09-25-2018 Complete AgendaS P E C IAL C IT Y C O U N C IL W O R K S E S S IO N
R IC H F IE L D MU N IC IPAL C E N TE R, B AR TH O LO ME W R O O M
S E P TEMB E R 25, 2018
6:15 P M
C all to order
1.Richfield P edestrian Master P lan
2.S now and Ice P olicy
A djournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at
least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
September 20, 2018
Council Memorandum No. 71
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: September 25, 2018 City Council Work Session
Council Members:
The following items will be discussed at the September 25 City Council work session:
Snow and Ice Policy
Operations Superintendent Chris Link will be reviewing the Public Works Snow and Ice
Policy (attached). While Richfield snow and ice control practices remain largely
unchanged with the updated policy, this rewritten version makes clear to residents,
businesses, property owners, and city staff exactly how Public Works staff handles the
challenges winter presents.
The purpose of the work session is to discuss current snow and ice removal practices
and answer any questions about the new policy. City Attorney Mary Tietjen will be in
attendance should any legal questions arise. Staff will be seeking City Council approval
of the updated policy at an upcoming City Council meeting.
Richfield Pedestrian Master Plan
Transportation Engineer Jack Broz will be reviewing the Richfield Pedestrian Master
Plan (attached), which was developed as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan
process. The Plan documents the current process used by Public Works on
transportation projects to create safer, more convenient and enjoyable places to walk in
the city of Richfield. The Plan also reviewed existing relevant plans and polices and has
identified some potential future changes to those policies to improve pedestrian facilities
on future projects. The Plan is in the final review stages among staff and the
Transportation Commission, at which point the Commission will recommend approval of
the final plan by City Council.
Please contact Kristin Asher, Public Works Director, at 612-861-9795 with questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven L. Devich
City Manager
SLD:sjk
Attachments
Email: Assistant City Manager
Department Directors
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY OF RICHFIELD
DATE: 9/18/2018
SUBJECT: Snow Removal and Ice Control Policy
Purpose
The purpose of this Snow Removal and Ice Control Policy (“Policy”) is to define and
outline snow removal and ice control objectives and procedures as established by the
City of Richfield (“City”) and the Public Works Department (“Department”).
Introduction
The City assumes basic responsibility for snow removal on City streets, City
sidewalks/trails/cycle tracks, and City-owned public parking lots. The City assumes
basic responsibility for ice control and mitigation on City streets and City-owned public
parking lots, but does not salt or sand City sidewalks/trails/cycle tracks. Reasonable
snow removal and ice control is necessary for routine travel and emergency services.
The City strives to provide this service in a timely, safe, and cost-effective manner while
keeping in mind safety, budget, personnel, equipment, and environmental concerns.
The City will primarily use its own personnel and equipment to provide this service, but
may also use private contractors when necessary.
The Policy supersedes written or unwritten policies of the City and Department
regarding snow removal and ice control. This Policy does not relieve the oper ators of
private vehicles, pedestrians, property owners, residents, and all others that may be
using public streets, sidewalks, and trails or that may otherwise be affected by snow/ice
removal operations, of their responsibility to act in a reasonable, pru dent, and cautious
manner given the prevailing weather and street conditions.
Policy
The Operations Superintendent, under the direction of the Public Works Director, will
make decisions as to time, method, and materials used on snow removal and ice
control operations. The Operations Superintendent is responsible for coordinating
equipment and personnel, and assigning work based on the need for snow removal and
ice control within the City. The Operations Superintendent maintains the authority to
delegate any of the responsibilities laid out in this policy to appropriate Department staff.
The Department will only conduct snow and ice control operations when weather
conditions do not endanger the safety of employees or equipment and operations are
effective. Factors that may delay snow and ice control operations include:
Severe cold
Significant winds
Limited visibility
Rapid accumulation of snow and/or ice
Traffic conditions (e.g., rush hour)
Snow and Ice Policy
Richfield Public Works
September 18, 2018
2
The Department continuously monitors forecasts and weather cond itions to aid in
mobilization decisions. The Department will use multiple sources for storm warning
preparedness, including, but not limited to the following:
National Weather Service (www.weather.gov)
Hennepin County Emergency Management
Local News Weather Reports
Various weather-related web sites
Planning and Scheduling
Snow removal and ice control operations may occur during assigned work shifts or, in
some situations, on a call back of workers. When conditions allow, work schedules will
be arranged to keep overtime at a minimum, with overtime scheduling being approved
by the Operations Superintendent. The Operations Superintendent will notify the Public
Works Director of any unusual amount of overtime to be perfo rmed and the reasons for
the overtime.
The Operations Superintendent retains the authority to alter assignments based on
weather conditions, equipment and personnel availability, and other conditions related
to snow removal and ice control.
Mobilization
Mobilization of employees is the responsibility of the Operations Superintendent. The
Operations Superintendent will determine the dispatching of equipment for City streets,
City sidewalks/trails, and City-owned public parking lots.
The Operations Superintendent will keep the Public Works Director informed of the
start, progress, and completion of full-scale snow removal and ice control operations.
Initiating Operations
The start of snow removal and ice control operations depends upon current and
anticipated conditions. The Operations Superintendent will decide when to initiate snow
removal and ice control operations. Snow removal and ice control operations may be
initiated any time they are deemed to be beneficial to the City. Some criteria for the
decision are:
Snow accumulation of two (2) or more inches
Drifting of snow that causes travel problems
Icy conditions which seriously impact travel
Timing of snowfall in relation to heavy use of streets (e.g., rush hour)
Forecasted and anticipated changes in weather conditions
Snow Route Assignment and Planning
Each year, the Department prepares a map of the street system, sidewalk/trail system,
and public properties serviced by the City. These maps identify route areas that identify
personnel, equipment, and, if necessary, the private contractors used to provide the
Snow and Ice Policy
Richfield Public Works
September 18, 2018
3
services. Annually, the Department revises route areas to correspond with budget,
equipment, personnel, and other resources available to the City.
The Department identifies priority routes and hazards within each route area. These
route areas are generally assigned to individuals and are used for planning and
executing routine snow removal and ice control operations.
Street Snow Removal Routes
The Department has classified City streets based on the street function, traffic volume,
and importance to the welfare of the community. The priority of snow removal routes are
as follows:
1. Minor arterial roads: high-volume routes that connect the urban service area to
cities inside and outside of the region
2. Collector streets: streets providing access between neighborhoods, minor
business concentrations, and schools
3. Low-volume local streets
4. City parking lots, alleys, sidewalks, and trails
Emergency services officers may contact the Department to dispatch workers and
equipment to provide services for emergency vehicles (i.e. police, fire, ambulance,
equipment needed for electrical outages, gas leaks, etc.) responding to emergencies
within the City. The Department will dispatch necessary workers and equipment as soon
as possible.
Sidewalk/Trail/Cycle Tracks Snow Removal Routes
Priorities for snow removal on sidewalks are set to accommodate the needs of the mass
transit public. Priority for plowing is as follows:
1. HUB area
2. Arterial roads
3. Collector streets
4. Residential neighborhoods
In the event of a major snow event (six (6) inches or more) one side of each arterial
street will be plowed, until all arterial roads are cleared. Typically, two machines will be
available for snow removal from sidewalks.
Cycle tracks will be cleared of snow at the discretion of the Operations Superintendent
Sidewalk/Trail/Cycle Tracks Ice Policy
In effort to best utilize the City's finite resources and prioritize snow and ice removal in
high-impact areas as outlined throughout this Policy, the Department will not apply salt,
sand, or other de-icing chemicals to sidewalks/trails/cycle tracks. Due to the ever-
changing nature of the Minnesota climate, the physical and financial cost of keeping all
sidewalks/trails/cycle tracks free of ice at all times would substantially outweigh the
benefit to the community. In addition, salt, sand, and other de-icing agents have
adverse effects on the local environment. Application of these substances is imprecise
and may result in negative effects to adjacent green space and/or infiltration into ground
water. Residents and business owners are encouraged to make sure sidewalks
adjacent to their properties are ice free or otherwise safe for passage.
Snow and Ice Policy
Richfield Public Works
September 18, 2018
4
Transit Accommodations
In addition to plowing sidewalks in the most heavily used areas first, the Department
employs a Sentencing to Service crew four days per week, whose primary task in the
winter months is to clear bus stops of snow and ice for mass transit users. The
Sentencing to Service crew works a defined schedule so it can take up to three days
before some transit stops are cleared, depending on the timing of snowfall in relation to
the schedule.
Equipment Inspection
The Department mechanics conduct a thorough inspection of all snow and ice related
vehicles and equipment prior to the start of the snow season. In addition, all trucks are
annually certified through the Minnesota State Patrol Mandatory Inspection Program .
The Department also conducts daily inspections of snow and ice related vehicles and
equipment during the snow season. Operators of the vehicles and equipment record
their daily inspections and the status of the vehicle.
Equipment Calibration
The Department calibrates all salting vehicles prior to the start of the snow season to
ensure efficient and effective application. Calibration will also occur if there is a major
hydraulic repair or service needed on the vehicle.
Other Responsible Entities
Other governmental entities maintain certain streets within the City, which includes
snow and ice removal. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the
Hennepin County Highway Department maintain separate maintenance policies for
streets they maintain within the City. From time to time, entities may contract with each
other to perform snow removal services. The ultimate responsibility for snow removal
services rests with the controlling entity.
Hennepin County maintains streets on Penn Ave, Nicollet Ave, and Portland Ave
from Trunk Highway 62 to Interstate 494 in Richfield, as well as the entirety of 66th
Street in Richfield and into Edina.
MnDOT is responsible for all freeway on/off ramps on Trunk Highways 62 and 77 and
Interstates 35W and 494 in Richfield.
Responsibility varies between Richfield, Hennepin County, and Bloomington for
sidewalks along interstate/trunk highway overpasses and underpasses.
The table below summarizes the entity responsible for clearing sidewalks.
Sidewalks on overpasses Entity
494/Penn Hennepin County
494/Portland Hennepin County
494/Nicollet Hennepin County
62/Penn Hennepin County
Snow and Ice Policy
Richfield Public Works
September 18, 2018
5
62/Portland Hennepin County
77/66th Street Hennepin County
494/Lyndale Bloomington
494/12th Ave Bloomington
76th Street/35W Richfield
Sidewalks on underpasses Entity
62/Lyndale Richfield
62/Nicollet Richfield
66th Street/35W Richfield
Private Contractors Providing Snow Removal Services
Richfield City Code, Subsection 930.17, limits the operation of vehicles for snow
plowing on private property in residential districts and within fifty (50) feet of such
districts to the period between 6:00AM and 10:00PM any day of the week.
Post-Snowfall Events
Operators conduct follow-up plowing as needed. Generally, further clearing takes place
where cars were parked, at intersections, etc. Additional salting of intersections may
occur at this time as well.
Snow and Ice Control Materials
The City does not have a “bare pavement” policy. The Department will wait for snowfall
to cease or accumulate sufficiently before initiating snow removal. General snow pack
will remain on City streets and sidewalks in many cases.
The Department will use snow and ice control materials when there are hazardous ice
or slippery conditions on streets. The Department may use other minerals, chemicals,
and mixtures to assist in ice control provided they have an equivalent or lesser effect on
the environment than salting and are economically feasible. The Department is
concerned with the effect of chemicals on the environment; therefore, it will limit its use
of such chemicals.
The Department initiates salting operations to melt ice on City streets. The Department
will apply snow and ice control materials at times and rates that maximize effectiveness
and generally limit application to:
Intersections
Hazardous areas
Isolated, slippery areas
The Department may order use of additional salt if pavement, air temperatures, or
precipitation type warrant. The Department has adopted salt application best practices
as stated in the Minnesota Snow and Ice Control Handbook.
The City does not employ salt or other ice control measures on sidewalks/trails/cycle
tracks in the City.
Snow and Ice Policy
Richfield Public Works
September 18, 2018
6
Refreeze Conditions
It is not possible or practical for snow and ice to be completely removed from all
sidewalks or prevent melting snow or ice from refreezing on sidewalks. Users of
sidewalk and trail facilities are expected at all times to be mindful of current conditions
and avoid hazards to remain safe.
Material Handling and Storage
Salt stockpiles are stored off-site at a nearby Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) facility with the exception of approximately 300 tons being stored in an
enclosed structure at the Public Works maintenance facility. During the off-season, salt
at the Public Works maintenance facility is tarped and stored inside a covered structure.
No other materials or supplies are stored in the structure containing the salt.
Spreading and Plowing Procedures
The Department will plow snow in a manner that minimizes traffic obstructions. The
center of the roadway will be plowed first, and then the snow will be plowed from left to
right so the snow discharges onto the boulevard. When plowing on bridges, operators
will adjust their speed to reduce or eliminate a snow wake from going over the side of
the bridge. Snow on dead-end streets will generally be plowed to the end of the
roadway and snow on cul-de-sacs will be plowed to the middle of the cul-de-sac.
As necessitated by available resources, snow is plowed to the edge of the street without
regard for sidewalks, driveways, and other structures located in the right-of-way.
Sidewalks will be cleared after roadways are cleared. The City recognizes the
inconvenience that comes from snow piling up on driveways due to plowing activities,
but the City is not responsible for removing this accumulated snow.
Snowplow operators are exempt from traffic regulations set for th in Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 169 while actually engaged in work on streets, except for regulations related to
driving while impaired and the safety of school children. Pursuant to thi s authority,
snowplow operators have discretion to disregard standard traffic laws, when, in their
judgement, it is safe to disregard such laws.
Hauling of Snow and Snow Storage
From time to time, the Department will remove snow where space does not allow for
snow to be pushed or piled outside the driving lanes by hauling to another location. The
Operations Superintendent will determine when snow will be removed by truck from the
boulevard area. Snow hauling operations will not commence until other snow/ice
removal operations have been completed. Snow hauling operations may also be
delayed depending on weather conditions, personnel, and budget availability. The snow
will be removed and hauled to a snow storage area. The snow storage zone will be
located in an area that minimizes environmental impact.
Snow Emergencies
Snow Emergency Procedures
Concurrent with the above policy, the following are additional City practices employed
during a declared snow emergency (see City Code, Subsection 1305.13).
Snow Emergency Notifications
Snow and Ice Policy
Richfield Public Works
September 18, 2018
7
A snow emergency is declared by the Operations Superintendent, or designee.
Declaration of a snow emergency can be found at the following:
a. Contact the Snow Emergency Line at 612-861-9178
b. Visit the City Website at www.richfieldmn.gov
c. Sign up for e-update on the City website at
www.richfieldmn.gov/residents/e-notification
d. Local news channels
i. WCCO
ii. KMSP
iii. KSTP
iv. KARE 11
e. Social Media (Facebook, Twitter)
Parking Limitations
Vehicles parked on the roadway during a snow or ice event may impair the
effectiveness of snow and ice control and removal. Richfield City Code, Subsection
1305.13, prohibits on-street parking during a snow emergency. A snow emergency is in
effect after a snowfall of two (2) or more inches and/or upon the declaration of a snow
emergency by the City Manager, or designee, and continues until the street has been
plowed curb-to-curb.
Richfield City Code, Section 1315, permits certain vehicles to park in the front yard
areas of residential districts of the City during a snow emergency, subject to the
following conditions:
a. The vehicle must be parked as close as possible to the established driveway
area serving the property on which, or in front of which, it is parked;
b. Permission of the property owner must be obtained;
c. The vehicle must be parked at least eight (8) feet back from the curbline, and five
(5) feet back from any public sidewalk;
d. The vehicle may not be parked off of an established driveway within the area
bounded by the street curblines abutting said corner lot and a line co nnecting
points on the abutting curblines of fifty (50) feet from the point of intersection of
the extensions of the curblines; and
e. Movement to and from the parking area must be over the established driveway
rather than over the curb.
The owner of the property shall repair any damage to the adjacent boulevard area
caused by parking in the front yard areas of residential districts.
Private Property
Snow Removal on Private Properties
It is a public nuisance and violation of City Code, Subsection 830.41, to shovel, plow, or
cast snow or ice from private property onto a public street, alley, sidewalk, boulevard, or
public parking lot. It is allowable to remove snow or ice from a private driveway or
walkway and deposit the snow or ice on the portion of the boul evard immediately
adjacent to the private property. Pushing, piling, or storing snow in or across the street
is prohibited.
Service to Private Property
Snow and Ice Policy
Richfield Public Works
September 18, 2018
8
City personnel and any personnel contracted by the City do not provide snow removal
and ice control services to private properties. Services may, however, be provided with
the permission of the property owners in situations where City operations directly benefit
from operations on private property. Snow removal operations may be conducted on
any private property when emergency vehicles responding to a call for service require
access to private property. Any operations on or services provided to private property
are authorized by the Department, or are provided at the request of any emergency
services officer responding to a call.
Snow Operation Damages
Snow removal and ice control operations can cause damage to property, even under
the best circumstances and care by vehicle and equipment operators. Most often,
damage occurs to property improvements in the City right-of-way, which generally
extends eight (8) to twelve (12) feet beyond the edge of street pavement.
The City is not responsible for damage to vegetation caused by plowing or the
application of sand and salt mixtures. However, the City will make its best effort to repair
damaged grass along curb lines and sidewalk edges using black dirt and seeding.
Personal property in the City’s right-of-way damaged by snow being deposited from an
accumulation on the blade of a snowplow will not be considered for compensation. Any
property damage claims allegedly resulting from City snow plowing activities must be
filed with the City’s insurance through the Human Resources Department
When disagreement about the responsibility for the damage occurs, the Department will
investigate and decide responsibility.
Equipment operators and contractors are directed to immediately contact their
supervisor and the supervisor will contact the Department and Police Department
whenever an incident involves damage to vehicles, si gnificant structures, or involves
any injury to a person.
Equipment operators and contractors also report existing damage they observe to avoid
any potential future claim the damage was caused by snow removal or ice control
operations.
Service Requests and Complaints
The Department will take service requests and complaints regarding snow removal and
ice control operations during normal working hours. The Department will prioritize
service requests and provide resolution at their discretion, in keeping wi th available
personnel, equipment, and materials. The Operations Superintendent will receive and
respond to service requests or complaints that the administrative staff is unable to
answer.
Policy Review
The Department will review this policy annually. The Department will keep on file written
comments and complaints received regarding this policy. Any review will consider
comments or complaints received since the last review. The review will also consider
Snow and Ice Policy
Richfield Public Works
September 18, 2018
9
input from City employees and contractors, members of the public, and other affected
parties.
RICHFIELD
PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Executive Summary
August 2018
Prepared by:
Zan Associates
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This plan describes a systematic approach for evaluating
pedestrian demand based on proximity to land uses that
generate pedestrian trips, social and economic factors that
generate a higher demand for pedestrian mobility, and the
physical context of a given location. The plan also establishes
measures to evaluate the pedestrian network to determine
its ability to meet the specific demand and priority. Finally,
the plan includes guidance on new and emerging pedestrian
design tools and recommendations for implementation of a
citywide pedestrian improvement program.
Richfield Pedestrian Plan Overview
Walking is fundamental to all aspects of transportation.
People walk… for exercise, to the bus stop,
from their bike to their house, from a car to
a restaurant, just for the fun of it.
Regardless of the nature of the trip, all pedestrians have the right to
a safe pedestrian trip and it should also be efficient and enjoyable.
3.5%
In Richfield, 3.5 percent of
commuters walk to work
compared to 2.8 percent
nationally. ACS, 2016
52%
Nearly 50 percent of
Minnesotans fail to meet the
Department of Health’s
exercise recommendations (at
least 150 minutes per week)
Minnesota Walks, 2016
52%
Nearly 50 percent of
Minnesotans fail to meet the
Department of Health’s
exercise recommendations (at
least 150 minutes per week)
Minnesota Walks, 2016
People living in pedestrian-friendly cities
tend to be engaged in their community.
One study found that living in pedestrian-
friendly neighborhoods have higher levels
of social and community engagement
compared with those living in car-oriented
suburbs. Leyden, Kevin M, 2003
62%
Of Minnesotans that
meet physical activity
guidelines, 62 percent do
so by including walking
as part of their regular
physical activity.
Minnesota Wa lks, 2016
40%
Approximately 40 percent
of commuters who walk to
work in Richfield are people
of color and 20 percent are
living in poverty. ACS, 2016
47%
Approximately 47 percent
of commuters who walk to
work in Richfield do not
have a vehicle available to
them. ACS, 2016
30%
In Richfield, 30 percent of
students live within one half
mile of a school. SRTS
Comprehensive Plan, 2014
PEOPLE IN RICHFIELD ARE WALKING
WA LKING IS GOOD
FOR HEALTH
There is a growing demand to live and work
in pedestrian-friendly places. One study
found that real estate values increase by
$500 to $3,000 per increase in Walk Score
Point (walkscore.com). Cortright, Joe, 2009
WALKING IS GOOD FOR THE
ECONOMY
WALKING IS GOOD FOR THE
CO MMUNITY
3.5%
In Richfield, 3.5 percent of
commuters walk to work
compared to 2.8 percent
nationally. ACS, 2016
52%
Nearly 50 percent of
Minnesotans fail to meet the
Department of Health’s
exercise recommendations (at
least 150 minutes per week)
Minnesota Walks, 2016
52%
Nearly 50 percent of
Minnesotans fail to meet the
Department of Health’s
exercise recommendations (at
least 150 minutes per week)
Minnesota Walks, 2016
People living in pedestrian-friendly cities
tend to be engaged in their community.
One study found that living in pedestrian-
friendly neighborhoods have higher levels
of social and community engagement
compared with those living in car-oriented
suburbs. Leyden, Kevin M, 2003
62%
Of Minnesotans that
meet physical activity
guidelines, 62 percent do
so by including walking
as part of their regular
physical activity.
Minnesota Wa lks, 2016
40%
Approximately 40 percent
of commuters who walk to
work in Richfield are people
of color and 20 percent are
living in poverty. ACS, 2016
47%
Approximately 47 percent
of commuters who walk to
work in Richfield do not
have a vehicle available to
them. ACS, 2016
30%
In Richfield, 30 percent of
students live within one half
mile of a school. SRTS
Comprehensive Plan, 2014
PEOPLE IN RICHFIELD ARE WALKING
WA LKING IS GOOD
FOR HEALTH
There is a growing demand to live and work
in pedestrian-friendly places. One study
found that real estate values increase by
$500 to $3,000 per increase in Walk Score
Point (walkscore.com). Cortright, Joe, 2009
WALKING IS GOOD FOR THE
ECONOMY
WALKING IS GOOD FOR THE
CO MMUNITY
The Richfield
Pedestrian Plan
is a tool to
create safer,
more convenient
and enjoyable
places to walk in
the City of
Richfield.
PLANNING CONTEXT
There is growing
momentum
around
improving
multimodal
transportation
options in
Richfield,
and walking
is a critical
component of
this trend.
Cities and the way people move within them are changing.
Many people want walkable urban areas, robust multimodal
transportation options, and the ability to lead healthy and
active lives.
Richfield Pedestrian Plan Goals
The purpose of the Richfield Pedestrian Plan is to help make
walking the easy choice. Richfield can achieve this by:
1
2
3
Making design for
pedestrians first priority
Coordinating multimodal transportation networks
and land use decisions
Making public realm improvements a
standard in high activity locations
Active living
is about creating places
that integrate physical activity
into daily life by encouraging
people to incorporate physical
activity into their daily routine.
The ability to safely walk is a
critical component of active living.
Healthy living
is about making healthy
behaviors a part of daily life
through physical, mental and
spiritual means. Regular
physical activity such as
walking reduces the risk of
chronic diseases; as little as
10 minutes of brisk walking a
day has cardiovascular
benets. Walking has also
been shown to lead to
improved mental well-being
and reductions in rates of
depression and feelings of
isolation.
Tr ansportation funding
has been a contentious issue at all levels of
government over recent years, often leaving
transportation projects with less money. With
less funds, walking related projects and
programs need to be implemented in an
ecient manner and to “do more with less.”
Complete streets
is an approach to street
planning and design that
considers and balances the
needs of all transportation
users. This approach to
roadway design emphasizes
the needs of the most
vulnerable users, such as
pedestrians, over vehicle users.
Livability
A livable place has a
combination of vibrant public
spaces, mixed income housing,
resilient local economy,
recreational opportunities, easy
access to goods and services.
People can walk for recreation
and can have a joyous
experience while accessing
important destinations.
Distracted driving
is an activity that takes away
attention from driving, thus
creating a risk for the driver and
others around them. Pedestrians
are vulnerable to serious injury
and fatalities when hit by drivers,
thus making distracted driving a
large threat to pedestrians.
Vehicle speed
Higher vehicle speeds increase
the likelihood of pedestrian injury
or fatality if a pedestrian is hit.
The key turning point for
pedestrian safety is 30 miles per
hour–any faster and the chance of
survival goes way down. For
example, if a pedestrian is hit by a
vehicle at 40 mph, the fatality rate
is 85%, whereas a pedestrian
crash at 20 mph has a 5%
fatality rate.
Influencing Themes and Trends
PEDESTRIAN DEMAND
Demand is
inclusive of
both existing
users and
unmet need, or
latent demand,
based on the
surrounding
land use and
context.
The following maps illustrate pedestrian demand in Richfield.
The first shows destinations and activity centers within the city,
based on a survey completed as part of the development of the
Richfield Bicycle Master Plan in 2010, and updated to reflect
current conditions. The second is a pedestrian demand “heat
map” which interpolates pedestrian demand factors and pop-
ulation characteristics to show the relative pedestrian demand
throughout the city. Together, these maps serve as a starting
place for understanding pedestrian demand at a given location.
People walk for many different reasons and in many different
places, but people avoid walking when they feel unsafe or
uncomfortable. As a result, there is often significant latent
demand for walking that doesn’t show up when counts are
made of current walking. A better understanding of both
current and latent pedestrian demand is achieved by looking
at factors including:
· Adjacent land uses and nearby activity centers
· Proximity to parks and schools
· Presence of transit service
· Population density and demographic make
· Role of the corridor within the larger transportation network
Walking can be
an easy choice
for many people
in Richfield.
71st 1/2
70th 1/2
75th
I - 494
78th
77th
76th
74th
72nd
73rd
71st
69th
70th
62nd
67th
68th
66th
65th
64th
63rd
71st 1/2
70th 1/2
75th
I - 494
78th
77th
76th
74th
72nd
73rd
71st
69th
70th
62nd
67th
68th
66th
65th
64th
63rdSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDCOLUMBUSPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1st2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18th
SHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDCOLUMBUSPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1st2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18th71st 1/2
70th 1/2
75th
I - 494
78th
77th
76th
74th
72nd
73rd
71st
69th
70th
62nd
67th
68th
66th
65th
64th
63rd
71st 1/2
70th 1/2
75th
I - 494
78th
77th
76th
74th
72nd
73rd
71st
69th
70th
62nd
67th
68th
66th
65th
64th
63rdSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDCOLUMBUSPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1st2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18th
SHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDCOLUMBUSPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1st2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18thTAFT PARK
VETERANS
MEMORIAL
PARK
HEREDIA
PARK
CHRISTIAN
PARK
WASHINGTON
PARK
ROOSEVELT
PARK
LINCOLN
FIELD
AUGSBURG
PARK
LYNDALE
FIELD
LITTLE
BOB'S
PARK
NICOLLET
PARK
GARFIELD
PARK
MADISON
PARK
MONROE
PARK
APPLE
BLOSSOM
PARK
FAIRWOOD
PARK
DONALDSON
PARK
FREEMONT
PARK
ADAM'S
HILL
PARK
JEFFERSON
PARK
SHERIDAN
PARK
Richfield
High School
Blessed Trinity
Catholic School
Academy of
Holy Angels
Mt Calvary
Luthern
School
Richfield
Dual Language
School
Richfield
S.T.E.M.
School
Centennial
Elementary
School
Partnership
Academy School
Richfield
Middle
School
District 287
Secondary Special
Education School
Sheridan Hills
Elementary
School FIRE
STATION 2
WOOD LAKE
NATURE CENTER
HISTORIC
BARTHOLOMEW
HOUSE
RICHFIELD
COMMUNITY
CENTER
COUNTY
LIBRARY
FIRE
STATION 1
FIRE
STATION 1
CITY
HALL
CITY
HALL
ICE
ARENA
CITY
WATER
PLANT
CITY
WATER
PLANT
BEST BUY
CORPORATION
MENARDSSHOPS AT LYNDALE
THE HUB
US BANCORP
CEDAR POINT
COMMONS
MINNEAPOLIS
JEWISH CEMETERY
RICHFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS
RICHFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS
0 0.25
Miles
Created by Zan Associates June 2018
Metropolitan Council (2016) and City of Richfield
Average Daily Transit
Boardings, Fall 2015
<10
11–25
26–50
50–100
>100
Destinations
Public Areas
Business Areas
Schools
Richfield Pedestrian Destinations, Activity Centers, and Transit Stops
(1)
(1) Larger circles indicate
higher demand, based on a
survey of Richfield residents
completed in 2011 as part of
the Bicycle Master Plan and
updated in 2018 as part of
the Richfield Pedestrian Plan
71st 1/2
70th 1/2
75th
I - 494
78th
77th
76th
74th
72nd
73rd
71st
69th
70th
62nd
67th
68th
66th
65th
64th
63rd
71st 1/2
70th 1/2
75th
I - 494
78th
77th
76th
74th
72nd
73rd
71st
69th
70th
62nd
67th
68th
66th
65th
64th
63rdSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDCOLUMBUSPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1st2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18th
SHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDCOLUMBUSPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1st2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18thTAFT PARK
VETERANS
MEMORIAL
PARK
HEREDIA
PARK
CHRISTIAN
PARK
WASHINGTON
PARK
ROOSEVELT
PARK
LINCOLN
FIELD
AUGSBURG
PARK
LYNDALE
FIELD
LITTLE
BOB'S
PARK
NICOLLET
PARK
GARFIELD
PARK
MADISON
PARK
MONROE
PARK
APPLE
BLOSSOM
PARK
FAIRWOOD
PARK
DONALDSON
PARK
FREEMONT
PARK
ADAM'S
HILL
PARK
JEFFERSON
PARK
SHERIDAN
PARK
Richfield
High School
Blessed Trinity
Catholic School
Academy of
Holy Angels
Mt Calvary
Luthern
School
Richfield
Dual Language
School
Richfield
S.T.E.M.
School
Centennial
Elementary
School
Partnership
Academy School
Richfield
Middle
School
District 287
Secondary Special
Education School
Sheridan Hills
Elementary
School FIRE
STATION 2
WOOD LAKE
NATURE CENTER
HISTORIC
BARTHOLOMEW
HOUSE
RICHFIELD
COMMUNITY
CENTER
COUNTY
LIBRARY
FIRE
STATION 1
CITY
HALL
ICE
ARENA
CITY
WATER
PLANT
BEST BUY
CORPORATION
MENARDSSHOPS AT LYNDALE
THE HUB
US BANCORP
CEDAR POINT
COMMONS
MINNEAPOLIS
JEWISH CEMETERY
RICHFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS
0 0.25
Miles
Created by Zan Associates June 2018
City of Richfield
High
Low
Pedestrian Demand
Citywide Pedestrian Demand
Pedestrian Demand
Methodology
Pedestrian demand was
determined based on a review of
arterial, collector, and
connector roadways and their
relative proximity to activity
centers and population density.
