Good e good evening everyone. I'm going to call to order this meeting of the Richville City Council. It is August 26th at 7:02 p.m. If you're able, please rise and join us for the pledge of allegiance.
for all. Thank you. Next, we will have approval of the agenda. Is there a motion for that? Move approval of the agenda. I'll second it. It's been moved and seconded. I do know that there's been one item that's been requested to pull off the consent
calendar. So, When we get to the consent calendar, we'll ask to have that one removed and that will be then discussed after the consent calendar. Is there anything else we'd like to discuss about the agenda? All in favor of approving the agenda,
please say I. I. All opposed. And we've approved the agenda. Next, we'll move on to approval of minutes. I move approval of both sets of minutes. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve the city council work session
minutes from August 12th, 2025 and the city council regular meeting minutes from August 12th, 2025. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say I. I. All opposed. And we have approved the minutes. Next, we'll move on to open
forum. Participants can share their comments in person, by voicemail, or email, and may also request to participate virtually. For more information on submitting comments, refer to the city council agenda and minutes page on richfieldm.gov/city
councsel. And just a reminder, you do not need to say your complete address. You can just say the city that you live in and also that you'll have three minutes to speak. Did um we have anybody that arranged to come call in virtually?
There were no calls today, but we did have one that completed a card today. All right. And so I'm going to then move to Rod Sther and you can come up. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council members, city staff. I'm Rod Sather. I'm
a Richfield City resident. Uh I had the opportunity to stay in a short-term rental in Idaho two weeks ago. We were there for a wedding. We only needed to stay for five nights. I thought to myself, what if that city had
a minimum stay of seven days in a short-term rental? Would that business have operated the business that operated in that area? Would they have uh rented that short-term rental to us? Would they
have given up over $1,400 in potential income and let that property sit vacant? I think not. unless they were to be discovered to be renting out their properties for less than seven days and there were stiff penalties for
violating the city ordinance regulating short-term rentals, the owners would do as they please. I was able to talk to a neighbor in Idaho who said that short-term rentals are a business and it removes houses
from the market that could be bought by couples to raise families. families that are part of the community where children go to school and the parents get to know their neighbors. That city in Idaho now has two new
hotels that are being built to take pressure away from houses that are being used as short-term rentals. When the houses were built in Richfield years ago, they were never intended to be used as short-term rentals, but
instead as homes where couples could raise families. Let's keep it that way in Richfield. Edina and Bloomington ban rentals less than 30 days, as does Egan, Brooklyn
Park, and St. Louis Park. Richfield has 72 properties that have been identified as short-term rentals. I have some questions. How did the city council come up with the 7-day minimum stay? Number two, what
other city what other cities have a 7-day minimum stay requirement and how do they enforce it? What are the penalties for violations? What is the city staff recommendation on short-term rentals?
Will the city council keep short-term rentals, which are actually businesses and compete with hotels and motel, out of residential neighborhoods? Businesses need to be kept in business
districts. Will the city count what uh will the city council look to see if the three hotels motel located in Richfield now are sufficient to meet the needs in the future with the Mall of America next
door and room for more attractions to be built around the Mall of America on the available land area? There are two acronyms. One is KS keep it simple. I'll let you guess what
the fourth word is. And D I R TF T. Do it right the first time. Let's hope that several years down the road, the new Richfield City Council doesn't need to revisit the short-term rental ordinance
and say, "What was the city council thinking back in 200 25 when they for passed the short-term rental ordinance?" This isn't an enforcable ordinance. Mr. S, are you coming towards the end of your time? The pro Okay. The proposed city
ordinance needs to restrict city rentals to no less than 30 days unless the city unless the rental license holder resides on the site. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to your responses. Thank you.
Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on to for the open forum? All right. Thank you for your comments and we will move on with the agenda. Then we have no proclamations or
presentations. So we'll move on to the consent calendar. Thank you, mayor. The consent calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the city council in one motion. Once the consent calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been
approved. No further council action on these items is necessary. On tonight's consent calendar, I item A, approve dispersements and claims. Item B, consider approval of a temporary on sale
intoxicating liquor license for St. St. Peter Catholic Church located at 6730 Nicollet Avenue South for their Trifest Harvest 2025 event taking place September 21st, I'm sorry, 20th and 21st, 2025.
Item C, consider approval of a temporary on sale intoxicating liquor license for October Fest event scheduled to take place October 4th, 2025 at Fred Babcock, BFW, number 5555,
located at 6715 Lakeshore Drive. Item D, consider approval of a request for temporary expansions of the license preferences for Thompson's Fireside Pizza Incorporated. business as Fire Fireside
Foundry located at 6736 Penn Avenue South and Sandy's Tavern located at 6612 Penn Avenue South to allow for the outside service of beer and malt beverages in their parking lot on Sunday, September 21st, 2025 in
conjunction with Richfield's Penfest event. Item E, consider approval of the first reading of an ordinance amending subsection 905.40 of the Richfield City Code pertaining to the feeding of wildlife. Item F has been
pulled and will be considered uh after the consent calendar. Item G, consider approval of a grant compliance agreement with MSP Lupe Richfield LLC regarding a taxbased revitalization account seating
equitable environmental development grant for the 6501 Portland Avenue South. Item H, consider approval of a loan agreement with Penn Station Apartments LLP for a local housing initiatives
account grant. and I submit these items for your consideration as part of the consent calendar. I would like to um remove item F from the consent calendar and put it on the regular agenda. Are there any other items that anyone would like to have
removed from consent calendar? Then a motion would be in order for the rest of the consent calendar. I move all items except for F for approval. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
I do have one statement I want to read. I did not pull the item about the um the Penn Station Apartments that is on our consent calendar. Um but I do have one
thing I want to clarify. When I was out for night to unite, I had people that were asking me questions about that. And so I just want to make that update. But I have no problem with the item that's on the consent calendar. So, the neighbors had questions about the status of the Penn Station Apartments project
when I went out for night. As the agenda item says, the project is moving forward with a goal of closing on all funding and the sale of the property later this fall. Additionally, all city parking requirements have been met and there will be underground parking for
residents. So, that was the update to answer the questions that people had asked me about it. Is Is there any other discussion on any of the other agenda items? All right. So, the motion before us is to approve the consent calendar except
for item F, which has been pulled for later discussion. All in favor, please say I. I. All opposed. All right. We've passed the rest of the consent calendar. So, now we're going to move on to consideration
of item F. And since this was pulled, I don't have it assigned to anyone. Um, city manager Rodriguez, would you be willing to read the executive summary for item F, please? Yes. The item for consideration is consider
approval of a first reading of an ordinance amending sections 1135 and 925 of the Richfield City Code of Ordinances pertaining to temporary outdoor portable storage containers. Uh, the city has taken an increasing number of resident
complaints over the past couple of years regarding portable hard-sided storage containers on private property for months on end and in some cases years. In a typical situation, a portable storage container is appropriate when remodeling or moving in and or out of a
home. The container may be on site for a couple of weeks and then picked up. Staff suggests proposed changes to address the length of time a container can be on site along with a few other requirements. And the recommended action is by motion
to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending sections 1135 and 925 of the Richfield City Code of ordinances pertaining to a temporary outdoor portable storage containers. So if there's a motion for that, we can
then discuss it. Is there a motion? All right, it's been moved. Is there a second? Second. All right, it's been moved and seconded. Now, we're going to open it up for discussion. Is there anything that anybody wants to bring up before Okay.
