[0:03] Now, I will call the Northfield Planning Commission meeting to order. Roll call, please. Commissioner

[0:11] Hollerin, Commissioner Holmes, here, Commissioner Bucke, here, Commissioner Novak, here,

[0:17] Commissioner Schmidt, here, Vice Chair Schroer, Chair Coleman. Here.

[0:24] First item of business

[0:27] approval of the agenda that has been submitted. Do I have a motion to approve?

[0:35] So moved. Second. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye.

[0:43] Agenda is approved. Next, we have the minutes of the December 18th, 2025 Planning Commission

[0:51] meeting, do I have a motion to approve?

[0:55] I move to approve the minutes with an amendment.

[1:01] It had me at present at the meeting and so we just need to amend it so that I was absent

[1:08] and was not voting record.

[1:12] Do we have a second with that amendment?

[1:16] Second.

[1:17] All in favor?

[1:19] Aye.

[1:20] Opposed?

[1:21] Same signed?

[1:21] And hearing none, the minutes as amended are approved.

[1:27] The first matter before us today is a public hearing for consideration of a zoning map

[1:33] amendment for 304 Second Street West.

[1:38] The public will have the opportunity to speak for against this item for a maximum of two

[1:44] minutes, not including interpreters time.

[1:47] the chair will recognize the speaker at the podium and conversation will be

[1:52] between the chair and the speaker. A person's wishing to speak must give their

[1:58] name. If they're representing a business also the name of the business or

[2:03] corporation and if an attorney or consultant is representing a client the

[2:09] The client must be identified for the record.

[2:14] With that, President Commissioner, do we have anybody wishing to make a public comment

[2:24] on a matter not pertaining to the Zoning Map Amendment?

[2:31] Seeing none, we'll proceed.

[2:35] Mr. Huey, I believe you have a presentation to give.

[2:47] So to recap the process of a zoning map amendment, this is a type 4 process.

[2:52] We will start with the public hearing, staff will give a presentation.

[2:56] The applicant is present to answer questions if needed.

[3:00] I don't believe the applicant has prepared a presentation.

[3:02] Followed by public input questions from the commissioners at that time, and then we will move on to consideration of the item.

[3:11] This

[3:25] is a zoning map amendment for 304 Second Street West.

[3:31] This is an aerial view of the parcel in question, and the request is for the planning commission to recommend approval to change the zoning 304 Second Street West from R1B low density residential to C1B downtown, which is a commercial zoning district.

[3:49] This is a zoning map context for reference.

[3:54] The parcel in question is the orange here outlined in the light teal.

[3:59] The yellow, which is the existing zoning, is the low-density residential.

[4:05] That's the R1.

[4:07] The purple color is the C1 downtown district.

[4:13] Directly to the east, there is this parcel that appears to be sort of a gray beige color.

[4:17] That simply has to do with the fact that the city owns that parcel and there's an overlay that got put on that

[4:23] So it's a disc it's discolored. It should be purple. It is zoned. See one

[4:28] Purple and then that light pink parcel on the corner

[4:32] Field ambulance depot that is public institutional zoning

[4:40] There's a couple of street views taken from Google Street view

[4:43] This is 304 second street looking northwest from second street and spring street intersection there

[4:50] and this is looking you'll notice there is a large empty portion of the lot here

[4:54] and the greenhouse that exists. This duplex is visible in the background and

[5:00] here's a view looking north east from second showing the existing home which

[5:07] is a duplex and spring street can be seen in the distance there as well as the

[5:12] railroad tracks and beyond that highway three and some additional commercial.

[5:20] So

[5:21] that we've mailed a public hearing notice on December 22nd,

[5:26] published another one in the paper on December 31st,

[5:28] the public hearing tonight and consideration

[5:31] of a recommendation from the Planning Commission.

[5:34] The first reading of the ordinance,

[5:38] and so the type four zoning map amendment,

[5:40] the ultimate decision resides with City Council,

[5:43] they will make that final determination.

[5:46] That determination requires a supermajority vote

[5:50] to approve because it is changing from residential to commercial, but that first reading at City Council

[5:58] will happen on February 10th, the February 3rd meeting for City Council. This hasn't been

[6:03] formally adopted but by state statute we can't have a meeting that night. It is caucus night and so

[6:09] that meeting is being moved to February 10th. That doesn't change any of the rest of the timeline.

[6:14] The second reading will still be scheduled if approved on February 10th. The second reading will occur

[6:19] on February 17th, followed by a summary publication and the zoning map amendment takes, goes into effect 30 days after the publication of that.

[6:31] So, City Code lays out the criteria, zoning map amendments may be initiated by City Council, City Staff, or the property owner.