A higher concentration of, or
closer proximity to activity centers,
means higher demand. Activity
centers considered include:
• Businesses and commercial
areas such as shopping cen-
ters, restaurants, retail stores,
large offices and industrial
parks
• Schools, recreation facilities
and parks
• Community buildings such as
the community center, libraries,
and city offices
Likewise, closer proximity to
higher population density means
higher demand, as well as prox-
imity to concentrations of older
adults, people living in poverty,
minority populations, and young
people.
PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE
People are
drawn to walk in
locations where
they feel safe,
where the route
is convenient,
and where
the overall
experience is
enjoyable.
Walking increases as the level of pedestrian improvements
increases. With a higher level of accommodation, it becomes
more advantageous, or even enjoyable, to choose walking
over other modes of transportation.
Pedestrian Safety
Safety is the primary concern when planning and designing pedestrian facilities. Safety includes
consideration for people walking, biking, using transit and in motor vehicles.
The data are clear – pedestrian safety is enhanced by slower traffic speeds, shorter crossing distances
(less crash exposure), and greater driver awareness and visibility.
Measures of Pedestrian
Experience
The following are typical criteria for the
evaluation of pedestrian experience, for both
crossings and linear facilities
Crossing Facilities
• Physical condition
• Pedestrian delay
• Crossing distance and crash exposure
• Speed of opposing vehicle traffic
• Visibility
• Land use connectivity
Linear Facilities
• Physical condition
• Width of the Pedestrian Access Route (PAR)
• Separation from traffic –
boulevard, furnishing zone, sign zone
• Pedestrian features
• Visual quality
• Land use connectivity
Level of Accommodation/Use Relationship
SEVERE INJURYFATALITY
Struck by
light truck
Struck by
car
Pedestrian hit
by a vehicle
traveling at
speed...
100%
10 20 30 40 50 60
75%
50%
25%
0%
40mph 85% fatality rate
20mph 5% fatality rateRisk of severe injuryImpact speed (mph)
Source: Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Injury or Death. AAA Foundation for Trac Safety. September 2011 .
81%Most crashes happen at intersections
occurred at or
near an intersection
56%More than half are at signalized intersections
occurred at trac signals
67%Most crashes happen on higher speed roadways
occurred on roads with posted speed
limits of 35 miles per hour or more
67%Most crashes happen on multilane roadways
occurred on undivided roadways with
two or more lanes in each direction
70%
Crashes are more likely at high activity locations
of crashes occurred within 1/8 mile
of a commercial area, park or other
public space, school, or bus stop
0
Crashes at roundabouts
crashes involving fatalities or incapacitating
injuries at roundabouts in Richfield and 0
reported pedestrian crashes
Vehicle Speed and Pedestrian Injury Relationship
Richfield Crash Trends*
*Source: MnCMAT (2017) and City of Richfield
71st 1/2
70th 1/2
75th
I - 494
78th
77th
76th
74th
72nd
73rd
71st
69th
70th
62nd
67th
68th
66th
65th
64th
63rd
71st 1/2
70th 1/2
75th
I - 494
78th
77th
76th
74th
72nd
73rd
71st
69th
70th
62nd
67th
68th
66th
65th
64th
63rdSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDCOLUMBUSPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1st2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18th
SHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDCOLUMBUSPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1st2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18thTAFT PARK
VETERANS
MEMORIAL
PARK
HEREDIA
PARK
CHRISTIAN
PARK
WASHINGTON
PARK
ROOSEVELT
PARK
LINCOLN
FIELD
AUGSBURG
PARK
LYNDALE
FIELD
LITTLE
BOB'S
PARK
NICOLLET
PARK
GARFIELD
PARK
MADISON
PARK
MONROE
PARK
APPLE
BLOSSOM
PARK
FAIRWOOD
PARK
DONALDSON
PARK
FREEMONT
PARK
ADAM'S
HILL
PARK
JEFFERSON
PARK
SHERIDAN
PARK
Richfield
High School
Blessed Trinity
Catholic School
Academy of
Holy Angels
Mt Calvary
Luthern
School
Richfield
Dual Language
School
Richfield
S.T.E.M.
School
Centennial
Elementary
School
Partnership
Academy School
Richfield
Middle
School
District 287
Secondary Special
Education School
Sheridan Hills
Elementary
School FIRE
STATION 2
WOOD LAKE
NATURE CENTER
HISTORIC
BARTHOLOMEW
HOUSE
RICHFIELD
COMMUNITY
CENTER
COUNTY
LIBRARY
FIRE
STATION 1
CITY
HALL
ICE
ARENA
CITY
WATER
PLANT
BEST BUY
CORPORATION
MENARDSSHOPS AT LYNDALE
THE HUB
US BANCORP
CEDAR POINT
COMMONS
MINNEAPOLIS
JEWISH CEMETERY
RICHFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS
0 0.25
Miles
MnCMAT (2017) and City of Richfield
Created by Zan Associates June 2018
Fatal(2 Total)
Possible Injury
(32 Total)
Non-incapacitating
Injury (29 Total)
Property Damage
(1 Total)
Pedestrian Areas of Concern
Severity of Pedestrian Crash
Incapacitating Injury
(9 Total)
Location and Severity of Crashes in Richfield (2006 – 2015)
(1) There have been zero
reported crashes at the Port-
land Avenue and 66th Street
roundabout since it was first
installed in 2009.
(1)
PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
In total, the city plans to add 10.5 miles of
sidewalk along streets as dictated by demand or as
roadway projects are implemented, and the city is
committed to improving pedestrian crossings
commensurate with demand (see Planned Pedestrian
Network map on following page).
Richfield
has a robust
transportation
system, but there
is more work to
be done.
“I walk for health, wellness
and longevity.”
- Richfield resident at
Penn Fest 2017
71st 1/2
70th 1/2
75th
I - 494
78th
77th
76th
74th
72nd
73rd
71st
69th
70th
62nd
67th
68th
66th
65th
64th
63rd
71st 1/2
70th 1/2
75th
I - 494
78th
77th
76th
74th
72nd
73rd
71st
69th
70th
62nd
67th
68th
66th
65th
64th
63rdSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDCOLUMBUSPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1st2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18th
SHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDCOLUMBUSPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1st2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18thTAFT PARK
VETERANS
MEMORIAL
PARK
HEREDIA
PARK
CHRISTIAN
PARK
WASHINGTON
PARK
ROOSEVELT
PARK
LINCOLN
FIELD
AUGSBURG
PARK
LYNDALE
FIELD
LITTLE
BOB'S
PARK
NICOLLET
PARK
GARFIELD
PARK
MADISON
PARK
MONROE
PARK
APPLE
BLOSSOM
PARK
FAIRWOOD
PARK
DONALDSON
PARK
FREEMONT
PARK
ADAM'S
HILL
PARK
JEFFERSON
PARK
SHERIDAN
PARK
Richfield
High School
Blessed Trinity
Catholic School
Academy of
Holy Angels
Mt Calvary
Luthern
School
Richfield
Dual Language
School
Richfield
S.T.E.M.
School
Centennial
Elementary
School
Partnership
Academy School
Richfield
Middle
School
District 287
Secondary Special
Education School
Sheridan Hills
Elementary
School FIRE
STATION 2
WOOD LAKE
NATURE CENTER
HISTORIC
BARTHOLOMEW
HOUSE
RICHFIELD
COMMUNITY
CENTER
COUNTY
LIBRARY
FIRE
STATION 1
CITY
HALL
ICE
ARENA
CITY
WATER
PLANT
BEST BUY
CORPORATION
MENARDSSHOPS AT LYNDALE
THE HUB
US BANCORP
CEDAR POINT
COMMONS
MINNEAPOLIS
JEWISH CEMETERY
RICHFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS
0 0.25
Miles
Created by Zan Associates June 2018
City of Richfield
Pedestrian
Infrastructure
Sidewalk on
One Side
Sidewalk on
Both Sides
Two-Way Trail
Potential
Pedestrian Route
Existing Pedestrian
Bridge
Planned Pedestrian Network
PLAN AND POLICY REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION
Existing plans
and policies
show a strong
commitment at
every level to
make walking
a safe and
convenient
transportation
and recreation
option in
Richfield.
Pedestrian
facilities should
be designed for
easy use by a
range of ages,
abilities, and
mobility levels.
There is a planning and policy level emphasis on walking in
Richfield. However, plans and policies need to be updated to
allow greater flexibility in the siting of pedestrian facilities and to
include people-based factors, such as activity generating land
uses and concentrations of populations who often rely on walk-
ing. The following plans and policies may need to be updated
to reflect pedestrian priority based on demand and context:
• Richfield Sidewalk Standards Policy (2016)
• Richfield Pedestrian Crosswalk Pavement Markings Policy
(2006)
• Richfield Sidewalk Snow Plowing Policy (2011)
• Richfield Complete Streets Policy (2015)
• Guiding Principles for Transportation (2013)
• ADA Transition Plan (2014)
• Richfield Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan
(2014)
Pedestrian Facility Best Practices:
Designing for Pedestrians
People walk for many different reasons and, thus, a variety of
facilities are needed. A recreational jogger may have different
needs than someone waiting for the bus, a father pushing a
stroller, or an older adult using a walker.
Pedestrians want a safe and comfortable walking experience.
This means short and well-marked crossings, slower rather than
faster vehicle traffic, separation from traffic lanes, shade and
periodic rest areas, and visually interesting environments.
Implementation Framework
Include evaluation of the appropriate pedestrian crossings and linear facilities on
all capital and maintenance projects in the future, considering pedestrians as the
priority mode.
Install modern pedestrian facilities on all minor arterial roadways. This
includes protected crossings in high demand areas and sidewalks or trails,
separated from the roadway with a boulevard or other vertical screening.
Wo rk toward buildout of the citywide pedestrian network, including
pedestrian facilities on all minor arterial, collector, and select local
roadways.
Look for opportunities to create signature places to walk
within Richfield, such as pedestrian plazas and greenways.
Pursue legislative policy changes to allow for reduced speed limits on residential streets
Implement solutions to address high crash
frequency and severity locations, citywide.
Institutionalize non-infrastructure programs and
campaigns to change user behavior.
Pursue a dedicated and ongoing funding source for
stand-alone pedestrian projects.
Evaluate opportunities for non-infrastructure pedestrian programming to
educate the community and build awareness for pedestrians. For example:
• Walk! Bike! Fun! Education programs at schools
• Community walking maps
• Walk to school and work days
• Mileage and/or step counting programs
• Safety campaigns (Stop For Me)
Strategically pursue all funding sources for pedestrian infrastructure. At a minimum,
this should include consideration of the following:
• Federal Transportation Funding allocated through the regional solicitation process
• U.S. Dept. of Tr ansportation: BUILD (formerly TIGER) discretionary grants
• DNR Local Trail Connections Program
• State funds for Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
• MN Department of Health Statewide Health Improvement Program
• Blue Cross Blue Shield Center for Prevention funds
Look for opportunities to implement stand-alone pedestrian
projects in high demand areas and in areas with high crash frequency
and severity. Consider the use of temporary installations.Near-term (I-4 years)Mid-term (5-9 years)Long-term (10+ years)Actions
Best Practice Pedestrian Treatments
Bumpouts or curb
extensions- shorten
crossing distance, improves
sight lines and can slow
vehicle traffic
Depressed and
perpendicular curb ramps-
provide safe crossing
experience for people with
limited mobility
Tightened curb radius
shortens crossing distance,
creates a larger pedestrian
realm behind the curb,
and slows turning vehicles Tight Cu
r
b Radi
usWide Cu
rb
R
a
di
u
s
Pedestrian refuge island-
two stage crossing,
shortens crossing distance
and provides a safe
mid-crossing waiting place
Rectangular rapid flashing
beacons and advanced
warning signs alert drivers
to the presence of
pedestriansMidblock crossing provides
direct route between
activity centers
Benches and shade trees
create a comfortable
walking environment
Planted boulevards improve
safety by providing physical
separation from vehicle
traffic along with creating
visual interest, shade
and snow storage
Pedestrian scale lighting
improves visability on
sidewalks and crosswalks
High visability crosswalk
markings clearly define the
pedestrian realm
For more information, and to view the full report visit:
www.RichfieldSweetStreets.org
August 2018
Prepared for: City of Richfield, MN
August 2018
Prepared by:
Zan Associates
Note to reviewer: Graphics
and formatting will be
updated for consistency and
style for the final draft.
Richfield Pedestrian Plan Table of Contents
Page intentionally left blank for
two-sided printing
Richfield Pedestrian Plan Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1: Planning Context ........................................................................................................... 6
Richfield – at-a-Glance .................................................................................................................. 6
Community Vision and Goals ...................................................................................................... 7
Trends Influencing the Pedestrian Network ............................................................................ 10
Richfield Pedestrian Plan Goals ................................................................................................ 11
Chapter 2: Pedestrian Demand .................................................................................................... 12
Pedestrian Demand Factors ...................................................................................................... 13
Citywide Pedestrian Demand .................................................................................................... 14
Pedestrian Demand Evaluation Framework ............................................................................ 22
Chapter 3: Pedestrian Experience ................................................................................................ 24
Existing Pedestrian System ........................................................................................................ 25
Pedestrian Safety ........................................................................................................................ 26
Pedestrian Crash Data ............................................................................................................... 27
Pedestrian Experience ............................................................................................................... 29
Chapter 4: Pedestrian Network .................................................................................................... 33
Chapter 5: Plan and Policy Review ............................................................................................... 35
Chapter 6: Implementation ........................................................................................................... 38
Pedestrian Facility Design Guidance ........................................................................................ 39
Pedestrian Facility Best Practices: Designing for People ........................................................ 40
Project Development Process ................................................................................................... 47
Richfield Pedestrian Plan Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure 1: Richfield Pedestrian Plan Overview ................................................................................ 1
Figure 2: Existing Conditions and Benefits of Walking ................................................................. 2
Figure 3: Great Places to Walk in Richfield .................................................................................... 4
Figure 4: Challenging Pedestrian Environments ........................................................................... 5
Figure 5: Guiding Principles for Land Use and Transportation ................................................... 8
Figure 6: Influencing Themes and Trends ................................................................................... 10
Figure 7: Pedestrian Demand Influencers ................................................................................... 13
Figure 8: Richfield Pedestrian Destinations and Activity Centers and Transit Stops .............. 15
Figure 9: Population Density ......................................................................................................... 16
Figure 10: Percentage of People Living in Poverty ..................................................................... 17
Figure 11: Percentage of Non-White Populations ..................................................................... 18
Figure 12: Percentage of 65+ Populations ................................................................................... 19
Figure 13: Percentage of 18 and Under Populations ...................................................................... 20
Figure 14: Citywide Pedestrian Demand ...................................................................................... 21
Figure 15: Example Pedestrian Demand Evaluation, Nicollet Avenue ..................................... 23
Figure 16: Level of Accommodation/Use Relationship .............................................................. 25
Figure 17: Richfield Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................................................... 25
Figure 18: Vehicle Speed and Pedestrian Injury Relationship ................................................... 27
Figure 19: Richfield Crash Trends ................................................................................................. 27
Figure 20: Location and Severity of Crashes in Richfield (2006 – 2015) ................................... 28
Figure 21: Crashes by Intersection Type ...................................................................................... 29
Figure 22: Pedestrian Crashes by Activity Center ....................................................................... 29
Figure 23: Typical Pedestrian Experience Measures and Considerations ............................... 31
Figure 24: Example Pedestrian Experience Evaluation, Nicollet Avenue ................................. 32
Figure 25: Planned Pedestrian Network Map ............................................................................. 34
Figure 26: Transportation Planning in Richfield .......................................................................... 35
Figure 27: Plan and Policy Review ................................................................................................ 36
Figure 28: Implementation Framework ....................................................................................... 38
Figure 29: Best Practice Pedestrian Treatments ......................................................................... 41
Figure 30: Best Practice Pedestrian Treatments – Walkways .................................................... 43
-Page 1-
Introduction
The Richfield Pedestrian Plan is a tool to create safer, more convenient, and
enjoyable places to walk in the City of Richfield.
This plan includes a systematic approach for evaluating pedestrian demand based on
proximity to land uses that generate pedestrian trips, social and economic factors that
generate a higher demand for pedestrian mobility, and the physical context of a given
location. The plan also establishes measures to evaluate the pedestrian network to
determine its ability to meet the specific demand and priority. Finally, the plan includes
guidance on new and emerging pedestrian design tools and recommendations for
implementation of a city-wide pedestrian improvement program. Figure 1 shows the
sections of the plan.
Figure 1: Richfield Pedestrian Plan Overview
Walking is fundamental to all aspects of transportation. People walk… for exercise, to the bus
stop, from their bike to their house, from a car to a restaurant, just for the fun of it. Regardless
of the nature of the trip, all pedestrians have the right to a safe pedestrian trip and it
should also be efficient and enjoyable (see Figure 2).
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 2-
Figure 2: Existing Conditions and Benefits of Walking
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 3-
There are many examples of great places to walk in Richfield—trails around parks and
lakes provide a serene walking environment; newly constructed streets such as Portland
Avenue provide a pleasant and efficient walking experience, and there are mid-block
crossings city-wide in strategic locations providing much needed connectivity to high
activity locations.
The vehicle-centric transportation planning of Richfield’s past has resulted in an efficient
street grid for automobiles, it has also led to a disconnected and inefficient pedestrian
system – the existing transportation system has created negative impacts on walking. High
vehicle speeds create unsafe crossing conditions for pedestrians, narrow and uneven
sidewalks make for an uncomfortable walking experience along the busiest streets, and
there are gaps in pedestrian connectivity at many high activity locations. And these
negative impacts are disproportionately born by disadvantaged populations who rely on
walking for their everyday needs – children, older adults, people with disabilities, and
people with low income.
For the purposes of this plan, WALKING is defined as
moving on foot or a wheel chair.
Sidewalk poetry on Portland Avenue in Richfield
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 4-
Figure 3: Great Places to Walk in Richfield
Top left, newly constructed sidewalk and
cycletrack on 66th St. Middle left, meandering
multiuse path at Monroe Field. Bottom left: Quiet
neighborhood street. Top right, temporary
multiuse trail on 69th St. Middle right, median
refuge on Portland Ave.
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 5-
Figure 4: Challenging Pedestrian Environments
Top left, uncomfortable sidewalk at
the back of the curb on Penn Ave.
Middle Left, uneven driveway crossing
on Lyndale Ave. Bottom left, dead end
sidewalk on 64th St. Top right, poorly
maintained sidewalk and curb ramp
on 66th St.
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 6-
Chapter 1: Planning Context
Richfield – at-a-Glance
Source: Census Bureau, ACS 5 – year Estimate, 2012 – 2016).
Richfield has a population of about 35,900 people with a median age of 36 and a median
household income of $54,640. Between 2015 and 2016 the population of Richfield declined
from 36,060 to 35,910, a 0.40% decrease and its median household income grew
from $52,950 to $54,640, a 3.2% increase.
The ethnic composition of the population of Richfield is 22,275 White residents (62%), 5,899
Hispanic residents (16.4%), 3,521 Black residents (9.8%), 2,721 Asian residents (7.58%),
and 1,342 two or more ethnicity residents (3.74%). 8,790 (25%) of Richfield citizens are
speakers of a non-English language. The most common foreign languages in Richfield
are Spanish (5,189 speakers), African Languages (655 speakers), and Other
Asian (528 speakers).
Richfield is a fully developed suburban/urban area. The majority of land in Richfield is
single-family residential, but there are also strong multifamily residential communities
throughout the city. In addition, there are multiple commercial nodes, employment hubs,
regional and neighborhood parks, and other strong activity centers within the city.
The median property value in Richfield in 2016 was $188,100, a 3% increase over 2015.
People in Richfield have an average commute time of about 20 minutes, and most report
driving along (75%). Car ownership in Richfield is approximately the same as the national
average, with an average of 2 cars per household. Nearly 5% of households in Richfield do
not have access to a car
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 7-
Community Vision and Goals
There is growing momentum around improving multimodal transportation
options in Richfield, and walking is a critical component of this trend.
The city developed the Bicycle
Master Plan in 2009, which
identified primary and secondary
bicycle routes within the city, as
well as important activity centers.
The city developed it’s guiding
principles for transportation and
land use in 2010 (Figure 5), which
call for more multimodal design,
connectivity and public realm, and
design for people, among other
things.
In 2012, the city launched its
Sweet Streets program, which seeks to
organize the public works
department around multimodal
transportation in an easy to
understand and family friendly
way.
As part of the development
process for this Pedestrian Plan
(2017-2018), residents commented
that walking is a critical
component of everyday life and
should be a priority in the city.
Residents provide input on walking in Richfield at Penn
Fest 2017
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 8-
Figure 5: Guiding Principles for Land Use and Transportation
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 9-
Guiding Principles for Land Use and Transportation Continued
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 10-
Trends Influencing the Pedestrian Network
Cities and the way people move within them are changing. Many people want walkable
urban areas, robust multimodal transportation options, and the ability to lead healthy and
active lives. Figure 6 highlights just some of the trends driving this change.
Figure 6: Influencing Themes and Trends
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 11-
Richfield Pedestrian Plan Goals
The goal of the Richfield Pedestrian is to make walking the easy choice. This means that
walking for transportation and recreation is integrated into the culture of Richfield and the
benefits of making walking safe, convenient and desirable for all should be widely
publicized and promoted. This goal reflects the values of the community based on the
Guiding Principles and public comments received as part of the planning process and
responds to current themes and trends. This goal should be used as a “north arrow” for the
project planning process to ensure that walking is prioritized in an equitable and balanced
way. The city will do this by:
1. Making design for pedestrians the first priority when planning roadways and
streets. The means actively address pedestrian safety through design and creating
public spaces which are convenient and enjoyable for walking. Often times, this can
lead to focusing on pedestrian crossings at high activity locations and designing
roadways and streets to encourage people driving cars to slow down and pay
attention.
2. Coordinating multimodal transportation networks and land use decisions to
improve characteristics of the built environment that impact walking. Such as
design and the location of destinations, orientation of buildings to the street, and
parking lots that are designed for people to walk in. Streets should be vital public
spaces that not only serve travel but also foster social and economic activity.
3. Make public realm improvements a standard, rather than an option, in high
activity locations. This includes elements such as pedestrian lighting, decorative
concrete, seating, and public art, all of which foster a more inviting pedestrian
experience.
Community input collected at an
open house in 2018
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 12-
Chapter 2: Pedestrian Demand
The performance of a pedestrian route should be measured in terms of user
experience – does it feel safe? Do people want to walk there? Does it seem
like the fastest route?
This section outlines of a process that can be used to understand relative demand for
pedestrian movement and example applications of how this process can be applied at the
project level. All routes should provide a safe and enjoyable experience, but the treatment
needed to provide that experience will vary and should be evaluated based on contextual
factors such as nearby land uses (i.e., demand) and the
physical attributes of the route.
Pedestrian demand has historically been measured largely
by the number of pedestrians already walking in a certain
location. However, experience has shown that this does
not always reflect actual demand. People avoid walking
when they feel unsafe or uncomfortable. This means that
both existing and latent demand must be considered when
evaluating corridors for pedestrian improvements. It also
means that corridors must be evaluated on a segment-by-
segment or even block-by-block basis, with the goal of
answering the question of “how important is THIS location
in the pedestrian system?” as well as “what improvements
are needed HERE for people to feel safe and comfortable
while walking?”
Two competing shoe salesmen
visited an isolated community.
One sent a message back
saying, “I’m returning to the
office tomorrow. Nobody here
wears shoes!” The other sent a
message saying, “Send more
product! Everybody here
needs shoes!”
AN EXAMPLE OF LATENT
DEMAND
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 13-
Land Use
Activity
Centers
Bus Stops
Population
Density
Pedestrian
Demand
Pedestrian Demand Factors
Factors such as adjacent land uses and nearby activity centers, proximity to parks and
schools, the presence of transit service, population density and demographic makeup, and
the role of the corridor within the larger transportation network all influence how many
people will want to walk in a given location (see Figure 7). To understand pedestrian
demand at a given location, all of the relevant factors must be considered in concert. The
following sections include an overview of these factors.
Figure 7: Pedestrian Demand Influencers
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 14-
Land and Activity Centers
Activity centers are a group of destinations where people want to go for a variety of goods
and services. Figure 8 shows popular activity centers in Richfield and adjacent to Richfield,
based on data collected in 2012 as part of the Bicycle Master Plan. The following are
common activity centers that were considered:
Businesses and commercial areas such as shopping centers, restaurants, retail
stores, large offices and industrial parks
Schools, recreation facilities and parks
Community buildings such as the community center, libraries, and city offices
Transit Stops
Bus service inherently creates demand for walking as people usually walk to their bus stop.
A typical bus rider will have to cross the street at least once for each two-way trip. Both the
frequency of the bus service—how often the bus comes—and the ridership—how many
people get on or off the bus) —and the existing physical attributes of the street and bus
stop should be considered when evaluating pedestrian improvements at bus stops. Figure
8 shows daily boardings for bus stops in Richfield (fall 2015).
Population Density
Where people live, or population density, is an important factor in understanding latent
pedestrian demand. Proximity to higher population density is an indicator of potential
demand for walking. Likewise, concentrations of older adults, people living in poverty,
minority populations, and young people are all indicators of potential pedestrian demand.
These populations may rely on walking as their primary mode of transportation due to lack
of an automobile or may simply have a stronger preference for walking for health, exercise,
recreation, or transportation.
Citywide Pedestrian Demand
Figure 8 illustrates destinations and activity centers within the city, based on a survey
completed as part of the development of the Richfield Bicycle Master Plan in 2010, and
updated to reflect current conditions. Figure 9 shows population density and figures 10 –
13 show densities of people living in poverty, minority populations, older adults, and
households with children, respectively. Figure 14 is a “heat map” which shows pedestrian
demand. More intense shading means higher pedestrian demand and the lighter shading
means lower pedestrian demand.
Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 15- Figure 8: Richfield Pedestrian Destinations and Activity Centers and Transit Stops
Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 16- Figure 9: Population Density
Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 17- Figure 10: Percentage of People Living in Poverty
Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 18- Figure 11: Percentage of Non-White Populations
Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 19- Figure 12: Percentage of 65+ Populations
Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 20- Figure 13: Percentage of 18 and Under Populations
Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 21- Figure 14: Citywide Pedestrian Demand
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 22-
Pedestrian Demand Evaluation Framework
The following are criteria for the evaluation of pedestrian demand on a citywide basis or
for an individual project.
Magnitude of Activity: Places with a larger draw will likely generate more
pedestrian demand.
Proximity: Places within ½-mile will have more impact on walking than places
further away.
Time of Day: Some activity centers such as schools or transit stops may have higher
pedestrian activity during certain times of the day.
Network Relation: A route that connects activity or population centers may be
important even though there are no activity or population centers immediately
adjacent to the project corridor.
Figure 8 shows pedestrian demand citywide based on these factors. Figure 15 shows an
example of a corridor pedestrian demand evaluation for Nicollet Avenue South (75th Street
to 68th Street), based on a general rating system:
High demand: Locations within one half-mile of one of more activity or population
centers and has a high level of connectivity within the pedestrian network.
Medium demand: Location is within one half-mile of at least one activity center and
connects to the wider pedestrian network on at least one end.
Low demand: Location is not close to any activity or population centers and is not
an important link in the wider pedestrian network.
High visibility crosswalk with median refuge island
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 23-
Figure 15: Example Pedestrian Demand Evaluation, Nicollet Avenue
Demand Category Influencing Factors
Activity Centers and
Destinations
Augsburg Park Complex - Augsburg Library and Richfield
Community Center - is on west side of road (top of the map)
Park has popular green space, playground, and a skate park
Richfield High School is just beyond the park to west.
Existing residential neighborhood on east side of road.
Transit Service Transit ridership is relatively high along the Nicollet Avenue
corridor.
Busses have regular service all day, with 15 – 20-minute headways
during peak periods.
High volume bus stops at 71st, 70th and 68th Streets.
Population Density and
Equity
Neighborhood east of Nicollet Avenue has a relatively high
population density, including high proportions of people living in
poverty, non-white older adults (65+), and children (under 18)
populations.
Augsburg Park west of Nicollet Avenue is home to a range of
regularly programmed activities, including community concerts,
children’s events, and a free lunch program in the summer.
Transportation
Characteristics
Speed on Nicollet Avenue is higher than 25 mph
High traffic volumes – 12,000+ vpd
Nicollet Avenue is direct connection to and between many different
destinations and activity center
Nicollet Avenue is key part of existing sidewalk network
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 24-
Chapter 3: Pedestrian Experience
Experience in many communities, including Richfield, has shown that people walk more
and are drawn to locations where they feel safe, the route is convenient, and the
experience is enjoyable. This concept is illustrated in Figure 16. Walking participation and
the related benefits increase as the level of pedestrian improvements moves past the basic
legal requirements, toward safe and convenient facilities such as high-visibility crosswalks
and median refuges, to an advantageous and even more enjoyable facility that includes
landscaping and public art.
The directness of a route to key destinations or activity centers may influence its
attractiveness to pedestrians. However, often the most direct routes have characteristics
that discourage walking such as high traffic speeds, busy intersections, long crossing
distances or an environment that generally feels unsafe or uncomfortable. These
attributes may result in low existing pedestrian use but high latent demand. Both the value
of connectivity and the safety and comfort for walkers must be considered when evaluating
these routes for pedestrian improvements and latent demand.
To achieve the city’s goal of encouraging walking, the city will need to move beyond a
minimum level of pedestrian accommodation - sidewalks at some locations, curb ramps,
crosswalk striping at major intersections- toward a higher level of pedestrian
improvements at high demand locations throughout the city. With a higher level of
accommodation, it becomes more advantageous, or even enjoyable, to choose walking
over other modes of transportation (see Figure 16).
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 25-
Figure 16: Level of Accommodation/Use Relationship
Existing Pedestrian System
Strengths of the Richfield Pedestrian Network
Richfield’s existing pedestrian system includes sidewalks along all major roadways
(minor arterials), see Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference..
There is a robust and well-loved network of trails within city parks throughout the
city.
There are existing mid-block crossings at some major activity centers.
There is strong transit ridership (bus routes) along the arterial routes within the city.
The city actively clears snow along all sidewalks and trail within the city, at no
additional cost to residents.
There is strong community support for continued investment in pedestrian and
bicycle improvements.
The city’s “Sweet Streets”
program is a strong
advocate for multimodal
transportation.
Actively implementing the
ADA Transition Plan to
better accommodate
people with disabilities
Figure 17: Richfield Pedestrian Facilities
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 26-
Challenges of the Richfield Pedestrian Network
Crossing many streets, particularly higher volume arterials, is uncomfortable and
unsafe for many pedestrians and some places have a history of pedestrian crashes.
Many of the older sidewalks in the city are built at the back of the curb and don’t
provide adequate separation from traffic for a comfortable or safe pedestrian
experience.
The city has a long history of no pedestrian infrastructure along neighborhood
streets, which means no sidewalks in most residential neighborhoods.