Um, Council Member Burke. Um, yeah, I had a number of questions about the proposed ordinance. Um proposed ordinance specifies that a person can only have one container and that can be no larger than 16 by 8 by 8
ft. Um and I was wondering whether it's a problem if someone had two or even three containers and their size would still be smaller than what the maximum would be. Um, I think it would be nice to allow a resident to
have possibly two smaller containers and really focus more on the total size, not so much the number of containers. That's one thing I would ask about or suggest. Um, it'd be nice for for the ordinance to
make it explicit that um that these temporary outdoor portable storage containers not be used for human or animal. um habitation. Um I have heard of people actually trying to use these things for people pets to live in.
It' be nice to make it explicit that that's not permitted. Um and then the other thing was the amount of time. Uh having been through having been through a renovation process, uh 30 days doesn't
seem long enough for many renovations. if someone has to move stuff out of the house to renovate. And I understand there's a process where if a resident wants to go longer than um 30-day periods that they would have to get
in staff involvement, but perhaps lengthening that period of time where they don't have to get staff involved that might be beneficial not only to the resident but to staff. Thank you. Um, I also had wanted to have
this pulled um because I was worried about subdivision two where it talks about a temporary outdoor storage container may not remain on a property longer than 30 consecutive days. And there were a lot of things in here talking about remodeling projects and
other things, but there was never anything talking about the situation where someone's elderly parents passed away and they were trying to clean up the house while they were um working full-time and are only there able to be there on weekends or or in the evening
and I thought you know if you've got to do the 30 days and then you have to go reapply again and do another 30 days and I was wondering whether what the feasibility is for 60 days. So I guess my question to you from your um experience
for the the complaints that we're getting people heading there for extended period of times. What types of things are we dealing with that are issues? Like I agree, I hadn't thought about the pets living in there and that they're not for habitation and we could,
you know, I would agree with that. We should spell that out, but I'm just wondering if is there a downside to saying that you could have up to 60 days? So, I I'll ask staff for your feedback. Yeah, Mayor, thank you for your question. Um, the issue that we're
seeing in the city with um portable storage containers in driveways in yards is not so much it's more about one they're not you know there are comp there's a company name called pods and you they
have a standard size pod that they will drop off in your driveway you can fill it up if you're moving um what we're finding is somewhat more like old train car looking pods that are rusty they're in poor condition. They've been in a
driveway for a year or two. Um we're finding a lot of them along the edges of the city where there's a retaining wall, an alley, a backyard that 99% of Richfield residents don't see. Um and on
other more visible streets as well, it's more about the aesthetic of it. Um residents are complaining that it's unsightly. It is full of stuff. It's been full of stuff for a long time. there's been no intention by whoever's
living there to remove it. Um it's causing sighteline issues for people who live in the neighborhood. Um and our, you know, Richfield properties aren't very big. A storage pod container in a driveway is something that when you turn onto the street, you know, oh, somebody's moving in, somebody's moving
out. Um so it's not so much about renovation as it is. It's for some it's become kind of an accessory dwelling unit for stuff that has been on the property for a very long time and residents are starting to
complain about and have been complaining for a while that they're unsightly. They should not be parked in a driveway. They should not be parked on a lawn. Um there are utilities that need to be considered there. You can't park your car on a lawn. Um, and we're seeing more
and more of these pods in the city. So, I guess I would agree that we need to have this ordinance. I just my thing is, can we extended to 60 days? Because I don't think people that are having them there and they're resting out and sitting for years and years. They would
still be taken care of if there's a 60-day limit. I'm trying to just figure out if the family is dealing with having to clean out a house or do something that we have some flexibility. I don't know how to build that in. So, I'll listen to what other people have to say.
Um, Council Member Hayford Deliri, I guess I'm just wondering, mayor, if there might be another approach to achieve the same end, which would just be to keep the 30-day sort of by right default thing, but then expand the reasons that staff would be authorized to give them up to six months because I
I do worry that it's probably already kind of challenging to confirm that it's been there for 30 days. realistically probably they need to wait for a complaint and then they go out and start measuring from then or I don't know um if staff can speak to how they ascertain when the 30-day clock started when there was no permit or anything for that. So
to me I guess my initial reaction though I could be convinced is I would rather keep it at 30 days by right but allow family circumstances or some other additional reasons beyond remodeling to qualify for a longer period of time. Yeah. And in in 99% of circumstances
within support services when we have significant communication with residents, it's just a phone call to say, you know, we're we're gutting our entire house and we need, you know, a pod for 60 75 days. We've got permits
and we can verify that. Um, we don't have a problem working with with residents as long as there's communication there. Um, so I I don't see that as a problem. keep it at 30 and people want to give us a it's it's just a call. We didn't want to get involved in issuing a permit or you know things
like that. It's just easier for a resident to say we're going to have a pod on site for x number of days. This is what we're doing. Um and staff can be aware of that and track that. And if I could just have a brief follow
up on that mayor and support services manager, would it be possible to do something to address the mayor's concerns of of family storage or something that is not that might extend past 30 days but would be they are making active progress on it? It isn't just permanent drug storage. I don't
know how I would not I have no idea how you would write that in of like if they have a good family reason they can do it. But uh yeah, is it possible to have something like that in a language change that would address or expand the reasons other is restricted right now. Nothing over 30 days except for remotely.
Um, mayor and council, from my perspective, I think that we could work with the language in the ordinance to make it a little more flexible and we can talk talk it over with staff. Um, but my suggestion might be to allow for other reasons as deemed appropriate um
by staff that are, you know, legitimate kind of of of reasons associated with the property. And so I think we can find a way to craft some language around that if that's acceptable to staff and the council. My last comment will just be I have no
issue with the um counting the total storage area as opposed to a single unit. So I thought that was a straightforward suggestion that I have no concerns with. Other thoughts? I would encourage um the language in the
in the code to uh for a little bit longer for people who are in a remodeling situation. Um but not for years. I think that's an expensive storage. All right. Thank you. Um go ahead.
Yeah. The only thing I'll add is that I don't want anything to be done that would either make it difficult or even discourage someone from taking on a renovation project. I mean, you mentioned these pod things. They're not cheap. And So, you know, I certainly
don't want to make it even more difficult in their cost benefit analysis or whatever you want to call it in looking thinking about a renovation. And I like I like the way that that you're talking about it and that the attitude city staff would take to it. This is really trying to focus on a
problem. Hopefully, the language in this can be worked on to make sure that it's not discouraging to a renovator. Mayor, may I ask just for clarification, is the consensus to leave it at but then just uh change the language to expand the staff's ability to approve longer
period. Um I guess we'll have to ask people. So Council Member Burke, I would like it be 60. Council member Hay Larry, what do you think? I would still like it to be 30. I don't feel that strong, but bear in mind that would be a no questions asked. they could have anything I mean legal in that
unit for 60 days but for for 60 or for 30 the impacts of 60 is like it might not just be a tidy pod with remodeling purposes there may be plenty of things that people would find more objectionable at using it for 60 days so that's my concern I prefer 30 but I don't care that much
all right council member Christensen I prefer the 60 days all right and council member Coleman Woods I would prefer 60 days moratorum on the end of it. I I would prefer prefer the 60 as well.