[6:39] In this case, the applicant is the property owner. It's a type 4 review procedure, which is a planning commission recommendation, and a City Council decision.

[6:48] There are four criteria that the decision is to be based on, and they're laid out here.

[6:57] It's adequacy of infrastructure, adequacy of a buffer or transition between potentially incompatible districts,

[7:03] the purpose and intent of the land development code, or in the case of a map amendment,

[7:08] whether it meets the purpose and intent of the individual district, and then the specific policies,

[7:12] goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and other city plans.

[7:20] Staff, in this case, is recommending approval.

[7:24] So criteria one, our specific policies, goals, and objectives of the Com Plan and other

[7:30] city plans being met.

[7:32] So for this finding, we look at the future land use map adopted in the Comprehensive Plan

[7:40] and the interventions framework map in the Comprehensive Plan, both in this case support

[7:46] the change in zoning to commercial.

[7:50] The future land use map identifies this as a mixed use commercial parcel and the rezoning

[7:56] is consistent with that.

[7:58] This area is identified as enhanced in the rezoning in the interventions framework map, rezoning

[8:06] consistent with the intensification, infill, and redevelopment requiring smaller scale

[8:11] investment from the city. So, the enhanced is sort of the, if I'm recalling the lowest

[8:19] interventions just above preserve. And preserve was mostly reserved for parks, the college

[8:24] campuses kind of things. So, access chapter of the comprehensive plan

[8:31] strategy one, plan for accessibility, strategy two, develop in a compact and sustainable way.

[8:36] Okay, all of these findings are detailed in the resolution, so if anyone has a question

[8:41] about it, there is a packet available and it was sent to the Planning Commissioners.

[8:48] And then sustainable economic future, Strategy 3 was small business development, Strategy

[8:53] 5, Diversity or diversified Northfield's tax base, Strategy 6 was grown in a compact and

[9:00] sustainable development pattern.

[9:01] All of these are either satisfied or encouraged by this rezoning.

[9:08] Here's the future land use map for context.

[9:11] This light blue circle here in the sort of center is the parcel.

[9:18] And you'll note that purple color is the mixed use commercial.

[9:23] The mixed use commercial and

[9:26] sort uses our commercial multifamily housing office public institutional densities

[9:31] When contemplating multi-family housing projects a citywide average density of 5 to 15 units per acre should be the minimum outcome to provide enough density to support future transit connections and other parts of the city.

[9:45] Transportation considerations are improved walkability between and around businesses and connections to the river, improved pedestrian and bicycle routes across major barriers including highway 3 and 19.

[9:59] the railroad tracks in the Cannon River and collaborate with Min Dot to redesign Highway 3.

[10:05] Those are all taken from the comp plan with regards to the future land use here and the goals.

[10:12] The interventions framework map. So it's a little tough to read these, but this residential area is identified as E1.

[10:24] That's a residential neighborhood west of the river.

[10:27] This residential area is described as lacking parks,

[10:30] and could also benefit from enhanced non-motorized connections

[10:33] to improve access to services and commercial enterprises.

[10:37] One way to do that is introduce more commercial and service enterprises

[10:42] on this side of Highway 3 and the river, which do service a barrier.

[10:47] And then it's directly adjacent to T1,

[10:50] and you can kind of see that within that circle.

[10:52] It's sort of located right over the new transit hub,

[10:57] but T1 is a transform area,

[10:59] represent the greatest opportunity

[11:01] for future development and redevelopment

[11:03] to harness growing market demand

[11:04] and create walkable mixed-use income centers.

[11:08] Land use changes and or intensification of uses

[11:10] will create lively places to live, work and play,

[11:13] and they will serve as neighborhood centers

[11:15] for residents and employees alike.

[11:19] T1 Downtown River West, through transportation improvements to Highway 3, improve the

[11:26] Highway 3 corridor, including crossing. The downtown land use pattern and scale will

[11:31] expand west, making the river the focal point, and making the transit hub accessible a more

[11:36] convenient, encouraging lively and active streets.

[11:45] Criteria 1 continued the strategic plan, improved financial strength, growing the commercial

[11:49] industrial and industrial tax base, rezoning this parcel to commercial and getting additional

[11:54] commercial development would contribute to this strategic plan goal.

[11:59] So criteria two, does the new zoning district meet the purpose and intent of the individual

[12:04] district?

[12:05] The purpose of the downtown district is to create Northfields brand in unique sense of place,

[12:12] sustain the historic central business district, make highway three corridor more integral

[12:16] an attractive part of downtown and provide transitions from highway three that downtown commercial

[12:23] into the more residential areas. C1 district aims to provide compact pedestrian friendly

[12:29] active mix of land uses including business and the design standards of this district reflect

[12:35] the character of the historic downtown and will help create a sense of arrival and center.