Pedestrian Safety
Safety is the primary concern when planning and designing pedestrian facilities. Safety
includes consideration for both people in motorized vehicles (e.g., cars, buses, trucks, etc.)
and people using non-motorized transportation modes (e.g., walking, biking, rolling, etc.).
There are a number of ways to measure safety, including objective safety (i.e., number and
severity of crashes) and subjective safety (i.e., the users perception of safety). For the
purposes of this plan, safety generally refers to the risk of a crash, both objectively and
subjectively.
The data is clear – pedestrian safety is enhanced by slower traffic speeds and shorter
crossing distances (less crash exposure). As shown in Figure 18, at 30 miles per hour the
risk for severe injury to the pedestrian in a crash is about 50% —any faster and the risk of
injury goes way up and the chance of survival goes way down.
Motorized vehicle speeds are the most important
factor in the severity of pedestrian crashes
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 27-
Figure 18: Vehicle Speed and Pedestrian Injury Relationship
Pedestrian Crash Data
Based on a review of reported
crashes in the 10-year period from
2006 to 2015, pedestrian crashes in
Richfield have historically occurred
at a rate of about 10 per year and
about one crash per year results in a
fatality or a serious/incapacitating
injury. Figure 19 shows key trends
related to this data and Figure 20
shows the location and severity of
reported pedestrian crashes in
Richfield. Figure 21and Figure 22
show pedestrian crashes by
intersection type and activity center,
respectively.
Figure 19: Richfield Crash Trends
Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 28- Figure 20: Location and Severity of Crashes in Richfield (2006 – 2015)
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 29-
Figure 21: Crashes by Intersection Type
Figure 22: Pedestrian Crashes by Activity Center
Pedestrian Experience
Pedestrian experience should be evaluated on a block-by-block, segment-by-segment, and
crossing-by-crossing experience. Crossings are critical as these are places where the
greatest safety risks occur. Figure 23 includes an overview of typical criteria for the
evaluation of pedestrian experience, for both crossings and linear facilities (i.e., segments).
For each criterion, there are a range of potential improvement options that could be
considered, based on context (e.g., such as demand and/or crashes). Figure 24 shows
examples of these criteria applied to Nicollet Avenue, in Richfield.
Traffic
Signals
56%
Not
intersection
related…
Stop Sign
14%
Yield
1%
Other
1%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Total crashes Fatal and incapacitating crashes
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 30-
Page intentionally left blank for
two-sided printing
-Page 31-
Figure 23: Typical Pedestrian Experience Measures and Considerations
Crossings Linear Facilities
Physical condition
This refers to the overall state of repair of a crossing. A well
maintained and designed crossing contributes to a feeling of
safety, comfort, and convenience for people who need to walk
across the road.
What type of facility is present to help pedestrians cross:
traffic signal (APS and ADA compliant), pedestrian push
button, striped crosswalk, other
What’s the condition of the pedestrian facilities?
o Curb ramps
o Concrete/asphalt surfaces
o Crosswalk striping and stop bars
o Pedestrian pushbutton and countdown timers
Are there clearly defined edges to delineate the pedestrian
zone?
Physical condition
This refers to the overall state of repair of a sidewalk or multiuse
trail. A well-maintained facility contributes to a feeling of safety,
comfort, and joy for people walking.
What type of facility is present - sidewalk, trail, etc.?
Is the surface free of cracks, heaves and obstructions?
Are the edges clearly defined to delineate the pedestrian
zone?
Are the lights and other pedestrian facilities in good repair
and functioning?
Is the area clean and free of trash?
Is the sidewalk or trail clear of ice and snow?
Are slopes and grades appropriate?
Pedestrian Delay
Pedestrian delay is the time a person spends waiting prior to being
able to cross the street. This can be the length of time at a signal
before the walk phase or the time it takes for an adequate gap in
traffic at a non-signalized location. Longer crossing delay leads to
higher risk behavior such as crossing at a signal during an
opposing red light, or mid-block crossings, whereas shorter
crossing delay is more likely to yield positive behavior –
pedestrians crossing at controlled crossing locations.
What type of pedestrian signal is present at signalized
crossings (pedestrian activated, automatic, count-down)?
What is the pedestrian delay?
Do adequate gaps in vehicle traffic regularly occur (non-
signalized crossings)?
Width of the Pedestrian Access Route (PAR)
The PAR is the area on a sidewalk or trail used for walking. This
can be less that the total width of the pedestrian realm which may
include other areas such as boulevards, furnishing zones, and
building frontage areas. An adequately sized PAR promotes a
sense of safety, security, and convenience for pedestrians. The PAR
should be a minimum of 5 – 8 feet, depending on the surrounding
land uses and roadway characteristics. The PAR will need to be
even wider in areas with high pedestrian demand.
Is the PAR at least 5 feet wide in residential areas and at
least 8 in commercial areas?
Do adjacent land uses or other contextual factors
necessitate a wider PAR?
Is there adequate clearance to buildings, walls, fences or
other vertical obstructions?
Are slopes and grades appropriate?
Crossing distance and crash exposure
Crossing distance refers to the distance from the place a person
steps off of the curb, to the place the person steps back on a curb
on the opposite side of the street. Shorter crossing distances
minimize the time it takes a person to cross the street and the
number of vehicle conflict points a pedestrian is exposed to,
thereby improving pedestrian safety.
How many vehicle and bicycle lanes is the pedestrian
required to cross (including turn lanes and shoulders)?
Are there safe and protected median refuge or mid-
crossing waiting areas?
Does the signal timing allow enough time for pedestrians
to cross the entire street at a reasonable walking speed?
Separation from traffic – boulevard, furnishing zone, sign zone
Separation from traffic refers to the space between vehicle traffic
lanes and the PAR. Greater separation, both horizontal and
vertical, with boulevards, trees or bollards, physically separate
pedestrians from moving vehicle traffic, thereby contributing to a
sense of safety and comfort.
Is the sidewalk or trail physically separated from the
roadway or is it next to the curb?
Are vertical separation features such as trees or bollards
present?
Speed of opposing vehicle traffic
Research has shown that, at a speed of 30 mph, the risk of severe
injury to a pedestrian is 50 percent. At lower speeds, this risk
significantly decreases (see Figure 11), and at higher speeds, the
risk significantly increases.
Are vehicle operating speeds 30 mph or greater?
Pedestrian features
This criterion refers to the additional features, such as benches,
trash receptacles, and water. The presence of these features helps
enhance the sense that a location is safe, convenient, comfortable
and pleasant to walk.
What pedestrian features are present?
Visibility
This refers to the visibility of a crossing, both in terms of lighting
and the physical characteristics of the location. Good visibility will
contribute to the safety of a crossing and foster a sense of security
for pedestrians.
Is the crossing well lit (does it illuminate the pedestrian)?
Is the crossing free from sight line obstructions?
Are there horizontal or vertical curvature issues?
Visual quality
An attractive appearance will help to make a sidewalk a place
where people want to be, thereby contributing to a positive and
pleasant pedestrian experience
Are elements such as trees and planting present?
Are physical features such as colored/textured concrete,
banners, and public art included?
Land use connectivity
It is human nature for people to walk the shortest route possible.
Thus, it is not realistic to ask people to walk even minimum
distances in the “wrong direction” or “out of the way” to get to their
desired destination. Pedestrian crossings should provide the most
direct connection possible to adjacent land uses and activity
centers.
Are there marked crosswalks at all intersection legs?
Does the crossing provide a direct connection to nearby
activity centers?
Land use connectivity
This criterion measures the ability of a route to connect people to
the places they want to go as efficiently as possible. It is human
nature for people to walk the shortest route possible; thus, it is not
realistic to ask people to walk even minimum distances in the
“wrong direction” or “out of the way”.
Are there pedestrian facilities on both sides of the
roadway?
Does the route provide direct connectivity to key
destinations or activity centers?
Does the route provide connectivity to the overall
pedestrian network or to other trails or sidewalks?
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 32-
Figure 24: Example Pedestrian Experience Evaluation, Nicollet Avenue
Demand Category Influencing Factors
Physical Condition No marked crosswalks at 71st or 72nd Street
Existing crosswalk markings at 70th Street are worn and faded
Visibility Lighting illuminates the roadway mid-block, but does not light the
sidewalks or crosswalks
Crossing Distance and
Crash Exposure
Pedestrians are required to cross three traffic lanes and bike-able
shoulders.
Pedestrian Delay There is a traffic signal at 70th Street, but it does not have
pedestrian prioritized phasing.
There is no crossing control at 71st or 72nd Street and the nearest
controlled crossings are at least one block away.
Land Use and
Connectivity
The only controlled crossing is at 70th Street, which is two – three
blocks out of the way for pedestrians trying to access activity
centers such as the 71st Street bus stop and Augsburg Library.
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 33-
Chapter 4: Pedestrian Network
Richfield has a robust transportation system which includes 162 miles (centerline) of
roadways, 36.5 miles of existing sidewalks, seven miles of two-way trails, and two existing
pedestrian bridges crossing major highways (i.e., I-35W and I-494). There are sidewalks
along all minor arterial roadways within Richfield and the city is working to build out the
sidewalk network on select collector and sub collector roadways, based on proximity to
activity centers (i.e., demand). In total, 10.5 miles of potential sidewalk additions within the
city have been identified and the city is committed to improving pedestrian crossings
commensurate with demand (see Figure 25).
Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 34- Figure 25: Planned Pedestrian Network Map
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 35-
Chapter 5: Plan and Policy Review
Richfield is working to provide pedestrians with safe, convenient, and enjoyable walking
environments through its planning and policy efforts and related local, regional, and state
plans and policies provide a foundation for this pedestrian plan. At the local level, efforts
are governed by the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Guiding Principles for Transportation, and
Complete Streets Policy, all of which set the framework for transportation planning in
Richfield (see Figure 26).
At a policy level, the core pedestrian
related documents in Richfield are
the Sidewalks Standards Policy, the
Crosswalk Policy, the Sidewalk Snow
Plowing Policy, and the Complete
Streets Policy. Together, these plans
define the criteria for installation of
pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalks
and crosswalks), the circumstances
for when and how they will be build,
and the standards for winter
maintenance.
Figure 26: Transportation Planning in Richfield
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 36-
These plans should be updated to allow for greater flexibility in the siting of pedestrian
facilities and to include consideration for people-based factors, such as activity generating
land uses and concentrated populations of who often rely on walking as a primary source
of transportation (e.g., older adults, children and young adults, and people with low
incomes). Figure 27 summarizes the plans and policies reviewed as part of the planning
process and includes recommendations to make walking safer and more inviting for
pedestrians.
Figure 27: Plan and Policy Review
Policy Overview Recommendations
Richfield Sidewalk
Standards Policy
(2016)
Sidewalks on both sides of
arterial streets
Sidewalks on one side of
collector streets
Sidewalks in one side of
roadways on major school
routes
No sidewalks on local streets
Minimum width for sidewalks is
six feet
Amend this policy to:
Allow for greater flexibility in
pedestrian facilities on local streets
Include guidance for other pedestrian
facilities, such as temporary
treatments on streets and multiuse
trails
Richfield Pedestrian
Crosswalk Pavement
Markings Policy
(2006)
Pedestrian crosswalk pavement
markings or special treatments at:
Signalized intersections
Intersections designated as
safe routes to schools and
parks
Other locations deemed
warranted through engineering
studies
Rewrite policy to provide guidance on
the types of crossing treatments that
should be considered at all intersections.
Should include consideration for:
Vehicle traffic volumes and speeds
Nearby land uses and activity centers
Demographics
Richfield Sidewalk
Snow Plowing Policy
(2011)
Requires that the city plow all
public sidewalks within the city.
Prioritizes starting with
commercial areas, then arterial
roads, then collector streets,
followed lastly by residential
neighborhoods.
Revise to include a more detailed
hierarchy for snow clearance priorities.
Major activity centers and arterial
roadways should be prioritized
(including transit stops), with a lower
priority (or none) given to pedestrian
facilities on sub-collector and residential
streets.
Existing plans and policies show a strong desire at every level of
government to make walking a safe and convenient transportation and
recreation option.
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 37-
Policy Overview Recommendations
Richfield Complete
Streets Policy (2015)
Policy for accommodation of
multimodal transportation, city-
wide.
Evaluate each project against the
complete streets policy
Consider the desired user experience
of multimodal users
Seek opportunities to implement
standalone pedestrian improvement
projects
Guiding Principles
for Transportation
(2013)
Framework for how the City will
develop its transportation
network, land uses, public realm,
and open spaces.
Evaluate each project against the
principles to foster accepted community
design principles, enhanced public realm
amenities, and desired user experiences.
ADA Transition Plan
(2014)
Evaluation of roadway facilities to
ensure that all roads in the City
are accessible to all individuals.
Revise the Sidewalk Standards Policy and
Crosswalk Policy to explicitly reference
the ADA Transition Plan as added
support for local policies to improve
pedestrian safety and experience.
Richfield Safe Routes
to School
Comprehensive Plan
(2014)
Identifies opportunities and
priorities to increase walking and
biking to schools and strategies
for making improvements in the
areas surrounding the school.
Seek opportunities to implement
standalone pedestrian improvement
projects to address safe routes to school.
Hennepin County
Pedestrian Plan
(2013)
Addresses the county’s role in
making walking a safe and easy
choice for residents.
Revise the Sidewalk Standards Policy and
Crosswalk Policy to explicitly reference
external policies as added support for
local policies aimed at improving
pedestrian safety and experience.
Hennepin County
Transportation
Systems Plan (2011)
Seeks to articulate a
transportation vision, update
previous planning work, and
provide guidance for future
transportation decisions.
Hennepin County
Complete Streets
Policy (2009)
Policy for accommodation of
multimodal transportation,
county-wide.
MnDOT Complete
Streets Policy (2016)
Policy for accommodation of
multimodal transportation,
statewide.
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 38-
Chapter 6: Implementation
This section provides a framework for the implementation of the pedestrian plan, including
action steps for implementation (Figure 28), a listing of reference material for design
guidance, a discussion of best practices for pedestrian facilities, and guidance on the
project development process.
Figure 28: Implementation Framework
Timeframe Action
Near-term
(1 – 4 years)
Revise sidewalk, crosswalk, and snow clearance policies to make it clear that safe
and convenient pedestrian crossings and sidewalks are needed in high demand
locations.
Include evaluation of the appropriate pedestrian crossings and linear facilities on all
capital and maintenance projects in the future, considering pedestrians as the
priority mode.
Look for opportunities to implement standalone pedestrian projects in high
demand areas and in areas with high crash frequency and severity. Consider the
use of temporary installations.
Evaluate opportunities for non-infrastructure pedestrian programming to educate
the community and build awareness for pedestrians. For example:
Walk! Bike! Fun! Education programs at schools
Community walking maps
Walk to school and work days
Mileage and/or step counting programs
Safety campaigns (e.g., stop for me)
Strategically pursue funding sources for pedestrian infrastructure. At a minimum,
this should include consideration for the following:
Federal Transportation Funding allocated through the Regional Solicitation
process
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 39-
Timeframe Action
U.S. Dept. of Transportation: BUILD (formerly TIGER) Discretionary Grants
DNR Local Trail Connections Program
State Funds for Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
MN Department of Health Statewide Health Improvement Program
Blue Cross Blue Shield Center for Prevention funds
Mid-term
(5 – 9 years)
Install modern pedestrian facilities on all minor arterial roadways. This includes
protected crossings in high demand areas and sidewalks or trails, separated from
the roadway with a boulevard or other vertical screening.
Install modern pedestrian facilities to provide a safe and convenient pedestrian
environment with all full reconstruction street projects. This includes modern
sidewalks and crosswalks where appropriate, and design elements to lower vehicle
speeds (e.g., narrower roadway) on neighborhood streets. A safe vehicle speed for
pedestrians on neighborhood streets is 15 – 25 mph.
Implement solutions to address high crash frequency and severity locations,
citywide.
Implement and expand non-infrastructure programs and campaigns to change
user behavior.
Pursue a dedicated and ongoing funding source for standalone pedestrian projects.
Long-term
(10+ years)
Work toward buildout of the citywide pedestrian network, including pedestrian
facilities on all minor arterial, collector, and select local roadways.
Pursue legislative policy changes to allow for reduced speed limits on residential
streets.
Look for opportunities to create signature places to walk within Richfield, such as
pedestrian plazas, greenways, etc.
Pedestrian Facility Design Guidance
This document is not intended to be a thorough evaluation of location specific facilities or
treatments, and it is not a design guidance source. The following are common standards
and design guidelines for reference during the facility design process.
Design References
2015 Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD).
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/mutcd/
2013 NACTO Urban Streets Design Guide. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-
street-design-guide/
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 40-
2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/mutcd2009r1r2edition.pdf.
2011 AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways & Streets (Greenbook)
https://bookstore.transportation.org/collection_detail.aspx?ID=110&gclid=EAIaIQob
ChMIv_2HxbXI1gIVBgxpCh35bQ7IEAQYASABEgI_rPD_BwE
2014 NCHRP 783: Evaluation of the 13 Controlling Criteria for Geometric Design.
http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/171358.aspx
FHWA Interim Approvals. https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-interim_approvals.htm
2005 Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/ref.cfm
2004 AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities.
https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?id=119
Pedestrian Facility Best Practices: Designing for People
There are a wide variety of pedestrian
types with a varying range of
characteristics and needs. For example, a
recreational jogger may have different
needs than someone waiting for the bus,
a father pushing a stroller, or an older
adult using a walker. Therefore, the
pedestrian network and individual
pedestrian facilities should consider the
ease of use for a range of ages, abilities,
and mobility levels.
Pedestrians want a safe and comfortable
walking experience this means short and
well-marked crossings, slower rather than
faster vehicle traffic, separation from
traffic lanes, shade and periodic rest areas, and visual interesting environments (e.g.,
landscaping, art, etc.). Figure 29 illustrates common “best practice” treatments for
pedestrians and Figure 30 provides additional description. Refer to the references above
for specific design guidance.
The goal of the pedestrian network is to provide for safe, secure and
efficient movement along and across the roadways
High visibility crosswalk with median refuge island
connecting high activity locations
Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 41- Figure 29: Best Practice Pedestrian Treatments
Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 42- Page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 43-
Figure 30: Best Practice Pedestrian Treatments – Walkways
Crossing Treatments
High visibility crosswalk markings
Description:
Reflective markings which clearly define
the crossing area and set pedestrian and
driver expectations. Often paired with a
stop bar and advanced warning signs.
Applicability:
Minor arterial, collector, and higher volume
local roadway crossings with medium to
high pedestrian demand. Should be paired
with other crossing control on high
volume/high speed streets.
Median refuge islands (2 stage crossing)
Description:
Curb cut and walkway through a raised
center median. Shortens crossing distance,
simplifies decision making, and provides a
safe resting area for pedestrians.
Applicability:
Minor arterials with medium to high
pedestrian demand.
Bumbouts or cub extensions
Description:
Extension of the sidewalk into the roadway
to shorten pedestrian crossing distance
and slow vehicle traffic.
Applicability:
Minor arterial, collector, and higher volume
local roadway crossings with medium to
high pedestrian demand. Ideal for
locations with on street parking. Should be
paired with other crossing control on high
volume/high speed streets.
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 44-
Pedestrian activated flashing lights
(RRFBs)
Description:
Flashing lights that alert the driver to the
presence of a pedestrian at a crossing.
Applicability:
Minor arterials with high traffic
volumes/speeds and high pedestrian
demand. Ideal for mid-block crossings and
roundabouts.
Midblock crossings
Ped
Description:
Crossings in the middle of a block (i.e., not
at an intersection) to provide a direct route
between high activity locations.
Applicability:
Minor arterials with high traffic
volumes/speeds and medium to high
pedestrian demand.
Raised crossing or speed table
Description:
Raised concrete crossing at or near the
same elevation as the adjacent sidewalks.
Defines the crossing area and forces
vehicle traffic to slow down.
Applicability:
Any location with high pedestrian demand.
Should be coupled with other crossing
control for higher traffic/speed roadways.
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 45-
Linear Treatments
Sidewalks and multiuse paths
Description:
Pedestrian walkway, usually adjacent to a
roadway or through a park. Provides a
connection between nearby activity
centers.
Applicability:
Both sides of all minor arterials and on
select collectors and local streets with
medium to high pedestrian demand.
Should be separated from the roadway.
Boulevard or vertical separation
Description:
Improves safety and comfort for
pedestrians by providing physical
separation between roadway travel lanes
and the walkway.
Applicability:
All sidewalks and multiuse paths adjacent
to a roadway.
Pedestrian scale lighting
Description:
Lighting which illuminates the pedestrian
realm to improve visibility of sidewalks and
crosswalks. Includes lighting at the near
side of intersections to make crossings
pedestrians visible.
Applicability:
All sidewalks, multiuse paths, and marked
crosswalks.
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 46-
Trees, plantings, landscaping, and art
Description:
Plantings and art improve safety and
comfort by providing physical separation
from vehicle lanes, creating shade, and
visual interest.
Applicability:
All sidewalks and multiuse paths.
Benches, waste receptacles, and other
furnishings
Description:
Benches, garbage, and other furnishings
that support walking.
Applicability:
Periodic placement along medium and high
demand pedestrian areas. Coordinate with
bus stop facilities.
Temporary Pedestrian Facilities
Description:
Temporarily striped, painted, and/or
delineated walkways along roadways
where there is a need for improved
pedestrian facilities, but the underlying
roadway infrastructure is not due for
replacement.
Applicability:
Roadways and crossings with high vehicle
traffic volumes and speed and medium to
high pedestrian demand.
Richfield Pedestrian Plan
-Page 47-
Project Development Process
The following checklist is a checklist intended for use as part of the project development
process to foster safe, secure and efficient pedestrian movement along and across
roadways. This checklist should by used to evaluate the success of any design alternative,
from a design perspective and should be coupled with an evaluation of pedestrian
demand.
Crossing treatments
Crosswalk visibility (high visibility striping, stop bar, and signage)
Pedestrian activated flashing lights
Vehicle control (e.g., stop signs, traffic signal, etc.)
Minimal or mitigated conflict points with vehicles and bicycle
Direct connection to activity centers (i.e., minimize wrong direction travel for
pedestrians)
ADA compliance (e.g., pedestrian countdown times and push buttons, appropriately
placed curb ramps, minimal cross slopes, etc.)
Minimize crossings distance
Minimize pedestrian delay at intersections (and circuitous routing)
Pedestrian refuge island
Pedestrian oriented lighting
Appropriate intersection sight lines
Linear facilities
Separation from traffic (buffer zone)
Width commensurate with pedestrian demand (6’ min, 8-10’ preferred)
Pedestrian scale lighting
Minimize circuitous routing
Shade, plantings, and art
Resting areas (benches, short walls, drinking fountains)
R EG U LAR C IT Y C O U N C IL MEET IN G
R IC H F IE L D MU N IC IPAL C E N TE R, C O U N C IL C H AMB E R S
S E P TEMB E R 25, 2018
7:00 P M
IN TR O D U C TO RY P R O C E E D IN G S
C all to order
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
E ach speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. C omments
are to be an opportunity to address the C ouncil on items not on the agenda. I ndividuals who wish to address
the C ouncil must have registered prior to the meeting.
P ledge of A llegiance
A pproval of the minutes of the: (1) S pecial C ity C ouncil work session of S eptember 11, 2018; (2) S pecial concurrent
C ity C ouncil and P lanning C ommission work session of S eptember 11, 2018; and (3) Regular C ity C ouncil meeting of
S eptember 11, 2018.
P R E S E N TATIO N S
1.A nnual Meeting with the A dvisory B oard of Health
C O U N C IL D ISC U SSIO N
2.Hats Off to Hometown Hits
AG E N D A APPR O VAL
3.A pproval of the A genda
4.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. However, any
Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the
regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are
recommended for approval.
A .C onsideration of the approval of a contract renewal with A desa Minneapolis for 2018-2019 for auctioning
forfeited vehicles from P ublic S afety/P olice.
S taff Report No. 161
B .C onsideration of the approval of an agreement between the Hennepin C ounty Human S ervices and P ublic
Health D epartment and the C ity of Richfield P olice D epartment for continuing funds for a P olice C adet
and/or C ommunity S ervice Officer position and Joint C ommunity P olice P artnership training in 2019.
S taff Report No. 162
C .C onsideration of the approval of a first reading of a Transitory Ordinance vacating 64th S treet right-of-way
between 16th Avenue and Richfield P arkway and schedule a public hearing and second reading for
October 9, 2018.
S taff Report No. 163
D .C onsideration of the adoption of a resolution certifying delinquent water, sanitary sewer, and storm water
charges to the Hennepin C ounty A uditor to be included in the property owner's annual property tax bill.
S taff Report No. 164
E .C onsideration of the approval of rejecting all bids for roof replacement, mechanical cooling units and related
electrical work for the municipal liquor store at 7700 Lyndale S .
S taff Report No. 165
5.C onsideration of items, if any, removed from C onsent C alendar
P U B LIC H E AR IN G S
6.P ublic hearing and consideration of the adoption of a resolution revoking a conditional use permit for L akes B uffet
restaurant at 6601 Nicollet Avenue.
S taff Report No. 166
7.P ublic hearing and consideration of the adoption of a resolution for a final plat of "Lyndale Gardens 2nd A ddition"
which will incorporate 6328 A ldrich Avenue and reconfigure existing lots and outlots of the Lyndale Garden C enter
site to align with approved development plans.
S taff Report No. 167
8.C ontinue the public hearing and consideration of a preliminary plat of the "C edar P oint II" A ddition to October 9,
2018.
S taff Report No. 168
PR O P O S E D O R D IN AN C E S
9.C onsideration of the approval of a variety of land use approvals related to a proposal to construct 218 apartments
and 72 townhomes along 16th Avenue and Richfield P arkway between approximately Taft P ark and 65th S treet.
S taff Report No. 169
10.C onsideration of the approval of the second reading of an ordinance adopting a new C ity C ode S ection 409
relating to the sale of affordable rental housing and establishing notice and relocation assistance requirements for
new owners.
S taff Report No. 170
R E S O L U T IO N S
11.C onsideration of the adoption of a resolution approving an Inclusionary A ffordable Housing P olicy.
S taff Report No. 171
C IT Y MAN AG E R’S R E P O R T
12.C ity Manager's Report
C LAIMS AN D PAYR O L LS
13.C laims and P ayrolls
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
E ach speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. C omments
are to be an opportunity to address the C ouncil on items not on the agenda. I ndividuals who wish to address
the C ouncil must have registered prior to the meeting.
14.A djournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96
hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special City Council Work Session
September 11, 2018
CALL TO ORDER
The work session was called to order by Mayor Elliott at 5:16 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room.
Council Members Pat Elliott, Mayor; Maria Regan Gonzalez; Michael Howard; and Simon
Present: Trautmann (arrived at 5:19 p.m.).
Council Members Edwina Garcia.
Absent:
Staff Present: Jared Voto, Executive Aide/Analyst.
Item #1
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A POSITION PROFILE FOR THE CITY MANAGER
RECRUITMENT
Richard Fursman, Huelife, discussed the draft position profile and went over each page of the
document seeking the Council’s feedback and comments.
Council Members reviewed the draft position profile along with Mr. Fursman and provided their
feedback on sections of the profile including the specific duties, background and experience, position
priorities, the ideal candidate, and specific attributes and skills needed.
Council discussed the change in schedule and decided on finalist selection on October 30 and
final interviews on November 16 and 17.
Council discussed the starting salary range and asked staff to provide additional information
from surrounding communities. After further conversation Council agreed to the provided salary
range.
Council discussed using formatting consistent with Richfield’s annual report.
ADJOURNMENT
The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:05 p.m.
Special City Council Work Session Minutes -2- September 11, 2018
Date Approved: September 25, 2018
_____________________________
Pat Elliott
Mayor
_____________________________ ____________________________
Jared Voto Steven L. Devich
Executive Aide/Analyst City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special Concurrent City Council and
Planning Commission Work Session
September 11, 2018
CALL TO ORDER
The work session was called to order by Mayor Elliott at 6:08 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room.
Council Members Pat Elliott, Mayor; Maria Regan Gonzalez; Michael Howard; and Simon
Present: Trautmann.
Council Members Edwina Garcia.
Absent:
Planning Commission Sean Hayford Oleary, Chair; Susan Rosenberg; Kathryn Quam; James
Members Present: Rudolph; Daniel Kitzberger; and Allysen Hoberg.
Planning Commission Bryan Pynn.
Absent:
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Jeff Pearson, City Engineer; Melissa
Poehlman, Assistant Community Development Director; and Jared Voto,
Executive Aide/Analyst.
Item #1
I-494: AIRPORT TO 169 PROJECT
City Engineer Pearson introduced Andrew Lutaya.
Andrew Lutaya, of MnDOT, the project manager for I-494 project, presented on the project
location and overview, including the project scope/goals and budget.
City Manager Devich commented that until the 77th Street Underpass is a reality he did not
believe the City should not provide municipal consent, otherwise the east side of Richfield will be cut
off due to the ramp closures.
City Engineer Pearson noted that based on the timeline for MnDOT’s request for municipal
consent from the City, and the timeline for construction of the 77th Street Underpass, they hope to
have construction started on the underpass before municipal consent is requested.
Andrew Lutaya, of MnDOT, the project manager for I-494 project, continued his presentation
with the project structure, including teams/committees and engagement strategy; the project
development schedule with traffic management planning; segmentation for construction; and currently
identified project risks.
City Manager Devich commented that Richfield brought money to the table for Penn Avenue
and Lyndale Avenue, not MnDOT, and discussed the right-of-way that had been purchased for I-494.
Special Concurrent Council and Planning Commission -2- September 11, 2018
Work Session Minutes
City Engineer Pearson provided clarification of the additional right-of-way that was purchased
previously.
Chair Hayford Oleary commented about stormwater needs and the loss of developable land
especially near Portland Avenue. He also asked about sound remediation.
Mr. Lutaya stated that sound remediation would be part of this project.
Commissioner Quam asked what choices, other than municipal consent, will we have for the
project.
City Engineer Pearson responded that MnDOT will have a public engagement process and
hopes residents and commissioners attend and share their opinions. He requested their presence in
order to give them additional background.
Poehlman added that as part of the 77th Street Corridor Plan. There will be some land use
considerations along 494 and the use of access points in the corridor.
Commissioner Rudolph asked about the line of sight on I-494 and asked if that had been
looked at by MnDOT.
Mr. Lutaya responded that this has been looked at as part of the causes of congestion.
ADJOURNMENT
The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:53 p.m.
Date Approved: September 25, 2018
_____________________________
Pat Elliott
Mayor
_____________________________ ____________________________
Jared Voto Steven L. Devich
Executive Aide/Analyst City Manager
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Elliott at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Council Members Pat Elliott, Mayor; Maria Regan Gonzalez; Michael Howard; and Simon
Present: Trautmann.
Council Members Edwina Garcia.
Absent:
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; Pam Dmytrenko,
Assistant City Manager/HR Manager; John Stark, Community Development
Director; Jay Henthorne, Chief of Police; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services
Director; Kristin Asher, Public Works Director; Chris Regis, Finance Director;
Melissa Poehlman, Planning and Redevelopment Manager/Assistant
Community Development Director; Jeff Pearson, City Engineer; Kris Weiby,
Facilities Manager; Jennifer Anderson, Support Services Manager; and Jared
Voto, Executive Aide/Analyst.
