08-10-2020 Complete AgendaR EG U LAR C IT Y C O U N C IL MEET IN G
V IR T U AL ME E TIN G H E L D V IA W E B E X
AU G U S T 10, 2020
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
P ledge of A llegiance
Open forum
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.
A pproval of the Minutes of the (1) Joint C ity C ouncil/HRA /P C Work S ession of July 20, 2020; (2) C ity C ouncil Work
S ession of July 28, 2020; and (3) C ity C ouncil Meeting of J uly 28, 2020.
P R E S E N TATIO N S
1.P roclaim the month of A ugust 2020 in celebration of the 100th A nniversary of the 19th A mendment in the C ity of
Richfield.
AG E N D A APPR O VAL
2.A pproval of the A genda
3.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 onsider a resolution adopting A ffordable and L ife-C ycle Housing Goals for 2021-2030 and re-enrolling in
the L ivable C ommunities A ct P rogram.
S taff Report No. 90
B .C onsider a resolution authorizing an E ncroachment A greement between the C ity of Richfield and
P artnership A cademy located at 6500 Nicollet Ave S ., allowing P artnership A cademy to install and
maintain sport courts, playground equipment and other allowed improvements within the city's existing utility
easement.
S taff Report No. 91
C .C onsider the adoption of a resolution approving final Richfield 2040 C omprehensive P lan.
Note: The full 2040 C omprehensive P lan is available for review on the city's website
(www.richfieldmn.gov/compplan). The size of the document makes it impractical and technologically difficult
to attach directly to this report.
S taff Report No. 92
D .C onsider the approval of the first reading of an ordinance that includes requirements for all persons using
designated off-leash dog area(s) in C ity of Richfield P arks, and schedule a public hearing and second
reading S eptember 8, 2020.
S taff Report No. 93
4.C onsideration of items, if any, removed from C onsent C alendar
PR O P O S E D O R D IN AN C E S
5.F irst reading of an ordinance establishing a prevailing wage policy for city funded capital projects with estimated
costs of $300,000 or more.
S taff Report No. 94
6.C onsider an ordinance amending regulations pertaining to the installation of small wireless facilities and wireless
support structures in the right-of-way and a resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance.
S taff Report No. 95
R E S O L U T IO N S
7.C onsider the approval of an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow building renovations and site
improvements at Hope P resbyterian C hurch, 7132 P ortland Avenue.
S taff Report No. 96
C IT Y MAN AG E R’S R E P O R T
8.C ity Manager's Report
C LAIMS AN D PAYR O L LS
9.C laims and P ayroll
C O U N C IL D ISC U SSIO N
10.Hats Off to Hometown Hits
11.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
Concurrent City Council, Housing and
Redevelopment Authority and Planning
Commission Work Session
July 20, 2020
CALL TO ORDER
The work session was called to order by HRA Chair Supple at 6:00 p.m. via Webex.
Council Members Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor; Mary Supple; and Ben
Present Whalen.
Council Members Edwina Garcia; and Simon Trautmann.
Absent:
HRA Members Mary Supple, Chair; Maria Regan Gonzalez; Sue Sandahl;
Present: Erin Vrieze Daniels; and Pat Elliott
HRA Members
Absent: None
PC Members
Present: Kathryn Quam, Chair; Jim Rudolph; Peter Lavin; Sean Hayford Oleary; and
Brian Pynn
PC Members
Absent: Susan Rosenberg.
Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; John Stark, HRA Executive
Director/Community Development Director; Julie Urban, Housing Manager;
Melissa Poehlman, Assistant Community Development Director and LaTonia
DuBois, Administrative Assistant.
Others Present: Brian Bochman, Enclave Development; Ryan Samsa, Enclave Development;
Aaron Roseth, Enclave Development; Christopher Willettte, ESG Architects;
Neal Reardon, ESG Architects; and Bruce Hinks, property owner.
Item #1
DISCUSSION OF A REVISED REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR PROPERTIES
AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 65TH STREET AND LYNDALE AVENUE (6439
LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH, 6437 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH AND 415 – 64 ½
STREET).
Assistant Community Development Director Poehlman provided background on the project
and concerns Policy Makers discussed at previous work session.
Concurrent Council, HRA and Planning Commission Work Session -2- July 20, 2020
Brian Bochman, Enclave Development, discussed requests and questions from residents and
Policy Makers and changes proposed to parking structure, provided updated time line and status of
current business owners and plans for relocation of those business looking to relocate in Richfield.
Discussed how ESG Architects came in to help with ideas for more affordable options, how affordable
housing would be addressed and the addition of affordable units.
Planning Commissioner Lavin inquired about the exit and entry of parking and traffic on 64 ½.
Brian Bochman explained exit and entry from and to Lyndale Avenue and explained the
Lyndale Avenue exit and entry would likely be the quicker option and discussed the fire code
requirements for parking.
Planning Commissioner Lavin expressed neighborhood concerns regarding traffic.
Council Member Whalen requested clarification regarding Tax Increment Financing and
following the Inclusionary Housing Policy guidelines.