[12:40] Yes, the rezoning supports the intent and purpose of the C1 district

[12:44] by providing that transition from the Highway 3 corridor into the more residential neighborhood

[12:50] to the West, softening that transition. It also improves, you know, connectivity

[13:00] and stimulates development around the transit hub, furthering additional development goals.

[13:10] Criteria 3 is their adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed action or use.

[13:15] There is adequate infrastructure available including sewer, water, streets, sidewalks, transit access, spring street, and as a note, this has been brought up multiple times, but spring street will be closed at second street west as part of the quiet railroad project.

[13:32] Access and changes to access to the spring street, those are all items that will be addressed at the site plan stage, site plan review stage.

[13:40] There's existing sewer and water, so well-connected site, it's on the street grid.

[13:47] And criteria 4, is there adequate buffer or transition provided between potentially

[13:53] incompatible districts?

[13:56] Buffering is adequate and adequate buffering will be required, additional buffering if necessary

[14:01] will be required as part of the site plan review.

[14:05] The LDC provides buffering and design standards to address the transition from downtown commercial

[14:11] to low density residential.

[14:14] Any redevelopment will be subject to those standards, and then the downtown commercial

[14:18] district does border the low density residential district for most of its edge, and the parcel

[14:25] of butts the C1 to the east and south.

[14:28] So it's consistent, it is only transitioning on one side.

[14:34] Some site development standards designed to mitigate the impact of commercial lot, next

[14:38] to a residential lot, include maximum building height, rear setbacks, front side setbacks,

[14:47] or front setbacks, interior side, corner side yard setbacks, screening and buffering standards,

[14:51] which often include landscaping, but maybe fencing, et cetera.

[14:54] lighting standards and...

[15:00] Different design standards, including prohibitions on corporate architecture, et cetera, and large blank walls are not allowed. So, those are, there's quite a detailed list of those design standards, and I won't recap all of them for you at this point. State statute. So a change in zoning from residential to commercial requires a two thirds approval. Just as a note, that will come up at city council.

[15:28] That is the end of my presentation.

[15:33] Okay. Thank you very much. At this time, does the applicant

[15:38] can't have the one to make a statement, the applicant here.

[15:45] Okay, hiding behind the person in the room in front of you.

[15:51] Okay, if you don't want to make a statement,

[15:56] we'll open it up to the public.

[15:58] And again, you may speak for up to two minutes.

[16:02] And please state your name and come to the podium.

[16:05] There's a button there to turn the microphone on.

[16:09] and just state your name and we'll start the timer.

[16:15] Does anybody want to speak at this time?

[16:35] Deacon Mickey Redfern, St. Dominix.

[16:39] If Spring Street is going to be closed,

[16:45] we have concerns about parking and traffic flow,

[16:49] depending on where the entrance into this possible store

[16:53] will be.

[16:53] So, if the entrance is on second street, that wouldn't be problematic, but if the only

[17:01] way to get to the store is to come down Spring Street, which is now a dead end, every person

[17:07] would have to come past the church and then back.

[17:12] So Wednesdays, for example, our school is north of the church.

[17:18] all of our school students walk down the street to come to Mass on those days.

[17:24] And there's, I can't see where the parking will be for this.

[17:30] That's all I have to share.

[17:33] Okay, thank you very much.

[17:35] Has anyone else wish to speak at this time?

[17:44] Do-

[17:46] Chair, I will know you should all have a copy of a public comment that I did receive

[17:51] via email in front of you. So there's a copy there. Due to the timing of that, we've provided it

[17:57] as a print. There are several copies over on the table for members of the public who might be

[18:02] interested and then that will be entered into the record post meeting. Thank you. Before we close

[18:11] the public hearing, do any commissioners have any questions at this time? We'll have the discussion

[18:19] after, but if you have any questions specifically clarification to Mr. Huey,

[18:27] yes, well.

[18:30] Thanks, Chair.

[18:32] The closure of the street is presented as a feda complete, but I don't know that that's

[18:37] been shared with us at this point.

[18:40] Can staff give us some more information about what the expectations and the process are at

[18:46] that point for that?

[18:47] So, as you know, the city has been pursuing a quiet rail designation.

[18:52] I'm not sure the technical title of it.

[18:55] It's as part of that, or the end goal is that the train will not have to blow the whistle

[19:01] as they come through town.

[19:04] And so, lessening the impact of that.

[19:06] As part of that, we do have to address each rail crossing in town and bring those up to

[19:11] a certain safety standard.