Mayor Elliott asked for a moment of silence for remembrance of September 11.
OPEN FORUM
None.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Elliott led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Howard, S/Trautmann to approve the minutes of the: (1) Special concurrent City Council
and Planning Commission work session of August 20, 2018; (2) Special concurrent City Council,
Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and Planning Commission work session of August 20, 2018;
(3) Special City Council work session of August 21, 2018; (4) Special City Council meeting of August
21, 2018; (5) Special City Council work session of September 4, 2018; (6) Special City Council
meeting of September 5, 2018.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Meeting
September 11, 2018
Council Meeting Minutes -2- September 11, 2018
Motion carried 4-0.
Item #1
OPEN STREETS AT PENN FEST ON SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, FROM 12-5
P.M.
Gordon Hanson, spoke about Open Streets at Penn Fest being held on Sunday, September
16 from 12-5 p.m. and invited everyone to attend. He stated there will be over 100 exhibitors and 12
food trucks.
Item #2
BONNIE PAULSON, BLOOMINGTON PUBLIC HEALTH ADMINISTRATOR
Bonnie Paulson, City of Bloomington Public Health Administrator, provided highlights from the
2017 annual report.
Council Members thanked Ms. Paulson for the work she does in Richfield.
Item #3
PROCLAMATION DECLARING SEPTEMBER 9-15, 2018, AS DIRECT
PROFESSIONALS WEEK IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
Mayor Elliott read the proclamation and presented it to a staff member from Mount Olivet
Rolling Acres.
Item #4
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Hats Off to Hometown Hits
Council Member Trautmann spoke regarding Penn Fest and invited people to attend; and
thanked staff for the work on the City’s budget.
Council Member Howard spoke regarding the Fox 9 news piece about the new development
happening in Richfield; and about opting out of receiving a phone book by going to
www.yellowpagesoptout.com.
Council Member Regan Gonzalez spoke regarding taking a moment to remember the lives
lost on September 11; cookout with cops was attended by over 100 residents; and invited people to
attend Richfield’s Complete Count Committee kick-off on Thursday, September 13 from 6:30 to 8 p.m.
at the Community Center.
Mayor Elliott spoke regarding the media publications shining a light on Richfield’s
development; a day last week of the ribbon cutting at Havenwood, a home for assisted living and
memory care, a ground breaking for Primrose School, and visiting Therapy of Champions; and his
family attending cookout with cops.
Item #5
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Council Meeting Minutes -3- September 11, 2018
M/Howard, S/Trautmann to approve the agenda
Motion carried 4-0.
Item #6
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Manager Devich presented the consent calendar.
A. Consideration of the adoption of resolutions pertaining to the annual Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet
(LHN) maintenance assessment process and scheduling a public hearing for October 9, 2018.
(S.R. No. 141)
RESOLUTION NO. 11530
RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR
LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD
JANUARY 1, 2017 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2017
RESOLUTION NO. 11531
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE
COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE
LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) PROJECT AREA FOR THE PERIOD
JANUARY 1, 2019 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2019
These resolutions appear as Resolution No. 11530 and 11531.
B. Consideration of the adoption of resolutions pertaining to the annual 77th Street maintenance
district assessment process and scheduling a public hearing for October 9, 2018. (S.R. No.
142)
RESOLUTION NO. 11532
RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR
77TH STREET MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2017
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2017
RESOLUTION NO. 11533
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE
COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE 77TH
STREET PROJECT AREA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2019
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2019
These resolutions appear as Resolution No. 11532 and 11533.
C. Consideration of the adoption of a resolution declaring costs to be assessed for removal of
diseased trees from private property for work ordered in 2017 and scheduling a public hearing
for October 9, 2018. (S.R. No. 143)
RESOLUTION NO. 11534
RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR
Council Meeting Minutes -4- September 11, 2018
REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR
THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2017 TO DECEMBER 31, 2017
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11534.
D. Consideration of the adoption of a resolution declaring costs to be assessed for current
services performed for weed elimination from private property and removal or elimination of
public health or safety hazards from private property. (S.R. No. 144)
RESOLUTION NO. 11535
RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR
WEED ELIMINATION FROM PROVATE PROPERTY AND REMOVAL
OR ELIMINATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY HAZARDS FROM
PRIVATE PROPERTY
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11535.
E. Consideration of the adoption of a resolution declaring costs to be assessed for unpaid false
alarm user fees against private property. (S.R. No. 145)
RESOLUTION NO. 11536
RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR
UNPAID FALSE ALARM FEES FROM PROVATE PROPERTY
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11536.
F. Consideration of the adoption of a resolution approving eligible deferral of special
assessments against an owner occupied property. (S.R. No. 146)
RESOLUTION NO. 11537
RESOLUTION APPROVING ELIGIBLE DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS AGAINST OWNER OCCUPIED HOMESTEAD
PROPERTIES IN HARDSHIP CASES FOR QUALIFYING OWNERS
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11537.
G. Consideration of the adoption of a resolution designating the City's contribution towards
health, dental, term life, and disability insurance premiums for 2019 for General Services,
Management, Fire bargaining unit, Police bargaining unit, Sergeant bargaining unit, and
Lieutenant bargaining unit. (S.R. No. 147)
RESOLUTION NO. 11538
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD
HEALTH, DENTAL, TERM LIFE, AND DISABILITY INSURANCE
PREMIUM FOR GENERAL SERVICES, MANAGEMENT, FIRE, AND
POLICE EMPLOYEES
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11538.
H. Consideration of the adoption of a resolution authorizing acceptance of Office of Traffic Safety
(OTS) funds for an extension on an original four-year grant to fully fund an officer and fully
equipped squad car dedicated for DWI enforcement in Richfield. (S.R. No. 148)
Council Meeting Minutes -5- September 11, 2018
RESOLUTION NO. 11539
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY/POLICE TO ACCEPT GRANT MONIES FROM THE OFFICE
OF TRAFFIC SAFETY IN THE AMOUNT OF $91,246 OR A LESSER
AMOUNT, AS AWARDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, TO FUND A POLICE OFFICER AND FULLY EQUIPPED
SQUAD DEDICATED TO DWI ENFORCEMENT
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11539.
I. Consideration of the approval of the 2018-2019 contract with the City of Bloomington, using
public health emergency preparedness grant funds distributed by a federal grant from the
Centers for Disease Control, to provide services in the area of public health emergency
preparedness/bio-terrorism and the development of a response system. (S.R. No. 149)
J. Consideration of the approval of the continuation of an agreement with the City of Bloomington
for the provision of food inspection services for Richfield for 2019. (S.R. No. 150)
K. Consideration of the approval of a request for the temporary expansion of the licensed
premises for Davanni's, located at 6345 Penn Avenue South, to allow for the outside service
of strong beer on Sunday, September 16, 2018, in conjunction with Richfield's Open Streets at
Penn Fest event. (S.R. No. 151)
L. Consideration of the approval of a request for the temporary expansion of the licensed
premises for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Fireside Foundry, located at 6736 Penn
Avenue South, to allow for the outside service of strong beer in their parking lot on Sunday,
September 16, 2018, in conjunction with Richfield's Open Streets at Penn Fest event. (S.R.
No. 152)
M. Consideration of the approval of a Temporary On Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the
Richfield Foundation's Wine Tasting event to take place on Thursday, October 11, 2018, in the
atrium area of Woodlake Center, located at 6601 Lyndale Ave South. (S.R. No. 153)
N. Consideration of the approval of the first reading of an ordinance rezoning properties between
Taft Park and 65th Street, and 16th Avenue and Richfield Parkway as Planned Multi-Family
Residential (PMR). (S.R. No. 154)
O. Consideration of the approval of an Amendment to the Agreement for Management Services
with Wheel Fun Rentals, LLC to continue management services for Malt-T-Melt Mini-Golf.
(S.R. No. 155)
M/Elliott, S/Trautmann to approve the consent calendar.
Motion carried 4-0.
Item #7
CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR
None.
Item #8
CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROVAL OF THE FIRST READING OF AN
ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW CITY CODE SECTION 409 RELATING
TO THE SALE OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING AND ESTABLISHING
NOTICE AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW
OWNERS AND SCHEDULING A SECOND READING ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2018.
(S.R. NO. 156)
Council Meeting Minutes -6- September 11, 2018
Council Member Howard presented Staff Report No. 156.
Community Development Director Stark stated staff and the City Council received feedback
yesterday evening from Richfield’s community housing team and many suggestions were technical or
clarifying in nature and staff believes they can be incorporated into the final document. Some items
were substantive in nature and would require policy direction from the Council.
Mayor Elliott asked about the process of substantive changes getting incorporated prior to the
second reading.
City Attorney Tietjen stated staff can reach out to Council Members to provide feedback.
Council Member Howard thanked the renters and staff for making sure this proposal fit with
Richfield.
Community Development Director Stark stated the biggest issue with this ordinance is finding
out when properties are sold and staff is working with Hennepin County to create a process to
address the issue.
Council Member Howard discussed our work and the work of other cities and continuing this
work.
Council Member Regan Gonzalez discussed having regular conversations with residents on
this topic and ensuring we are using every tool possible to assist our homeowners and renters. She
stated this is one set of tools of a number the City is looking at.
Council Member Trautmann discussed the growth of wealth for homeowners based on
increase in property values in Richfield and that renters do not see this growth. He commented this is
a good step to assist renters.
M/Howard, S/Elliott to approve the first reading of an ordinance adopting a new City Code
Section 409 relating to the sale of affordable rental housing and establishing notice and relocation
assistance requirements for new owners and schedule a second reading on the ordinance for
September 25, 2018.
Motion carried 4-0.
Item #9
CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE
CONCEPT OF ALLOWING STRONG BEER, SPIRITS AND WINE TO BE
SOLD, FOR OFF PREMISE CONSUMPTION, AT ANY OUTLET OTHER THAN
THE MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES. (S.R. NO. 157)
Council Member Trautmann presented Staff Report No. 157.
M/Trautmann, S/Elliott to adopt a resolution to oppose the concept of allowing strong beer,
spirits and wine to be sold, for off premise consumption, at any outlets other than the municipal liquor
stores.
RESOLUTION NO. 11540
RESOLUTION OPPOSING ALLOWING STRONG BEER, SPIRITS AND
WINE IN OTHER OUTLETS THAN THE MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
Council Meeting Minutes -7- September 11, 2018
Motion carried 4-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11540.
Council Member Regan Gonzalez commented that in 2018 contributed $45,000 to park
maintenance, $5,000 to Wood Lake Nature Center, $300,000 to the ice arena, and $100,000 to the
park master plan. She stated this money helps ensure we have a thriving parks system.
Item #10
CONSIDERATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF YOUTH MEMBERS TO CITY
ADVISORY BOARD/COMMISSIONS. (S.R. NO. 158)
Council Member Regan Gonzalez presented Staff Report No. 158.
M/Regan Gonzalez, S/Trautmann to appoint persons to fill vacant youth terms on City
advisory board/commissions, as follows:
Advisory Board of Health – Ruth Kiflu
Arts Commission – Deborah Cooper
Community Services Commission – Ava Noack
Community Services Commission – Andy Soto
Human Rights Commission – Luz Luna Apodaca
Human Rights Commission – Deandra Davis
Transportation Commission – Jack Wold
Transportation Commission – Francine Legba
Motion carried 4-0.
Item #11
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE 2018 REVISED/2019 PROPOSED
BUDGET RESOLUTIONS ADOPTING THE 2019 PRELIMINARY
PROPERTY TAX LEVY, SETTING TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING DATE,
AUTHORIZING BUDGET REVISIONS, AND AUTHORIZING REVISION OF
2018 BUDGET OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS. (S.R. NO. 159)
Council Member Regan Gonzalez presented Staff Report No. 159.
Finance Director Regis delivered a presentation that included the budget timeline, key budget
issues for 2019, history of state aid, proposed 2019 gross levy, gross tax levy history, 2019 proposed
budget, general fund revenues, and general fund expenditures.
City Manager Devich provided a brief explanation of the levy impact on an average home by
explaining tax capacity, tax capacity rate, and a homeowners property taxes.
Council Member Regan Gonzalez asked staff to describe how the value of a home is
determined.
City Manager Devich stated that the market value of a person’s home is determined by the
County Assessor, not the City. If residents have an issue with the increase in the value of their home
they can talk to the County in the spring during the open book process.
Council Member Trautmann asked to elaborate on the fact that these are preliminary
numbers.
Council Meeting Minutes -8- September 11, 2018
City Manager Devich stated that these are estimates based on what information we have at
this time. He also stated that the budget meeting from September 5 will be available online in the near
future for residents to watch.
M/Regan Gonzalez, S/Elliott to adopt resolutions establishing the 2019 preliminary property
tax levy and proposed date for the Truth in Taxation hearing, authorizing budget revisions, and
authorizing revision of 2018 budget of various departments.
RESOLUTION NO. 11541
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET AND TAX LEVY
FOR THE YEAR 2019
RESOLUTION NO. 11542
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BUDGET REVISIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 11543
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2018 BUDGET OF
VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS
Motion carried 4-0. These resolutions appear as Resolution No. 11541, 11542, and 11543.
Item #12
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Devich stated he had nothing to report.
Item #13
CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
M/Elliott, S/Regan Gonzalez that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
U.S. Bank 08/28/18
A/P Checks: 270519 - 270897 $ 2,007,220.49
Payroll: 138936 - 139311 ; 42807 - 42868 699,205.80
TOTAL $ 2,706,426.29
U.S. Bank 09/11/18
A/P Checks: 270898 - 271251 $ 992,331.26
Payroll: 139312 - 139669 634,140.79
TOTAL $ 1,626,472.05
Motion carried 4-0.
OPEN FORUM
None.
Item #14
CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 13D.05,
SUBD. 3(C)(2) TO DISCUSS PROTECTED NONPUBLIC APPRAISAL DATA
Council Meeting Minutes -9- September 11, 2018
(CLASSIFIED PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 13.44, SUBD.
3(A)) ON THE MOTEL 6 PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7636 CEDAR AVENUE
SOUTH, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, AND A CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO
MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 13D.05, SUBD. 3(B) FOR AN ATTORNEY-
CLIENT PRIVILEGED DISCUSSION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE LAST WRITTEN
OFFER TO BE MADE PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION
117.031.
Mayor Elliott moved the meeting to closed session at 8:20 p.m.
The City Council reconvened the meeting at 9:11 p.m.
Item #15
CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
77TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS FINAL LAYOUT DATED OCTOBER 2017 AND
THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE PRIVATE PROPERTY AS
REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 77TH STREET/RICHFIELD
PARKWAY PROJECT. (S.R. NO. 160)
Mayor Elliott presented Staff Report No. 160.
M/Elliott, S/Regan Gonzalez to adopt a resolution approving the 77th Street Improvements
Final Layout dated October 2017 and the use of eminent domain to acquire private property as
required for the construction of the 77th Street/Richfield Parkway Project.
RESOLUTION NO. 11544
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 77TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS
FINAL LAYOUT AND USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE
PRIVATE PROPERTY AS REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE 77TH STREET/RICHFIELD PARKWAY PROJECT
Motion carried 4-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11544.
Item #16
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:12 p.m.
Date Approved: September 25, 2018
Pat Elliott
Mayor
Jared Voto Steven L. Devich
Executive Aide/Analyst City Manager
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #4.A.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 161
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
9/25/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jay Henthorne, D irector Of P ublicS afety/C hief of P olice
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
9/18/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
9/19/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consideration of the approval of a contract renewal with Adesa Minneapolis for 2018-2019 for
auctioning forfeited vehicles from Public Safety/Police.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Adesa is a company used by the Public Safety Department to store and auction-off seized vehicles. The City
currently has a contract with Adesa and would like to renew the contract for the year 2018-2019.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve the renewal of the 2018-2019 auction service contract between the City of
Richfield and Adesa Minneapolis, for the auctioning of forfeited vehicles from Public Safety/Police.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
Adesa's performance during the past year of the contract period was satisfactory. They auction
forfeiture vehicles for many cities, including the City of Bloomington.
Adesa Minneapolis has submitted the new contract for 2018-2019. No changes were made to the
services they provide.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Adesa Minneapolis notified the City that they wish to renew their contract with the City.
The Public Safety Department wishes to renew the contract with Adesa Minneapolis. The contract
has numerous conditions that must be met.
Adesa Minneapolis is a reputable, established auction company that meets all contract
requirements.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
A 30-day written notice must be given by either party to terminate the contract.
Public Safety must have a company to store and auction forfeited vehicles.
Adequate space is not available in the City to store forfeited vehicles.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
There is no financial impact.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the past contract with Adesa Minneapolis and there
are no contract changes under the new contract.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Do not approve the contract; however, Public Safety would need to find other means to auction forfeited
vehicles.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
A greement C ontract/A greement
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
AND ADESA MINNEAPOLIS
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 23rd day of October, 2018 by and
between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 6700 Portland Ave.,
S., Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (hereinafter referred to as the “City”), and ADESA Minnesota,
LLC dba ADESA Minneapolis, a Minnesota limited, liability company with its principle business
offices located at 18270 Territorial Road, Dayton, Minnesota 55369 (hereinafter referred to as
“ADESA”).
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the City comes into possession of and is authorized to retain various motor
vehicles which are identified as potentially being subject to forfeiture of other civil processes
under the laws of the State of Minnesota as a result of their having been used in the connection
with a criminal act (hereinafter referred to as “Forfeiture Vehicles”) and upon successful
completion of the forfeiture or civil process the City is authorized to dispose of said vehicles in
accordance with Section 315 of the Richfield City Code; and
WHEREAS, ADESA represents that it has the professional expertise and knowledge to
perform its duties as an automobile dealer, and is licensed by the State of Minnesota in that
capacity; and
WHEREAS, THE City desires to hire ADESA to transport, store, repair, maintain and
sell its Forfeiture Vehicles;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions expressed herein,
the parties agree as follows:
I. TERM OF AGREEMENT
The term of this Agreement shall begin October 23, 2018 and shall continue until
December 31, 2019, subject to termination as provided in Article IV.
II. DUTIES OF ADESA
A. Upon specific authorization from the City, ADESA agrees to drive or transport
those vehicles identified by the City as one of its Forfeiture Vehicles to a secure location to be
determined and managed by ADESA.
B. Upon receipt of a City Forfeiture Vehicle and except for fire, storm, flood, war,
civil disturbance, riot, act of God, lightning, earthquake, or other similar casualty, which is not
within the control of ADESA or any act/omission of City or its officers, employees or agents,
ADESA accepts full responsibility for it and agrees to exercise due diligence in its care,
maintenance and storage of said vehicle until the time that it is sold or released; so as to avoid
waste and obtain a reasonable sale price at auction.
C. Upon specific authorization from the City, ADESA agrees to perform such minor
repair work on the City’s Forfeiture Vehicles so as to prepare them for auction and maximize the
City’s return at auction, but in no event shall such repair work exceed the cost of TWO
HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($200.00) without prior, written authorization by the
Richfield City Manager or his/her designee.
D. Upon specific authorization from the City, ADESA agrees to release the City’s
Forfeiture Vehicles prior to auction on such terms and conditions as the City may direct.
E. ADESA agrees to box and store personal property that is not affixed to, but
located within, the City’s Forfeiture Vehicles and upon specific authorization from the City to
release such property on such terms and conditions as the City may direct.
F. Upon specific authorization from the City, ADESA agrees to promptly sell the
City’s Forfeiture Vehicles in a commercially reasonable manner by an open and competitive
automobile dealer or salvage auction.
G. ADESA agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officials,
employees and agents from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses or
expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from ADESA’s (including its
officials, agents or employees) performance of the duties required under this Agreement,
provided that any such claim, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness,
diseases or death or to injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting
therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful
misconduct of ADESA.
H. During the term of this Agreement ADESA agrees to maintain general
comprehensive liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 for any damage to property, theft,
loss or other claims as a result of ADESA’s negligence or malfeasance in performing this
Agreement. In addition, ADESA agrees to maintain such motor vehicle liability insurance as
required by state and federal laws.
I. ADESA shall be licensed and bonded in the State of Minnesota to perform its duties
under this Agreement and shall provide a certificate of licensure, bonding and insurance to the
City.
J. ADESA agrees to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules
and regulations in the performance of the duties of this Agreement.
K. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in
any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between the parties hereto
or as constituting ADESA’s staff as the agents, representatives or employees of the City for any
purpose in any manner whatsoever. ADESA and its staff are to be and shall remain an
independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. ADESA
represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing
services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of ADESA or other persons, while
engaged in the performance of any work or services required by ADESA under this Agreement,
shall have no contractual relationship with the City and shall not be considered employees of
the City, and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers’ Compensation Act
of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and
any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or person or personnel arising out
of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, clams of discrimination
against ADESA, its officers, agents, contractors or employees shall in no way be the
responsibility of the City; and ADESA shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers,
agents and employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination
of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board commission or court. Such personnel or other persons
shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever
from the City, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and
vacation leave, Workers’ Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance
pay and PERA.
L. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures of the Contractor,
relevant to this Agreement, are subject to examination by the City, and either the legislative or
state auditor as appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05, Subdivision 5.
M. ADESA agrees to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and not discriminate on the basis of disability in
the admission or access to, or treatment of employm ent in its services, programs or activities.
ADESA agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City from, costs, including by not limited to
damages, attorney’s fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation
of ADA and/or Section 504 caused by the ADESA. Upon request, accommodation will be
provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all services, programs and
activities. The City has designated coordinators to facilitate compliance with the Americans
With Disabilities Act of 1990, as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice
regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
regulations.
N. The Contractor will comply with all applicable provisions of the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act., Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes.
O. Any Forfeiture Vehicles which ADESA has been authorized and directed to sell
but was unable to under the terms of this Agreement shall be returned to the City at a site
designated by it as soon as reasonably practicable but in no event more than sixty (60) days
from the occurrence of the event making sale under this Agreement impossible.
III. DUTIES OF THE CITY
A. The City shall consign specifically identified Forfeiture Vehicles to ADESA to
sell to the highest bidder at public dealer or salvage auctions.
B. The City shall certify that it has good title and right to sell those of its Forfeiture
Vehicles which it directs and specifically authorizes ADESA to sell at public dealer or salvage
auctions and shall provide and deliver merchantable title to the purchaser upon notification from
ADESA.
C. The City shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the ADESA, its officials,
employees and agents from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages losses or
expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the City’s performance of the
duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damages, loss or expense
is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, diseases or death or to injury to or destruction of
property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any
negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of City.
Notwithstanding the above, City shall also fully defend, indemnify and hold ADESA
harmless for and against any and all claims, expenses (including reasonable attorney’s fees),
suits and demands arising out of, based upon and resulting from alleged or actual damage
caused by the forfeiture process or from inaccuracy of the odometer reading on any Forfeiture
Vehicle prepared in connection with the sale at auction, unless such inaccuracy is caused by an
employee, agent or officer of ADESA.
D. The City shall pay to ADESA and ADESA shall deduct from the sale proceeds
of the Forfeiture Vehicle, the following amounts as and for its services properly authorized and
provided pursuant to this Agreement:
1. Transportation of an operable Forfeiture Vehicle to or from the City of Richfield to
ADESA’s designated storage site: $50.00.
2. Tow of an inoperable Forfeiture Vehicle (tow or trailer) to or from the City of Richfield to
ADESA’s designated storage site: Not to Exceed $100.00.
3. Basic cleaning of a Forfeiture Vehicle: $37.00.
4. Complete detail of a Forfeiture Vehicle (vacuum and shampoo carpets, detail interior,
etc.): $85.00.
5. Repair of a Forfeiture Vehicle: Shop Rates.
6. Sale by auction of a Forfeiture Vehicle: $125.00.
7. Release of a Forfeiture Vehicle prior to auction: $50.00 redemption, fee plus any
charges (i.e., transportation).
8. Storage fee if car is not sold within 90 days: $3.00/day.
9. Inventory fee for lease of personal property: $25.00.
IV. TERMINATION
Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon thirty (30) days advance
written notice to either party. The City reserves the right to cancel this Agreement at any time in
the event of default or violation by ADESA of any provision of this Agreement. The City may
take whatever action at law or in equity that may appear necessary or desirable to collect
damages arising from a default or violation or to enforce performance of this Agreement.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of
this Agreement shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to
this Agreement and signed by both parties.
B. This Agreement shall not be assignable except at the written consent of the
City.
C. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between ADESA and the City
and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between
the parties relating to the subject matter hereof; and amendments, addenda, alterations, or
modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by
both parties.
D. The parties agree to comply with the Minnesota State Human Rights Act,
Minnesota Statutes, Section 363.
E. The parties hereto agree to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973/31 CFR Part 51. This Act states in part that, “Gall recipients of federal funds, whether in
the form of a grant or a contract, review, and if necessary modify, their programs and activities
so that discrimination based on handicap is eliminated.”
F. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding on ADESA’s
successors and assigns and to the extent any assignee of ADESA.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
DATED: BY:
Director of Public Safety
DATED: BY:
ADESA MINNEAPOLIS
DATED: BY:
Its
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #4.B.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 162
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
9/25/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
9/18/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
9/19/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consideration of the approval of an agreement between the Hennepin County Human Services and
Public Health Department and the City of Richfield Police Department for continuing funds for a Police
Cadet and/or Community Service Officer position and Joint Community Police Partnership training in
2019.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Hennepin County has presented an agreement on behalf of the Hennepin County Human Services and
Public Health Department to furnish a Police Cadet and/or Community Service Officer (C S O) position for the
City of Richfield and its Police Department, along with multicultural training for department personnel. The
agreement is a continuation of the 2018 agreement and is for the period of J anuary 1 to December 31, 2019.
The funding from Hennepin County will not exceed $20,000 for 2019.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve an agreement between the Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health
Department and the City of Richfield Police Department for continuing funds for a Police Cadet and/or
Community Service Officer position and Joint Community Police Partnership training in 2019.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The Richfield Police Department has, in the past, hired a Police Cadet with the funding supplied
by Hennepin County. The Department plans on hiring a Cadet and/or C S O this year, and will
utilize the $15,000 funds budgeted in the contract for the salary expenses. The remaining $5,000
will be used to support the J oint Community Police Partnership (J C P P) program’s meetings and
trainings (Teen Academy, P MA C, Explorers) for the community.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Hennepin County notified the City that they wished to renew the contract with the City of
Richfield.
The Public Safety/Police Department wishes to renew the contract with Hennepin County for the
J oint Community Police Partnership program.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The agreement must be signed for the J oint Community Police Partnership program to continue
and for funding to be received.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The total cost of this agreement shall not exceed $20,000, to be paid by Hennepin County in
accordance with the terms of the agreement.
$5,000 is to be used for J C P P programs.
$15,000 is to be used as salary expense for a Cadet and/or Community Service Officer.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
There are no legal considerations.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
The Council may choose to not approve the contract; however, without the funding the Police
Department would then discontinue the J C P P program.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
A greement C ontract/A greement
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #4.C.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 163
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
9/25/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Melissa P oehlman, A sst. C ommunity D evelopment D irector
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: John S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
9/18/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
9/19/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consideration of the approval of a first reading of a Transitory Ordinance vacating 64th Street right-of-
way between 16th Avenue and Richfield Parkway and schedule a public hearing and second reading for
October 9, 2018.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
I n conjunction with site plan approvals related to the Cedar Point I I development, NHH Properties, LLC (the
"Developer") is requesting to vacate a portion of 64th Street between 16th Avenue and Richfield Parkway.
The eastern half of this section of road was removed when Richfield Parkway was constructed, the western
half is currently a dead end. The proposed multi-family project will remove any need for this roadway and all
utilities within and above the right-of-way will be relocated as part of the project.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve a first reading of a Transitory Ordinance vacating 64th Street right-of-way
between 16th Avenue and Richfield Parkway; and call for a public hearing and second reading to be
held October 9, 2018.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
64th Street currently provides access to a garage at 6401 16th Avenue. This property is owned
by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), currently vacant, and proposed to be sold to
the Developer.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The Council may by ordinance vacate a street, alley, public grounds, or a part thereof, on its own
motion or upon the petition of the owners half of the land abutting the street, alley, public grounds,
or part thereof to be vacated.
On J uly 16, 2018, the HRA approved submittal of a petition requesting the vacation of 64th Street
in the area of the proposed development.
No vacation may be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so.
The Developer will be responsible for the relocation of all utilities within and above the existing
right-of-way. All new utilities must be underground.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
60-D AY RUL E: The 60-day clock started when a complete application (including a legal description of
the area to be vacated) was received on September 13, 2018. The Council must render a decision or
extend this deadline (up to an additional 60 days) by November 12, 2018.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
Notice of the public hearing shall be published in the Sun Current newspaper, as required.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Deny a first reading, finding that the vacation would not be in the public interest.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Representative(s) of NHH Properties, L L C
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Ordinance Ordinance
P roposed Vacation A rea E xhibit
DRAFT
BILL NO.
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE VACATING PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENTS
(64TH STREET BETWEEN 16TH AVENUE AND RICHFIELD PARKWAY)
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1: The following described lands are subject to the easements as
described below for public street right-of-way purposes (“Street Easement”):
That part of East 64th Street as dedicated on the plat of, IVERSON’S SECOND
ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies easterly of the southerly extension
of the westerly line of Block 1 said IVERSON’S SECOND ADDITION; and which lies
westerly of the southerly extension of the easterly line of said Block 1.
Sec. 2: The City Council approved redevelopment plans for the properties
surrounding the “Street Easement” on September 25, 2018.
Sec. 3. The Street Easement is not required for access to the abutting properties.
Sec. 4: The following public facilities are located in the Street Easement: storm
sewer.
Sec. 5: The City has notified the service providers for gas, electric, telephone,
and cable communications services of the proposed vacation; the following facilities are
reported to be located in the Street Easement: telephone and cable.
Sec. 6: The Council finds that there is not a public need for the Street Easement.
Sec. 7. The City of Richfield held the first reading on September 25, 2018 and
second reading on October 9, 2018. Legal notice was published in the City’s official
newspaper as required by ordinance.
Sec. 8: The Street Easement is vacated conditioned upon the dedication of
drainage and utility easements in the plat.
Sec. 9: The vacation of the Street Easement is effective 30 days following
publication of the ordinance.
Sec. 10: The City Clerk is directed to prepare a certificate of completion of
vacation proceedings and to record the vacation in the office of the Hennepin County
Registrar of Titles or Hennepin County Recorder, as appropriate.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this _________,
2018.
__________________________________
Pat Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #4.D.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 164
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
9/25/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Russ L upkes, Utilities S uperintendent
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector
9/18/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
9/19/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consideration of the adoption of a resolution certifying delinquent water, sanitary sewer, and storm
water charges to the Hennepin County Auditor to be included in the property owner's annual property
tax bill.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Minnesota State Statute 444.075 and Chapter V I I of the Richfield Code of Ordinances provides that
delinquent water, sanitary sewer, and storm water charges may be certified to the County Auditor to be
included in a property owner ’s annual property tax bill. The City Code also authorizes a certification fee to be
charged against each delinquent account. By certifying the delinquent charges to the property taxes, the City
is assured of collection of the charges. The pending delinquent 2018 utility charges total $462,137.82 for 904
accounts.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Adopt a resolution certifying delinquent water, sanitary sewer, and storm water charges to
the Hennepin County Auditor to be included in the property owner's annual property tax bill.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
Below is a history of certified amounts since 2011:
2011 - Certification totaled $298,977.55 for 591 properties.