And the other thing I would like is in subdivision three um the need for extended periods related to construction or remodeling activity that restricts it that it can only be for that. If we go to the 60, I'm not as worried about that. But if we were going to stay with
30, then we'd have to modify that language. So I guess we don't have unimity, but we have ensus for 60. Is there anything else that anybody wants to direct staff to change before the second reading? Well, I I confirmed that I was okay with
the splitting up of the spaces. Everybody okay with more than one container as long as it does not total more than 16 by 8 by 8? I would agree with that. I can live with that as well. And was my suggestion but but I am still
fine with giving a definite number a limit to how many two or three. I hate to see 10 pods that equal I see 10 little pods all over the place but so still maybe two or limit three limitation of three as long as the total
amount of space taken up doesn't go beyond what is I I could see you know possibly getting two okay uh two if it is for the purpose of
remodeling or reconstruction or But if you're just cleaning out somebody's house that you know a relative that passed away or whatever, you know, keep it at one. But if it's for the reason for for specifically in detail what they're using it for,
then it would be two. So at the max um I have a question for staff. Are we clear on what we're asking for? And I have one more question. All right. Go ahead. So the consensus is
that in subdivision 2 C it would be or 2B it would be 60 consecutive days. And then in subdivision three, does the council still wish to amend B or add another clause that expands the
reasons or are we just changing this the 60 days? Or are we leaving it only to the construction or remodeling? I'm seeing nodding. I'd prefer we we leave it as is given that we're being more permissive. I
guess I do realize now 2C says we're limiting to more than three 30-day periods per calendar year. Do we want to allow 360day periods per calendar year? Because that seems like 180 days is a lot. Do we want to What would you change that to? Two, one, I would just say a maximum of 90 days.
Okay. Does that do the same thing? Because 3* 30 is 90. I wasn't looking to say you can have it there forever. I was just saying sometimes you can't get something done in a month. I agree. And also uh thinking about it
when you have two of them or however many number to limit it to um uh not having it in their yard specifically if they have driveways that it must be in the driveway. Cannot be in the street or their yards. It has to be in the
driveway. Mayor, I do have one additional issue. Okay. Go ahead. And it relates to what council member Christensen just meant. So B says it must be placed on a hard surface designed for parking and then 1D says it may not be placed in areas reserved for
parking. Can you clarify that that I would have to get back to you on. Okay. Um the concern I mean well obviously that I'm sure you'll find a way to deal with that potential conflict. I do wonder if there should maybe be some ability for staff to wave that. I think of like an attached Rambo
that has like a onecar garage and narrow driveway. Like you don't necessarily want to force people to like block access to their garage and half their driveway. If there could be some option for staff to for example, they'll allow you to place it on the grass as long as they prove that they restore the grass after or something in unusual
circumstances because right now there's no I don't think there's any way for you to authorize them to put it off the pave driveway. I would have concerns about allowing it on grass. We don't allow cars to be parked in yards on grass. Um I think there's utility issues, underground
utility issues that the weight of a container may impact. Um I think if we're if we're asking residents to keep cars and boats and trailers and things like that on driveways, I think we need to be consistent with ensuring that these
kinds of pods are also on driveways. Um, residents get upset when we dig up their boulevards and then they get seed and it's not always grass that grows. Um, I don't know that I want to I think that's that's asking that's that's getting into
a gray area, I think. But just to clarify, we don't have any other option, right? We can't get like a permit for public works to park these in the street or anything. No. Um, currently if you need a dumpster at your property, you need to get a permit from public works um for for
parking that on the street. Um, but no. Okay. All right. I think I'm I'm fine with not requesting any changes related to the placement. I I know as far as um when you're comparing pods to um dumpsters, like
regular big lot of dumpsters where you throw things out, they won't rent to you unless you have They will not put it in the street. They're not allowed to put it in the street. You have to have a driveway to put it in. So, the shouldal.
All right. So, at this point, we have a motion that um to approve this. And does that I have a question for the city attorney. Um do
we need to amend it to say these various things in our approval or I think we should have a motion to amend made by someone on the various points and then have a vote on that first and then go back to your main motion. All right. Thank you. So, is there
someone who wishes to make that motion? City manager. I have I have one more question because Walter brought up um that he wanted it to be explicit that people and animals can't live in the containers and we didn't get uh direction from the council on that.
I would make a motion to include that language that there shouldn't be people or pets kept in the pods and that we should include the the um
the limit on how long the pod can be there and see how far. All right, so 60 days. All right. Is there anything else that we in those two amendments? Was there
anything else we had? I think the number of the number of containers. Oh, and the number and the number of containers would be included in that motion. So, a limit of number of two containers, a maximum of 60 days, no pets, no people
living in them, and 90 days per calendar year. And 90 days per calendar year. All right. Is there a second for that amendment? I'll second that. It's been moved and seconded to um do those amendments. We're voting just on the amendments. All in favor, please say
I. I. All opposed. All right. So, now we're back to the main motion as amended. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say I. I. I. All opposed. And we have passed it as
amended for the first reading. So, it'll come back to us next month. assuming. All right. So, September 9th. Thank you. Next, we will move on to some proposed ordinances. So, I'll turn it over item 10A. Council member Hay
Ferti. Thank you, Mayor. Um, this is the first reading of an ordinance uh, changes related to multifamily development regulations, MR2 and MR3 zoning district updates. During the 2018 comprehensive plan update, residents overwhelmingly
identified housing needs and affordability as a key concern. Recognizing that outdated zoning regulations are one barrier to affordable housing, the city is updating its MR2, which is the multif family, and MR3, highdensity multif family zoning districts to better facilitate a variety
of housing choices known as the missing middle. Missing middle housing refers to moderately dense housing options such as triplexes, quadplexes, and small apartment buildings. These types of homes can provide affordable and diverse living options, filling the gap between single family homes and large high-rise
apartment buildings. It is important to note that this update focuses on regulations of for multif family housing construction and does not involve the reszoning of any properties. For details on affected areas, refer to the existing and planned multif family parcels map
which is in this council packet. Since August 2024, city planning staff and the consultant TC2 have collaborated on this effort. The proposed changes were carefully crafted based on real world examples and tested by designers on typical parcel sizes to ensure feasibility. Following an eight-month
update process and close collaboration with policy makers and stakeholders, staff have prepared seven related ordinances. In summary, the proposed amendments found in the seven ordinances are intended to one, facilitate infill development of smallsiz multif family
housing, two, accommodate the density ranges prescribed by the 2040 comprehensive plan, and three, streamline the review and approval process. Um, does staff have anything to add prior to me making the initial motion? Um, thank you, mayor, and council
members. Um I would just like to take a moment to mention two changes that were not discussed during either of the work sessions. The first being um uh some adjustments to our EV charging requirements that they be based on uh the number of stalls, not the number of
units. And then also um the second being a slight increase to the amount of metal panels that would be allowed as an exterior material, just bumping that up slightly from 20% to 40%. Otherwise, everything is as we have previously
discussed and as you uh Lance uh the planning director with TC2 is here with me this evening to answer any questions if you have them. Thank you. Right. Thank you. I will make the initial motion. I move that we approve the first reading of seven ordinance amendments regarding multif family
development regulations MR2 and MR3 district updates. I would second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion or questions? Um, Council Member Burke, I know that part of this would allow for
administrative review only of projects up to 16 units in MR2 and 13 units in MR3. Um, and I think I've asked this question before and I probably just don't remember the answer because I'm sure you gave me an answer, so my apologies. Um,
how much public notice is there in that process? If it's going to be purely administrative review, how much public notice and opportunity for comment is there for the public before these are approved by uh by staff, mayor, and council member Burke. Um, we
have written into the ordinance a requirement for um notice to property owners within 350 ft. I think it's 300 feet of a property that would be developed. Um so, uh it would be about a
month in advance the notification. Um that would probably that would be upon um staff approval and they're not going to send out a notice if they haven't gotten through the staff approval process. So, so local residents are are getting a notice before or after a decision is made by staff.
Um it would be after the decision is made by staff. So, so people who live nearby, it sounds like this would not allow them to have an opportunity to have some say or at least voice their concerns to staff and to the city um
before a decisions made. Is that fair to say? Yes. Yes, it is. Um that's a concern for me. I'm very big on the public having a chance to get some kind of voice in the process. Um especially if we're talking something 32 units, that's not a It's not a small
structure, especially if it's going to be right across the street. You know, I I appreciate concerns about efficiency and getting things done quickly. Um, and I but I think I've expressed this concern before about not giving the public a chance to get some kind of
meaningful opportunity to voice their opinion about something before decisions made. So, I I do have a concern about that. Um, I think the other And this is um the map that's provided. If if we vote in favor
of this, are we saying that the way the map is laid out um that every proposal that we agree with every proposed change in zoning on that map? Is that are we also voting on that today? Just to be clear, mayor and council member, there there
are no um there are no properties that are being reszoned with this project. So there are no changes to the zoning map. So this is purely just the ordinance itself and actual. Thank you. Other comments, questions.