[19:14] This intersection design, as it is with Spring Street, presents the opportunity for someone

[19:21] who would be heading south on Spring Street to come to that stop sign and potentially

[19:26] make a left turn, the curbs are there to prevent that, but because the tracks go through

[19:32] there somebody could kind of avoid the curbs and go over the tracks and make a left turn

[19:37] there. And in so doing not check behind them to see a freight train coming headed south

[19:45] on those tracks, resulting in a potentially catastrophic accident. So they, the rail

[19:52] road standard is that that intersection be closed because the reconfiguration is not,

[19:57] there's no way to reconfigure it to prevent that, you know, from happening. At this point,

[20:03] The Public Works Department has scheduled a meeting with the Railroad and Mindot because

[20:10] this is always a joint thing.

[20:12] That meeting is scheduled for next week.

[20:16] Planning will be involved in that meeting.

[20:17] We're going to go along to kind of work through things and identify what the best work with

[20:24] them to come up with a best case solution for the closure of Spring Street.

[20:32] There are many options on the table, include everything from a cul-de-sac to a hammerhead turnaround, and

[20:38] nothing. At this point, it's all very preliminary.

[20:42] The only thing we know is that that will have to be closed if we want to achieve our stated goal of getting the quiet zone.

[20:51] I think the issue holds.

[20:53] Thank you. I just want to get clarity on this because I don't think it's a question of zoning, but

[21:00] the question about the orientation of the building and where an entrance might be located.

[21:06] To me, that's another issue, not related to how we zone property, but can you just

[21:14] when and if a building is built there, is that something that is then considered in terms

[21:19] of in the building process and code, et cetera?

[21:22] Can you just clarify that for me and for anyone in the audience, too?

[21:26] So, yeah, our land development code currently, and this of course depends on, you know, timelines

[21:33] of when we get applications, when architects have been involved, and, et cetera, as things

[21:38] move forward, but I will speak to our existing land development code.

[21:41] Does require an entrance to face the street, so that will be a part of it.

[21:47] The C1 district does require a second story.

[21:50] There are material restrictions, so I think that the preference is heavily towards brick and masonry, not pre-cast concrete.

[22:02] And yes, access is an item on the, it's called a checklist for a site plan review.

[22:12] And so, generally, with a site plan review, that process involves a pre-application meeting,

[22:17] kind of a preliminary, like here are the restrictions, here's things you need to be aware of.

[22:23] Before we even, somebody even gets into design so we can head off some of those issues.

[22:28] And you are correct that that is not, those are not items under consideration for the rezoning there.

[22:39] Yeah, and just to clarify too with the future land use map that was in the presentation

[22:44] and our anticipated change of the zoning code in the next, within the next 14 months.

[22:52] Would this, would the rezoning and what is there in the future land use map do we anticipate

[22:57] that that would be changed within that time period within the next 14 months as a part of

[23:02] the process we're about to go through?

[23:05] Can I just ask a clarifying question?

[23:08] Will that, is your question whether or not that existing commercial, or I'm sorry, what

[23:14] the future land use map shows as commercial, if that would become the new zoning map,

[23:21] or do you anticipate that all of those parcels, or are you asking if all those parcels identified

[23:27] as future commercial will be also rezoned as commercial?

[23:30] Correct, it would not tonight, but within our work as we look at the changing the zoning code.

[23:41] I will defer to the city planner on that one.

[23:44] Chair and Commissioner Holes, correct, the future land use map is what guides our future zoning.

[23:51] They are two separate things, but the zoning map is then where the code language ties to that zone.

[23:58] So correct, that whole block in essence will be zoned commercial when we get to the end

[24:06] of the zoning code update and we update all the code language we will also update the

[24:10] zoning map to be reflective of that.

[24:13] So correct.

[24:17] But in the interim we don't have any, I don't have any existing applications or pending

[24:23] applications for additional rezonings at this time.

[24:28] Thank you for that clarification.

[24:29] Any further questions?

[24:34] Not do we have a motion to close the public hearing?

[24:42] I move to close the public hearing.

[24:44] Thank you.

[24:44] Second.

[24:45] I'll second.

[24:46] All in favor, please say aye.

[24:49] Aye.

[24:50] Close same sign.

[24:54] The hearing is closed.

[24:57] We will now, as a commission, take the matter under consideration.

[25:03] Do we have any further questions, first of all, for staff on this matter?

[25:15] We have a resolution, oh sorry,

[25:21] Commissioner.

[25:22] Thank you.

[25:23] I just want to make sure I understand this so as of now, there is no applications or

[25:28] any information about any potential building on this site.

[25:33] That is correct.

[25:34] Thank

[25:42] you.