2012 - Certification totaled $312,060.07 for 572 properties.
2013 - Certification totaled $295,213.77 for 561 properties.
2014 - Certification totaled $306,712.27 for 544 properties.
2015 - Certification totaled $355,454.74 for 570 properties.
2016 - Certification totaled $282,839.33 for 541 properties.
2017 - Certification totaled $352,654.03 for 565 properties.
2018 - Certification currently totals $462,137.82 for 904 properties.
Staff expects that, as in years past, many of the now delinquent accounts will be paid before
certification.
Throughout the year, the Utilities Division bills and collects charges for water, sanitary sewer, and
storm water from accounts within the City. Accounts are billed quarterly.
A penalty of 8% is applied to unpaid balances quarterly.
The delinquent accounts must be certified to the County Auditor in order for the City to collect the
charges through the property tax process.
A $50 certification fee is added to each certified account.
The certified amount is spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8% per annum.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Minnesota State Statute 444.075 and Chapter V I I of the Richfield Code of Ordinances provide
that unpaid water, sanitary sewer, and storm water charges may be certified to the county auditor
to be included in a property owner ’s annual property tax bill.
A First Notice of Certification to Property Taxes (attached) was mailed on August 13, 2018 to
Richfield property owners with delinquent accounts.
A final second notice will be mailed on September 26, 2018 to Richfield property owners with
delinquent accounts.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
To prepay the delinquent amount and avoid certification, the entire past due amount must be paid
by October 31, 2018, as stated in the attached First Notice of Certification to Property Taxes and
forthcoming final second notice.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The pending delinquent 2018 utility charges are $462,137.82, compared to $453,698.36 at the
same time last year.
I n 2017, the City ultimately certified $352,654.03, because some property owners paid their
delinquent bills prior to the October 31 deadline.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be available to answer questions.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution Resolution L etter
F irst Notice of C ertification to P roperty Taxes B ackup Material
C ertification L egal Notice B ackup Material
RESOLUTION NO. _______
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATION OF UNPAID WATER, SANITARY
SEWER, AND STORM WATER CHARGES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO BE
COLLECTED WITH OTHER TAXES ON SAID PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 705 establishes rules, rates, and charges for
sanitary sewer service in the City of Richfield and provides that all delinquent accounts
for sewer and water services may be certified against the properties served, including
an added certification charge; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 715 establishes rules, rates, and charges for water
service in the City of Richfield and provides that all delinquent accounts for water
services may be certified against the properties served; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 720 establishes rules, rates, and charges for storm
water service in the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 444.075 provides that unpaid charges for water,
sanitary sewer, and storm water services may be certified to the county auditor with
taxes against the property served for collection as other taxes are collected; and
WHEREAS, the certification list has been prepared specifying the amount that
shall be certified against each particular property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
1. There is hereby determined to be a total uncollected amount for water, sanitary
sewer, and storm water service of $462,137.82.
2. That a $50 certification charge shall be levied against each delinquent account,
such charges totaling $45,200.00.
3. That the above-described certification list be spread over a period of one year at
the rate of 8% per annum.
4. That such amount be hereby certified to the County Auditor for collection with
other taxes on said properties.
5. That a copy of the resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 25th day of
September, 2018.
Pat Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
City of Richfield
August 13, 2018 Utilities Division
Property Owner Address Line 1 Property ID: Tax Roll Numeric
Property Owner Address Line 2 Account #: Account Number
Property Owner Address Line 3 Customer #: Customer Number
Property Owner Address Line 4 Tenant/Owner: Customer Name
Property Owner Address Line 5 Service Addr: Service Address
Property Owner Address Line 6 Past Due Amt: Current WO Balance
Subject: **FIRST NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION TO 2017 PROPERTY TAXES**
Dear Richfield Utility Customer:
Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes, the City of Richfield certifies all delinquent (water, wastewater,
storm water) charges to the Hennepin County annual property tax roll.
Your unpaid water utility balance is scheduled to be certified to your 2019 Hennepin County property
taxes. To prepay these delinquent charges and to avoid certification, please pay the entire past due
amount by October 31, 2018. Failure to pay the entire past due amount will result in an additional 8%
interest charge and a $50.00 service fee when applied to your 2019 property taxes.
If you have recently paid your past due water bill, thank you and please disregard this notice.
Contact the Utility Billing Division at 612-861-9164 or 612-861-9165 if you have any questions
regarding your past-due amount or processing procedures.
Información Importante: Si usted no entiende el contenido de esta carta, alguien tendrá que
traducirla para usted. ¡Gracias!
Please return this portion with your payment.
Payment must be received by October 31, 2018 to avoid certification to your 2019 property taxes.
Mail payment to: City of Richfield, Utility Payments, 6700 Portland Ave S, Richfield, MN 55423
Account Number: Account Number Past Due Amount: Current WO Balance
Customer Number: Customer Number Tenant/Owner: Customer Number
Property ID: Tax Roll Numeric Service Address: Service Address
Property Owner:
(if different from above)
Date: __________________________ Amount Paid:________________________
CITY OF RICHFIELD
NOTICE
DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS TO BE CERTIFIED TO PROPERTY TAXES
Minnesota Statute 444.075 and Chapter VII of the Richfield Code of Ordinances
provides that unpaid water and sewer charges may be certified to the County
Auditor to be included in a property owner’s annual property tax bill. The City
Code also authorizes a $50.00 certification fee to be charged against each
delinquent account. By certifying the delinquent charges to the property taxes for
the delinquent properties, the City is assured of ultimately collecting the
delinquent charges.
For 2018, there are presently 1009 utility accounts that remain unpaid and are to
be certified at the September 25, 2018 City Council meeting. The total to be
certified to the 2019 property tax roll, including the certification fee, is
$518,158.35. For more information contact Kristin Asher at (612) 861-9795 or
email kasher@richfieldmn.gov.
Publish September 6, 2018
(Legal section)
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #4.E.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 165
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
9/25/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: W illiam F illmore, L iquor Operations D irector
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: W illiam F illmore, L iquor Operations D irector
9/20/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
9/20/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consideration of the approval of rejecting all bids for roof replacement, mechanical cooling units and
related electrical work for the municipal liquor store at 7700 Lyndale S.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
City staff is recommending that Council reject all bids for the roof replacement, mechanical cooling units and
related electrical work at the municipal liquor store at 7700 Lyndale Avenue S.
As part of the on-going infrastructure review, city maintenance staff and W OLD Architectural evaluations
indicated that the roof and roof-top mechanical cooling units at the municipal liquor store at 7700 Lyndale
Avenue S were in need of replacement. The advertisement for bids for roof replacement, roof cooling units
and related electrical work was published on September 6 and 13, 2018. Three contractors submitted bids
that were publicly opened on September 18, 2018.
Prior to going out for bids, it was estimated that the cost of these repairs would range from $250,000 to
$275,000. The apparent low bid for this contract came in at $314,00, or $39,000 over what staff had
estimated the work would cost. W ith other repairs needed at the Lyndale Store, such as the immediate
replacement need for the camera security system, there are not enough funds available to perform the
contract now with the inclusion of the additional $39,000 or so above our estimates. Therefore, we are asking
approval to reject all bids and reevaluate what work might need to be done in 2018 and what might be
postponed into 2019.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Reject all bids submitted for the roof replacement, mechanical cooling units replacement
and related electrical work at the municipal liquor store at 7700 Lyndale Avenue S.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
T he city maintenance staff and WOL D Architectural evaluated the roof and mechanicals
and indicated that based upon the age of the roof and equipment, both were in need of
replacment.
The municipal liquor store at 7700 Lyndale is 21 years old and has had some roof and mechanical
failures recently.
Local contractors that have done work for city in the past evaluated the project cost at $275,000.
An advertisement inviting bidders for the project was published on September 6th and 13th, 2018.
Three contractors submitted bids for the advertised invitation to bid and were publicly opened on
September 18,2018.
All three bids were higher that initial cost estimate. (See attached bid form).
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The City has the authority to reject all bids.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Formal rejection of the bids should occur in a timely manner in order for the contractors to plan
their seasonal workload.
The mechanical cooling units are the most critical component in the project and could be replaced
prior to unseasonable weather and roof replacement could be postponed and planned for 2019 or
beyond.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
Cost associated with rejecting the bids and re-bidding the project will be minimal.
Funds for Capital I mprovements are limited at this time and there are several other improvement
projects currently in progress at the 7700 Lyndale liquor location.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The City Attorney has been consulted regarding this situation and is available to answer questions.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
N/A
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
N/A
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
B id Tabulation B ackup Material
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
September 18, 2018
2:00 p.m.
Richfield 77th & Lyndale Liquor – 2018 work
Bid No. 18-08
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Elizabeth
VanHoose, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive; open and read aloud
bids for Richfield 77th & Lyndale Liquor – 2018 work as advertised in the official newspaper on September 6th,
2018.
Present: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
Dave Conrads, Government Buildings
Bill Fillmore, Liquor Operations Director
Jared Voto, City Manager Representative
Mike Klass, Architect
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Bidder’s Name
Addendum
1, 2
Bid
Security
Responsible
Bidder
Total Base Bid
Derau Contrustruction
Burnsville, MN
Provided Provided Provided $325,400.00
Ebert Construction
Corcoran, MN
Provided Provided $314,000.00
Dering Pierson Group LLC
Rogers, MN
Provided Provided $344,700.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the September 25,
2018 City Council Meeting.
_______________________
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM #6.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 166
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
9/25/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Matt B rillhart, A ssociate P lanner
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: John S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
9/18/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
9/19/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Public hearing and consideration of the adoption of a resolution revoking a conditional use permit for
Lakes Buffet restaurant at 6601 Nicollet Avenue.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
In May 2017, the Council approved a conditional use permit and variances for a buffet restaurant at
6601 Nicollet Avenue. Per the conditions of that approval, Lakes Buffet was considered as a
'preexisting restaurant site', as Old Country Buffet had operated in that space for many years prior to
closing in 2016. City ordinances regarding commercial kitchen odor control state that for preexisting
restaurant sites abutting residential property, "[when] augmenting cooking equipment and/or
intensifying odor emissions, shall provide plans for a professionally-designed odor control remedy
and a statement by a structural engineer that the building design could accommodate the planned
odor control and associated screening in the future. Subsequent complaints of odor impacts may
result in the requirement that the planned odor control device be installed."
Time line :
Shortly after Lakes Buffet opened in December 2017, the City began to receive complaints from the
surrounding neighborhood regarding nuisance cooking odors. After several unique complaints were
received, on April 26, 2018 City staff notified Lakes Buffet of the requirement to install odor control
equipment within 90 days. A second notice was sent on June 13, reminding Lakes Buffet of the July
26 deadline to complete installation. Shortly after the deadline had passed, a Mechanical Permit
application was submitted to the Inspections Division on August 3. Since a permit had been issued,
City staff granted a 30 day extension, with a new deadline of August 26 to complete the work. T hat
deadline has now passed, and the City has received no further communication from Lakes Buffet
management as to when installation is expected to occur. T he City has continued to receive
complaints of nuisance cooking odors. In the absence of progress and due to the lack of
communication from Lakes Buffet management, the Community Development Director has decided
to refer the matter to the City Council, rather than issue any further deadline extensions. On
September 7, staff sent a notice stating that noncompliance with City ordinances would result in
revocation of the conditional use permit which allows the restaurant to operate, and informed Lakes
Buffet of the public hearing date.
Zoning Code procedures for rev oking a conditional use pe rmit:
If a conditional use permit is revoked, all uses and activities which are permitted only by such
conditional use permit shall immediately cease. In addition, all other licenses and permits
issued by the City which require, as a condition of their issuance, the existence of the
conditional use permit, shall be subject to termination in the manner set forth in the City Code
or other applicable law.
The Council may, in lieu of revocation, permit the conditional use permit to continue subject to
such further or additional terms and conditions as in its judgment are necessary to insure
compliance. T he Council's written findings and determination shall be mailed to the persons
who were mailed the Director's notice of violation.
At this time, staff recommends adoption of a resolution revoking the conditional use permit, effective
on October 26, 2018. Delaying revocation by 30 days allows Lakes Buffet one final extension to
install an odor control system. If installation is completed and inspected by the City by October 25,
the conditional use permit will not be revoked. If Lakes Buffet is able to provide confirmation at the
hearing that the odor control equipment has been ordered, but installation is scheduled to take place
after October 25, the Council may wish to amend the effective date stated in the resolution.
If installation is not completed before October 26, the restaurant will be forced to close immediately.
Reopening a restaurant at this property would require approval of a new conditional use permit - a
process which typically takes 8-10 weeks to get approvals from the Planning Commission and City
Council.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Adopt a resolution revoking the conditional use
permit for a restaurant at 6601 Nicollet Avenue. Revocation would be effective on October 26, 2018 if
the terms of the resolution are not met.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
Prior to opening for business in December 2017, Lakes Buffet submitted applications for a
conditional use permit to operate a restaurant, and for a variance from the City's Commercial
Kitchen Odor Control ordinance.
Because the former Old Country Buffet space at 6601 Nicollet Avenue had been vacant for more
than one year, City ordinances considered Lakes Buffet as a 'new restaurant site', rather than a
'preexisting restaurant site'.
The City Council granted a variance which allowed Lakes Buffet to be considered as a
'preexisting restaurant site' under City Code Section 544.27 - Commercial Kitchen Odor Control.
W hile new restaurant sites abutting residential property are required to install odor control
equipment, preexisting restaurant sites are instead required to provide plans for a professionally-
designed odor control remedy. Section 544.27 further states that "subsequent complaints of odor
impacts may result in the requirement that the planned odor control device be installed."
Staff recommended approval of Lakes Buffet's variance request to be considered 'preexisting',
based on the history of Old Country Buffet having operated in that location for decades without
complaints of cooking odors.
Lakes Buffet management was fully aware of the requirement to provide plans for a future odor
control system, which they did provide along with the plans that were submitted to the I nspections
Division for Building Permit approval.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The following City Code sections are included as attachments to this report:
Commercial Kitchen Odor Control - Section 544.27
Revocation of conditional use permit - Section 547.09
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
None
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
Notice of this hearing was mailed to properties within 350 feet of the subject property and
published in the Sun Current Newspaper.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Council may continue consideration of a resolution revoking the conditional use permit to the October
9, 2018, City Council meeting.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Mid-America Group representative (property management) Lakes Buffet representative
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution Resolution L etter
C ity C ode S ections 544.27 and 547.09 B ackup Material
2017 C UP approval Resolution 11361 B ackup Material
Mailed correspondence to L akes B uffet B ackup Material
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REVOKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A RESTAURANT AT
6601 NICOLLET AVENUE S
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2017 the City Council approved Resolution No. 11361,
granting a conditional use permit and variances to allow the operation of a traditional /
cafeteria (class II) restaurant at property commonly known as 6601 Nicollet Avenue S,
legally described as:
Lots 10, 11, and 12 except road, GOODSPEED’S FIRST PLAT, Hennepin
County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 11361 stated that the City will “regulate this
[restaurant] use as a preexisting restaurant site as described in Subsection 544.27,
Subdivision 1, Part (c). The applicant shall provide plans for a professionally designed
odor control remedy and a statement by a structural engineer that the building design
could accommodate the planned odor control and associated screening in the future.
Subsequent complaints of odor impacts may result in the requirement that the planned
odor control device be installed”; and
WHEREAS, in the months of February – April 2018, the City received a series of
complaints regarding cooking odors impacting the surrounding neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2018, City staff notified restaurant management of the
requirement to install odor control equipment within 90 days, with a deadline of July 26,
2018; and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2018, a Mechanical Permit application was submitted
to the Inspections Division and City staff granted a 30-day extension, with a new
deadline of August 26, 2018 to complete installation of odor control equipment; and
WHEREAS, the original 90-day deadline and 30-day extension deadline have
now passed, and the City has received no further communication from Lakes Buffet
management as to when installation is expected to occur. The City has continued to
receive complaints of cooking odors impacting the surrounding neighborhood. On
September 7, 2018, City staff sent a notice stating that noncompliance with City
Ordinances would result in revocation of the conditional use permit which allows the
restaurant to operate, and informed Lakes Buffet of the public hearing date; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on September 25, 2018 to
hear testimony and consider revocation of the conditional use permit for a buffet
restaurant at 6601 Nicollet Avenue S; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the revocation of the conditional use
permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Effective on Friday, October 26, 2018, the conditional use permit is revoked
for a class II restaurant on the Subject Property legally described above, for
failure to install odor control equipment as described in City Council Staff
Report No. _____.
2. Should odor control equipment be installed per approved plans and pass
inspection by the Inspections Division prior to October 26, 2018, the
conditional use permit shall not be revoked.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of
September, 2018.
Pat Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
544.27.-Environmental Effects.
No activity or operation shall be established or maintained that by reason of its nature or manner
of operation will cause the emission of noise, odor, toxic or noxious fumes, smoke, dust or particulate
matter in such concentrations as to be detrimental to or endanger the public health, welfare, comfort or
safety, or cause injury to property or business.
Subd. 1.Commercial kitchen odor control.All properties that contain cooking apparatus which
necessitates the installation of a Type 1 Ventilation Hood (as required by State Building Code) and which
abut (or are located within 150 feet even if not abutting) existing and/or future residential property shall
mitigate or otherwise address the impact of odors as follows:
a)Adjacent to existing residential.New restaurant sites abutting or adjacent to existing
residential properties shall install professionally-designed odor control remedies;
b)Adjacent to future residential.New restaurant sites abutting or adjacent to future residential
development (either as a result of the Comprehensive Plan or an approved development plan)
shall provide plans for a professionally-designed odor control remedy and a statement by a
structural engineer that the building design could accommodate the planned odor control and
associated screening in the future. Subsequent complaints of odor impacts may result in the
requirement that the planned odor control device be installed.
c)Pre-existing restaurant sites.Pre-existing restaurant sites abutting or adjacent to either
existing or future residential development, which are augmenting cooking equipment and/or
intensifying odor emissions, shall follow the requirements of clause b above.
d)Administrative exemptions.The Community Development Director shall have the authority to
exempt uses from meeting the requirements of this Subdivision with a written finding that the
proposed commercial kitchen is for an institutional (or similar) use that will have limited hours
of operation and/or minimal usage.
(Amended, Bill No. 2015-2)
547.09.-Conditional use permits.
Subd. 13.Revocation of CUP.The Council may review conditional use permits periodically and may
revoke a permit upon violation of any condition of the permit.
The procedure for revocation set out in Subd. 14 of this Subsection shall be followed. If it is discovered
after approval of the conditional use permit that the City's decision was based at least in part on
fraudulent information, the Council may revoke the permit, modify the conditions, or impose additional
conditions.
Subd. 14.Procedure for revocation.The procedure for revocation of a conditional use permit shall be as
follows:
a)Complaint.The Director shall review any complaints received by the City or any other party involving
property which is subject to a conditional use permit, and shall determine whether, in the Director's
judgment a violation of the terms or conditions of any conditional use permit appears to have occurred.
b)Notice of apparent violation.If the Director determines that an apparent violation of such terms and
conditions exists, the Director shall cause a notice of violation to be mailed to the owner of the property
or owner's agent and to any other person known to the City to be conducting the use for which the
conditional use permit was granted. The notice shall:
i.Be in writing;
ii.State the violation or violations found to apparently exist and state the remedial actions which
must be taken to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of the conditional use
permit;
iii.Provide a reasonable time, but not less than ten (10) days, for the recipient to remedy the
violation or violations stated in the notice; and; and
iv.Inform the recipient that if the stated violations are not remedied within the stated time period,
the Director will request the Council to consider revocation of the conditional use permit.
c)Failure to comply.When notice has been given in accordance with "clause b" above and the recipient
has failed to correct the violations stated in the notice within the time allowed,the Director shall refer
the matter to the Council with a recommendation that a hearing be held to consider the revocation of
the conditional use permit. A copy of the Director's recommendation shall be mailed to the same
persons who previously were mailed the notice of violation.
d)Scheduling of hearing.A hearing shall be scheduled before the Council to consider revocation of the
conditional use permit. The date of the hearing shall be as soon as is reasonably convenient.
e)Notice of hearing.Upon the scheduling of the hearing, the Director shall furnish mailed notice of such
to the same persons who were mailed notice of the violation. The notice shall:
i.State the time, date and location of the hearing;
ii.Describe all violations, which will form the basis of the Director's recommendation to the
Council;
iii.Describe the recommendation which the Director intends to make to the Council with respect to
revocation; and
iv.Inform the recipient of its opportunity to be present at the hearing, to be represented by legal
counsel during the hearing, and to present testimony and evidence.
f)Public notice.The Director shall also provide a mailed notice containing the information described in
subclauses i, ii, and iii of "clause e" above to all other persons who would have been entitled to notice
had the hearing been to consider the granting of the conditional use permit.
g)Determination.At the conclusion of the hearing, or as soon thereafter as is reasonably possible, the
Council shall render its written decision. The decision shall state the terms and conditions of the
conditional use permit found to have been violated; and shall state the determination of the Council
with regard to revocation of the conditional use permit. The Council may, in lieu of revocation, permit
the conditional use permit to continue subject to such further or additional terms and conditions as in
its judgment are necessary to insure compliance with the conditional use permit. The Council's written
findings and determination shall be mailed to the persons who were mailed the Director's notice of
violation. If a conditional use permit is revoked, all uses and activities which are permitted only by such
conditional use permit shall immediately cease. In addition, all other licenses and permits issued by the
City which require, as a condition of their issuance, the existence of the conditional use permit, shall be
subject to termination in the manner set forth in the City Code or other applicable law.
Subd. 15.Other remedies for violation of CUP.In addition to the procedure set forth in Subd. 13 above,
the City may exercise, with or separately from such procedure, all and any other remedies and actions
available to the City including, but not limited to those contained in Sections 115 and 320 of the City
Code.
RESOLUTION NO 11361
RESOLUTION APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND VARIANCES
FORA RESTAURANT
AT 6601 NICOLLET AVENUE
WHEREAS an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
approval of a conditional use permit amendment and variances to allow a Class II
traditional cafeteria restaurant at property commonly known as 6601 Nicollet Avenue and
legally described as follows
Lots 10 11 and 12 except road GOODSPEED S FIRST PLAT Hennepin County
Minnesota
WHEREAS the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield held a public hearing and
recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit and variances at its April 24
2017 meeting and
WHEREAS notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current and mailed to
properties within 350 feet of the subject property on April 13 2017 and
WHEREAS the requested conditional use permit meets the requirements necessary for
issuing a conditional use permit as specified in Richfield s Zoning Code Subsection 547 09
and as detailed in City Council Staff Report No 74 and
WHEREAS the Zoning Code states that new restaurant sites abutting or adjacent to
existing residential properties shall install professionally designed odor control remedies
Subsection 544 27 Subd 1 and
WHEREAS the Zoning Code states that off street parking for shopping centers shall be
provided at a ratio of 3 5 spaces per 1 000 square feet of gross floor area and that restaurants
in shopping centers shall be calculated separately at a ratio of 10 spaces per 1 000 square
feet of gross floor area Subsection 544 13 Subd 6 and
WHEREAS Minnesota Statutes Section 462 357 Subdivision 6 provides for the
granting of variances to the literal provisions of the zoning regulations in instances where their
enforcement would cause practical difficulty to the owners of the property under
consideration and
WHEREAS based on the findings below the Richfield City Council approves the
requested variances from Richfield Zoning Code Subsections 544 27 Subd 1 and 544 13
Subd 6 and
WHEREAS the City has fully considered the request for approval of the conditional use
permit
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
Minnesota as follows
1 The City Council makes the following general findings
a The Property is zoned General Business C 2
b The Zoning Code states that new restaurant sites abutting or adjacent to existing
residential properties shall install professionally designed odor control remedies A
variance from Subsection 544 27 Subd 1 is necessary
c The Zoning Code states that off street parking for shopping centers shall be
provided at a ratio of 3 5 spaces per 1 000 square feet of gross floor area and that
restaurants in shopping centers shall be calculated separately at a ratio of 10
spaces per 1 000 square feet of gross floor area A variance from Subsection
544 13 Subd 6 is necessary
2 With respect to the application for variances from the above listed requirements the
City Council makes the following findings
a Strict enforcement of Richfield Zoning Code Subsection 544 27 Subd 1 would
cause a practical difficulty by requiring costly odor control equipment at a site that
has been a similar restaurant use for several decades and discontinued only
recently The Code establishes requirements for odor control equipment for
commercial kitchens that abut residential property and differentiates between new
and pre existing restaurant sites Because this space has been vacant for more than
one year all prior approvals for a restaurant have expired and the Code views this
as a new restaurant site rather than pre existing New restaurant sites must install
odor control equipment whereas pre existing sites are required to provide plans for
a professionally designed odor control remedy The applicant is requesting a
variance to be considered a pre existing site rather than a new restaurant site
Strict enforcement of Richfield Zoning Code Subsection 544 13 Subd 6 would
cause a practical difficulty The site as it exists today is in compliance with minimum
parking requirements However in 2018 Hennepin County will construct a
roundabout at the intersection of 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue requiring the
acquisition of right of way from this property This loss of property and subsequent
reconfiguring of the parking lot will result in a loss of approximately 13 parking
spaces Depending on the final configuration of the parking lot this will leave the
property anywhere from one to six spaces short of the minimum number required
b The intent of the odor control regulation is to protect neighbors from possible
nuisance created by cooking odors The restaurant use having been discontinued for
more than one year is a unique circumstance not created by the applicant Had this
restaurant user come in three months sooner they would have been considered a
pre existing site and odor control would not be required The pending loss of
parking spaces is a unique circumstance not created by the applicant
c Granting the requested variances will not alter the character of the neighborhood
The applicant will be required to comply with the odor control ordinance for pre
existing restaurant sites abutting residential property Subsequent complaints of odor
impacts may result in requiring that the planned odor control device be installed
With regards to parking adverse impacts are not anticipated On street parking is
allowed on 1st Avenue in the event there is a parking shortage However given the
existing mix of tenants in the shopping center staff does not anticipate that any
shortages will occur Furthermore the intersection of 66th Street and Nicollet
Avenue has the highest level of public transit service available in the City providing
a viable alternative to driving alone
d The variances requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical
difficulties
e The proposed variances do not conflict with the purpose or intent of the Ordinance
or Comprehensive Plan
3 Based on the above findings a variance is hereby approved to regulate this use as a
pre existing restaurant site as described in Subsection 544 27 Subivision 1 Part c
The applicant shall provide plans for a professionally designed odor control remedy and
a statement by a structural engineer that the building design could accommodate the
planned odor control and associated screening in the future Subsequent complaints of
odor impacts may result in the requirement that the planned odor control device be
installed
4 Based on the above findings a variance is hereby approved to reduce the off street
parking requirement for the Subject Property to not less than 100 stalls
5 A conditional use permit is issued to allow a Class II traditional cafeteria restaurant as
described in City Council Letter No 74 on the Subject Property legally described
above
6 This conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions in addition to those
specified in Section 547 09 of the City s Zoning Ordinance
That the recipient of this conditional use permit record this Resolution with the
County pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462 36 Subd 1 and the
City s Zoning Ordinance Section 547 09 Subd 8 A recorded copy of the
approved resolution must be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of an
occupancy permit
A revised complete site plan meeting all City requirements is required to be
submitted for approval by City staff within one year of this approval The
parking lot must be re striped in accordance with said plan including a
pedestrian connection substantially in compliance with Subsection 544 15
Bicycle parking for a minimum of 6 bikes 3 hoops posts is required near the
main entrance
The existing dumpster enclosure for the restaurant must be repaired to
comply with Subsection 544 05 and screening must be provided for the non
compliant dumpsters on the south side of the building All rooftop or ground
mechanical equipment must be screened per Subsection 544 05
Separate sign permits are required
The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits compliance
with all requirements detailed in the City s Administrative Review Committee
Report dated April 3 2017 and compliance with all other City and State
regulations
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit the applicant must submit a
surety equal to 125 of the value of any improvements and or requirements
not yet complete This surety shall be provided in the manner specified by
the Zoning Code
7 The conditional use permit and variances shall expire one year after issuance unless 1
the use for which the permit was granted has commenced or 2 Building permits have
been issued and substantial work performed or 3 Upon written request of the
applicant the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period not to exceed
one year Expiration is governed by the City Zoning Ordinance Section 547 09
Subdivision 9
8 This conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it
are observed and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use
has been discontinued for 12 or more months as required by the City s Zoning
Ordinance Section 547 09 Subd 10
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield Minnesota this 9th day of May 2017
Pat Elliott Mayor
ATTEST
C Or Yar
Elizabe VanHoose City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM #7.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 167
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
9/25/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Melissa P oehlman, A ssistant C D D irector
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: John S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
9/18/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
9/19/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Public hearing and consideration of the adoption of a resolution for a final plat of "Lyndale Gardens
2nd Addition" which will incorporate 6328 Aldrich Avenue and reconfigure existing lots and outlots of
the Lyndale Garden Center site to align with approved development plans.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The City Council approved land use plans for the former Lyndale Garden Center site and an adjacent single-
family home at 6328 Aldrich Avenue on J une 26, 2018. A preliminary plat approving the reconfiguration of the
development property was approved by the Council on J uly 10, 2018. The final plat, now under consideration,
is substantially similar with only technical modifications having been made.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Adopt a resolution for a preliminary plat of
"Lyndale Gardens 2nd Addition."
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
None
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
All plats or subdivisions of land must be approved by City Council resolution, pursuant to the
provisions of Minnesota State Statutes 462.357.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Per State Statute, the City has 120 days from the date of submittal of a complete application to
issue a decision regarding plat unless the applicant agrees to an extension.
A complete application was received on August 6, 2018. The Council must render a decision by
December 4, 2018.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
Notice of this public hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current newspaper.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Representative(s) of Lyndale Gardens LLC
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution Resolution L etter
F inal P lat E xhibit
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL
OF A FINAL PLAT FOR
LYNDALE GARDENS 2ND ADDITION
WHEREAS, Lyndale Gardens, LLC (“Applicant”) has requested approval of a
final plat that combines and resubdivides properties legally described in the attached
Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is to be known as LYNDALE GARDENS
2ND ADDITION; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the proposed final plat of LYNDALE
GARDENS 2ND ADDITION on Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at which all interested
persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, as follows:
1. The proposed plat of LYNDALE GARDENS 2ND ADDITION satisfies the
requirements of the City’s subdivision ordinances.
2. Final approval of the plat of LYNDALE GARDENS 2ND ADDITION is granted
with the following conditions:
a. The applicant must address to the City Attorney’s satisfaction all items
listed in the plat opinion letter prepared by the City Attorney’s office.
b. Easements described by Doc. Nos. 2928405 and 2917948 shall not be
vacated.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of
September, 2018.