Brian Bochman explained how Natural Occurring Affordable Housing would come into play.
Council Member Whalen expressed desire for more resources to allow more affordable units
opposed to Tax Increment Financing.
Executive Director Stark mentioned applications being submitted to the Met Council to seek
additional funding. The current gap exceeds HRA’s ability to fill.
Assistant Community Developer Poehlman inquired about ways to make the project work and
about providing a smaller amount of affordable units to start the project but to seek additional funds to
fill the gap to allow for more affordable and or accessible units.
Brian Bochman discussed high development costs and the desire to look into additional
funding to allow more affordable units and the need to access financing for the project and the parking
ratio setbacks to obtain a density rate while maintaining reasonable parking ratios.
Assistant Community Develoment Director Poehlman explained the parking requirements are
Enclave’s parking requirements not the Cities requirements, but Enclave parking requirements fall in
line with the City requirements, Brian Bochman explained the reasoning for Enclave’s parking
requirements.
Council Member Hayford Oleary expressed thoughts that he believes this good project and
improvement to the site, and stated concerns with design and would like to see the main entrances on
Lyndale Avenue. He also stated concerns with the additional parking and funds being invested in
parking versus affordable units.
Christopher Willette, ESG Architects offered design explanation regarding primary access
points and stated willingness to look into other options. Discussed possible options if there was on
street parking and discussed the commercial terrace area and opportunities for walk up spaces.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez expressed appreciation for efforts being made by City staff and the
developers, and echoed concerns regarding the entrance into the neighborhood and amities
projecting into the neighborhood, and affordable housing desires.
Commissioner Sandahl inquired about plans for Lyndale Avenue and slowing traffic.
Concurrent Council, HRA and Planning Commission Work Session -3- July 20, 2020
Assistant Community Development Director Poehlman stated an additional roundabout is
planned for 65th and Lyndale Avenue and lanes being narrowed to slow traffic on Lyndale Avenue
north of 66th Street. .
Chair Supple mentioned a chat message stating a reduction of the speed limit in the area has
been approved.
Planning Commissioner Lavin inquired about who would occupy the commercial space.
Brian Bochman expressed desired tenants, but inability to predict.
Commissioner Sandahl inquired about access for commercial business.
Brian Bochman explained there would be access to the commercial spaces from the front walk
up spaces and the rear.
Council Member Whalen echoed concerns with front and rear entry points and expressed his
desire for affordability and that he would not be interested if there was not affordable housing.
Commissioner Vrieze Daniels echoed comments about affordability and she too would not
approve without the affordable units.
Brian Bochman inquired about how other developments were able to provide affordable units.
Executive Director Stark explained the different ways other developers were able to provide
affordable units.
Chair Supple echoed the desire to provide assistance to relocate current businesses in
Richfield and for affordability.
Commissioner Elliott offered support to the developers and their efforts to work with Policy
makers and residents.
Planning Commissioner Lavin echoed Commissioner Elliot’s statements.
Commissioner Sandahl echoed Commissioner Elliot’s position that this would be a good
development for the City.
Executive Director Stark mentioned how other developments have adhered to the Inclusionary
Housing Policy and mentioned some constraints in obtaining affordability.
Planning Chair Quam offered her support.
Planning Commissioner Rudolph also offered his support.
Chair Supple thanked the development team.
ADJOURNMENT
The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:57 p.m.
Concurrent Council, HRA and Planning Commission Work Session -4- July 20, 2020
Date Approved: August 10, 2020
Maria Regan Gonzalez
Mayor
LaTonia DuBois Katie Rodriguez
Administrative Assistant City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
City Council Work Session
Virtual meeting held via WebEx
July 28, 2020
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Regan Gonzalez at 5:45 p.m. held via WebEx
Council Members Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor; Mary Supple; Simon Trautmann; and Ben
Present: Whalen
Council Members Edwina Garcia
Absent:
Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Chris Regis, Finance Director; Kristin Asher;
Public Works Director; Blanca Martinez Gavina, Executive Analyst; and Kelly
Wynn, Senior Office Assistant
Item #1
REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY 2021 BUDGET, PROPOSED UTILITY RATES AND
PROPOSED 2021 CITY FEES.
.
City Manager Rodriguez reviewed the items to be discussed along with a brief overview of the
presentations.
Director Regis gave a timetable of key events; key issues for 2021; reviewed the history of
state aid provided; history of city reserves; 2021 proposed gross levy and history; 2021 proposed
general fund budget; general fund revenues and expenditures; 2021 proposed levy estimated impact;
and 2021 proposed budget.
Council Member Supple asked for clarification on the Recreation reserves and if the money
will be paid back.
Director Regis confirmed the money will be paid back and their reserves will come back over
time.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez questioned the reduction of existing debt/service tax levies and having
to renew it annually.
Director Regis explained whenever a bond is issued; a proposed levy is laid out to maintain
cash flows. Due to the pandemic, he reduced those levies but does not want to make a habit and will
review in a year.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez asked if there was a possibility to not reduce the levies as much or at
all.