[25:43] Commissioner Strener.

[25:45] Thanks, Chair.

[25:47] This is following on Commissioner Holmes's question, but edging into discussion.

[25:55] It's, do I understand correctly, it is likely verging on, very likely, that this will be

[26:01] re-zoned anyway at the end of our zoning process that we're starting out on?

[26:10] staff do you want to answer that yes that is that is correct. I appreciate it. Thank you.

[26:18] Any further discussion?

[26:22] There is a motion I have another question of the staff. So if

[26:31] somebody would put a new building on there and maybe commercials different than residential

[26:36] that the narrow width of the lot is the entrance or the address for the property.

[26:45] In this case, is that different on its commercial and residential?

[26:53] Commissioner Schmidt, so the, no, the narrow portion of the lot is still considered the front.

[26:59] So the dimensions of the lot, the most narrow width would be considered the front.

[27:08] C1's a little different, where they have minimum and maximum setbacks for both the front and like the corner side.

[27:16] And the right, you're trying to pull the building to the corner then already.

[27:20] So that's a little different in relationship to residential.

[27:23] So there's that and you could have entrances off of both sides, really.

[27:34] And there's, you know, regulations around what, you know, those entrances look like, too.

[27:40] But it could be both, or either or.

[27:45] Okay, with that, do you have a resolution?

[27:48] Do we have a motion to approve and we'll have discussion after, commissioner?

[27:55] Sure.

[27:55] I'll move the resolution that staff has offered for approval.

[27:59] Second.

[28:00] Second.

[28:01] Um, discussion at this point.

[28:05] Any other comments or questions?

[28:09] Commissioner Schrer.

[28:11] Thank you, Chair.

[28:12] As the mover, I think staff did a fine job of reviewing the criteria and it seems to fit

[28:20] them well.

[28:22] It fits them, I would say, at the moment, and it will fit them even better or will automatically

[28:30] happen in the future.

[28:33] We don't know that absolutely, but it seems likely.

[28:36] So I'd like to support this application.

[28:43] Any other comments?

[28:45] One question I have for staff, because we don't know what will happen at that intersection.

[28:57] if the, however, it gets configured on Spring Street.

[29:04] If that were to prove to be so detrimental to the owner's plans,

[29:15] what could they do with the property if they chose, we don't,

[29:19] we'd rather make it more, put a duplex in or some other residential.

[29:25] So

[29:29] there is the existing duplex, my understanding on, based on preliminary discussions of the closure of spring street, is that a cul-de-sac would be sort of the most space-intensive solution to closing that street, providing turnaround space for fire trucks and snow plows.

[29:56] It would encroach significantly into the

[30:00] Property owners' property due to the railroad right-of-way constraints.

[30:06] Because of that, the city would be in a position where they would have to purchase a portion at least of that property to make that happen. So it comes down to timing, timing of the closure of Springstreet and those improvements, timing of bringing things up.

[30:29] things, you know, forward to city council versus having a site plan approved, et cetera.

[30:35] And so, yeah, we don't have clear direction from the railroad on that.

[30:44] I can say that, you know, there is cause to advocate for a hammerhead turnaround, which

[30:50] would require far less property acquisition and provide for more and still provide those

[30:58] Those turn around elements necessary.

[31:04] I guess my question is, if not knowing what that will be,

[31:10] if say it is called a sack and encroaches,

[31:18] would the property owner need to come back if they decided,

[31:25] well, no, this isn't going to work commercial, we want it to be residential.

[31:28] What they need to rezone again?

[31:33] No, the existing residential is allowed and then multi-family residential is also allowed

[31:40] in C1 subject to certain, you know, again, certain design standards, et cetera, so generally

[31:48] commercial is considered more permissive of a zoning district than a residential district.

[31:54] So they would still have options as to what they could do with that property.

[32:01] Okay, thank you.

[32:02] I think that may clarify it for some of the people in the audience and watching online.

[32:09] Any other comments or questions or discussion?

[32:13] Commissioner Schroer.

[32:15] Thank you, Chair.

[32:16] I'd like to, I'd like all of us, if we can to respond to, if we, again,

[32:22] if we can to some of the citizen input. I appreciate citizen input. I want to try and respond

[32:28] to it if we can. I think some of the concerns that have been raised are legit. I think there

[32:35] can be addressed by staff as the plan as the owner develops plans and as staff figure out

[32:45] I had to apply the regulations, I hate to say it's premature to raise these concerns because I don't think it's ever entirely premature to raise concerns, but I think they can be addressed.

[32:58] So I don't want you to feel not heard, I think they're legit concerns, I think they can also be addressed.

[33:07] Thank you, well said, any other comments?