Pat Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
Parcel A:
The South 45.00 feet of the North 225.00 feet of that part of Government Lot 3, Section
28, Township 28, Range 24, lying south of the south line of Lot 4, Block 2, Ray’s
Lyndhurst 2nd Addition, which lies between the southerly extension of the East line of
said Block 2 and the East line of the alley in said Block 2 and its southerly extension.
AND
Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Lyndale Gardens
AND
Outlot C, Lyndale Gardens
SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETSLYNDALE GARDENS 2ND ADDITIONDRAFTR.T. DOC. NO.
T2
8
NR24W28272122R24WT2
8
N
SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETSLYNDALE GARDENS 2ND ADDITIONSCALE IN FEET4020080For purposes of this plat theEast line of Government Lot3, Sec 28, T28, R24 isassumed to have a bearingof S 01°35'10" E.Denotes 1/2 inch by 14 inchIron Pipe set and marked byLicense No. 16679Denotes found HennepinCounty Cast Iron MonumentR.T. DOC. NO.T2
8
NR24W2827R24WT2
8
N
AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM #8.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 168
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
9/25/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Melissa P oehlman, A sst. C ommunity D evelopment D irector
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: John S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
9/18/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
9/19/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Continue the public hearing and consideration of a preliminary plat of the "Cedar Point II" Addition to
October 9, 2018.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
I n conjunction with an application for a Planned Unit Development (Cedar Point I I ), NHH Properties, LLC
(the "Applicant") will be re-platting the site. The plat will combine up to 29 parcels and vacated right-of-way to
allow for construction of a multi-family apartment and townhome project along the 6300 and 6400 blocks of
16th Avenue and Richfield Parkway. Negotiations with two of the three remaining private owners are
underway.I f negotiations are successful, the Applicant (NHH Properties, LLC) will be able to include these
properties in the preliminary plat and reduce additional work and permitting complications. For this reason,
the Applicant has requested that consideration be continued. A preliminary plat is required prior to the
issuance of building permits.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Continue the public hearing to consider a resolution for a preliminary plat of the "Cedar
Point II" Addition to October 9, 2018.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The development area is comprised of 29 individual parcels and 64th Street right-of-way between
16th Avenue and Richfield Parkway.
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) currently owns 18 of the 29 parcels, and upon
approval of a Contract for Private Development, will sell these parcels to NHH Properties, L L C
(Developer).
Of the 11 privately-owned parcels, the Developer has either purchased or has an agreement to
purchase 8 of the homes, and is currently negotiating with 2 owners.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
All plats or subdivisions of land in the City must be approved by council resolution pursuant to the
provisions of Minnesota State Statutes 462.357.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Per State Statute, the City has 120 days from the date of submittal of a complete application to
issue a decision regarding plat unless the applicant agrees to an extension.
A complete application was received on August 20, 2018. The Council must render a decision by
December 18, 2018.
A public hearing regarding vacation of the 64th street right-of-way is scheduled for October 9,
2018.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
Notice of this public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Representative(s) of NHH Properties, L L C
AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED
ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM #9.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 169
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
9/25/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Melissa P oehlman, A sst. C ommunity D evelopment D irector
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: John S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
9/18/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
9/19/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consideration of the approval of a variety of land use approvals related to a proposal to construct 218
apartments and 72 townhomes along 16th Avenue and Richfield Parkway between approximately Taft
Park and 65th Street.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
N H H Properties, LL C (the “Developer“) has assembled a team that is proposing to redevelop the
area south of Taft Park and immediately adjacent to the Cedar Point Commons commercial area as
multi-family housing. T his area has been a redevelopment priority for Richfield City Council for many
years as a result of airport expansion in the early 2000s.
T he proposed development includes 2, 4-story apartment buildings along Richfield Parkway and 18,
4-unit buildings of for-sale townhomes along 16th Avenue. T he development has been designed to
provide an enhanced buffer from the airport for the older, single-family homes to the west, but also to
create a cohesive neighborhood feel and transition between the existing homes and the new
development. A sidewalk and boulevard trees along 16th Avenue create a walkable and friendly
environment. Where possible, end townhome units have entrances facing 16th Avenue, as well as
sidewalk connections. While the orientation of the townhome driveways onto 16th Avenue will
significantly increase the traffic on this street, the traffic will remain below engineering thresholds for
road design or operations modifications. Staff is in favor of this orientation because it serves as way
to integrate the new development into the existing neighborhood, rather than create a new
development that is isolated from the existing homes. T he larger apartment buildings are oriented
toward the commercial development to the east, allowing surface parking to be hidden between the
two halves of the development and keeping that traffic primarily on Richfield Parkway. Additional
parking is provided beneath the two apartment buildings; parking is provided at ratios that meet
Code requirements.
T he development provides a number of amenities to its residents, including a pool, fitness center,
club rooms, and green space, but also provides attractive connections between the single-family
homes and the commercial district. T he proposal includes attractive streetscapes, a central plaza
offering a convenient route through the site to the commercial uses, public art at key intersections,
and a pocket park that will provide a convenient rest area for users of the T hree Rivers Trail.
T he City has been working to redevelop the Cedar Corridor area since the Minneapolis-St. Paul
Airport expanded in the early 2000s. A number of homes were purchased with State and Federal
Airport Noise Mitigation money, but both money and the market dried up and that work came to a
halt. Additional homes were purchased when this section of Richfield Parkway was constructed, but
many homeowners in the area have been waiting for years to be purchased. At the time this report is
being written, the Developer has purchase agreements for all but three of the remaining privately
owned homes, all on the southern half of the development area. T he owners of two of the three
properties are currently considering offers and the Developer will be prepared to update the City on
the status of these properties on September 25. If the Developer is unable to purchase these
remaining homes, townhome units could be built around those individual homes.
In conjunction with the proposed new construction, the Developer is proposing changes to 65th
Street intersections at Richfield Parkway and 16th Avenue. T he proposed changes are intended to
allow townhome residents to access the development via 16th Avenue, rather than just Richfield
Parkway. T he proposal will allow traffic to turn west from Richfield Parkway onto 65th Street, but the
roadway will be modified to slow traffic by narrowing the right-of-way (by providing on-street parking
bays) and installing a four-way stop at 65th Street and 16th Avenue. Cut-through commercial traffic
led to a roadway modification when Target and Home Depot initially opened. Since that time,
Richfield Parkway has been constructed and now provides a much more attractive route to enter
and exit the commercial area. A study of how traffic in the area is expected to flow is forthcoming.
Based on the information in this study, Engineering staff will work with the Developer on the specific
design of 65th Street.
Staff finds that the proposed project meets the intent of the Cedar Corridor Master Plan and Code
requirements, and therefore recommends approval of the proposed project.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion:
1. Approve an ordinance amending Appendix I of the Richfield City Code to change the zoning
designation of Blocks 1 and 2, Iversons 2nd Addition from MR-3 (High-Density Residential) to
P MR (Planned Multi-Family Residential).
2. Adopt a resolution approving a Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, and Final
Development Plan for a multi-family apartment and townhome development to be built on
property legally described as Blocks 1 and 2, Iversons 2nd Addition.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
This area was identified as a Redevelopment Area in 2000 as a result of a study concluding that
many of structures in the area would not be capable of withstanding the negative impacts of low
frequency noise.
I n 2004, the City adopted a Cedar Corridor Master Plan that called for high density housing in
this area, which would serve as a buffer to the remaining single-family homes to the west. This
Plan was revisited and refreshed in 2016.
Over the years the City has worked to encourage redevelopment of the site, but a financially
feasible development opportunity has not come forward.
I n the fall of 2017, NHH Properties and Boisclair Corporation approached the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and City Council with a proposal for redevelopment and in March
of 2018, the HRA signed a pre-development agreement with NHH Properties to construct 218
market-rate apartments and up to 80 townhomes that would be affordable to household earning
100/115 percent of the area median income.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Comprehensive Plan
This property has been envisioned as a multi-family housing site since the adoption of the Cedar
Corridor Master Plan in 2004. The proposed development layers the bulk of the site in accordance with
desires to buffer, but also appropriately transition to, the single-family neighborhood on the west side of
16th Avenue. As described in the Plan, the townhomes are oriented to to allow connections through the
site and to the adjacent commercial uses, while the orientation of the apartment buildings creates a more
solid buffer against the negative impacts of the airport. The site is designed to encourage interaction
between the townhome residents and the adjacent single-family residents by orienting end units to the
west and providing a sidewalk along 16th Avenue. This orientation is deliberate and intended to truly
weave the new units and residents into the existing fabric of the neighborhood.
Zoning
This area is currently zoned High-Density Residential (MR-3) and is within the Airport Runway Overlay
District. The applicant has requested that the property zoning be changed to a Planned Unit
Development District - Planned Multi-Family Residential (P MR). Planned unit developments are intended
to encourage the efficient use of land and resources and to encourage innovation in planning and
building. I n exchange for these efficiencies and superior design, flexibility in the application of
dimensional requirements is available. A full discussion of all applicable review criteria is provided as an
attachment to this report.
The following variations from standard requirements are requested:
Apartment height - The proposed apartment buildings exceed the maximum allowable height of
50 feet in the guiding MR-3 District.The varied elevation of the site, means that the actual height
from grade to roof varies significantly as one moves from along the length of the site (north/south).
The height of the 4 stories of living space is approximately 55 feet, similar to the approved
Chamberlain buildings south of 66th Street; however, in areas where the grade drops and the
underground parking ramp is partially exposed, the height of the building approaches 60 feet.
These areas are at the northern and southern ends of the development, along Richfield Parkway.
Setbacks - Setbacks have been reduced from the required 40 feet. This was a deliberate
decision that allows surface parking to be hidden between the two halves of the development.
Maximum lot coverage, outdoor open space - Approximately 40 percent of the site is covered
by building. This exceeds the 30 percent maximum in the MR-3 District, but is consistent with the
more-modern zoning districts (Mixed Use) that encourage larger buildings and less surface
parking. Nearly 25 percent of the site is dedicated to green space and over 80,000 square feet of
outdoor open space is provided, including plazas, public art areas, a pocket park, pool, and
outdoor decks (public and private). Additionally, the development is immediately adjacent to a
regional trail and Taft Park.
Ground floor windows or simulated windows - I n areas where the grade drops and the
underground parking structure is visible, there are currently blank walls. Staff has discussed this
with the applicant, and changes to either the building itself or the landscape/grade are required in
the attached resolution.
The purposes of the MR-3 District regulations are to reserve appropriately located areas for family living
in a variety of types of dwellings at a reasonable range of population densities; to preserve as many as
possible of the desirable characteristics of the single-family district, while permitting higher densities; to
provide space for semi-public facilities to complement urban residential areas; to minimize traffic
congestion; and generally, to provide multi-family residential areas that are safe and attractive. Finding
that the proposed development achieves these goals and the long-term goal of redeveloping this area as
something more compatible with the airport, staff recommends approval of the proposed plans.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
60-D AY RUL E: The 60-day clock 'started' when a complete application was received on August
17, 2018. A decision is required by October 16, 2018 or the Council must notify the applicant that
it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a
decision.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority approved final Contracts for the proposed development
on September 17.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on August 27. Notice of the public
hearing was mailed to properties within 500 feet of the proposed development and published in the
Sun Current newspaper.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend approval of the land use
applications.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Approve the requests with modified or additional stipulations.
Deny the requested land use approvals with findings that requirements are not me.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Representative(s) of NHH Properties, L L C
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Ordinance Ordinance
Resolution Resolution L etter
A pplicant Narrative E xhibit
P roposed P lans 1 of 3 E xhibit
P roposed P lans 2 of 3 E xhibit
P roposed P lans 3 of 3 E xhibit
Requirements E xhibit
P lanning & Zoning Maps E xhibit
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING;
AMENDING APPENDIX I TO THE RICHFIELD CITY
CODE BY REZONING LAND BETWEEN TAFT
PARK AND 65TH STREET, EAST OF 16TH
AVENUE AS PLANNED MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 9 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to
add a new Paragraph 9 to read as follows:
(9) M-5 Blocks 1-2, Iversons 2nd Addition.
Sec. 2. Section 14, Paragraphs 18 and 19 are repealed.
(18) M-5 (16th Ave between 63rd and 65th). Lots 2-8, Block 1,
Iversons 2nd Addition and Lots 1-8, Block 2, Iversons 2nd Addition.
(19) M-5 (17th Ave between 63rd and 65th). Lots 9-4, Block 1,
Iversons 2nd Addition and Lots 1-8, Block 2, Iversons 2nd Addition.
Sec. 3. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the
Richfield City Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of
September, 2018.
Pat Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
approval of a final development plan and conditional use permit for a planned unit
development to include 218 apartments and 72 townhomes , on land that is legally
described as; and
Blocks 1-2, IVERSON’S SECOND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota;
together with
That part of East 64th Street as dedicated on the plat of, IVERSON’S SECOND
ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies easterly of the southerly extension of
the westerly line of Block 1 said IVERSON’S SECOND ADDITION; and which lies westerly
of the southerly extension of the easterly line of said Block 1.
WHEREAS, the applicant has represented their intent to purchase all of the
properties legally described above (collectively, the “Development Area”);
WHEREAS, the City understands that land use approvals may be necessary to
move forward with the remaining property acquisitions in this Development Area and is
thereby making an accommodation by considering this application prior to the final
acquisition of all land in the Development Area; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield held a public hearing
and recommended approval of the requested final development plan and conditional use
permit at its August 27, 2018 meeting; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and
mailed to properties within 500 feet of the subject property on August 14, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the requested final development plan and conditional use permit meets
those requirements necessary for approving a planned unit development as specified in
Richfield’s Zoning Code, Section 542.09, Subd. 3 and as detailed in City Council Staff
Report No.______; and
WHEREAS, the request meets those requirements necessary for approving a
conditional use permit as specified in Richfield’s Zoning Code, Section 547.09, Subd. 6
and as detailed in City Council Staff Report No.______; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of a planned unit
development, final development plan and conditional use permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City Council adopts as its Findings of Fact the WHEREAS clauses set forth
above.
2. A planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit are
approved for a multi-family residential development as described in City Council
Report No. ___, in the Development Area.
3. The approved planned unit development, final development plan and conditional
use permit are subject to the following conditions:
• The applicant must acquire all properties in the Development Area or must
return to the City Council for approval of an amended resolution to remove
properties not acquired.
• A recorded copy of this approved resolution, or an approved amended
resolution, if applicable, must be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of
a Certificate of Occupancy.
• The property in the Development Area must be platted. A preliminary plat
must be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit and a final plat is
required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
• Approved buildings must comply with noise attenuation construction
requirements of the Airport Runway Overlay District.
• Staff is authorized to approve minor site modifications related to setbacks
along the northern boundary of the townhomes.
• Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant must enter into a lease
with the City for pocket park improvements and walkways on remnant park
property to the north of the Development Area. Park improvements must
include a sign indicating that the space is available to the public.
• This approval does not constitute approval of specific signs. Sign permits
are required and must be applied for separately. Sign setbacks may be
modified if necessary for visibility, provided that signs do not interfere with
Public Works activities.
• Final lighting plans must be submitted to and approved by the Community
Development and Public Works Directors.
• Final landscape plans that include greater variation in tree size (caliper
inches) must be approved by the Community Development Director.
• Additional landscaping or varied building treatments are required in areas
where a significant amount of underground parking structure is visible.
• Central greenspace and walkways must be maintained as quasi-public space
without any barriers to public access.
• Final stormwater management plans must be submitted to and approved by
the Public Works Director. All applicable stormwater fees must be paid to the
Public Works Department.
• Final plans for sidewalks and improvements in and along the right-of-way
must be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and
Public Works Directors.
• A maintenance agreement related to sidewalks and landscaping must be
executed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
• Final utility plans must be submitted to and approved by the Public Works
Director.
• The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits, and complying
with all requirements detailed in the City’s Administrative Review Committee
Report and all other applicable City and State regulations.
• Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Developer must
submit a surety equal to 125% of the value of any improvements not yet
complete.
• The property owner is responsible for maintaining landscaping in accordance
with approved plans.
4. The approved planned unit development, final development plan and conditional
use permit shall expire one year from issuance unless the use for which the permit
was granted has commenced, substantial work has been completed or upon written
request by the Developer, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional
period of up to one year, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09,
Subd. 9.
5. The approved planned unit development, final development plan and conditional
use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed,
and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been
discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section
547.09, Subd. 10.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of
September, 2018
Pat Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
NHH PROPERTIES
7455 France Ave S :: Suite 351 :: Edina, MN :: 55435
July 19, 2018
John Stark, Director of Community Development
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave South
Richfield, MN
Project: Cedar Point II Housing Development
Location: E 65th Street & Richfield Parkway, Richfield, MN
Subject: Project Narrative
Proposed Redevelopment:
The proposed project consists of 218 market rate apartments and 72 for-sale townhomes with
a 95% set aside for units priced at 115% or less of AMI to the initial purchaser. (See below for
affordability breakdown.) The development is bound by 16th Avenue on the west, 65th Street
on the south and the new Richfield Parkway on the east and north.
The apartments consist of two freestanding 109-unit, market rate, 4-story buildings on the
eastern edge of the site. The apartment buildings are the first step in providing a staggered,
step-down in height between the big box commercial retailers (Home Depot and Target) to the
east and the single-family residences to the west. The apartment buildings provide 188
structured parking spaces and 114 surface level guest spaces.
The townhomes consist of 18 4-unit buildings, for a total of 72 units. The 3-level townhomes
will offer 2 and 3-bedroom floor plans and 2-car garages with a total of approximately 1700
finished square feet. The townhomes will be offered to the market as an "affordable, for-sale"
residence that will be priced at a 95% set aside (69 units) to offer homeownership to those
residents earning less than 115% of AMI. Of that, 20% of the total units (14 units) are proposed
to be offered to those earning less than 80% of AMI. To finance the affordable component of
the development, the developer is currently working with the City of Richfield HRA to obtain TIF
financing and with MN Housing to utilize Homeownership Impact Fund dollars.
The unit mix is as follows:
Apartments: studio - 50, 1 bed - 86, 2 bed - 74, 3 bed - 8, total - 218.
Townhomes: 2 bed - 36, 3 bed - 36, total - 72.
NHH PROPERTIES
7455 France Ave S :: Suite 351 :: Edina, MN :: 55435
Project wide, there are 44 family units sized between 1,500 - 2,100SF.
Summary of Modifications from Sketch Plan Review Meeting:
• Addressed how the townhome entrances can be more responsive to the street and
sidewalk.
• Relocated the driveways of the townhomes to 16th Avenue.
• Enhanced the signage and public art at the southeast corner of the site.
• Increased and enhanced the prominence of the apartment building entrances on
Richfield Parkway.
• Relocated the northern driveway from inside the curve on Richfield Parkway to the very
north end of the site.
• Moved the north apartment building further north to increase the size of the central
walkway/plaza.
• Increased setback on eastern boundary.
• Introduction of increased variation, with regard to colors and materials, of the exterior
of the apartment buildings on Richfield Parkway.
Summary of Modifications from Administrative Review Committee (ARC) Meeting:
• Further enhanced the apartment patio entrance on Richfield Parkway to feel like a
primary entrance.
• Identified locations for public art.
• Located all utilities to interior of site (transformers, etc.)
• Relocated trees from the front yards of the townhomes to boulevard trees.
• Introduction of green space/plaza on the north east side of the site. (remnant parcel
from Taft Park)
City and Neighborhood Betterment:
The proposed redevelopment of this parcel from single family residential to medium and high
density will provide a multitude of benefits to the City and the surrounding community in the
following ways:
• Provides the much-needed connectivity from the residential neighborhood to the west
and from the retail and commercial uses to the east.
• Improves the site with more active uses and attractive, newer buildings.
• Provides housing and increased density near convenient, local retail uses.
• Provides a buffer from noise and light pollution between the single-family residential
neighborhood and airport and commercial uses to the east.
• Landscaped plaza adds character and beautifies 16th Avenue.
Sustainability:
NHH PROPERTIES
7455 France Ave S :: Suite 351 :: Edina, MN :: 55435
Sustainability is a key component of the project, both in the importance of being a good
steward of the environment as well as being a good neighbor. The key sustainable strategies of
the project can be categorized in the following design elements:
Storm Water:
The current site has an impervious coverage of less than 50% without any comprehensive storm
water strategies except the vacant tract of land on the east side and one vacant lot on the west
side which do not provide any rate or quality control for storm water. The proposed project
incorporates the following improvements to the existing condition.
1) The heavily landscaped plaza area in the center of the site will hold and clean the
majority of rainfall in that area. In addition, new storm water infiltration tanks will be
located on the northeast corner and on the west side of the site, below the plaza,
capturing excess storm water not used for irrigation or captured by the landscaped
areas of the plaza.
2) All storm water will be contained and treated on site, thereby reducing the burden on
off-site resources.
Energy Efficiency & Generation:
1) High efficiency mechanical equipment
2) High efficiency appliances and electrical fixtures
3) Infrastructure for future roof mounted photovoltaic panels for electrical energy
generation
4) High performing fiberglass and storefront windows that meet Energy Star requirements
5) Improved insulation & advanced detail techniques equating to a 20% improvement over
current energy code requirements
6) Electric car charging station
Water Efficiency:
1) Rainwater for irrigation
2) Drip irrigation w/drought tolerant planting to additionally reduce watering
3) Low flow plumbing fixtures and appliances – this decreases water use and waste water
PUD/Zoning:
The project proposes to change the zoning of the site from MR-3 to a PUD using the MR-3 as
the guiding district and as the basis for the zoning entitlements. The application of a PUD is
based largely around the desire to develop a more pedestrian friendly development, a variety
of occupancy types (for-sale and rental) and a variety of building densities. The proposed
building will enclose over two thirds of the parking below grade and maintain significant green
and public use and plaza space. In addition, the site is designed to keep the higher density and
height towards Richfield Parkway with the lowest height toward the residential neighborhood.
This design factor will provide a significant buffer to the residential neighborhood from noise
and light pollution emitted from the airport and adjacent commercial and retail uses.
NHH PROPERTIES
7455 France Ave S :: Suite 351 :: Edina, MN :: 55435
The effective site size is 7.07 acres (307,969 SF). The proposed development, not including
garage space, is 327,979 GSF for a proposed FAR of 1.06. The step down in height scales the
buildings to the neighborhood and the landscaped plaza at the intersection of 64th and 16th
Avenue provides a welcoming entry to visitors and an intuitive connection point from the
single-family homes to the west and the commercial and retail providers to the east.
Comprehensive Plan/Greater Cedar Point Neighborhood Land Use and Parking Final Report:
The current comprehensive plan has recommended high density residential uses for this site.
This site is one of the key transitional sites in the City of Richfield, as it directly abuts the park
system to the north, Single Family (R) to the west, Planned General Commercial (PC-2) to the
east and General Commercial and Planned General Commercial (C-2 and PC-2) to the south.
This proposed project is keeping with that mixture of uses as its scale transitions from the
higher density towards Richfield Parkway while scaling down toward the residential
neighborhood to the east. All of this is done while providing intuitive, well defined pedestrian
connectivity points at all four ends of the site.
Traffic and Parking:
Housing at this location will be able to take full advantage of the recent pedestrian and bike
improvements completed by the City. The range of goods and services within an easy ½ mile
radius of the site offers a built-in amenity to residents. Their proximity also lessens the
demands for vehicle trips decreasing the car traffic to and from the site.
The project’s site improvements along Richfield Parkway offer an amenity for pedestrians and
bicyclists by creating a protected walkway through the site to the neighborhood to the west.
The introduction of a sidewalks on 65th street also reinforces this pedestrian connection,
coupled with the proposed stop signs at the intersection of 65th street and 16th Avenue will
create a pedestrian friendly environment in the immediate area.
Residential vehicular traffic at the site is split between multiple entry points. There are three
proposed entry and exit points to the apartment site. One at the north end of the site on
Richfield parkway, one mid-block on Richfield Parkway – directly opposite the Target and Home
Depot entry - and one at the south end of the project on 65th street. Once a vehicle enters the
site, there are two separate entry points to the underground garages. Commercial traffic
(garbage, mail, delivers, vendors) will be able to enter the site from any from any entry point
and they will have access to sufficient short-term parking so that they will be able to provide
their service without disrupting or blocking any resident or visitor circulation on the site. On
grade convenience parking for guests and move-ins are located near the plaza. This approach
greatly reduces traffic in the neighborhood to the west and keeps most, if not all, commercial
traffic Richfield Parkway.
Based on staff recommendations, all townhome access has been redirected to 16th Avenue.
The primary driver behind this is to provide and enhance further connections between the
current neighborhood and the townhomes on 16th Avenue.
NHH PROPERTIES
7455 France Ave S :: Suite 351 :: Edina, MN :: 55435
Parking:
The apartment buildings provide 188 structured parking spaces and 114 surface level guest
spaces. The townhomes provide a 2-stall garage for each unit. In order to promote walkability
and an inviting neighborhood environment, the amount of surface level parking on the site has
been reduced and replaced it with public green space, ride-share pick-up and drop-off, shared
car parking, and EV charging stations.
65th Avenue:
The developer is proposing changes to 65th Avenue with the intent of connecting the site to the
block to the south and increasing pedestrian access along 65th Street. As part of the Cedar
Point Commons redevelopment, there were issues with excess traffic heading west on 65th
Avenue towards Bloomington Avenue and then heading north towards Highway 62. To prevent
these traffic measures, the City narrowed 65th Avenue at Richfield Parkway, making the
entrance one-way (east only). The realignment of Richfield Parkway has organically solved the
previous traffic issue as previously described. It is now easier to stay on Richfield Parkway to
head north than it is to cut through the neighborhood. The developer is proposing the
following changes along 65th Street:
• Install sidewalks along the north and south side of 65th street to connect to the existing
and proposed sidewalk system.
• Install stop signs at the intersection of 65th Street and 16th Avenue to make the
intersection a four-way stop.
• Install decorative street lights that match the design of the project.
• Install landscaping and shrubs along the boulevard.
• Install permanent, identifiable parallel parking, with peninsulas, on both sides of 65th
between 16th Avenue and Richfield Parkway
• Convert the intersection of 65th Avenue and Richfield Parkway back to a two-way
entrance.
Affordable Housing:
As part of a commitment to provide affordable housing to all people in the community, the
project is proposing 69 (of the 72 total) for-sale units for residents who meet certain income
thresholds. This type of housing is targeted to working adults or small families who earn
between 80 – 115% of the median income of the community. They provide an opportunity for
young people starting their careers, teachers and service workers a chance to stay in the
community they work. The site is uniquely situated where residents can easily access the
commercial shops and services of the Cedar Point Commons area without requiring the use of a
car.
Landscape:
NHH PROPERTIES
7455 France Ave S :: Suite 351 :: Edina, MN :: 55435
The proposed landscape at the site will be clean and contemporary, with over-story boulevard
trees on the west and south sides along 16th Avenue and 65th Street, with enhanced
landscaping near building entrances with seasonal annuals for color. The parking area will
contain a mixture of over story and under-story trees with a full accompaniment of shrubs and
perennial plants. The proposed planting palette is comprised of native and adapted plant
materials, which will use less water and require less maintenance over time.
Tree Reduction:
Due to the increased density on the site, there is insufficient site area to provide the number of
trees necessary to meet the City’s tree ordinance. We are, however, working with City staff and
our civil engineer to provide as many trees as reasonably possible while still preserving the
urban nature of the site and promoting sightlines and the pedestrian friendly nature of the
project.
This development is well positioned to meet and exceed the City’s goals as outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Cedar Avenue Corridor Master Plan. We firmly believe that the
redevelopment of the site will be an improvement for both the neighborhood and the overall
City.
