for the best type of development that this could be for the city. Because I think our city staff knows pretty well what will help mitigate any sort of impacts. I'm open to other ideas from my fellow commissioners about their thoughts on the certain mitigation measures and conditions. I know it's a little more detailed discussion, but this is a pretty big project and there are a lot of details here, so I welcome further discussion on that.

Point of order for staff. Can we add in our concerns about the traffic and about the bird collision plan in our recommendation?

Sorry, yes, you can award your recommendation however you see fit.

Okay. If there's no other discussion from other commissioners, I would move to accept the proposal as written, adding in our concern about the road reduction plan and about the traffic impacts and timing of that traffic light that would require Hennepin County's involvement. Do I have a second?

Commissioner Huey seconds.

All those in favor say aye.

I think Sam's going for that too, I had the same concern.

Chair and commissioners, can you please reword the motion so you're saying that it's accepted as presented by staff in the proposed resolution? Correct, yes.

And then adding in that we are also very concerned about that bird collision reduction plan and the timing of the traffic light and the impact to traffic on 66 in Portland.

Can I make a comment to that? Yes. The staff recommendation is that the... The bird collision plan complies with the overlay district. That is my personal feeling. So I guess the only comment I would make is that we do not alter that recommendation at the city council stage.

Members of the board, if I may, I would recommend that you make a motion. If you're supportive of the conditions that are proposed, then I would just read the motion from your report that says we recommend approval of the plans with the conditions as proposed by staff, and then separately advise staff to take your concerns regarding the traffic signal and the bird collision. We can take those separately. They don't need to be within the motion. What I would ask, though, Chair Terrelson, is that you could clarify exactly what of the traffic is your concern so that we can clearly articulate that TO THE COUNCIL.

OKAY. STEP ONE NONE. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION AS PRESENTED BY CITY STAFF. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. MOTION CARRIES. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ON WITH NOTING THAT THE BIRD the concern of the bird collision reduction plan and also the fact that city staff did not have an adequate response. And that's something I do think, and I guess I don't know how to properly read this, but I guess maybe my proposal is just that we note our concern with the bird reduction plan and that it be further reviewed by the city council.

And your concern is with their proposed Language with the developers proposed language because city staff has proposed Language that says that they have to meet the threat factor of 45 or something similar we and so we we have proposed That language do you have concern with that or you have concerns with the developers alternative proposal With the developers alternative proposal just thank you for clarifying. Yes, and then the concern about the traffic is the signal of And was there another concern particular to the traffic?

Did this include the egress to 66th Street as part of your agreement? Yes. I would like to stick with trying to push that from the city's perspective. Okay. Was that part of the discussion? I assume it was. It was not stated.

Yes, it is. Okay, so clarifying the connection to 66th Street, the reliever connection to 66th Street. Is that what the commission is asking us to do?

stress to the city council that we that we that we stress that that that be maintained as a future option thank you agreed is that okay yep so thank you those would be my two so um concerned with the bird collision reduction plan and what has been proposed to to mitigate it and also ensuring that there is a connection or at least evaluated connection to 66th street DO I HAVE A SECOND?

I SECOND THOSE MOTIONS. SERMA, SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAY NAY. MOTION CARRIES. ON TO THE SECOND PART OF THE AGENDA, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET. IS THERE A STAFF REPORT? Yeah. Is there a staff report for? Okay.

Sorry, I'm just switching gears here. No worries. Thank you, Chair and Commissioners, for the, I can't find in my, my bookmarks aren't working. Sorry about that. I'm so close. Thank you chair and commissioners. Each year, the city manager makes a recommendation to the city council regarding the capital improvement budget for the upcoming year and presents a capital improvement plan for the upcoming years. The CIB, the capital improvement budget, is how the city funds the construction and maintenance of infrastructure. The planning commission is responsible for reviewing both the CIB and the CIP for consistency with the city's comprehensive plan. Upon consideration, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council finding that the budget and the plan are consistent or recommends necessary changes. Our Budget, Cash, and Debt Manager, Steve McDaniel, is here with us this evening, and I'm going to switch the display over to him for the PowerPoint presentation. We'll see if this works. If not, we can switch it back to me, and I can Vanna White for him.

No, it should show what's on his screen.

Let me tap it one more time. Nope, oh, nope, I'm sorry. I did hit the wrong button, to be fair. That one was me.

Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Steve McDaniel, Budget, Cash, and Debt Manager, and I'm here to present the 2027 Capital Improvement Budget and the 2028 to 2031 Capital Improvement Plan. There are essentially four categories that all capital projects are broken down into. And for 2027, that accounts for $26.3 million. About 38% of that goes to public works right-of-way projects. 36% goes to public works utility projects. 3.7 million is buildings, fleet, and technology projects. And then 3.2 million is recreation and open space projects. And for those projects, there are various funding sources. For the most part, there may sometimes be, just because there's so many different buckets, I try to line it up correctly, but I think we'll see on a few slides here, there may be some things I need to... COMMUNICATE IF SOMETHING ISN'T IN THE RIGHT BUCKET. BUT ESSENTIALLY THE LARGEST FUNDING SOURCES IS BONDS, UTILITY BONDS, AND THAT IS 6.827 MILLION OF WHICH WE'LL GET INTO SOME OF THESE LARGER PROJECTS ON FUTURE SLIDES, BUT THAT 6.827 MILLION IS MADE UP OF 3.91 MILLION FOR WATER SYSTEM INTERCONNECT AND THEN 2.5 MILLION FOR A WATER PLANT GENERATOR. And then there's also 8% of the $26.3 million is related to sales tax bonds for the Vets Park project. And then 16% is property tax bonds, and that's related to, for the most part, Nicollet Avenue reconstruction. There's various other sources as well. Those are kind of the bigger buckets. SO THEN LOOKING AT THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, 2028 TO 2031 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN THEN, THAT ACCOUNTS FOR $137 MILLION. IN ANY GIVEN YEAR IT'S USUALLY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN $20 TO $30 MILLION AND WHY FOR 2028 TO 2031 THAT AVERAGES A LITTLE BIT HIGHER. THERE IS THE $55 MILLION COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT AND A LOT OF THE WORK AT THAT COMMUNITY CENTER IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN 2029, 2030. The LRH project tips the scales a little bit for why the next four years is going to be a little higher than that typical $20 to $30 million threshold. Again, we have the four categories, the public works right-of-way, the recreation open spaces, which contains the community center project, the buildings, fleet, and technology is about $20 million, and then $12 million is the public works utility projects. Again, various funding sources. This is where it looks like the 6% that is fleet special revenue, that purple is really the bonds utility project. So that one should have been, just the wording is in the wrong spot then. But again, the 38% bond sales tax projects, a big chunk of that is related to the community center project. So again, this puts into context all those expenses and the funding sources for them. VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS THEN PROVIDED THE NEXT FEW SLIDES THEN, AND WHAT WE'LL LOOK AT FIRST IS PROJECTS RELATED TO BUILDINGS, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE CITY-OWNED BUILDINGS. AT THE END OF 2025, THE CITY HIRED OLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS. TO CONTACT A COMPREHENSIVE FACILITIES ASSESSMENT. WHAT WOLD WAS TASKED TO DO WAS LOOK AT THE AGING INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER DEFERRED MAINTENANCE ON CITY OWNED BUILDINGS AND COME UP WITH DIFFERENT PRIORITIES FOR WHEN SOME OF THIS MAINTENANCE NEEDS TO BE PERFORMED ON THESE PROJECTS. ON THE NEXT SLIDE WE'LL SEE THAT There are these different priorities, and near the top, anything that fell into zero to two years or two to five years, those are really the health and safety concerns. And there are other priorities then as well, but really focusing on those health and safety concerns is what we'll see in the CIB for next year, as well as the next four years of the capital improvement plan then. So all of the funding for the facility assessments was already included on previous slides, but what we wanted to do here was give a context of these different sources of the facility assessment projects. So the 57% of $20 million is roughly $11.5 million, and that would be property tax bonds. Some other funding sources are the city has an internal service fund, which is a building special revenue fund. There is some reserves available in that fund that would fund some of these projects then as well. The other funding, the 27%, for the most part, comes from the liquor stores and the special revenue that the liquor stores have. And then there is a small portion that would be a county grant then. LOOKING AT THE FACILITIES ASSESSMENT BUILDING SERVICES, THIS FIRST SLIDE HAS TO DO WITH CITY HALL, THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING HERE. THE PLANNED PROJECTS FOR CITY HALL WOULD BE CARPET REPLACEMENT IN 2028. IN 2029, IT WOULD BE THE CHILLER BOILERS AND PUMPS. AND IN 2031, THE FIRE ALARM AND BAS CONTROL PROJECTS. AND THAT COMES TO A TOTAL OF $8.7 MILLION. For the most part, that would be funded through property tax bonds, but also the internal service funds, the building fund reserves. At the liquor stores, all of the projects at the liquor stores would be funded through liquor special revenue funds, and that comes to $3.7 million. This, for the most part, is looking at different water intrusion as well as some replacement. There is, in your packet, a large report. It's 102 pages, but it does go into much more detail on these individual projects then as well. At the Public Works building, there are projects, again, related to water intrusion as well as roof replacement, and then some carpet and office remodel in 2031, and that comes to $4.68 million. for parks and recreation there are projects at the ice arena the larger projects are going to be in 2029 rink one with the roof replacement as well as in 2029 the dehumidifier for rink 2 and the sources of funding for the recreation services projects is geo bonds liquor special revenue and some long-term capital reserves which also falls into that other funding source that we saw in that PREVIOUS PIE GRAPH THEN. SO TOTAL PROJECT COSTS THERE ARE $3 MILLION. AND THAT WRAPS UP THE BUILDING PROJECT. SO NEXT WE'LL GO INTO THE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS AND WE'LL START WITH RIGHT OF WAY. The project that is ongoing currently is Nicollet Avenue reconstruction. The total project cost is close to $19 million, of which the city share is $7 million. And that $7 million city share is split between property tax bonds, utility bonds, but there is also a $2 million state grant that was approved by the legislature at the end of this, back in May of the 2026 legislative session. Other public works projects, 73rd Street and Diagonal Avenue sidewalk. In 2027, the expenses are $1.3 million. Just to provide a background on those funding sources, it was fully funded by municipal state aid and a state grant. 