Um, council member Hay Fer. Um, I guess just to clarify on council member Burke's question. So I guess I'm what what is staff empowered to improve approve? They can't approve a variance or could they approve that for under 32 units? Chair and council member Hayfordi. We
have the ability to approve plans which meet code. Um or um we do have the authority with this rewriting to have a minor deviation up to 10% um when there's good reason. And that is similar to what you already have after council's approved something,
right? Don't you already have a 10% ability to change things after site plan review? Um yeah, we do have um sometimes up to 25% with minor site plan amendments. So I guess knowing that if if it doesn't meet the requirements, it's still going
to come to us. Um I guess I'm and this is you know this is a discussion we've had in the work sessions but uh council member Burke if I could ask you um what do we what do we gain by getting that public input if if if people and this is a frequent thing you know I spent six years on the planning
commission oftentimes unfortunately the feedback against a new apartment building is I don't want the apartment building there but that doesn't it very rarely gives us a legal reason to deny the apartment building um and I think it does the public in some cases a disservice uh when You you send them a notice. You say, "Here's your
opportunity to be to be spoken." But then the planning commission and the council following the law, following the ordinance we've passed, says, "Well, this meets the requirements. Sorry, public. We can't listen to you because you're not giving us a legal reason to deny it." To me, that's an exercise in frustration. You might disagree, and I would understand that. Um, if you feel
that the public input itself has value, but I guess I'm wondering what would we do with that public input if it's a situation where it meets all the requirements, we have to approve it. Go ahead. Yeah, thanks for the question. Um, and maybe it's uh, you know, maybe it's
still the patina on my part that I haven't been here that long. Um, but I still feel as if that there is public there is value to the public having a chance to have their opinions known about a project,
especially something as big as 32 units that's going to be within view of their property. I agree it makes it slightly less efficient and I agree it may not be a meaningful change to the inevitable
outcome of of a decision. But I think as someone here who's supposed to be representing the public that I think this is what the public would want, an opportunity to have their voices heard about a project that's going to be very close to them and it's going to affect
their life every day. Right. Other comments, questions? I think we're talking about a hypothetical potential unit that doesn't exist yet. So, I'm concerned that if
we're uh if someone buys a piece of land or piece of property, they they would seek out the public's approval or some sort of public buy in before moving forward with a project like that. Maybe I'm new here, too. Uh, but that doesn't
typically happen when they're, you know, apartment or a developer comes in and tries to build on some land of ours that they're taking over. Um, I feel like they they still get that public input even if they're not holding listening or
town talks or town halls. I'm missing something. All right. Go ahead. my understanding of this process that a developer wouldn't need to do that. The only people they need to convince are the people who uh are city staff and
people on the planning commission. It's my understanding of this process that there's no need talk to the public at all. They can just go straight to the people who are the decision makers and the decisions made and they don't have to get public. Why? Because there isn't
a place for the public to make their voice heard. Now, if there's a place for the public to make their voice heard, even if it's just one opportunity in a meaningful way, then it's more likely that developer is going to talk to the people in the neighborhood and say, you know, what are your concerns? Because when you go talk to the city staff, I
want you to be in favor of this. But without that opportunity for residents, I don't think that's going to happen. I believe director Palman wanted to weigh in on this. Yes. Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. I wanted to remind you of a discussion that we've had a couple of
times at different work sessions about the pyramid of discretion and how that works with your levels of authority. Um the time when you are setting the rules right now or when you're adopting a
comprehensive plan, this is the time when you have the most discretion. It's the time when the public's input on what they want built in their community, when you have the the most leeway to set that. When you get to those higher
levels of that pyramid, you have less discretion. So, what we're proposing here is we're saying that if you if these buildings are permitted uses, which is what your code would say if you adopt this ordinance and it meets all of
the requirements, you the council at that time do not have the ability to say no to it. And so having a public hearing where residents receive notice, they
come to a planning commission, then they might come to a city council meeting too. Feels disingenuous to the people that are coming to that meeting who have been invited to a public hearing to tell you how they feel
about this project when you have no ability to say no to that project. That's what we're saying here. If you're going to permit these uses, then you should permit staff to administratively approve them.
And I I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Maybe I'm not expressing it accurately. I'm not suggesting that the public come and present to the city council their concerns about a potential project. That staff only are going to
decide. What I'm asking for is that there that residents who are nearby get notice before city staff make a decision that city staff would have to listen to the public, have an open form
with city staff, the decision makers about their concerns before city staff make that decision. That's what I'm asking for. And like I said, it may be less efficient. It may not even change things at the end, but it seems to me residents who are going to have this
building placed in their neighborhood deserve that right opportunity. Thank you for clarifying, Council Member Burke. I think that what I'm saying is even if a resident would express some concerns prior to staff considering that
approval, if that application meets the code, staff could not deny it either. Then I'm confused as to what discretion city staff have. I mean, so if if so why
even have city staff involved? In other words, if a developer comes in with a checklist of all the requirements need to be met, they just drop it on the counter and you're saying it's done. It seems to me that um there's still a benefit to the public
having a chance to save their piece of Sure. So, when a when an application is dropped off, that is essentially what happens. Your zoning code is a checklist of the things that a development has to meet. A developer turns in an application. They turn in all their
plans. If it meets all of those requirements, it is it is just a stamp. It is a yes. But there has to be a staff person to review that there. There is a staff person that looks at it, compares it to
the code, and makes sure that it meets those things. Well, I mean, if that's the case, then um then I'm definitely going to vote against this because I still think it may It may be it may slow down the process and it may mean that the city
council has to be more involved, but I I just cannot imagine voting in favor of something that allows a building to go up in a residential neighborhood up to 32 units and there's no there's no opportunity for the public to have a say. I I just couldn't vote in favor of
it. So, I want to muddy the water a little bit. I know there have been cases where we've encouraged developers to have meetings with the neighborhoods and get input before they put things in. Is that
because they were trying to get um extra help from us or can you tell us when when that happens and why what are the ways people can get have um input in the process even if it's not in the formal
planning? Um yeah, mayor and council members, um neighborhood meetings that developers hold in advance of formal land use application are usually for more complex projects. Um they are uh like by policy
required for PUDS or anything with a reasonzoning or comprehensive plan amendment and then they are suggested for mixeduse projects um uh but not necessarily required. So those are those are more complicated um usually larger
developments where those types of neighborhood meetings are held. So essentially what you're saying if it's cut and dried we don't have a choice but if it's something complex like a plan unit development or a comprehensive plan change then it's required to get the input from the
neighborhood. Is that that's a good summary. Yes. All right. Other people with comments or questions? Council member Heri. Um I'm just staff if you could remind me of the requirements of when that open house requirement I is reszoning a
reason for that openhouse requirement? Um or does it have to be something larger than a reszoning? Yes, a resoning is required and a reszoning would still go to us even if it was for the purposes of a small building. Um yes. Okay. Yes. So, this is only for the purposes of like where the map that's in our
packet that homeowners could look up already has a a brown dot where that is allowed to be built. Yes. Okay. I I still don't have an issue with that. And I think just more abstractly and I'm apologize for repeating myself during the work sessions, but we talk
about lots of things. Sometimes it's helpful to recap some of the discussions. Like if I want to build a garage on my property, there is a list of requirements. I would put in an application to community development. They would check the requirements and they would approve it. And obviously garage is smaller than an apartment
building, but we're choosing to set a line somewhere. Right now, that line is generally single family homes and duplexes. If they're meeting the requirements, they get approval through staff. I think if I had to notice my neighbors or have any additional public process to get a new garage, I would be less likely to build a new garage. I