[33:13] I'll call the question. All in favor of the resolution as before you please say aye.

[33:21] Aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none. Motion passes or resolution passes.

[33:29] Do we have any reports or from any of the commissioners this time? Commissioner Holmes?

[33:38] I will just report back from Council 1 if you've watched any of the meetings I've brought up the comprehensive plan on every item since we've had our last since November.

[33:50] So just in the spirit of making sure that we're returning back to that.

[33:54] And I also applaud staff too in terms of bringing that into the legislative memos.

[33:59] In this past, well our past meeting, not the work session that we had this week, but

[34:05] last week's meeting, we discussed board and commission changes to board and commission

[34:11] both nominations, but also council involvement, and while council involvement has been reduced

[34:21] in several of the boards and commissions, we did pass that there would still be a council

[34:27] but as a liaison role, so a non-voting member to the planning commission which will begin in April with the new terms.

[34:37] So I just wanted to let you all know that there will still be a council representative, a non-voting member, but that we felt that it was important to have someone have that connection as we go through the zoning code, land development code and zoning changes.

[34:52] just so, that's all I have to report.

[34:56] You have, have they named that new representative yet or?

[35:01] I think it will be named in April, maybe,

[35:02] but I'm hoping it's still me,

[35:07] unless I do something to, to change that, so.

[35:11] Okay, thank you.

[35:15] Staff updates.

[35:19] Thank you, Chair Coleman and planning commission.

[35:23] Maybe before I jump into staff updates,

[35:25] I think you have all met Scott Wapita,

[35:27] our new community development director, but I thought I would just give him that short introduction.

[35:36] Yeah, go ahead.

[35:40] Thank you, Mrs. Schmidt. I'll just maybe take a moment to introduce myself a little

[35:45] bit about my background in the best of for maybe fortunate or unfortunate. Almost all of you know me

[35:52] considerably over many years, but I'll just share for those watching or recording.

[36:01] I've been a long time Northfield resident well over 20 years and have held a lot of roles

[36:06] in this town.

[36:07] It started off actually as a builder contractor up until the 2007-2008 housing crash.

[36:14] I spent a lot of time in this town as a youth pastor for 11 years, a soccer coach for 13

[36:20] years and seven as a head coach at the Northfield High School for the boys team.

[36:26] Many of you might know me as the executive director of the Northfield Union of Youth or

[36:29] the key, and obviously most recently is the Executive Director for Community Action

[36:34] Center, where typically we're known for, or we're known for kind of basic needs, human

[36:40] services work, my time there really spend in the community development.

[36:45] And so, at a growing portfolio of work in Northfield and in Faribow, and to some extent throughout

[36:51] the state, mostly focus on housing, more specifically affordable housing and even more, more specifically

[36:56] around sustainable housing design and have had the chance to work with many of you in that capacity

[37:03] who are on our commission. So thanks for that time. I will, I do want to say from an introductory

[37:09] side that in contrast to my predecessor and in contrast to the two really intelligent professionals

[37:16] next to me, I do not have a history in city planning. This is not the area that I bring

[37:21] as, you know, a well-spring of experience, I do have a lot of experiences and a lot of things,

[37:27] and yet I have an opportunity to learn from some real expertise and long tenured staff here

[37:32] at the city of Northfield. And so one thing you may not know about me though, and while similar,

[37:39] and yet different, I did spend eight years actually working for Travelers Insurance, which used to be

[37:43] Saint Paul companies, where I navigated policy, insurance policy, the state, kind of from the state,

[37:50] from kind of the private sector in terms of actually working with cities on applying really complex coverage scenarios and coverage analysis, and there's been a lot of time both drafting letters and working through legal ease around how different kind of insurance policies have applied in really high severity claims and high publicity claims all relating back to to some extent code language.

[38:11] And so while different, it's been really fun to kind of have a nostalgic throwback sitting with my colleagues and hearing some of the challenges they're experiencing.

[38:20] and so I just want to say I'm really excited and honored to take this role.

[38:25] It's an honor to just have your trust and stepping in to this new role,

[38:30] and to continue serving the community of Northfield.

[38:33] I'll yield to the staff for the rest of the report, but just want to express my gratitude for this opportunity.

[38:38] Thank you.

[38:39] Thank you, and we look forward to working with you.

[38:44] Great.

[38:45] Next on my updates are just the zoning code update and redesign.

[38:49] So, Halzee Levine was, the contract was approved by Council January 6th and we are having our first kickoff meeting staff and the consultant tomorrow.

[38:59] So, we're looking forward to getting things rolled out and getting started.

[39:04] And we were, we hope to then have you all meet them soon, potentially in February.