64th Street sidewalk With 1.3 million dollars in 2027 again that is fully funded with municipal state aid and a state grant Starting in 2028 and 2029 is the Penn Avenue reconstruction project again this is a project similar to Nicollet Avenue where it's a shared project between the city and Hennepin County and So this whole project cost is thirty two point six million dollars and the city share is twelve point eight million dollars That twelve point eight million the sources are a seven million property tax bonds five million Utility bonds and then eight hundred thousand is municipal state aid It is currently in the design phase, but then construction is happening in 2028 and 2029 Another public works project that they wanted to highlight was traffic signal replacements over the next three years. This is, again, fully funded with municipal state aid, $2.665 million, and there are three different projects included in there, Meridian Crossing, 12th Avenue, and Newton Avenue over the next three years. In 2028 construction, there is the 69th Street Reconstruction Project. This project would be funded with $3.24 million property tax bonds and $4.45 million in utility bonds. In 2029, as well, there is the 76th Street slash Knox Avenue roundabout project, of which $2.7 million is federal funding, and the remainder, the other $1.663 million is property tax bonds. For all of those public works projects, I know there is extensive public engagement that goes on that public works does in those various areas as well. We're now moving, shifting gears into other public works projects, and these are the utility projects. This one is currently underway, but most of the construction would be starting in 2027. So I believe what's happening right now is the design work, and $5 million project for an emergency water interconnect. And there is federal funding for this project of just over $1 million. The remaining $3.91 million is funded with utility bonds. And what the emergency water interconnect would do is if there were a catastrophic failure, connecting to another city's water system would create the needed level of service redundancy. And this project would be tapping into the Minneapolis water then. Some other utility projects at Public Works are a sanitary sewer line, and that's an annual project that costs close to $900,000. Water treatment plant elevator, that is a $200,000 project. And then lastly, there's a water treatment plant generator, and that's a $2.5 million project. Again, that project is in the design phase as well, and that would be fully funded with utility bonds. The final category is recreation service projects, and one of the highlights that recreation services wanted to do for a slide was the parks master plan. For those not familiar, every 8 to 10 years, recreation services updates the Parkmaster plan within the city's overall comprehensive plan which outlines the overall philosophy around park management and development The plan was last updated in 2018 and staff of will hire a consultant to help coordinate the update which will involve an extensive Public engagement process so that's happening over the next two years though There are the local sales tax Funded projects at Veterans Park that are ongoing and so far I believe there's been about four million dollars that has been spent in 2026 and then Additionally, there will be a 1.8 million dollars at the ice arena lobby and then three million for a trill pavilion and building So the total funding there at that spark is nine million dollars and this is the next five million that will be spent then There is also an electrical panel, $220,000 project, and that's fully funded by a Hennepin County grant. And lastly, in 2027, there's the Adams Hill Park project, and that's $150,000. And the funding for that comes from the annual liquor contributions that Recreation Services receives. THESE OUTDOOR POOL AND ICE ARENA IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ARE RELATED TO, ARE FUNDED BY AN ANNUAL GENERAL FUND TRANSFER AND THE GOAL OF THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER THAT COMES TO THE ICE ARENA AND THE POOL IS TO BE SPENT ON CAPITAL PROJECTS. Recreation services wanted to highlight was an umbrella canopies, pump and boiler refurbishment, pool filter sand, as well as shade and birthday structures that other cities are currently, I believe Edina has the shade and birthday structures and THIS COULD BE AN EXTRA SOURCE OF REVENUE FOR THE POOL IS WHAT THE PLAN IS WITH THE SHADEN BIRTHDAY STRUCTURES. AT THE ICE ARENA THERE'S RINK ONE LOCKER ROOM IMPROVEMENTS AND RINK ONE FLOORING AS WELL AND NEXT YEAR 2027 RINK TWO LOCKER ROOM IMPROVEMENTS. AND THE LAST SLIDE THAT WE HAVE TODAY IS THE COMMUNITY CENTER LOCAL SALES TAX PROJECT. THE DESIGN OF THAT WOULD Begin in 2027, the main construction would happen starting in 2029 then, and it's fully funded with local sales tax bonds of $55 million, of which $45 million is actually local sales tax. The remaining $10 million would be property tax bonds. That concludes the slides I have for the Planning Commission, and I can now certainly answer any questions that anyone will have.