think everybody would be less likely to build a new garage, build an addition to their house, build a duplex. And I think that same mechanism exists with larger buildings, which is why I understand we don't want a completely blank, you know, staff can approve up to 200 units or anything like that. But for these small
buildings and these buildings that people say they want more of, more of these compact neighborhood style things, I think a simpler process that incentivizes that, that provides an advantage to developers is better. And it is fairer and kind of in line with the way we already approach
smaller developments like duplexes and single family homes. And again, we do have that protection of knowing that if it's not already designated for this, if it is currently zoned single family, they would still have to go before us. They would still have to do that open house. This is only about parcels that are already zoned for hire. I I think
what's in the staff proposal is adequate. Other questions or comments? Um I would like to just have something clarified. I already asked staff, so I know I know the answer, but I think other people might want to hear it. Um
we have a section in here we're calling the expanded 66th and Lindale area. Um, and there are some changes that there are special things that can happen in that area that goes, and I'm going to
read it, on either side of 66th Street between Ray Drive to the west and Steven Avenue to the east, on either side of Lindale Avenue between Highway 62 to the north and either 67th Street West along the east side or Lakeshore Drive along
the west side to the south. And on either side of Nicollet between 4th Street to the north and 67th Street east or a a way to the south as depicted in the residential parking reduction map. So I know we're doing like a survey
right now about what we think about downtown. So basically it's the map that everybody's been seeing online for downtown. So changes within this ordinance. What I was confused about, I asked about a couple of properties and what would happen and then found out
that it doesn't apply here because it's only the MR2 and the MR3. So, can you talk about which properties this would affect? Like the MR2 and MR3 like define that for us. So, like 10166 Street
apparently is not MR2 or MR3. So, that's still under the old rules and that was one of the questions I had. Mayor, the um the re parking reductions would apply to all of the properties within this area. for example, 101 166
Street. The building height was what you had inquired about and that um would fall under the zoning of the mixeduse district that it is zoned. So building height would follow whatever the zoning thing is, but the parking
reduction would be for the whole area. Correct. Thank you. That clarifies it because I did not understand that fully. Other questions or comments? Um, Council Member Hayer Deleri, I do have a totally unrelated item that I just wanted to address and perhaps
will be a more minor amendment. Uh, one of the items in here that applies beyond MR2, MR3 is the air conditioning requirements. We talked about this or air conditioner placement requirements. Um, we talked about this briefly in one of the other work sessions. What's proposed right now? So, you have your
building can't your your house can't be any closer to the side line than five feet. um that is somewhat common in Richfield, especially on the smaller lots. There are other types of encroachments already allowed like a side stoop. Um staff are proposing in this that central air conditioning units be allowed to be placed in that if
deemed by staff um infeasible to be placed elsewhere. That would be an alternative to the variance process. I am concerned about that because I do think AC units are quite different from other things that go there like eress window wells or stoops. They're they're noisy pieces of equipment and I think
requiring five feet and making it somewhat burdensome to get it any closer to five feet to your neighbor ensures that you're not having a negative impact on them. Um so I think it's appropriate to keep that to the variance process and not make it easier for people to put these noisy
items uh in their sideyard uh closer than 5T. I would say looking this up Bloomington, St. Louis Park um Edina all do not allow it this close and St. Louis Park and there were less than we do and they do not do not allow it this close. Um, yeah. So, I guess any any thoughts
on that? I I will also say I did ask staff to look in if there were another way to approach this like acknowledge that some of them are quieter than others. They had good reasons why it wasn't really feasible to do that. So, I think it's kind of an up or down on this. Um, happy to go into that if we need to, but I would say I also looked
up how noisy they are. 75 dB is pretty typical, which is about the same as a lawn mower that is potentially running 12 hours a day or more. So, any thoughts or concerns or I mean I can make a motion for that amendment, but if there's any initial discussion of that issue, can you tell me what page that's on so I
can find it amongst I wish I could tell you. Uh 106. Okay. Sorry, my mouse died so I'm working off my iPad. Okay. So, you wanted to make an amendment. Yeah, I will just make the motion then. So I would like us to simply remove the
changes to 509.13 about central air conditioning units and keep the existing language. Is there a second for that amendment? Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Um my question then is if we don't change it and someone wants to try
and do that, can they ask for a variance? Um, chair and commissioners, mayor and council members, yes, a variance process could be utilized um if it was if there was a practical
difficulty. All right, any discussion? All right, the motion before us is for that amendment. All in favor, please say I. I. All opposed. And that amendment passes. Now, we're back to the main motion as amended. Is
there any further discussion? All right. I will just go ahead. I do just want to say big picture um and certainly if there are particular council work to your things if if there are specific amendments you want to make I think we could absolutely debate them like changing those numbers but I will just say before we get to
that if we get to that uh big picture I just am really excited about these updates. We're talking about a lot of details, but I think this is such a good effort to look at all the barriers we're doing um of all the barriers we've sort of inadvertently created to create a new housing in Richfield over time. This is really thorough. It's really thoughtful.
Um and I'm just really proud of the work that that staff have done and that we've done together. It's been a really nice collaborative process. And I really do think um you know I don't know that it's natural to say that like a new apartment building is the most popular thing in the world, but a lot of the complaints I do hear about apartment buildings are
about big apartment buildings that take up a whole block that dominate the look of the neighborhood. People want these this missing middle housing. Um and we're making it basically as difficult currently um as it to build a small apartment building as it is to build a giant one that takes over a neighborhood. So making this easier is
going to incentivize it. It is going to build our tax base. is going to meet demand for a type of housing that we just don't have enough of. So, I'm I'm really excited about it. Um I really truly like almost almost everything that is in this and I'm really glad to support it. And I would echo thanks to everyone
who's involved in this process. I know it was very complicated and I appreciate all the work. Um Council Member Burke. Yeah. And please don't misunderstand. I mean I clearly it's been a lot of work and I see the benefits but I've made
very clear the like to see in here and if that's possible that that's but otherwise please don't don't misunderstand I understand the hard work and I know it's going to be advantageous in many ways thank you all right um city manager Rodriguez oh I
thought you were raising your hand anyone else want anything else to put in here okay so the motion before us um as amended let's see here was to approve the reading of seven ordinance amendments
regarding multif family development regulations with the amendment that um council member Hayer Liri asked. So if there's no further discussion all in favor please say I. All opposed. Opposed.
So we have four eyes and one nay. So we will then continue discussion of this as a second reading on at our next council meeting. Um then we're going to on to item 10B
and that is the with council member Christensen. Thank you, mayor. This is the item for consideration and this is the first reading of an ordinance regulating the use and licensing of short-term rentals. The city council approved an ordinance restricting short-term rentals on May
27th, 2025. It was highlighted at that meeting that licensing regulations would be brought forth prior to the close of the year. With the passage of the short-term rental ordinance in May of 2025, the city council decided short-term rentals should be
administered as a business license rather than a rental license. The proposed licensing ordinance addresses required application information, criminal history, background investigation, non-transferable licenses, renewal requirements, display
of license on the premises, inspections and enforcement, and the basis for license denial, suspension, and revocation. This framework follows other similar license applications the city requires. Does this uh staff have
anything else further to contribute to this. Thank you, council member. Um there has been significant um conversation about this proposed ordinance um over the last few days and I
I think that um I just want to mention one of the um sections. Where are we here? 1199.05 5 license required subdivision 2. I think we're going to have um there was some internal discussion about what exactly that
subdivision um specifically is talking about. And so there's been some language that was developed today that we will share with you that um kind of shores up that section. But if there are um any questions from the council on the rest
of this um we're happy to answer those. So, um, there's a lot of different subdivisions, too. Can you tell us which page it's on in the agenda packet? That Yes. page two under 1199.05, license required. 169. Right.