Sincerely,
Adam Seraphine
President
CC: Lori Boisclair, Boisclair Corporation
Tony Simmons, The Simmons Group
Petro Megits, Kaas Wilson Architects
Michael Barnett, EXiT Realty
1,121 ft²Unit C11,121 ft²Unit C11,145 ft²Unit C21,121 ft²Unit C1500 ft²Unit S1500 ft²Unit S1730 ft²Unit A1730 ft²Unit A1730 ft²Unit A1500 ft²Unit S11,121 ft²Unit C1730 ft²Unit A1500 ft²Unit S1730 ft²Unit A11,121 ft²Unit C1730 ft²Unit A1730 ft²Unit A1730 ft²Unit A1730 ft²Unit A11,542 ft²Unit D11,121 ft²Unit C1730 ft²Unit A1907 ft²Fitness/FOD95936 ft²Clubroom962,1ComPla924.0'1159.9'105.9'37.0'CONSTRUCTION LIMITSUPFDSD_5.01730 ft²Unit A11,121 ft²Unit C1730 ft²Unit A1500 ft²Unit S1730 ft²Unit A11,121 ft²Unit C1500 ft²Unit S11,145 Unit C1,121 ft²Unit C1730 ft²Unit A1500 ft²Unit S11,121 ft²Unit C1730 ft²Unit A1500 ft²Unit S11,121 ft²Unit C1730 ft²Unit A11,542 ftUnit D1730 ft²Unit A1730 ft²Unit A1730 ft²Unit A1175 ft²BusinessCenter22204 ft²BikeShop/Storage28155 ft²Office30191 ft²Conference31123 ft²Trash38912 ft²Lobby5474 ft²Entry Vestibule56730 ft²Unit A193 ft²Work5987 ft²Bath6046 ft²Jan61200 ft²Office6240'-0"78 ft²Mail64120 ft²Parcel65451 ft²Media Room66898 ft²Commons67181 ft²Pet Wash29936 ft²Clubroom682,764 ft²CommonsPlaza69NotEnclosedPool70Entry Patio90PLAZA BELOWPLAZA BELOW
PLAZA BELOW907 ft²Fitness/FOD921,121 ft²Unit C180 ft²Bath934'-0"MUA5.0'71.7'
7.9'
5.0'
71.7'104.5'
10.8'22.0'9.9'11813794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR35.2'794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR792 ft²Townhouse - 3BR794 ft²Townhouse - 3BR2026845755.7'26.0'10.2'35.2'26.0'35.2'26.0'120.2'26.0'35.2'26.0'35.2'26.0'35.2'26.0'35.2'26.0'26.0'6.4'5.7'8.5'22.0'8.5'12.2'5.4'5.6'8.5'22.0'8.5'12.2'104.9'10.3'106.5'23.0'5.5'32.0'5.7'5.5'3.5'17.4'24.0'5.0'5.0'75.0'10.0'8.0'9.0'19.0'24.0'8.5'24.0'24.0'R9.0'R29.5'R10.0'5.5'7.1'5.7'
19.0'
R6.0'R4.0'5.0'5.0'6.0'
15.5'18.7'19.8'14.3'14.4'15.8'15.9'11.3'10.1'18.6'17.6'12.4'11.4'21.9'21.9'8.4'8.3'35.2'21.3',TYP.N89°50'09"E 133.49 N0°11'06"E75.00S89°50'12"W 133.81
N89°50'11"E 133.68
S89°50'10"W 133.62 N0°11'06"E75.00N00°11'06"E 737.13N00°14'02"E 150.00N00°14'02"E 150.0075.00N00°14'02"EN15°01'37"W30.39N0°14'02"E95.07N15°
1
5
'
0
1
"
E
25.09N00°14'02"E 240.00N00°14'02"E 348.7475.00S00°14'01"WN89°43'01"E 134.44
N89°43'00"E 134.38
S00°14'02"W
75.0735.2'35.2'26.0'5.0'5.0'6.0'
15.5'18.7'19.8'14.3'14.4'15.8'15.9'11.3'10.1'18.6'17.6'12.4'11.4'21.9'21.9'8.4'8.3'35.2'21.3',TYP.N15°01'37"W30.394931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.com612-615-0060COPYRIGHT 2018 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.cISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION08/06/18CITY SUBMITTALCEDAR POINT 2 APARTMENTS & TOWNHOMES
16TH AVE. S, RICHFIELD MINNESOTA 55423
317 2ND AVE. S, SUITE 800, MINNEAPOLIS MN, 55401
SIMMONS GROUP/NHH PROPERTIES
PROJECT
........................PROJECT NUMBER:1813744263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.08/06/18REVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC2.0SITE PLAN............1.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT OF ALL SITE ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, BUILDINGS AND PAVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR ISRESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LOCATIONS OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE. ANY REVISIONS REQUIRED AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, DUE TOLOCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LAYOUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THEENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS. STAKE LAYOUT FOR APPROVAL.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STREET OPENING PERMIT.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS.4.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LOCATION DIMENSIONS OF THE BUILDING AND STAKE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNERSREPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF FOOTING MATERIALS.5.LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAY PAVEMENTS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, BOLLARDS, AND WALKS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL BE STAKED IN THEFIELD, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.6.CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB. BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION. LOCATION OF BUILDING IS TOBUILDING FOUNDATION AND SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTPRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR ALL PREFABRICATED SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING, FURNISHINGS,PAVEMENTS, WALLS, RAILINGS, BENCHES, FLAGPOLES, LANDING PADS FOR CURB RAMPS, AND LIGHT AND POLES. THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TOREJECT INSTALLED MATERIALS NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.8.PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TRUNCATED DOME LANDING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.D.A. REQUIREMENTS-SEE DETAIL.9.CROSSWALK STRIPING SHALL BE 24" WIDE WHITE PAINTED LINE, SPACED 48" ON CENTER PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WIDTH OFCROSSWALK SHALL BE 5' WIDE. ALL OTHER PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE WHITE IN COLOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR REQUIRED BY ADA OR LOCALGOVERNING BODIES.10.SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND GUTTER TYPE. TAPER BETWEEN CURB TYPES-SEE DETAIL.11.ALL CURB RADII ARE MINIMUM 3' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.12.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SITE IMPROVEMENTS.13.FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS.14.PARKING IS TO BE SET PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO EXISTING BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.15.ALL PARKING LOT PAINT STRIPPING TO BE WHITE, 4" WIDE TYP.16.BITUMINOUS PAVING TO BE "LIGHT DUTY" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS.17.ALL TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH A CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE. SEE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS.SITE LAYOUT NOTES:SITE PLAN LEGEND:TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL ARROW PAVEMENT MARKINGSSIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED.HC = ACCESSIBLE SIGNNP = NO PARKING FIRE LANEST = STOPCP = COMPACT CAR PARKING ONLY01" = 40'-0"40'-0"20'-0"NSITE AREA TABLE:GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALPROPERTY LINECURB AND GUTTER-SEE NOTES (T.O.) TIP OUTGUTTER WHERE APPLICABLE-SEE PLANCONSTRUCTION LIMITSTOCITY OF RICHFIELD SITE SPECIFIC NOTES:1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC NOTES.CONCRETE PAVEMENT AS SPECIFIED (PAD OR WALK)SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE& CONCRETE DEPTHS, SEE DETAIL.LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT. SEEGEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE &WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DEATIL.HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT. SEEGEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE &WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DETAIL.SEE SHEETS C2.1 & C2.2 FOR ENLARGEMENTSSEE SHEETS C2.1 & C2.2 FOR ENLARGEMENTSTOWNHOME ONLY ENLARGEMENT01" = 10'-0"10'-0"5'-0"NSEE TOWNHOME ONLY ENLARGEMENT
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONDate
Project Number
1301 American Blvd E.
Suite 100
Bloomington, MN 55425
tel: (612) 879-6000
www.kaaswilson.com
Copyright Kaas Wilson Owner:Project:kaas
wilson
architects
8/6/2018 10:33:28 AMC:\Revit Local\18045-Simmons-Richfield-16th Ave - Site Model_lkern.rvtSite Plan
8-06-2018
18045CedarPoint 2 -Apts and TH'sSimmons Group/NHH PropertiesA100
Interiors:
MEP:
Structural:
Civil:
Civil Site Group
SITE TOTALS:
APT UNITS -218
APT PARKING
BELOW GRADE (APTS) -188
TH UNITS -72
TH PARKING
GARAGE SPACES -188
SURFACE PARKING
AT GRADE TOTAL -68
Rev. No.RevisionDateN
48'-2 3/4"58'-1 3/4"MASONRY
CEMENT FIBER PANEL
CEMENT FIBER PANEL
-WOOD TONE
CEMENT FIBER LAP
PRIMARY
ENTRANCE46'-11"57'-7 11/16"NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONDate
Project Number
1301 American Blvd E.
Suite 100
Bloomington, MN 55425
tel: (612) 879-6000
www.kaaswilson.com
Copyright Kaas Wilson Owner:Project:kaas
wilson
architects
1/16" = 1'-0"8/6/2018 10:18:43 AMC:\Revit Local\18045-Simmons-Richfield-16th Ave - Apartment B_lkern.rvtExterior
Elevations -APT
B
8-06-2018
18045CedarPoint 2 -Apts and TH'sSimmons Group/NHH PropertiesA520
Interiors:
MEP:
Structural:
Civil:
Civil Site Group
Rev. No.RevisionDate1/16" = 1'-0"1 East Elevation 1/16" = 1'-0"2 North Elevation
1/16" = 1'-0"3 South Elevation
1/16" = 1'-0"4 West Elevation
MATERIAL QUANTITIES:
CFB LAP -3,889SF / 17%
CFB PANEL -7,723SF / 34%
CFB WOOD LOOK -1,267SF / 6%
MASONRY (BRICK) -1,362SF / 6%
MASONRY (CMU) -2,454SF / 10%
GLAZING -6,188SF / 27%
MATERIAL QUANTITIES:
CFB LAP -719SF / 22%
CFB PANEL -971SF / 29%
CFB WOOD LOOK -180SF / 5%
MASONRY (CMU) -691SF / 21%
GLAZING -782SF / 23%
MATERIAL QUANTITIES:
CFB LAP -4816SF / 23%
CFB PANEL -6682SF / 31%
CFB WOOD LOOK -1390SF / 7%
MASONRY (BRICK) -688SF / 3%
MASONRY (CMU) -1538SF / 7%
GLAZING -6147SF / 29%
MATERIAL QUANTITIES:
CFB LAP -697SF / 24%
CFB PANEL -971SF 34%
CFB WOOD LOOK -205SF / 7%
MASONRY (CMU) -142SF / 5%
GLAZING -843SF / 30%
37'-5 5/8"NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONDate
Project Number
1301 American Blvd E.
Suite 100
Bloomington, MN 55425
tel: (612) 879-6000
fax: (612) 879-6666
www.kaaswilson.com
Copyright Kaas Wilson Owner:Project:kaas
wilson
architects
3/16" = 1'-0"8/6/2018 10:08:31 AMC:\Revit Local\18044-NHH-Richfield-Cedar Pointe 2 - Townhomes-detached_lkern.rvtExterior
Elevations -
Townhouses
8-06-2018
18045CedarPoint 2 -Apts and TH'sA530
Civil:
Civil Site Group
3/16" = 1'-0"1 Townhome Elevation - North
3/16" = 1'-0"2 Townhome Elevation - South
3/16" = 1'-0"3 Townhome Elevation - West
3/16" = 1'-0"4 Townhome Elevation - East
MATERIAL QUANTITIES:
CFB LAP -661SF / 18%
CFB PANEL -1536SF / 42%
MASONRY (CMU) -256SF / 7%
GLAZING -1185SF / 33%Rev. No.RevisionDateMATERIAL QUANTITIES:
CFB LAP -489SF / 44%
CFB PANEL -323SF / 29%
CFB WOOD LOOK -63SF / 6%
MASONRY (CMU) -87SF / 8%
GLAZING -140SF / 13%
MATERIAL QUANTITIES:
CFB PANEL -688SF / 62%
MASONRY (CMU) -281SF / 26%
GLAZING -137SF / 12%
MATERIAL QUANTITIES:
CFB LAP -280SF / 7%
CFB PANEL -1504SF / 40%
CFB WOOD LOOK -264SF / 7%
MASONRY (CMU) -840SF / 22%
GLAZING -921SF / 24%
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONDate
Project Number
1301 American Blvd E.
Suite 100
Bloomington, MN 55425
tel: (612) 879-6000
www.kaaswilson.com
Copyright Kaas Wilson Owner:Project:kaas
wilson
architects
8/6/2018 10:33:28 AMC:\Revit Local\18045-Simmons-Richfield-16th Ave - Site Model_lkern.rvtExt. Renderings
8-06-2018
18045CedarPoint 2 -Apts and TH'sSimmons Group/NHH PropertiesA001
Interiors:
MEP:
Structural:
Civil:
Civil Site Group
Rev. No.RevisionDateRendering 1 -View Looking West from Richfield Parkway
Rendering 2 -View Looking North-West from Richfield Parkway
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONDate
Project Number
1301 American Blvd E.
Suite 100
Bloomington, MN 55425
tel: (612) 879-6000
www.kaaswilson.com
Copyright Kaas Wilson Owner:Project:kaas
wilson
architects
8/6/2018 10:33:28 AMC:\Revit Local\18045-Simmons-Richfield-16th Ave - Site Model_lkern.rvtExt. Renderings
8-06-2018
18045CedarPoint 2 -Apts and TH'sSimmons Group/NHH PropertiesA002
Interiors:
MEP:
Structural:
Civil:
Civil Site Group
Rev. No.RevisionDateRendering 3 -View Looking East from 16th Avenue S.
Rendering 4 -Townhouse View Looking East from 16th Avenue S.
39'-10"58'-8"66'-8"61'-10"72'-5 11/16"60'-9 11/16"74'-4 13/16"62'-7 13/16"NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONDate
Project Number
1301 American Blvd E.
Suite 100
Bloomington, MN 55425
tel: (612) 879-6000
www.kaaswilson.com
Copyright Kaas Wilson Owner:Project:kaas
wilson
architects
1/32" = 1'-0"8/6/2018 10:37:32 AMC:\Revit Local\18045-Simmons-Richfield-16th Ave - Site Model_lkern.rvtExterior
Elevations
8-06-2018
18045CedarPoint 2 -Apts and TH'sSimmons Group/NHH PropertiesA500
Interiors:
MEP:
Structural:
Civil:
Civil Site Group
Rev. No.RevisionDate1/32" = 1'-0"2 Townhome - West
1/32" = 1'-0"5 Apartment - East
1/32" = 1'-0"6 Apartment - West
UP
FDWHWHWH
UP
A5203
A520
4
A520
1
A520 2
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
1,155 ft²
Unit C2 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
1,557 ft²
Unit D1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
172 ft²
Business
Center
22
204 ft²
Bike
Shop/Storage
28
155 ft²
Office
30
191 ft²
Conference
31
121 ft²
Trash
38
912 ft²
Lobby
54
74 ft²
Entry Vestibule
56
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
93 ft²
Work
59
92 ft²
Bath
60
49 ft²
Jan
61211 ft²
Office
62
81 ft²
Mail
64
126 ft²
Parcel
65
451 ft²
Media Room
66
912 ft²
Commons
67
181 ft²
Pet Wash
29
951 ft²
Clubroom
68
2,118 ft²
Commons
Plaza
69
268 ft²
Entry Patio
90
919 ft²
Fitness/FOD
92
85 ft²
Bath
93
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
0"Schema 1 Legend
1BR
2BR
3BR
Studio
29,143 ft²
Gararge A 94 total stalls
A5203
A520
4
A520
1
A520 2
MUA
EXHAUST
Stair
2,173 ft²
Area A
A520
4
A520
1
A520 2
1,155 ft²
Unit C2 A
1,155 ft²
Unit C2 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
1,155 ft²
Unit C2 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
1,557 ft²
Unit D1 A
OPEN TO
BELOW
Mech.
52
Trash
53
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
3,912 ft²
Corridor A
Schema 1 Legend
1BR
2BR
3BR
Studio NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONDate
Project Number
1301 American Blvd E.
Suite 100
Bloomington, MN 55425
tel: (612) 879-6000
www.kaaswilson.com
Copyright Kaas Wilson Owner:Project:kaas
wilson
architects
1/16" = 1'-0"8/6/2018 10:17:27 AMC:\Revit Local\18045-Simmons-Richfield-16th Ave - Apartment B_lkern.rvtApartment
Buidling B -
Level -1, 1, 2
8-06-2018
18045CedarPoint 2 -Apts and TH'sSimmons Group/NHH PropertiesA320
Interiors:
MEP:
Structural:
Civil:
Civil Site Group
1/16" = 1'-0"1 Level 1- Apartment Building B
1/16" = 1'-0"2 Level -1 - Apartment Building B
1/16" = 1'-0"3 Level 2 - Apartment Building B
NRev. No.RevisionDateParking Schedule
Type Count
Level -1
94
94
94
Residential Unit Mix
Name
Unit
Type Count
Unit Gross
Area
Total
Net
AreaMain Floor
Unit A1 1BR 43 743 ft² 670 ft²
Unit C1 2BR 27 1,139 ft² 927 ft²
Unit C2 2BR 10 1,155 ft² 1,055 ft²
Unit D1 3BR 4 1,557 ft² 1,455 ft²
Unit S1 Studio 25 509 ft² 445 ft²
Grand total: 109 109
Total Gross Area - Apt
Level Area
Level -1 31,316 ft²
Level 1 28,629 ft²
Level 2 - Apartment
Building B
28,635 ft²
Level 3 - Apartment
Building B
28,635 ft²
Level 4 - Apartment
Building B
28,635 ft²
Grand total 145,850 ft²
Unit Mix by Floor
Name Count
Unit
Type
Bed
Rooms Area
Total
Area
Level 1
Unit A1 10 1BR 10 743 ft² 7,425 ft²
Unit C1 6 2BR 12 1,139 ft² 6,832 ft²
Unit C2 1 2BR 2 1,155 ft² 1,155 ft²
Unit D1 1 3BR 3 1,557 ft² 1,557 ft²
Unit S1 4 Studio 4 509 ft² 2,036 ft²
22 31 19,005 ft²
Level 2 - Apartment Building B
Unit A1 11 1BR 11 743 ft² 8,168 ft²
Unit C1 7 2BR 14 1,139 ft² 7,970 ft²
Unit C2 3 2BR 6 1,155 ft² 3,464 ft²
Unit D1 1 3BR 3 1,557 ft² 1,557 ft²
Unit S1 7 Studio 7 509 ft² 3,563 ft²
29 41 24,722 ft²
Level 3 - Apartment Building B
Unit A1 11 1BR 11 743 ft² 8,168 ft²
Unit C1 7 2BR 14 1,139 ft² 7,970 ft²
Unit C2 3 2BR 6 1,155 ft² 3,464 ft²
Unit D1 1 3BR 3 1,557 ft² 1,557 ft²
Unit S1 7 Studio 7 509 ft² 3,563 ft²
29 41 24,722 ft²
Level 4 - Apartment Building B
Unit A1 11 1BR 11 743 ft² 8,168 ft²
Unit C1 7 2BR 14 1,139 ft² 7,970 ft²
Unit C2 3 2BR 6 1,155 ft² 3,464 ft²
Unit D1 1 3BR 3 1,557 ft² 1,557 ft²
Unit S1 7 Studio 7 509 ft² 3,563 ft²
29 41 24,722 ft²
Grand
total: 109 109 154 93,172 ft²
Deck Count / Area Calculation
Level 1: 24 Decks @ 50 sf. = 1,200 sf.
Level 2: 33 Decks @ 50sf. = 1,650 sf.
Level 3: 33 Decks @ 50 sf. = 1,650 sf.
Level 4: 33 Decks @ 50 sf. = 1,650 sf.
Total Deck Count: 123 Decks / 6,150 sf.
3,912 ft²
Corridor A
A520
4
A520
1
A520 2
1,155 ft²
Unit C2 A
1,155 ft²
Unit C2 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
1,155 ft²
Unit C2 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
1,557 ft²
Unit D1 A
170 ft²
Mechanical
71
116 ft²
Trash
72
103 ft²
Storage
73
105 ft²
Storage
74
121 ft²
Storage
75
59 ft²
Storage
77
59 ft²
Storage
78
58 ft²
Storage
79
122 ft²
Storage
80
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
Schema 1 Legend
1BR
2BR
3BR
Studio
A520
4
A520
1
A520 2
3,912 ft²
Corridor A
1,155 ft²
Unit C2 A
1,155 ft²
Unit C2 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
1,155 ft²
Unit C2 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
509 ft²
Unit S1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
743 ft²
Unit A1 A
1,557 ft²
Unit D1 A
58 ft²
Storage
81
59 ft²
Storage
82
59 ft²
Storage
83
122 ft²
Storage
84
121 ft²
Storage
85
105 ft²
Storage
86
103 ft²
Storage
87
123 ft²
Trash
88
173 ft²
Mechanical
89
1,139 ft²
Unit C1 A
Schema 1 Legend
1BR
2BR
3BR
Studio NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONDate
Project Number
1301 American Blvd E.
Suite 100
Bloomington, MN 55425
tel: (612) 879-6000
www.kaaswilson.com
Copyright Kaas Wilson Owner:Project:kaas
wilson
architects
1/16" = 1'-0"8/6/2018 10:17:34 AMC:\Revit Local\18045-Simmons-Richfield-16th Ave - Apartment B_lkern.rvtApartment
Building B -
Level 3, 4
8-06-2018
18045CedarPoint 2 -Apts and TH'sSimmons Group/NHH PropertiesA321
Interiors:
MEP:
Structural:
Civil:
Civil Site Group
1/16" = 1'-0"1 Level 3 - Apartment Building B
1/16" = 1'-0"2 Level 4 - Apartment Building B
NRev. No.RevisionDateParking Schedule
Type Count
Level -1
94
94
94
Residential Unit Mix
Name
Unit
Type Count
Unit Gross
Area
Total
Net
AreaMain Floor
Unit A1 1BR 43 743 ft² 670 ft²
Unit C1 2BR 27 1,139 ft² 927 ft²
Unit C2 2BR 10 1,155 ft² 1,055 ft²
Unit D1 3BR 4 1,557 ft² 1,455 ft²
Unit S1 Studio 25 509 ft² 445 ft²
Grand total: 109 109
Total Gross Area - Apt
Level Area
Level -1 31,316 ft²
Level 1 28,629 ft²
Level 2 - Apartment
Building B
28,635 ft²
Level 3 - Apartment
Building B
28,635 ft²
Level 4 - Apartment
Building B
28,635 ft²
Grand total 145,850 ft²
Unit Mix by Floor
Name Count
Unit
Type
Bed
Rooms Area
Total
Area
Level 1
Unit A1 10 1BR 10 743 ft² 7,425 ft²
Unit C1 6 2BR 12 1,139 ft² 6,832 ft²
Unit C2 1 2BR 2 1,155 ft² 1,155 ft²
Unit D1 1 3BR 3 1,557 ft² 1,557 ft²
Unit S1 4 Studio 4 509 ft² 2,036 ft²
22 31 19,005 ft²
Level 2 - Apartment Building B
Unit A1 11 1BR 11 743 ft² 8,168 ft²
Unit C1 7 2BR 14 1,139 ft² 7,970 ft²
Unit C2 3 2BR 6 1,155 ft² 3,464 ft²
Unit D1 1 3BR 3 1,557 ft² 1,557 ft²
Unit S1 7 Studio 7 509 ft² 3,563 ft²
29 41 24,722 ft²
Level 3 - Apartment Building B
Unit A1 11 1BR 11 743 ft² 8,168 ft²
Unit C1 7 2BR 14 1,139 ft² 7,970 ft²
Unit C2 3 2BR 6 1,155 ft² 3,464 ft²
Unit D1 1 3BR 3 1,557 ft² 1,557 ft²
Unit S1 7 Studio 7 509 ft² 3,563 ft²
29 41 24,722 ft²
Level 4 - Apartment Building B
Unit A1 11 1BR 11 743 ft² 8,168 ft²
Unit C1 7 2BR 14 1,139 ft² 7,970 ft²
Unit C2 3 2BR 6 1,155 ft² 3,464 ft²
Unit D1 1 3BR 3 1,557 ft² 1,557 ft²
Unit S1 7 Studio 7 509 ft² 3,563 ft²
29 41 24,722 ft²
Grand
total: 109 109 154 93,172 ft²
FD
A5301A5302
A530
3
A530
4
Bonus Room
Mudroom
Garage
Mudroom
Garage
Mudroom
Garage
Mudroom
Garage
Patio
Patio
Patio
Patio
Mech
Mech
Mech
Mech
A530
3
A530
4
DECK
DECK
DECK
DECK
Dining
Living Room
Kitchen
Bathroom Laundry
Dining
Living Room
Kitchen
Bathroom Laundry
Dining
Living Room
Kitchen
Bathroom Laundry
Dining
Living Room
Kitchen
Bathroom Laundry
A530
3
A530
4
Bedroom
Closet
Bathroom
Bedroom
Bathroom
Bedroom
Bedroom
Closet
Bathroom
BathroomBedroom
Bedroom
Closet
Bathroom
Bedroom
Bathroom
Bedroom
Closet
Bathroom
Open to Below
Bathroom
BedroomCloset
Open to Below
Railing NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONDate
Project Number
1301 American Blvd E.
Suite 100
Bloomington, MN 55425
tel: (612) 879-6000
fax: (612) 879-6666
www.kaaswilson.com
Copyright Kaas Wilson Owner:Project:kaas
wilson
architects
3/16" = 1'-0"8/6/2018 10:08:00 AMC:\Revit Local\18044-NHH-Richfield-Cedar Pointe 2 - Townhomes-detached_lkern.rvtTypical
Townhouse
Floor Plan
8-06-2018
18045CedarPoint 2 -Apts and TH'sA330
Civil:
Civil Site Group
3/16" = 1'-0"1 Level 1 - Townhouse
3/16" = 1'-0"2 Level 2 - Townhouse
3/16" = 1'-0"3 Level 3 - Townhouse
Gross Townhouse Building Sq. Ft.
Level 1: 3,046 Sq. Ft. (1,492 Sq. Ft. Garage)
Level 2: 3,157 Sq. Ft.
Level 3: 3,157 Sq. Ft.
Total Gross: 9,360 Sq. Ft.
Gross Livable: 7,868 Sq. Ft.
Typ. Individual Townhouse Unit Data
2 or 3 Bedrooms
2 Garage Spaces (373 Sq. Ft.)
2,340 Gross Sq Ft.
1,967 Gross Livable Rev. No.RevisionDateN
Required Findings
Part 1: The following findings are necessary for approval of a PUD application
(542.09 Subd. 3):
1. The proposed development conforms to the goals and objectives of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans. The City’s
Comprehensive Plan (and incorporated Cedar Avenue Corridor Master Plan)
designates this area for high-density residential development that will be more
capable of withstanding the impacts of the adjacent airport and will provide a
buffer to single-family homes west of 16th Avenue. Further, the
Comprehensive Plan calls for the creation of a balanced housing stock that is
available to range of incomes and serves families at all stages of their life-
cycle. The proposed plans achieve/further these goals and objectives.
2. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a
desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. This
requirement is met. The project is designed to achieve two important
objectives: provide taller, new structures that will be more compatible with the
impacts of the airport; and integrate and transition into the existing
neighborhood in a way that will foster relationships between current and new
residents.
3. The development is in substantial conformance with the purpose and intent of
the guiding district, and departures from the guiding district regulations are
justified by the design of the development. The development is in substantial
compliance with the intent of the guiding MR-3, PAC, and CAC Districts.
Departures from requirements are minimal and, in general, have been
deliberately done in order to achieve specific results.
4. The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools,
streets or other public facilities and utilities that serve or area proposed to
serve the development. The City’s Public Works, Engineering, and Recreation
Departments have reviewed the proposal and do not anticipate any issues.
5. The development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring
properties. Undue adverse impacts are not anticipated. The site and the
conditions of the resolution are designed to minimize any potential negative
impacts on neighboring properties.
6. The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are
sufficient to protect the public interest. The final development plan and
conditional use permit resolution establish conditions sufficient to protect the
public interest.
Part 2: All uses are conditional uses in a Planned Unit Development District.
The findings necessary to issue a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are as follows
(Subd. 547.09, Subd. 6):
1. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of
the City’s Comprehensive Plan. See above – Part 1, #1.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and
the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the
proposed use. The use is consistent with the intent of the Planned Multi-
Family Residential District and the underlying High-Density Multi-Family
Residential (MR-3), Airport Runway Overlay (AR), and Cedar Avenue
Corridor Overlay (CAC) Districts.
3. The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment
plans or urban design guidelines. See above – Part 1, #1
4. The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance
standards specified in Section 544 of this code. The proposed development
is in substantial compliance with City performance standards.
5. The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental
facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. The City’s
Public Works and Engineering Departments have reviewed the proposal and
do not anticipate any adverse impacts.
6. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety,
or welfare. Adequate provisions have been made to protect the public health,
safety and welfare from undue adverse impacts.
7. There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. See above
– Part 1, #1.
8. The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this
code for the granting of such conditional use permit. This requirement is met.
350 FeetR
PC-2
PC-2
R
PC-2
C-2
C-2 PC-2
PC-2
PC-2
R
PC-2
R
PC-2
R
PC-2
R
R
R
C-2
PC-2
R PC-2
R
RR
R
R
R
R
RR RR
R RR
R R
R
R
R R
R
R R
R
R R
R R
R R
RR
R
R R
R
R R
R
R
R
R R
R R
R R
R
R R
R
R R
R R
R R
R
RRRR
RRR
RRR
R
R
RR
R R
R R
RRRR
R R
RRR
R
RR
R RRRRRRRRRRRRR
R RRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRR
RRR
R
R
R
R
R
RRR
R
RR
R
R R
R
RR
R
RR
R
R
RR
R
RRRRR
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R R
R R
R
R
RRRRR
RRRR
R
RRRRRRRRRR
C-2
R
RRRR
RRRRR
R
R
R
PC-2
R
PC-2
R C-2
C-2 C-2C-2 C-2
C-2
C-2
PC-2
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
MR-3
C-2 C-2C-2 C-2C-2C-2
PC-2
±
Cedar Point II - 08/2018Surrounding Zoning
0 360 720 1,080 1,440180Feet
I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\Assistant Planner\MAPS\Cedar Point 2 - Z.mxd
MR-3 - High-Density Multi FamilyR - Single-Family ResidentialC-2 - General CommercialPC-2 - Planned General Commercial
350 FeetRC
RC
PRK
RC
CC
RC
RC
RC
PRK
RC
PUB
RC
RC RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
LDR
LDRLDR
LDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
HDR
LDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
HDR
LDRLDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDRLDR LDRLDR
LDR LDRLDR
LDR LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR LDR
LDR
LDR LDR
LDR
LDR LDR
LDR LDR
LDR LDR
LDRLDR
HDR
LDR
LDR LDR
LDR
LDR LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR LDR
LDR LDR
LDR LDR
LDR
LDR LDR
LDR
LDR LDR
LDR LDR
LDR LDR
LDR
LDRLDRLDRLDR
LDRLDRLDR
LDR
LDRLDR
LDR
LDR
LDRLDR
LDR LDR
LDR LDR
LDRLDRLDR
LDR LDR
LDRLDRLDRLDR
LDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDR
LDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDR
LDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDR
LDRLDR
LDR
LDRLDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDRLDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDRLDRLDR
LDR
LDRLDRLDR
LDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDR
LDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDR
LDR
LDRLDRLDRLDR
LDRLDRLDRLDRLDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDR
LDRLDR
LDRLDR
LDR
LDRLDR
LDR
LDRLDR
LDR
LDRLDR
LDR
LDRLDR
LDR
LDR
LDRLDRLDRLDRLDRLDR
LDR
LDRLDRLDR
RC
CHURCH
PUB
±
Cedar Point II - 08/2018Surrounding Comprehensive Plan
0 360 720 1,080 1,440180Feet
I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\Assistant Planner\MAPS\Cedar Point 2 - CP.mxd
HDR - High-Density ResidentialLDR - Low-Density ResidentialRC - Regional CommercialCC - Community CommercialPUB - Public/Quasi-PublicPRK - Park
AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED
ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM #10.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 170
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
9/25/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Julie Urban, Housing Manager
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: John S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
9/18/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
9/19/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consideration of the approval of the second reading of an ordinance adopting a new City Code Section
409 relating to the sale of affordable rental housing and establishing notice and relocation assistance
requirements for new owners.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
I n recent years, Naturally Occurring Affordable Rental Housing (NOA H) in Richfield and throughout the
metro area has become vulnerable to being purchased, renovated and rents raised. W hile investment in our
rental housing stock is welcomed, the increased rents that occur when NOA H is converted to market-rate
housing have displaced countless residents from their homes. W ith low vacancy rates and a lack of new
affordable units being constructed across the metro area, this displacement has had a devastating impact on
low-income households who call rental housing their home.
Much of Richfield's rental housing stock is NOA H housing, and the City desires to protect this valuable
resource and to provide housing stability and protection to the residents who live in this affordable housing.
The City has spent over a year considering a variety of tools and strategies to preserve the City's NOA H
housing. The proposed tenant protection ordinance is one of these tools. The first tenant protection ordinance
in the metro area was developed by a group of rental property owners and tenant advocacy organizations
and adopted by the City of St. Louis Park. The ordinance under consideration is based on this work.
Under the proposed tenant protection ordinance, new owners of rental housing (defined as buildings with
three or more units) will be required to provide a three-month protection period following the sale of a
property, during which time new owners must provide financial compensation to tenants if they do any of the
following three things:
1. terminate a rental agreement without just cause;
2. raise rents, or
3. initiate a new screening process that results in terminating an existing tenant's lease.
I f an owner does any of these three things during the protection period, they must pay relocation assistance
to the displaced tenant equal to three months' contract rent. The new owner will be required to send notice to
the tenant within 30 days of closing on the property, informing them of the new ownership, whether or not any
of these three things will occur during the three-month protection period, and if they intend to do them
following the expiration of the protection period.
Additional feedback was received on the ordinance presented at first reading and further
refinements have been made to the language to clarify the requirements and to ensure some
consistency between Richfield's ordinance and the versions being adopted by other cities. A redlined
copy of the ordinance is attached highlighting the proposed changes.
The ordinance would become effective on J anuary 1, 2019.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve the second reading of an ordinance adopting a ne w City Code Section
409 relating to the sale of affordable rental housing and establishing notice and relocation
assistance re quirements for ne w owne rs.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
Since April of 2017, the City Council has been considering the need to preserve the City's NOA H
and has studied a variety of tools and strategies to do so.