Commissioner Huey.

Thank you. That was thorough. I appreciate it. Could you go over all 210 pages? So there's a lot of... money coming from other places and grants and things like that. I'm just as a curiosity like how much of this is things that are just by default handed down to us by these governing bodies and how much of this is like things that like our staff has to like seek out funding for, apply for and things like that because it seems like we're getting quite a bit which I appreciate for a lot of these projects because they're great. So I'm kind of curious with how that process works.

Sure. Thank you for the question, Commissioner. I definitely would probably want to defer to Public Works and Recreation Services on that. My take on it would be that any of these projects, I know there's a lot of planning and design that goes into even putting one of these projects out here and to include in the CIB, CIP. I think their first avenue would always be to seek extra funding whether it's through the federal or state partners as a fallback then it goes into some kind of bonding then but definitely looking for other funding sources would be the initial step but if you wanted more information I certainly can circle back with departments on it mostly just curious because it feels like a lot of that money is coming from other places which I appreciate and I've just

seems like it's probably a lot of work from staff to do that. And so I'm thankful and I'm wondering if all cities are like that or if it's just, I don't know, we're just, you know.

I do believe that Public Works in particular, and I'm sure it's other departments, I know they're very familiar with that grant writing process. And I think they've written some good project proposals out there that they're able to get that funding and they've done that kind of work previously then and it just kind of continues year over year.

Thank you. I appreciate it. I appreciate them being scrappy.

And I do have a question too. You had mentioned property tax bonds. Is that something that is new revenue that the city is seeking or what exactly does that mean?

Thank you Commissioner for the question. Yeah, I think I'd have to look at, yeah, so it's Nicollet Avenue Reconstruction, which is probably the next project where there would be property tax bonds. That would involve, so while we have that project going on in 2027, at some point in 2027, we will work with our financial consultants on issuing bonds and that is revenue that the city then receives. And then we have to pay that debt off over the next usually 20 years. We usually have about 20 years to pay off that debt. And does that kind of help to answer the question? Okay. So, yes, it would be revenue coming in to pay for that project, which then we have to pay that back over the next 20 years.

I have a question. Speaking of bonds, could you explain utility bonds in brief? That's a word that came up here, but that's not one we really hear about a lot.

Sure. Yeah, thank you again, Commissioner, for the question. So utility bonds would kind of go through a similar process. Instead of hitting the actual property tax levy, how those are paid back is through any time. I'm not sure if at the city if it's a monthly bill that you get or if it's a quarterly bill, but it's paid through with that kind of utility revenue related to your water bill. That's the funding source. Again, you would have that period of time where some of these projects, if the bond is a 20-year project, using that utility revenue to pay that off over the next 20 years.

Thank you. Any other questions, commissioners?

Yeah, again, follow up on that. Do we have a projection for the increase in that amount for that bonds that would be put onto the citizens of Richfield? Do we have projections for that at all?