159. 169. 169. Okay. So, I believe I was the one that had asked about this. So, thank you for getting the legal opinion because what it currently reads is that property owners may receive a short-term rental
residential rental license for one property in the city in addition to their homestead property or their primary place of business. And I was wondering what that actually meant. So, if you have found out the answer, I would love to hear it.
Well, Mayor and Council, um I can elaborate on um Sanderson's um comments on this and we did have some internal discussion about this and I think we need some council input to help maybe help guide us on this. So, as drafted,
how I had interpreted that provision was that a property owner could get two short-term rental licenses. um one for their homesteaded property and one for another property. However,
what we realize that this this language does not specify whether that means that applies only to property owners in Ridgefield or any property owner. Um so there's really two questions here. I think if the council wants to allow applicants to
be able to get two short-term rental licenses, um that's question number one. And if yes, the next question would be whether the council would want to allow that option only to Richfield
property owners and Richfield businesses or to any applicant, meaning any outofstate applicant potentially or or someone from a who's not a Richfield property owner. So those those were the
issues that we discussed internally and realized there was some differing interpretations. Um, if the intent here originally was for this to mean that any applicant, whether they're from Richfield or not,
was only allowed to get one short-term rental license. If and if that's what the council would prefer, then I think we could we could tweak this language to make that more clear. So, I think there's a couple things going on here
really. Do you want allow an applicant to have more than one short-term rental license? And if so, does that option would that option be only for Richfield property owners or for anyone who wanted
to operate a short-term rental? So, I have another question for you. It had come up earlier where someone was getting homestead credit tax benefits and but they were
only it was a short-term rental and they weren't living there. And technically, I believe you have to live somewhere to get the homestead credit. So, if we said that you had a homestead credit, you could do like a bed and breakfast and you had to be on site living there and
then you could have one other place is what it currently reads. Is that correct? You can't just say I'm home is I'm homesteading and I'm going to move away and not live there anymore. Right. I believe that's correct. Is that your interpretation?
So, the reason I wanted to have this discussion is just to make sure everybody understood what we were voting for and find out what the council thought on that because I know we do have some very responsible um short-term rental operators that do
not live in the city but have a short-term rental here. There are some very irresponsible owners that have caused all of the problems that have the neighbors complaining, which is the genesis of this whole discussion. But I want to make sure we think it
through carefully. And I don't know if I want to like penalize the people that have been responsible because the people who have been irresponsible, but I also don't want somebody to come in and do 15 short-term rentals and buy up all our housing and and live out of state and
never be around to take care of it. So, I appreciate the intent of making sure people are here and taking care of it. So, I want to hear what people have to say and I'm not even sure which way I want to vote at this point. So, the discussion would be very much appreciated. Council
member Hayford Deliri, I guess I feel like with our our decision about the length of time, we have done enough to make it sufficiently unappealing to open short-term rentals in Richfield. Um although we walked way back from our initial proposal, it's
still limited in how many people are going to want to do a 5-day minimum rental. I would prefer to does not have this requirement at all. I think that that is sufficient. We have a number a lot of requirements in here to make sure that you're a responsible owner. We have this limit of 5 days. I don't see any reason to restrict the number of
properties people have and honestly I think some of the people that have multiple properties are probably more experienced responsible owners so specifically excluding them I think could be counterproductive. Other thoughts? I would agree with um limiting the number of
short-term rental licenses that are going to be issued to uh to people anywhere. Like you said, I don't want somebody outside outside of Ridgefield coming in and buying up 15 houses in order to shortterm or to to rent them out short
term. So, I think that it's reasonable to request that there's a limit. So, what would you say the limit should be? two. Okay. Other thoughts? Um, council member Burke.
Um, council member brings up a good point that it's already going to look fairly unattractive for developer someone to come in and get multiple units. But I would still like to see
and limit it. I don't I don't know if that answers the other question that um city attorney asked about whether one of those must be a resident. I don't know if you answered that question. You need that question answered also, I guess. Right. I think it was really a two-part
question. Do you want to allow two licenses um to be issued to someone and do you and then the second part is do you want to allow that for anyone whether they're in Richfield or not? Or would you want to allow that two license option just
for Richfield. Those were some of the some of the issues that we discussed internally and certainly staff can if I'm missing anything you can chime in but I think those were the main questions. Yes, those were so my direct answer would be two and only for someone who's one of their
homes is their resil. So for someone outside of be have two they would be only one one. Okay. So to clarify, so you're saying two if they live here and one if they're from somewhere else.
Okay. Other thoughts? Council member Christensen. I agree with Council Member uh Burke that uh there should be a limit on them because I was thinking that if a company comes in and purchases
several homes for short-term rentals, I I think that you kind of in a way equate that to a business coming into the city and purchasing a number of homes for long-term rentals and they don't take care of those types of things. It's kind
of the same thing in a way only short term would be short term. It's still you still have problems with the with the owners. You still have problems with how to get hold of them and the whole thing. So I I agree that you know having two if you are in the city of Richfield and one
if you are not in the city of Richmond. Um council member Hay Ferri. First just a clarification from the city attorney to what extent does owning other rental property in Richfield affect it? Like can you have a long a regular long-term rental and then also a short-term rental or are you does your
does the existence of another regular long-term rental license this in any way? I I don't believe it would. Okay. I I think this is a separate category of of license. So, I would not want it to it would not impact a property owner
that had a different rental license. And then my other question is if we know how many people would be impacted by this limit of two or one. Like, do we know how many people currently have multiple properties? I think wasn't there a number of um director Palman I believe has the
answer mayor members of the council there are a couple that we know of but um as we've as we brought up when we talked about um I'm sorry this is really an awkward stance thank you squatting um as we talked
about when we talked about corporate ownership it is really difficult for us to track these things because if you are a business owner, you're typically going to form an LLC if you and so you will form an LLC for one of your rentals and then you will form a different LLC for your other rental. Um, so I have to tell
you, I've been sitting in the audience thinking, how the heck are they going to monitor this or track it? Um, this this is going to it's going to be administratively difficult, I would say. Yeah, that's a very good point. Something to consider. I I guess my
concern is we put a lot of effort into like reaching out to short-term rental owners earlier in this process that when we decided the number of days and it just feels like a little bit of a bait and switch. So, we had all this engagement. They were very aware. They came here, they engaged us, they they convinced us to do something more permissive than we were originally planning and then it's like, oh, but
many of you have to give up one of your properties. Um, this seems like a significant change uh than the direction we gave granted on another policy item. And I I I'm I'm honestly I will say also specifically council member Coleman was and council member Christensen you you both pushed me towards something more
permissive. So I'm a little bit surprised. Um I guess why why the different approach would be my curiosity here of wanting to have this limit. Go ahead. If anyone wishes to respond, go for it. I think as far as putting a limit on it
or whatever, um there would be more control over u possibly if there were issues, not to say that there is going to be any issues, you know, we don't always don't hope for any issues in the neighborhood, but if you have a if you have a
short-term rental in a neighborhood and you're a person that owns six of them or whatever, is there a way to really Um, is there a way to really um contribute to fixing problems uh that
happen? Um, usually if usually if a problem comes up, it comes up as um like a late night party or some trash in the yard or whatever. Are is that person that owns all those properties
able to um combat all those problems in a timely manner to satisfy the neighbors to appease the neighbors? I don't think I was aware of the the limitation on
only two initially uh having only two properties and I think that it is a good idea for us to limit the number of owners that are pursuing this business license, but like
just said community director community. Um, I think it's going to be hard for us to police or to regulate how many different LLC's somebody can come up with now that I think about this. And if we can limit it to two, it
potentially um would create less of the um going to buy all the properties and somebody woke up with a bright idea this morning to buy more properties in Richfield. Um, they should go about
ethical manner. All right, Council Member Burke. Yeah, I think one thing it does is that it favors people who are have a side job as opposed to a corporate. I think that's that's
one thing a resident who wants to have another building to supplement their income or source that's one thing but you know the concern of a corporate interest coming in and just buying I understand that that the search might be difficult you may have to start looking through secretary of state's website and
looking at the names of the owners of all these different corporations that's a lot of work I get that but I think you know we should an effort should be made to make it clear that we really don't want corporate short-term rental.