[39:10] So, we'll see how schedules lay out.

[39:16] I guess I wanted to touch base two on park and trail dedication fees from last month.

[39:26] We tried to start the conversation last month and then chair and vice chair and myself

[39:35] met as we do to kind of do our pre agenda review and discuss this a bit further.

[39:41] So I'm just trying to pull together the loose ends a little bit more, get some more information and come back to you again in February.

[39:51] The plan was potentially to have the public hearing then, but I think that we need a little more time to talk about it before we do that.

[39:59] Or we certainly could and then you would, you know, delay a recommendation, but I don't think that that's necessarily the most productive way to approach it.

[40:07] So keeping that in mind, I think we're going to reiterate and try to explain better,

[40:14] kind of the why we're asking for the increase to the park dedication.

[40:21] And then tonight, too, just to talk

[40:28] about little, reiterate what we heard from December, right?

[40:33] So, I tried to lead that into written form in my staff report of, you know, we want to keep

[40:43] cost low for affordable units. You know, that that's important keeping cost low for overall

[40:49] development is important, weighing out design over fees and other, you know, like there's always a

[40:56] pros and cons or cost and benefit to weighing out different options, right? So how are we going to do

[41:02] that and seeing some real-life examples of Northfield using comparable cities and just providing

[41:12] a little more context about how we kind of fall into those mix that mix of cities and size

[41:19] but also knowing like no other city is Northfield right and so that's the danger of adding

[41:25] Comparable to is that nobody is comparable in that sense, but we're going to give it a

[41:32] try just in terms to talk through the relevant costs that cities are charging to developers

[41:39] for their park dedication fees.

[41:44] I do have a draft sort of spreadsheet that I could have

[41:50] We could pull up here and talk about, but really it's just a matrix to show on the left-hand side we would say,

[41:59] here's residential examples, commercial and industrial examples, and do real-life examples of those in Northfield,

[42:05] of ones that we've completed and that are future coming.

[42:10] And then on the top side of the chart lists out, here's what our park dedication fees are right now in Northfield

[42:19] and what that looks like for those real-life examples.

[42:22] The other things we looked at were, you know, from last time, 2500 was kind of the mark

[42:30] that staff was proposing, so if we did an example of a thousand per unit and a percentage

[42:36] for commercial and industrial, 2500 per residential unit and a percentage for commercial industrial.

[42:43] So if we did a percentage kind of low starting or then you could do percentages again because

[42:51] the right there's four or five different ways you can sort of slice this and offer ways

[42:59] you can do it and then do a percentage where it's higher for lower residential and then

[43:05] it's a sliding scale where it gets the percentage is smaller if it's higher density residential

[43:11] So you give those higher density a break or is this a percentage across the board?

[43:18] So that was where I was going to start with that chart to sort of give everybody

[43:22] and a range of view. Will, I feel like you're not excited about this. Got any feedback for me right

[43:33] away?

[43:37] Thanks. Well, I was hoping this would be an agenda item and not a staff update

[43:40] So that we could have this discussion, because staff updates don't allow for this conversation.

[43:48] Well, I'm discussing it.

[43:50] I'm trying to discuss it right now.

[43:52] I appreciate it.

[43:53] To do that.

[43:55] And I apologize that I did not have time to make it a formal item.

[44:00] And I'm also trying to, right,

[44:07] yeah, it will be a staff item coming up.

[44:11] I didn't have time to do it this month and I'm working on trying I'm trying to I'm trying

[44:18] Okay, I appreciate that. Can I

[44:21] Did appropriate that we can talk about it? No, that's why I'm bringing it up. I appreciate that so I I think there's

[44:28] there

[44:30] The consultant who's not here today

[44:34] Offered an incredibly wide variety of ways that cities have approached this in the past

[44:41] and you've just ticked through a number of considerations.

[44:45] I would find it for myself incredibly helpful.

[44:48] I would like to suggest it to be helpful for all of us

[44:51] if we could kind of develop some categories

[44:55] and start with what staff think the right mechanism is.

[45:00] And separate the mechanism from the amount. So if it's a flat fee, there are pros and cons to that. If it's a sliding fee, there are pros and cons to that. The consultant had a, we had a little email conversation with the chair and I and the consultant's like, well, we can always wave it, you know, for low income, right? And one of the responses was, that is a very ad hoc approach. Why don't we just make policy?

[45:30] below this, don't pay the fee above it, and City Council can always change that, right?

[45:36] But let's make policy, that's our assignment, is to make policy and not to say City Council

[45:40] can waive it at some point in the future if they feel like it.

[45:43] That's abdicating our policy, our job, in my view.