Thank you, Commissioner, for the question. As far as the projections, there is a 10-year plan for the city. It's a financial management plan and was presented during a work session. And that does include all new property tax bonds. As it relates to the utility bonds, I know there were discussions earlier this year for Public Works. They had utility rate studies, and they've incorporated any of these projects into their utility rate study that I believe, at the very least, goes over the next three years, 2027, 2028, and 2029. I don't necessarily have that information today then, but it has been discussed at public Previous, whether it's work sessions, yeah, I believe for the most part it was work sessions. Happy to follow up with more information.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? If not, public comments? Yep.

Chair, just keeping in mind that this is not a formal public hearing, but since they are here this evening, I think it's appropriate to take their comment. And we are looking at the plan in relation to whether or not any of the things are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

Yep.

so pleased to speak so many times today my name is Kathleen as I mentioned earlier and a lot of my questions have been answered through other people's communication and this gentleman's explanations but This is my first time here, and what I was going to say is I did not realize that you guys were going to be looking at the CIP, Capital Improvement Plan or whatever, at this meeting. I looked at your agenda strictly for the Veterans Park stuff. And when I saw it, I was surprised. There's a lot of money there, quite a bit of money. Now, when we talk about the economy, what's going on in today's world, and I was sitting here listening about the TIFF stuff, and I mentioned, or somebody else did, it doesn't matter whether it was for the Betz Park or whether it's for the capital improvement plan. At what point do we saturate? At what point can't we support the growth any longer? Now, this gentleman is talking about a financial plan that you guys are working on, that I didn't know about, but I'll ask for it. I'd like to see a copy of this master plan about the financials, because I'm concerned about the future. We sent, with all due respect to my mayor, because that's her name, but we have taking from Peter to pay Paul, and then we send Mary out to borrow more funding money.

IT ALWAYS HAS STIPENDS TO FUNDING MONEY.

SO WE'RE NOT ALWAYS LOOKING AT WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, WHAT ARE THE LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE COSTS BEHIND THAT? WHAT ARE WE REALLY ASKING FOR? WHAT ARE WE REALLY GETTING? AND WHAT ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR IN THE FUTURE? NOW, DO WE REALLY NEED A $55 MILLION COMMUNITY CENTER? I don't think so, personally. I mean, we only have 3,000 kids, and the community center does provide opportunities for some of the adults, but do we really need it? So when we look at these capital improvements, what's the value? What is the long-term value, and who is really going to use it? Now, I've been looking at the recreational department, and I must say they have a lot of money that they're spending. And then I turn around and I look at my taxes, and yeah, they're spending a lot of money. And then who's using it? Okay? I mean, right now, we built this beautiful swimming pool area, put in a brand new splash pad, and then we put two outhouses right smack dab in the middle of our children's splash pad area. I asked the director what happened there. How come we have toxic biffies in the baby's pool splash area? Oh, he says to me, well, they have, that's a free area, and they need to have bathrooms, and we leave the fence open 24 by 7, so people can use it all the time. I have to think about that a little bit. What I'm guessing, what I'm trying to say is, when you look at this, ask them to cut back not add add add now we saw i saw that we have a large budget for some more vehicles for the police department for the city department they turn over their vehicles all the time i'm driving personally right now i'm driving a 200 a 2003 toyota highlander a 2003 Yeah, it has 164,000 miles and she's still chomping along. Now, granted, we need a little bit better than that for our police department and our fire department, but we don't need to have spiffy cars for every single... Department, you know, we don't need to turn them over every three years I guess what I'm saying is please look at this and start picking it apart and asking them to cut back You know when I used to work in corporate my boss told me straight out I had to pay for myself if I made a hundred thousand dollars a year. I had to save a Hundred thousand dollars a year. I had to pay for myself. Otherwise I needed to be replaced That's what I was told and at that time I I was the director of proof and ATM operations for the state of Minnesota for TCF Financial. I know budgets. You gentlemen and lady have a nice day and thank you for listening to me. Look at the budgets.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there another comment?

Very quickly. Again, I'm

I'm Larry Ernster. You're going to also consider the traffic problem at the development. And I understand that Portland is a county road. But rather than building an additional egress road, why not put a roundabout in front of Veterans Park, way down where they have the Saturday morning farmer's market? then no one would ever have to make a left-hand turn. Everybody could make a right-hand turn, go around the roundabout, and go back out. And I'm sure that Lupe would be, rather than building an egress road, they'd contribute to. Anyway, just wanted to put it on your radar. Thanks.