I n October 2017, the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) established
goals and a work plan for strengthening the City's apartment communities. The proposed
ordinance supports these goals and is one step in the work plan.
I n May 2018, the Council directed staff to move forward on developing a tenant protection
ordinance.
On J uly 16, 2018, the Council reviewed a draft tenant protection ordinance at a work session.
Following the work session, the ordinance was made available on the City's website and comments
on the ordinance were encouraged.
Several written comments were received on the proposed ordinance. In summary, people wrote:
In support of passing the ordinance and providing protection to tenants living in
affordable housing.
The ordinance should be expanded to provide greater protection to residents living in
accessible apartments.
By applying the ordinance only to affordable housing, landlords may be encouraged to
raise rents in order to avoid the regulations.
A landlord recovery fund is needed that would assist landlords in recovering extraordinary
costs incurred from damage by tenants.
The Richfield Community Housing Team submitted additional comments on the ordinance that was
presented at first reading. Their concerns with the ordinance were clarifying and technical in
nature and have been addressed in the amended ordinance.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The proposed ordinance furthers the Council goal to strengthen protections for renters in order to
promote housing stability.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The ordinance will take effect on J anuary 1, 2019.
I nformation on the ordinance will be sent to rental property owners with annual rental license
renewals in October.
Staff is currently working with the Hennepin County Assessor's Office to obtain notification of sale
when an apartment building transfers ownership. At this time, it is unknown how quickly following a
transfer the County and subsequently the City will be notified.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The proposed ordinance will require City staff to publicize and enforce the notification
requirements. At this time, existing Community Development staff will carry out these
responsibilities.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The City Attorney has prepared the proposed ordinance.
A public hearing on the ordinance is not legally required; however, the Council may choose to
accept public testimony on the ordinance.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Council may choose to:
Approve the ordinance with changes;
Delay consideration of the ordinance for further study; or
Decide not to adopt the ordinance.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
N/A
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Ordinance Ordinance
Redline of Ordinance P resented at F irst Reading B ackup Material
534979v1 MDT RC160-5
BILL NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW CITY CODE SECTION 409 RELATING TO THE
SALE OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING AND ESTABLISHING NOTICE AND
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW OWNERS
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. The Richfield City Code is amended by adding a new Section 409 as follows:
SECTION 409. – SALE OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING; NOTICE AND
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS
409.00. – Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to provide housing stability and protection to
tenants in affordable rental housing who are facing displacement by providing for notice to the City
and tenants when transitions from current affordable housing uses are planned, and providing
tenant relocation assistance when affordable housing is converted and tenants are required to move
without adequate time to find new housing.
409.01. – Definitions.
Subdivision. 1. The following definitions apply in this Section:
(a) “Affordable housing building” means an apartment house as defined in 407.03
having three or more dwelling units, where at least 20% of the units rent for an
amount that is affordable to households at or below 60 percent of area median
income, as median income was most recently determined by the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Minneapolis-St. Paul-
Bloomington, Minnesota- Wisconsin Metropolitan Statistical Area, as adjusted for
household size and number of bedrooms.
(b) “Affordable housing unit” means a rental unit in an affordable housing building
that rents for an amount that is affordable to households at or below 60 percent of
area median income, as median income was most recently determined by the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Minneapolis-
St. Paul- Bloomington, Minnesota-Wisconsin Metropolitan Statistical Area, as
adjusted for household size and number of bedrooms.
(c) “Cause” means the tenant or a member of the tenant’s household materially
violated a term of the lease or rental agreement, or violated an applicable federal,
state, or local law or regulation.
(d) “Relocation assistance” means a payment in the amount equal to three months of
the current monthly contract rent.
(e) “Tenant protection period” means the period that commences on the date when
written notice of the transfer of ownership is sent to each affordable housing unit
tenant pursuant to subsection 409.03 and ends on the last day of the third full
calendar month following the date on which the notice was sent pursuant to
subsection 409.03.
534979v1 MDT RC160-5
(f) “Transfer of ownership” means any conveyance of title to an affordable housing
building, whether legal or equitable, voluntary or involuntary, resulting in a
transfer of control of the building, effective as of the earlier of the date of delivery
of the instrument of conveyance or the date the new owner takes possession.
409.03. – Transfer of Ownership.
Subdivision 1. Notice. Within thirty (30) days after the transfer of ownership of an
affordable housing building, the new owner shall give written notice to each affordable housing
unit tenant of the building that the property is under new ownership. The notice must include the
following information:
(a) The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the new owner.
(b) The following statement: Richfield City Code Section 409 provides for a
three-month tenant protection period for affordable housing unit tenants after an
affordable housing building is transferred to a new owner. Under Section 409,
affordable housing unit tenants are entitled to relocation assistance from the new
owner if, during the tenant protection period, the new owner:
(1) Without cause, terminates or does not renew the tenant’s rental
agreement;
(2) Raises the rent and the tenant submits a written notice of termination of
their rental agreement; or,
(3) Requires existing affordable housing unit tenants to comply with new
residency screening criteria and the owner or tenant terminates or does not
renew the tenant’s rental agreement.
(c) Whether there will be any rent increase during the tenant protection period, the
amount of the rent increase, and the date the rent increase will take effect.
(d) Whether the new owner will require existing affordable housing unit tenants to
comply with new residency screening criteria during the tenant protection period
and, if so, a copy of the new screening criteria.
(e) Whether the new owner will, without cause, terminate or not renew the tenant’s
rental agreement during the tenant protection period, and if so, the date the rental
agreement will terminate and the amount of relocation assistance that will be
provided.
(f) The date the tenant protection period will expire.
(g) Whether the new owner, on the day immediately following the tenant protection
period, intends to: increase rent; require existing affordable housing unit tenants to
comply with new residency screening criteria; or, without cause, terminate or not
renew affordable housing unit rental agreements.
534979v1 MDT RC160-5
Subd. 3. Copy of notices to City. The new owner shall provide a copy of the notices
required by this subsection to the City at the same time notice is provided to the tenant or tenants.
Subd. 4. Copy of Rent Roll to City. If the new owner claims the property or the unit does
not meet the definition of Affordable Housing Building or Affordable Housing Unit, upon request,
the owner shall provide a copy of the rent roll, including the amount of contract rents paid by
tenants, to the City.
Subd. 5. Language requirement. Each notice required by this subsection shall contain an
advisory that reads as follows: “This is important information about your housing. If you do not
understand it, have someone translate it for you now, or request a translation from your landlord.”
This advisory must be stated in the notice in the following languages: Spanish, Somali, and
Hmong. Upon request by a tenant, the owner must provide a written translation of the notice into
the tenant’s native language.
409.05. – Relocation Assistance.
Subdivision 1. When required. A new owner of an affordable housing building must pay
relocation assistance to affordable housing unit tenants when, during the tenant protection
period, the new owner:
(a) Without cause, terminates or does not renew the tenant’s rental agreement; or,
(b) Raises the rent and the tenant submits a written notice of termination of their
rental agreement; or
(c) Requires existing tenants to comply with new residency screening criteria and
the owner or tenant terminates or does not renew the tenant’s rental agreement.
Subd. 2. When paid. The new owner must pay the relocation assistance to the tenant
within 30 days after receiving tenant’s written notice of termination of the rental agreement
or within 30 days after the owner notifies the tenant that the rental agreement will be
terminated or not renewed.
409.07. – Penalty.
Subdivision 1. A violation of subsection 409.05 is an administrative offense that may
be subject to an administrative citation and civil penalties as provided in City Code
Section 325. Notwithstanding any provision of City Code Section 325, the penalty for a
violation of subsection 409.05 shall be the sum of the applicable amount of relocation
assistance plus $500.
Subd. 2. A violation of subsection 409.03 is an administrative offense that may be
subject to an administrative citation and civil penalties as provided in City Code 325.
Subd. 3. A violation of this Section as to each dwelling unit shall constitute a separate
offense.
534979v1 MDT RC160-5
409.09. – Payment by City to Displaced Tenant. Within 30 days after a person pays the
penalty provided for in subsection 409.07, subd. 1, the city shall pay to the displaced tenant of
the affordable housing unit for which the violation occurred, the applicable amount of relocation
assistance.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2019.
ADOPTED this day of _, 2018, by the City Council of the City
of Richfield.
By: ___________________________
Pat Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
534979v1 MDT RC160-5
BILL NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW CITY CODE SECTION 409 RELATING TO THE
SALE OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING AND ESTABLISHING NOTICE AND
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW OWNERS
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1.The Richfield City Code is amended by adding a new Section 409 as follows:
SECTION 409.–SALE OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING;NOTICE AND
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS
409.00.–Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to provide housing stability and protection to
tenants in affordable rental housing who are facing displacement by providing for notice to the City
and tenants when transitions from current affordable housing uses are planned,and providing
tenant relocation assistance when affordable housing is converted and tenants are required to move
without adequate time to find new housing.
409.01.–Definitions.
Subdivision. 1.The following definitions appl y in this Section:
(a) “Affordable housing building”means an apartment house as defined in 407.03
having three or more dwelling units,where at least 20%of the units rent for an
amount that is affordable to households at or below 60 percent of area median
income,as median income was most recently determined by the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Minneapolis-St.Paul-
Bloomington,Minnesota-Wisconsin Metropolitan Statistical Area,as adjusted for
household size and number of bedrooms.
(b)“Affordable housing unit”means a rental unit in an affordable housing building
that rents for an amount that is affordable to households at or below 60 percent of
area median income,as median income was most recently determined by the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Minneapolis-
St.Paul-Bloomington,Minnesota-Wisconsin Metropolitan Statistical Area,as
adjusted for household size and number of bedrooms.
(c)“Cause”means the tenant or a member of the tenant’s household materially
violated a term of the lease or rental agreement,or violated an applicable federal,
state, or local law or regulation.
(d) “Relocation assistance” means a p ayment in the amount equal to three months of
the current monthly contract rent charged to the tenant .
(e)“Tenant protection period”means the period that commences on the date when
written notice of the transfer ofa real estate closing transfers ownership of an
affordable housing building and runs through the end of the 3 calendar months
following the month in which written notice of the transfer is sent to each
affordable housing unit tenant pursuant to subsection 409.03 and ends on the last
534979v1 MDT RC160-5
day of the third full calendar month following the date on which the notice was
sent pursuant to subsection 409.03.
(f) “Transfer of ownership” means any conveyance of title to an affordable housing
building,whether legal or equitable, voluntary or involuntary,resulting in a
transfer of control of the building,effective as of the earlier of the date of delivery
of the instrument of conveyance or the date the new owner takes possession.
409.03.–Transfer of Ownership.
Subdivision 1.Notice.Whenever ownership of an affordable housing building is
transferred,the new owner shall,wWithin thirty (30)days after the date on which a real estate
closing transfers of ownership of the an affordable housing building,the new owner shall give
written notice to each affordable housing unit tenant of the building that the property is under new
ownership.The notice must include the following information:
(a)The name,mailing address,and telephone number of the new owner.
(b)The following statement:Richfield City Code Section 409 provides for a
three-month tenant protection period for affordable housing unit tenants after an
affordable housing building is transferred to a new owner.Under Section 409,
affordable housing unit tenants are entitled to relocation assistance from the new
owner if, during the tenant protection period, the new owner:
(1)Without cause, terminates or does not renew the tenant’s rental
agreement;
(2) Raises the rent and the tenant submits a written notice of termination of
their rental agreement; or,
(3)Requires existing affordable housing unit tenants to comply with new
residency screening criteria and the owner or tenant terminates or does not
renew the tenant’s rental agreement.
(c)Whether there will be any rent increase during the tenant protection period,the
amount of the rent increase,and the date the rent increase will take effect.
(d)Whether the new owner will require existing affordable housing unit tenants to
comply with new residency screening criteria during the tenant protection period
and,if so,a copy of the new screening criteria.
(e)Whether the new owner will, without cause,terminate or not renew the tenant’s
rental agreement during the tenant protection period,and if so,the date the rental
agreement will terminate and the amount of relocation assistance that will be
provided.
(f) The date the tenant protection period will expire.
(g)Whether the new owner,after the tenant protection period expireson the day
immediately following the tenant protection period,intends to:increase rent;
534979v1 MDT RC160-5
require existing affordable housing unit tenants to comply with new residency
screening criteria;or, without cause,terminate or not renew affordable housing unit
rental agreements and, if so, when the new owner intends to take such actions.
Subd. 2. Amended notice required. If a new owner decides to take action during the tenant
protection period that is different than the action described in the notice required under subsection
409.03, subd. 1, the owner must send the impacted tenant or tenants an amended notice describing
the modified action and the timing for the same.
Subd. 3.Copy of notices to City.The new owner shall provide a copy of the notices
required by this subsection to the City at the same time notice is provided to the tenant or tenants.
Subd. 4.Copy of Rent Roll to City. If the new owner claims the property or the unit does
not meet the definition of Affordable Housing Building or Affordable Housing Unit, upon request,
the owner shall provide a copy of the rent roll, including the amount of contract rents paid by
tenants, to the City.
Subd.5.Language requirement.Each notice required by this subsection shall contain an
advisory that reads as follows: “This is important housing information about your housing. If you
do not understand it, have someone translate it for you now ,or request a translation from your
landlord.” This advisory must be stated in the notice in the following languages :Spanish, Somali,
and Hmong.Upon request by a tenant, the owner must provide a written translation of the notice
into the tenant’s native language.
409.05.–Relocation Assistance.
Subdivision 1.When required.A new owner of an affordable housing building must pay
relocation assistance to affordable housing unit tenants when, during the tenant protection
period, the new owner:
(a)Without cause,terminates or does not renew the tenant’s rental agreement; or,
(b) Raises the rent and the tenant submits a written notice of termination of their
rental agreement; or
(c) Requires existing tenants to comply with new residency screening criteria and
the owner or tenant terminates or does not renew the tenant’s rental agreement.
Subd. 2.When paid.The new owner must pay the relocation assistance to the tenant
within 30 days after receiving tenant’s written notice of termination of the rental agreement
or within 30 days after the owner notifies the tenant that the rental agreement will be
terminated or not renewed.
409.07.–Penalty.
Subdivision 1.A violation of subsection 409.05 is an administrative offense that may
be subject to an administrative citation and civil penalties as provided in City Code
Section 325. Notwithstanding an y provision of City Code Section 325, the penalty for a
violation of subsection 409.05 shall be the sum of the applicable amount of relocation
assistance plus $500.
534979v1 MDT RC160-5
Subd. 2.A violation of subsection 409.03 is an administrative offense that may be
subject to an administrative citation and civil penalties as provided in City Code 325.
Subd. 3.A violation of this Section as to each dwelling unit shall constitute a separate
offense.
409.09.–Payment by City to Displaced Tenant.Within 30 days after a person pays the
penalty provided for in subsection 409.07, subd. 1,the city shall pay to the displaced tenant of
the affordable housing unit for which the violation occurred,the applicable amount of relocation
assistance.
SECTION 2.This Ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2019.
ADOPTED this day of _,2018,by the City Council of the City
of Richfield.
By:___________________________
Pat Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM #11.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 171
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
9/25/2018
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: John S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: John S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
9/18/2018
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
9/19/2018
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consideration of the adoption of a resolution approving an Inclusionary Affordable Housing Policy.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
On J une 25, 2013 the Richfield City Council adopted a Housing Policy Vision Statement that supports a "full
range and balance of housing types that match the choices of its diverse residents." Furthermore, there have
been many City Council discussions in the past eighteen months related to continuing support for affordable
housing. As a part of the implementation of the Housing Visioning Statement, and in conformance with City
Council direction, staff is recommending the adoption of a formal policy related to inclusionary affordable
housing policy.
A preliminary draft of this I nclusionary Affordable Housing Policy (Policy) was presented to the City Council
and Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (H R A) at a July 16 concurrent work session. Much
of this Policy has been consistently applied to developments receiving public assistance over the
past twenty years. A formal policy, however, will better define expectations and requirements in a
more transparent manner.
The proposed Policy would require housing developers receiving public subsidy to either:
Make at least 20% of all housing units to be affordable to either renters earning less than 60% of the
Area Median I ncome (A MI ) or owners earning less than 115% of the A MI , or;
Pledge 15% of the net-present-value of the subsidy they receive to the Richfield Housing and
Redevelopment Fund, and;
Must provide 90-day notice of sale, and;
Must agree to not discriminate against renters receiving rental subsidies (including the Section 8
Housing Choice program).
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Adopt a resolution approving an Inclusionary Affordable Housing Policy.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
I n 2013, the Richfield City Council adopted a Housing Policy Vision Statement that supports a
"full range and balance of housing types that match the choices of its diverse residents."
Since April of 2017, the City Council has been considering the need to preserve the City's
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOA H) and to insure the construction of a mix of
housing affordability.
I n October 2017, the City Council and HRA established goals and a work plan for strengthening
the City's apartment communities. The proposed Policy supports these goals and is one step in
the work plan.
I n May 2018 the Council directed staff to move forward on drafting a Policy.
On J uly 16, 2018, the Council reviewed a draft Policy.
Following the work session, the Policy was made available on the City's website and comments on
the Policy were encouraged.
Responses to comments from the Community Housing Team are attached.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The proposed Policy furthers the Council goal to provide a mix of housing types (including a mix
of affordability levels).
This Policy applies to the inclusion of affordable housing units. I n the coming months, staff will be
researching and drafting a policy regarding the inclusion of physically accessible housing units
and amenities.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
I f approved by the City Council, the Policy will become effective immediately for projects that
receive financial assistance from the City. I f, and when, the Richfield HRA and E D A adopt the
policy, it will become immediately effective for projects receiving financial assistance from those
public bodies.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
W hile there is no fiscal impact on City/HRA operational costs, a developer's election to pledge
funds to the HRA's Housing and Redevelopment Fund would be available to assist in affordable
housing costs throughout the community.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The City Attorney prepared the resolution.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Council may choose to:
Approve the Policy with changes;
Delay consideration of the Policy for further study; or
Decide not to adopt the Policy.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
N/A
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution Resolution L etter
2013 Housing Visioning S tatement C over Memo
Inclusionary Housing P olicy E xhibit
C ommunity Housing Team E xhibit
RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF
AN INCLUSIONARY AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY
WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council adopted a Housing Policy Vision Statement in
2013 that supports a full range and balance of housing types that match the choices of its diverse
residents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to further support development of high quality
housing in the community for households of various income levels, ages and sizes in order to
help the City meet its goals of preserving and promoting economically diverse housing options in
the City; and
WHEREAS, without intervention, housing prices will continue to rise in new
developments;
WHEREAS, the City Council wants to ensure that both the public and private sectors
continue to create affordable housing opportunities in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that adoption of a policy setting criteria and
incentives for developers to build new affordable units will assist the City in achieving its
inclusionary housing goals; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, that:
1. The Inclusionary Affordable Housing Policy is hereby approved and adopted.
2. City staff is authorized to carry out the policy effective immediately.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this _____ day of
______________, 2018.
Pat Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
June 2013
Richfield Housing Vision Statement
Richfield is a sustainable community that is known for its strong, vibrant and eclectic,
amenity-rich neighborhoods supported by a full range and balance of housing types that
match the choices of its diverse residents at every stage of their lives.
THE MEANING OF WORDS IN THE VISION STATEMENT
Richfield is – means that this is an aspirational statement. The Task Force members are describing the
housing and community they want for their future.
a sustainable community – “community” was a theme repeated by the Task Force members throughout
the process. Housing was acknowledged to be very important, but housing was viewed as a means to
achieving a strong community. “Sustainable” is added to encompass environmental, economic and social
considerations.
that is known for its strong, vibrant and eclectic, amenity rich neighborhoods – like community, strong
neighborhoods were identified over and over again by the members throughout the process. The word
“vibrant” means that these neighborhoods are prospering economically and socially. “Eclectic” was used
to acknowledge that Richfield can have varied and unique neighborhoods, each building on distinct
attributes and opportunities. “Amenity-rich” means environmental amenities like green space, trees,
trails and other natural features, as well as community gathering places, coffee shops and similar
cultural offerings.
supported by a full range and balance of housing types – the concept of housing supporting the
neighborhoods is reinforced with these words.” Full range” of housing types means that there is a wide
variety of housing options available for people to choose from when considering moving to or staying in
Richfield. A “balance of housing types” means the avoidance of concentrations of any housing types.
that match the choices of its diverse residents at every stage of their lives. – “match the choices of
diverse residents” means that the City has what residents want, not just what they have to adapt to. The
Task Force supports a broad definition of diversity. These varied housing offerings mean that residents
can stay in the community their whole lives and find housing that meets their needs and their
preferences.
City of Richfield
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Richfield Economic Development Authority
Inclusionary Affordable Housing Policy
The City of Richfield, Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and Richfield Economic
Development Authority are committed to building a community that is welcoming and affordable to
a diverse population of individuals and families at all stages of their lives. As such, we hereby
establish the following policy for the inclusion of affordable housing in development proposals.
Requirements
1. Housing Development Projects that Receive Financial Assistance from HRA, EDA or City:
a. Must contain at least 20% affordable units
i. At least 20% of rental housing units must be made affordable to tenant
households earning no more than 60% of the Area Median Income over a period
of ten years or the duration of the subsidy (whichever is longer);
ii. At least 20% of owner-occupied housing units must be made affordable to, and
initially sold to, households earning no more than 115% of the Area Median
Income;
iii. At least 20% of the grand total of housing units in a mixed rental/ownership
development must be affordable at the affordability levels established in 1.a)i
and 1.a)ii,
or;
b. Must contribute the the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Fund
i. 15% of the “net present value” of Tax Increment generated by the project (or
15% of the net present value of other types of assistance) must be pledged to
the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Fund over a period of ten years or the
duration of the subsidy (whichever is longer), or;
ii. A pro-rata combination of the above (i.e. 10% affordable units and a 7.5%
contribution) may be considered, and;
c. Must agree to provide 90 days’ advance notice to the public body providing funding of
any sale of the property,
and;
d. Must agree to not discriminate against households utilizing Housing Choice Vouchers
(Section 8) or other forms of rental assistance.
2. Non-Housing Development Projects that receive Financial Assistance from HRA, EDA or City and
which result in the loss of affordable housing:
a. Affordable housing units eliminated by the project must be replaced on-site or at
another location in Richfield by the developer at similar affordability levels, or;
b. 5-15% (depending on the magnitude of the loss of affordable housing) of the “net
present value” of the Financial Assistance provided must be pledged to the Richfield
Housing and Redevelopment Fund over a period of ten years or the duration of the
subsidy (whichever is longer).
Incentives
3. Housing Development Projects which include affordable units (as outlined in 1a above) are
eligible to apply to the City for the following considerations regardless of whether or not they
receive Public Financial Assistance:
i. Building Permit Fee Reductions (10% reduction for rehabilitation and/or 5%
reduction for new construction);
ii. 4d Property Tax Reduction (rental projects);
iii. Consideration of code flexibility (e.g., smaller setbacks, excessive impervious
surface, etc.) in planned unit developments;
iv. A housing unit density bonus of 5-15% (e.g., a project in an area that allows 8-24
units/acre could add an additional 1-4 units/acre and remain in compliance).
Exceptions
4. The City Council or Board of Commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority or
Economic Development Authority may vary the application of this policy as circumstances
warrant with the adoption of findings of the reasons for doing so.
Adopted:
This __ day of ______________ by the Richfield City Council.
__________________ ___________________
Mayor Secretary
This __ day of _____________ by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
__________________ ___________________
Chair Secretary
This __ day of _____________ by the Richfield Economic Development Authority.
__________________ ___________________
Chair Secretary
Dear Julie,
The leaders of the Richfield Community Housing Team have reviewed the draft ordinances for
Inclusionary Housing and 90-Day Tenant Protection Period. We appreciate the work that has gone into
drafting these and think it will be an important step toward protecting tenants from involuntary
displacement and ensuring affordable housing is available into the future. We do, however, have some
concerns about the current wording of these ordinances and would ask that you create the strongest
versions possible. Here are several points we would like you to consider:
Inclusionary Housing:
1. Long-term availability requires more than 10-year commitments. We’d ask for 20 years or more.
A: A: A: A: We will We will We will We will addressaddressaddressaddress this on a casethis on a casethis on a casethis on a case----bybybyby----case basis and set a requirement thatcase basis and set a requirement thatcase basis and set a requirement thatcase basis and set a requirement that’s ’s ’s ’s
commensurate with the amount of assistance provided . commensurate with the amount of assistance provided . commensurate with the amount of assistance provided . commensurate with the amount of assistance provided . For example, wFor example, wFor example, wFor example, when significant hen significant hen significant hen significant
financial contributions are made by the City, as is the case financial contributions are made by the City, as is the case financial contributions are made by the City, as is the case financial contributions are made by the City, as is the case withwithwithwith tax incrementtax incrementtax incrementtax increment
financingfinancingfinancingfinancing, the requirement will be 25 years. , the requirement will be 25 years. , the requirement will be 25 years. , the requirement will be 25 years. When we offer a land writeWhen we offer a land writeWhen we offer a land writeWhen we offer a land write----down of a down of a down of a down of a
minimal minimal minimal minimal amount, we will consider a shorter timeamount, we will consider a shorter timeamount, we will consider a shorter timeamount, we will consider a shorter time----commitment.commitment.commitment.commitment.
2. The “exceptions” clause is vague and should be more clearly defined and limited.
A: A: A: A: Each project we deal with is unique. Building in flexibility Each project we deal with is unique. Building in fl exibility Each project we deal with is unique. Building in fl exibility Each project we deal with is unique. Building in fl exibility recognizes that fact and recognizes that fact and recognizes that fact and recognizes that fact and
gives policymakers the ability to gives policymakers the ability to gives policymakers the ability to gives policymakers the ability to advance affordabl e housing objectives without advance affordable housing objectives without advance affordable housing objectives without advance affordable housing objectives without
discouraging investment in the community. discouraging investment in the community. discouraging investment in the community. discouraging investment in the community.
3. Is the alternative payment into a housing fund worth as much as new affordable units? Those
payments need to be high enough to create other affordable housing opportunities.
A: A: A: A: No, the amount is based on No, the amount is based on No, the amount is based on No, the amount is based on the limits placed on tax increment financing (TIF) by the limits placed on tax increment financing (TIF) by the limits placed on tax increment financing (TIF) by the limits placed on tax increment financing (TIF) by
state statute. state statute. state statute. state statute. TTTTax increment lawax increment lawax increment lawax increment law limits the amount limits the amount limits the amount limits the amount of increment of increment of increment of increment that can be spent on that can be spent on that can be spent on that can be spent on
eligible activities outside of the districteligible activities outside of the districteligible activities outside of the districteligible activities outside of the district itself itself itself itself to 15%to 15%to 15%to 15% of the total TIFof the total TIFof the total TIFof the total TIF....
4. This policy meets the needs for people earning 60% AMI. What about families living on 50%,
40%, or 30% AMI? Where can they live in Richfield?
A: A: A: A: Affordability at less than 50% is a challenge wi thout a rental subsidy. Affordability at less than 50% is a challenge witho ut a rental subsidy. Affordability at less than 50% is a challenge witho ut a rental subsidy. Affordability at less than 50% is a challenge witho ut a rental subsidy. Often the Often the Often the Often the
most successful housing for peoplmost successful housing for peoplmost successful housing for peoplmost successful housing for people at these levels is that providee at these levels is that providee at these levels is that providee at these levels is that provided by missiond by missiond by missiond by mission----
oriented providersoriented providersoriented providersoriented providers, not market, not market, not market, not market----rate developers/managersrate developers/managersrate developers/managersrate developers/managers. . . . Unfortunately, significant Unfortunately, significant Unfortunately, significant Unfortunately, significant
dollars are needed to develop housing appropriate a t these income levels, and the dollars are needed to develop housing appropriate a t these income levels, and the dollars are needed to develop housing appropriate a t these income levels, and the dollars are needed to develop housing appropriate a t these income levels, and the
resources are sorely lacking. resources are sorely lacking. resources are sorely lacking. resources are sorely lacking. We’ve addresseWe’ve addresseWe’ve addresseWe’ve addressed this affordability level in the pas t d this affordability level in the past d this affordability level in the past d this affordability level in the past
through our rent assistance programs and by support ing projects such as Richfield through our rent assistance programs and by support ing projects such as Richfield through our rent assistance programs and by support ing projects such as Richfield through our rent assistance programs and by support ing projects such as Richfield
Towers and Sheridan Court. We don’t see the Inclusi onary Housing Policy as the Towers and Sheridan Court. We don’t see the Inclusi onary Housing Policy as the Towers and Sheridan Court. We don’t see the Inclusi onary Housing Policy as the Towers and Sheridan Court. We don’t see the Inclusi onary Housing Policy as the
appropriate way to address this need. appropriate way to address this need. appropriate way to address this need. appropriate way to address this need.
5. We would also like this policy to require a percentage of new housing units be accessible.
A: A: A: A: We need more information on the needs for access ible housing in the communityWe need more information on the needs for accessibl e housing in the communityWe need more information on the needs for accessibl e housing in the communityWe need more information on the needs for accessibl e housing in the community
before moving forward on this issuebefore moving forward on this issuebefore moving forward on this issuebefore moving forward on this issue.... We don’t want to We don’t want to We don’t want to We don’t want to slowslowslowslow progress by waiting to progress by waiting to progress by waiting to progress by waiting to
pass pass pass pass the policythe policythe policythe policy ununununtiltiltiltil we do this researchwe do this researchwe do this researchwe do this research....
6. In Section 2, we think it is important to clarify and define where replacement units can be built
and what “similar affordability levels” means.
A: A: A: A: The location options are fairly limited in a ful lyThe location options are fairly limited in a fullyThe location options are fairly limited in a fullyThe location options are fairly limited in a fully----developed community. developed community. developed community. developed community. Again, we Again, we Again, we Again, we
bbbbelieve it’s best to address this on a caseelieve it’s best to address this on a caseelieve it’s best to address this on a caseelieve it’s best to address this on a case----bybybyby----case basis.case basis.case basis.case basis.
7. Could this policy apply to ALL new developments instead of just those receiving city assistance?
This would support even more affordable housing development.
A: A: A: A: This is a policymaker decision, and This is a policymaker decision, and This is a policymaker decision, and This is a policymaker decision, and there is broade st support for a flexible policy.there is broadest support for a flexible policy.there is broadest support for a flexible policy.there is broadest support for a flexible policy.
To date, the Richfield market has not To date, the Richfield market has not To date, the Richfield market has not To date, the Richfield market has not seenseenseenseen new new new new housing housing housing housing development happen without development happen without development happen without development happen without
city assistance. city assistance. city assistance. city assistance. If that fact were to If that fact were to If that fact were to If that fact were to change, change, change, change, policymakers could consider anpolicymakers could consider anpolicymakers could consider anpolicymakers could consider an
ordinance.ordinance.ordinance.ordinance.
[ . . . ]
Thank you for your work! We ask that you continue to consider the voices and concerns of the people
most directly impacted by the affordable housing crisis. Please let us know if you have any questions.
-The Richfield Community Housing Team