[45:47] So I would like to see staff recommend mechanism, and then after that, then we set the fees

[45:56] within that mechanism.

[45:57] So we start here, if you're, you know, for these considerations, it's this much, if

[46:04] you meet these considerations, it's less, but let's start with the mechanism.

[46:08] Can we do that?

[46:09] Chair Coleman and Commissioner Schroer, I understand sort of why that would be helpful to break

[46:17] it out, but because they're connected, I don't think we can break them out, because they

[46:22] in one influence is the cost. So I don't think that's the solution. We have to look at them

[46:29] holistically together and decide which bucket it's going to fall into.

[46:37] And I understand that's what you're trying to put a matrix together.

[46:42] Correct. Yep. So we can see some live.

[46:46] Right. To see how damn full. Right. Because you could say, oh, we want a sliding scale.

[46:51] But if you don't see the numbers associated with that, you could be, oh, that's actually

[46:55] too much money.

[46:55] We think we're putting a too much burden on the developer, right?

[46:59] So that's what I was hoping to show with a spreadsheet that would show all of the options

[47:05] and then talk about the pros and cons of each of those options.

[47:10] And that's, and that's gets into decision-making framework, right?

[47:16] And that's where I was going to lean in on to the comprehensive plan and lean into those questions and

[47:23] matrices in there to say how this is supporting these

[47:28] These framework questions or not

[47:32] And that is what when we were emailing and discussing it you asked me to you know say what we heard at the December meeting

[47:41] I feel that I've reiterated that.

[47:44] I have described the options that I hope to bring forward in February.

[47:50] And I've described how to propose to evaluate each of those options using the decision making

[47:55] framework from the comprehensive plan.

[47:58] Now I don't have those all sorted out and delineated yet because of the time constraint associated

[48:05] with that.

[48:05] and I brought it for tonight, so we could all discuss it.

[48:10] It's not in its own staff report, but it is able to be discussed.

[48:15] And I appreciate your feedback on that.

[48:23] Any other comments from that last meeting?

[48:26] The one thing that would be helpful for me, if it's not,

[48:30] if it's even available or not too difficult,

[48:34] So I don't know how much we have been as city getting over the last five, ten years.

[48:44] Just some context around how much money we're talking about here would be helpful.

[48:50] We can certainly pull that information.

[48:53] I was thinking of going back from, you know, 2011, then the code was last updated and it's

[48:58] a matter of just going through all the development agreements and we have some interns that can

[49:02] help us.

[49:03] Okay. Go. Perfect use of it. Yes. Thank you. Yes. There were some other questions too that we had been.

[49:12] You know, going back and forth on kind of state statute waivers to fees. We do have an exemption already as a waiver in our code.

[49:21] So it we need to look at that and see if we would even include, you know, the wording for affordable housing like.

[49:29] But typically when you have a project that's already kind of in that affordable range,

[49:39] they're asking for other financial tools from the city, right?

[49:45] They're looking at tax abatement, they're looking at TIFF, they're right.

[49:50] So there's other mechanisms there that would also help pay for that,

[49:56] that at the overall cost of the development and thought there, but now it's escaped me.

[50:05] We do offer reductions for like sewer and water availability charges for affordable

[50:10] units and I want to say there's another exemption there too to help with those costs.

[50:17] So some of those are already baked into this, which I'll be sure to highlight next month.

[50:27] Thank you.

[50:28] Thank you.

[50:29] Did you have anything else on your report?

[50:41] Nothing really new on the arch—well, I guess the archer project, City Administrator

[50:47] Ben Marteg is moving ahead with extending the TIFF agreement for that property.

[50:56] So that's just kind of coming up on the agenda for Council to consider.

[51:03] We are still working through with their financial security.

[51:06] Hopefully we are wrapping that up in the next month or so.

[51:11] And then staff is still working with post and getting the contract finalized.

[51:19] And I'm not sure actually on the total status of that I know there's been back and forth.

[51:25] And that is all I have.

[51:27] Thank you.

[51:30] Anything else from anyone?

[51:32] commission homes. I have recently found out that it's Mathias' birth date today. So just wanted to

[51:43] go on the record for all of us to wish him a happy birthday. There is no singing

[51:50] commission meetings however.

[51:55] We all share the greetings. Yeah, it's in there somewhere.

[52:03] There's always

[52:03] the first time.

[52:09] If there's no further business coming for the group do we have a

[52:13] motion to adjourn? So moved. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Stand adjourned. Thank you all.

[52:24] Happy birthday. Put me down as a second on that if you want if you need a second.

[52:30] I was like, I had it, I was like, say, yeah.

Planning Commission on 2026-01-15 6:00 PM

Agenda

Transcript