Thank you. OK. Yes. I appreciate staff like that was a great report and I don't personally have a lot of I do worry about taxes going up but I also see that a lot of this is coming from non property tax sources and also things that We're up for public referendum, and we passed overwhelmingly as an electorate. So I guess my two cents is that I'm not too terribly worried about this capital improvement budget, and I'm welcome to any other discussion.

I just want to add that reason. The reason we're seeing everywhere across the board, everyone in their daily lives to every city is that The stuff we normally do just costs more now, a lot more, especially capital improvements, especially construction materials, especially fuel, especially cement, you name it, building materials of any kind cost a lot more than they did just a year or two or five ago. So even this does seem like, yeah, a lot of money, a lot of it is just the stuff we do anyway just costs more.

Are there comments, commissioners?

Mr. Chair and staff, just to clarify that what we're being asked is to compare this against the comprehensive plan. I assume that it's not a dissection, but sort of a more global view of the plan.

Members of the commission, that is correct. You are asked to consider whether really the question is, are these projects inconsistent with the comprehensive plan? you aren't actually considering the budget numbers and the specific projects. You are making a finding regarding whether or not this budget as a whole is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan in your view.

Thank you. There's no other discussion. I would make a motion that this plan is in, this capital improvement budget plan is consistent with the city comprehensive plan and should move forward.

Sir, my seconds.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, say nay. Motion carries. Let's see. We are on to liaison reports. City Council? And I believe that's... Yeah. Eddie? Oh, okay.

A COUPLE UPDATES FROM CITY COUNCIL. NO MEETING IN I THINK JULY. LAST MEETING THEY TALKED ABOUT THE BOULEVARD TREE PLANTING CONTRACT THAT WAS AWARDED. SO THE COUNCIL APPROVED A CONTRACT WITH NORTH METRO COMPANIES FOR USDA FUNDED BOULEVARD TREE PLANTING. THIS IS TIED TO SOME GOALS ALONG WITH ACTION PLAN. And for Nicollet Avenue reconstruction, financing was approved. It's a major corridor project. And yeah, they'll finance the 2026 to 27 Nicollet Avenue project.

Thank you. Community Services Commission Liaison.

That's me. I did not see anything of note to bring to this commission from them.

All right. Housing and Redevelopment Authority, HRA?

No report to date for sure.

Richfield School Board, I believe that's not present.

The school board? Yeah. Their last meeting was last Monday. It was mostly administrative and procedural items. They did appoint a vacancy, Tim Polis, apologies to Tim if I've said it wrong. But otherwise, it was all sort of housekeeping type items.

Okay. Transportation Commission?

Yeah, so the Transportation Commission has been involved in the status updates of the big Nicollet Reconstruction Project, which is currently taking place south of 70th Street. Other big news is that last week, I believe it was, Hennepin County released the draft plan for Penn Avenue. Yes, there are roundabouts, in case you were wondering. You can take a look at the proposed plan yourself on the Hennepin County website, and there's a Interactive map tool to give feedback on that there and there's also in the works the Transportation Commission was giving some preliminary ideas and discussion of City plan to reconstruct 69th Street between I believe it's Penn and Xerxes That is currently planned for 2028 and is now in the preliminary design phase

Thank you. Chamber of Commerce, I believe, absent. And I have no report from the Sustainability Commission. So last but not least, city planners report.

It is comical at this point. I apologize. Okay. Thank you for your patience. I wanted to report that TC2 was selected as our consultant for the comprehensive plan update. And a joint work session with the City Council and Planning Commission will be held on Tuesday, September 8th at 545. Also, we have put out a call for volunteers and have assembled an advisory committee that will include nine city board and commission representatives, six community organization representatives, one property owner representative, and two agency representatives, the county and the school district. The first advisory committee meeting will be Monday, September 14th, and public engagement is planned to kick off at PenFest on Sunday, September 20th. Also, I want to report that the Planner One, Ruby Vila, accepted a position with the Village of Itasca in Illinois, and our new Planner One is named Will Story, and he started today.

Well, I appreciate you not forcing him to be here all night. Next meeting, do we have that on the schedule?

A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. WE DO HAVE THE WORK SESSION IN SEPTEMBER. WE HAVE NOT FORMALLY CANCELLED THE MEETING YET THOUGH BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE TO CANCEL IT UNTIL THE DEADLINE FOR PUBLICATION JUST SO I'M REALLY SURE THAT NOTHING IS COMING FORWARD.

THANK YOU. OKAY. I MAKE A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. Ayes have it.

We are adjourned.