Um, city attorney teach. Um, yeah, Mayor, I just had one other comment. You know, one option might be to I think, you know, council's giving us some feedback. This issue was just raised internally today. And I do think one option might be to allow staff to
have a more robust discussion about this internally too with some of the issues that this could create and and we do have another reading of this ordinance too. So we could come back with to the council with some additional thoughts
and feedback so that more staff can be involved in this conversation. I realize that we had a limited number of staff involved in this discussion and these these questions were were just raised today and there may be more staff that want to have some input here. So, I'm
just raising that as a potential option here to allow for that to occur and then we can we can also um fine-tune this on the second reading as well. Um if we're going to be fine-tuning the other question was had to do with
if somebody previously had like three properties and has had rental licenses and been paying their lodging taxes and everything. Would they be permitted to continue or because it's an annual license, it's just going to be well, you're going to
have to pick which one you're going to do and you're out of luck. I didn't know if that was addressed, right? And we we have not had that that discussion either. And I think that would be really more of a policy decision about how the council would
want to address that issue. So, have we fully explored all of the different concerns and we could at this point pass what we have and then bring it up on the second reading or are there other questions that people want to talk
about? Wanted to clarify my comments and first off um thank you mayor for translating because I am not I know I'm not our rules correctly by directly addressing other council members. So, thank you for reminding them that their response is optional. Um, I just I know it's not the right way to do it. It's just helpful to
have that dialogue directly. So, thank every thank you everyone for uh tolerating my my uh skirting the rules. Um, my clarification was I just I really feel like this is unfair to the property owners to go forward with this. I would feel significantly more comfortable if we found some way to at least
grandfather in the ones who currently own properties. We just did we did such effort. We did this survey. We did these work sessions. we did all of this stuff about all of this and we landed on five days and then to suddenly say, "Oh, but you've got to get rid of your properties." That just seems really unfair to those property owners. And I
just am not comfortable with that at all. I would definitely oppose this ordinance in its entirety if if that means we are forcing sale of property owners that worked in good faith to try to come up with the compromise that we reached. And I guess that was part of the reason I brought it up because we'd had this
big discussion and then this is like another whole hoop to jump through. And I like everything else in the ordinance, it's this particular subdivision that I have the questions about. And so that was my concern is I don't
know if if that's the way to go. I mean, or even if we said something like you could have up to three or something so that it wasn't going to cause major havoc for people that have been responsible and been following all the rules. Okay,
other comments or questions and then we need to move forward. I have two quick questions. Looking at section 1199.11 basis for denial subdivision 4. Um can language be added in there that if
someone is a registered sex offender and is still required to register that they would not be allowed to get a license? It seems to me that what it says now is an applicant has a history felony conviction in the last five years. Seems that it would someone could still
be allowed to be on registry and still be a license. Is that correct? Council member Burke, I'll I will have to look into that question. And then the other one was um you know something we had spoken about is setting
a number total number of short-term rentals and is this the right place to be looking for that or is there some other place in the ordinance so someplace else where we're going to see a limitation on the total number of short-term rentals in the city. Uh, Council Member Burke, I there
capping the number of licenses was um discussed I think a couple of months ago um internally and was decided to not do that. Um
if I may. Um, so the proposal tonight is that we would revisit that after 18 months to look at if it was needed or not because with the fiveday minimum requirement, you know, we may not seem the see the growth in overall short-term
rentals that we've been seeing. However, in order to be prepared for that discussion, um, uh, city attorney teach like to hear from you all on why it would be important for you to have an overall cap to see if we could put it
into an ordinance. And mayor and council, the reason for that is just to, you know, for any kind of limitation like that, we need to provide, it has to be have a rational basis and and we need to provide legal
reasoning behind that kind of limitation. And so I think that record hasn't been really fully developed at this point as far as the the rationale for that. But further down the road, I think that that that will be we'll be in a better position to to be able to have
that discussion once we know more about how this all plays out and how things are operating. Making initial attempt at that um that uh it should be a public policy concern that short-term
rentals take the place and of residential housing takes away from residential housing where at a time when there is a housing crunch not only in Richmond and the Twin Cities. So I think that would be one basis or concern right there. But I agree with you that it' be
nice to develop and get some facts and otherwise to bolster that. Hope that helps. All right. So at this point I have to ask the question if we have someone make the motion to approve it right now and
then you go back and make changes then we can make the amendments at the second reading. Is that correct? Yes, that that is correct. And if you want to include in your motion to direct staff to look further at this um language that we've discussed in some detail, we can do that.
I would make a motion to approve it with uh the direction of for staff to additionally word smith it so that it's better. Okay. So, we have that motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance
regulating the use and licensing of rental of short-term rentals with the additional research and word smithing that has been requested. Is there a second? Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion?
All in favor, please say I. I. All opposed and we have passed the first reading and we will be discussing this again at our next council meeting. Next, we'll move on to item 10 C and I'll turn it over to Council Member Coleman Woods.
Thank you, Mayor. Uh, this is item for consideration is uh to consider the second reading and hold a public hearing for an ordinance amending section 601 of the Richfield City Code of ordinances pertaining to solid waste disposal, collection, and hauling. Current garbage
code is based on language and definitions adopted in 2021 residential organized collection contract. Since adoption of the changes in 2022. Additional language was determined to be necessary to clarify solid waste duties of non-residential properties and multif
family properties to ensure buildings are in compliance with Henipin County Ordinance 13. Language requiring specific per unit recycling volumes in multifamily properties was also deemed necessary to ensure compliance with Henipe County ordinances 13's adequate
recycling requirement for multif family properties. Inclusion of this language ensures all resident Richfield residents are given the same access to the benefits of reducing dependency on garbage containers and will allow property owners increased access to assistance programs run by Hanniban
County. The August 12th meeting action set a public hearing for August 26th through uh though legal council and city staff have confirmed that a public hearing is not required by statute for this code change as it does not include
zoning variances or other situations for which a public hearing is required. A public hearing is scheduled for this item for the purpose of receiving public comment. Is there any other staff input? And the recommend action in here is uh to
conduct and close the public hearing and by motion one to approve the second reading of the ordinance adopting the amendments to section 601 of the city code and two to approve a resolution authorizing summary publication of the ordinance. I would entertain a motion to
approve. Before we do that, did you want to um conduct the public hearing? Oh, sure. All right. So, we're going to open up a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to address the council on this particular item?
Is there anyone who wishes to comment for the public hearing on this particular item? If not, a motion would be in order to um close the public hearing. I move to close the public hearing.
It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor, please say I. I. All opposed. We've closed the public hearing. So, now we'll move on to your main motion. I move to approve the second reading of
the ordinance and adopting the amendments to section 601 of the city code and approve a resolution authorizing summary publication of the ordinance. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
I will say I'm very pleased to see this coming forward because I know there had been discussion amongst some of the community groups about you know what should we do? Should we um make sure that all takeout carry out items are compostable and different things and
when I inquired about it this it was pointed to this that this would have a much bigger impact on reducing the trash flow into landfills and stuff if we facilitated helping the in multi-unit buildings do their recycling. And so I think this is making a big difference
and moving us towards our sustainability efforts. So I just want to say I'm very pleased that this is going forward and thank you for all the people that put the work into it. Yes. Thank you to our sustainability commission. All right. Any any other comments or
questions? All right. The motion is before us. All in favor, please say I. I. All and we have passed the motion. Next, we'll move on to flip this over um other business. I'm
going to turn item 12A over to council member Burke. This the for consideration is consideration of the appointment of youth commissioner to city advisory board commission's executive summary. City Advisory Commission terms for youth
members are for one year and terms expire on August 31st, 2025. City manager's office conducted a recruitment seeking applicants to fill the youth vacancies for 2025 2026. This recruitment included information on the city's website, Facebook page, and
communication with the local high schools. Applications received were forwarded to the council for review and recommended action by mot to approve the appointment of Rose Thompson to the Sustainability Commission as a youth commission.
Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? I want to say thank you to Rose and if anybody else is out there listening that is uh eligible to be a youth commissioner, we have several vacancies.
Same thing. I would encourage people to get involved in their commission in their commissions. Even if you're not a youth, you have to apply later on. But u very glad that Rose stepped up. Thank you. All in favor, please say I. I. I.
All opposed. All right. Um we do have a request for someone to speak um that wasn't able to get here in time for open forum and we'll do that after the city manager report and the council discussion. So I
just want you to know, sir, that we will have a vote on whe not to let you speak. So, right now, I'm going to turn this over to city manager Rodriguez. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, last week, Mr. Lowry spoke later in the meeting u about his concerns with speeding at 77th in
Lindale. Uh, I did receive additional information from Chief Henthornne. Um, and he met regularly with Mr. Lowry. Um, but has not heard from him since last fall. Uh Chief Henthornne has also met with the manager of the building. Um
there is additional traffic in the area due to the 494 construction. Uh and public safety has increased control increased patrols uh for some time now. Uh we did uh actually chief pulled the
Tyler data for a traffic stops uh arrest within a th00and feet uh and for a two-year period a little over two-year period uh there were 798 total stops and arrests and there were 130 citations
issued and 26 cases uh or reports completed and I don't also um Sorry, one other um thing. Uh public safety had placed speed signs in the area and the average speed
was 32 miles per hour and I don't have anything else to report. Were those citations for just that area? Correct. Okay. Thank you. And that was over a course of one year. Two years. Two years. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other
questions for city manager Rodriguez? Then we'll move on to the council discussion. Um, and so I'm gonna do one of mine early since the staff member is still here. I wanted to do a hats off to
solid wage specialist Zach McCarti because we had an issue with the 494 construction and it was blocking so that people couldn't get their um waste containers out and Republic couldn't
come and pick it up and nobody knew what to do and everybody was seeing what's going to go on and so Zach went out of his way to facilitate the exchange between Mandot and Republic and the homeowners and even though it wasn't a city project, he figured out a solution for everybody. So, I was just gonna say
hats off to Zach and since he's right here, I wanted to go ahead and do that first. So, thank you. So, are there other hats off? Um, Council Member Christensen. Yes. I'd like to give a hat off to an event that is coming up um actually next
week, September 4th, Thursday, September 4th at the Ice Arena. It is a um I believe this is the second one this year. They're having a shred event. You can come between 10:30 a.m. and 12:30
p.m. at the ice arena, drive through, drop off up to two uh normalsiz grocery bags of shredding. Thank you, Council Member Coleman Woods. Um
gosh, you know, during this meeting, I've just learned of a um death, one of our community members. Um he is one of the coaches for he designed the se my seven on seven. I don't know if anybody else plays sports here, but
um he just lost his son and um hats off to coach Tai. Um, our hearts are Thank you. Um, Council Member Hayford Deliri. Um, I wanted to give my hats off to the many residents who were at the first
open house for Penn Avenue. Our first open houses are usually just uh getting the pulse of existing conditions. Um, and so they're not always super well attended because there's not a design yet. Uh, but we had a lot of really good engagement and it was really great to see. And a secondary hats off within that to council member Burke who asked
that the record reflect that he was there before me despite my nerdy enthusiasm for streets. So I will credit credit where credit is due. Thank you. And council member Burke, I doubt that I was there longer than you. So thank you. Um,
yes. I want to uh thank the residents at the Oliver Avenue South and 65th Street uh area. They uh they kindly invited me to their area and had a sit down with I
think at least 12 probably 15 residents and they um very respectfully and calmly expressed their concerns about some changes in the area and I certainly take it seriously and I want to give them a hats out for inviting me out there and I
also want to give a hats off to the crews working on Donaldson Park. The playground's looking great and I there are kids just waiting to be the first ones to to use it. So, thank you for your hard work. Thank you. Um, I want to do an
additional hats off to all of the educators and school staff and all of the students that are starting the school year. I was fortunate to be invited over to the Richville Public Schools kickoff for all of their
educators and staff members. and I we really appreciate everything they do for us. And so I want to include all the schools though, not just one set. So hats off to everybody who's starting a new school year and wishing you all a wonderful school year. Um with that um
we've had a request to do an open um give um person chance to speak at open forum and so per our procedures, I'll make a motion to allow this gentleman to speak for three minutes. um for open forum. Is there a second?
I'll second. Second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, please say I. I. All opposed. All right. So, sir, Mr. Lowry, you've got three minutes. If you want to go over to the microphone. I don't know how
we're going to do this. Okay. Okay. So, hello. All right. We can hear you. So if you could state your name and the city you live in. Philip John Lowry Wes Kasawa Gate Captain United States Army Infantry
Member Msquakei Nation. I don't need to repeat the reading of this October 11th 2024 letter which I gave to you two weeks ago. It was from our senior citizen center administrator talking about how
she shares our belief that the thug must be stopped at 77 Lindale. I have here by police chief Henthornne to keep track of all the thug car incidents from 6:00
a.m. in the morning to 2 am at night. We gave this to the chief. We never saw it again. Here are hundreds of tickets for speeding, criminal vehicular operation, and operating a motor vehicle in a gross
and negligent manner. That's the only thing that will stop this. Since October 11th, 2024, we have been waiting for the reply letter from Chief Henthornne, which he
promised when I handed him the letter on October 11th, 2024. He said he would investigate and get back to me with a written reply. That written reply, we have been waiting since October 11th to October 12th. Two weeks ago, 26,784,000
seconds. Now it's two weeks later. Now it's 27,993,600 seconds. So, please don't expect us to hold our breath waiting any longer for Chief Henthornne's reply letter, which has never been sent to us. Debbie Gtle
and Sean O'Grady both gave their word to us back in the spring of 2025 to investigate this matter and get back to us, but they lied. Does anybody have any questions? Thank you very much to City Clerk
Michelle for being so very helpful. Anybody have any questions? the way that it's set up. It's not set up for a dialogue back and forth, but thank you for your time and thank you for addressing. You've got about 20 seconds left. You send us overseas
to safeguard this country and you send us back home in Pine boxes and wheelchairs. You allow a billionaire to sign a false statement saying that his son has a bone spur so that Donald Trump
military service and now he's ripping up our constitution and last week he abolished the Veterans Administration Union. All that is necessary for evil to succeed
is for good people to sit and watch. Right now we are sitting and watching Trump destroy our country. Don't allow it to happen.
Thank you, sir. And you've Thank you for your comments this evening. Sorry. All right. Thank you. Is there any I don't believe there's any other business to come before us. So, a motion to adjurnn would be in order.
I move adjournment. Second. It's been moved and seconded to adjurnn. All in favor, please say I. I. All opposed. All right, we stand adjourned. Thank you.