City Council Work Session Minutes -2- July 28, 2020
Director Regis stated he believes the city has the capacity to reduce this year; however, it will
most likely add a percentage point to the levy increase so they will be assessed on a case by case
basis.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez recommended keeping an eye on the levy going forward with all of the
unknowns.
Council Member Trautmann questioned how accurate the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) of
3% each year or if that would ever change.
Director Regis explained that historically, COLA is set at 3%. There have been a year here
and there of less but it is extremely rare and the pay plan correlates with what the union contracted.
City Manager Rodriguez stated the 3% increase is contracted with the union.
Council Member Supple asked when the contract will be up and available for negotiations
again.
City Manager Rodriguez said the contract will be up at the end of 2021.
Council Member Supple thanked Director Regis for the explanations of the LGA and reserves
as they are very important when figuring in the CARES funding.
Council Member Whalen commented on the good questions from the discussions two weeks
ago regarding the budget and believes it is the wrong move to not compensate staff as they deserve.
He believes the budget looks much better than two weeks ago and is strongly opposed to cutting staff
merit increases and benefit packages.
City Manager Rodriguez explained staff is still attempting to get costs down and refining the
budget as much as possible.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez expressed appreciation for the discussion and consistent work
between council and staff regarding the budget. She is glad to be a part of the process and being able
to better understand the budget as a whole.
Council Member Whalen asked about a one-page budget summary.
City Manager Rodriguez confirmed staff is working on a template and clarity of numbers to fill
it out properly.
Council Member Whalen believes it will significantly help to communicate to residents and
have the ability to be clear and concise.
Council Member Supple expressed appreciation for the transparency that has occurred during
this process which helps the council make good decisions.
Council Member Trautmann echoed all comments on the work Director Regis has done. He
stated he is not looking to renegotiate employee salaries or anything of the sort but also does not
believe that a 5.8% increase is not a win. The increase will put a lot of pressure on working families
and believes staff should continue to look at priorities and be mindful of how to get that number lower.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez asked about varying viewpoints on the council regarding tax levy and
at what point will there be more clarity.
City Manager Rodriguez believes there will be more clarity by August 10 and is hoping to have
multiple options. There are some options but many dollars have already been negotiated. The city
City Council Work Session Minutes -3- July 28, 2020
does have some reserves and may have more after the CARES funding comes through. She
reassured council that she is looking at all options and working diligently with staff to fit in as many
priorities as possible.
Council Member Whalen thanked City Manager Rodriguez for her comments and believes it is
absolutely a win to be able to gain all the necessities desired for $4/person a month increase. He
explained that renters can see $50/month increases each year. He believes that if the city would like
to offer more and better services, they come at a price.
Council Member Trautmann clarified he did not want to cut salaries or the new Equity
Coordinator position.
Council Member Supple does not believe the council has all the information they need and
thanks staff to continue to gather and relay information.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez expressed her gratitude for being able to have these necessary
discussions.
Council Member Whalen appreciated Council Member Supple’s point and is wondering about
the dollar amount increase for residents and a possible ten year outlook.
Council Member Trautmann wondered if it is possible to create a fictional resident to see how
the costs would affect the average resident.
Director Regis stated he can try but explained it may be hard since fees are always changing
and it would take time to put together.
Director Asher walked through the utility fund-water and 2021 proposed rates of 2% along with
3% increase option; water fund outlook; and reviewed where Richfield stands compared to
neighboring city water utility bills.
Council Member Supple asked if the city charges for water usage and water softening together
or separate.
Director Asher explained they are combined into one charge. She then discussed the
possibility of how to use the fixed cost collected; utility fund-wastewater; wastewater fund outlook; and
where Richfield falls with sewer and neighboring communities.
Council Member Supple questioned if there is a fixed charge is not on wastewater.
Director Asher confirmed there is not one included with wastewater. There is only one fixed
charge fee and it is listed with water. She then reviewed utility fund-storm water; storm water fund
outlook; neighborhood city ranking; and utilities combined for the typical household. The also stated
the street light user fee will remain unchanged.
City Manager Rodriguez gave a brief overview of some city fees that will increase but most will
remain flat.
Director Asher explained she is looking for feedback on the water increase and how she is
able to make 2% work if necessary.
Council Member Whalen appreciated the thoughtfulness that set the increase as low as
possible but believes there still needs to be a fund and doing a 3% increase would be ideal.
Council Member Supple agrees that there should be a 3% increase.
City Council Work Session Minutes -4- July 28, 2020
Council Member Trautmann would still like clarity of the big picture containing all the fees to
relay information easily to residents and how the fees will impact them.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez echoed comments made and would be comfortable with a 3%
increase.
Council Member Whalen expressed how he would be comfortable with the proposed fee
increases as it is accounting for the time and energy to complete the task and how they seemed to be
minor changes.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez and Council Member Supple agreed with Council Member Whalen’s
comments and are fine with the proposed fee increases.
City Manager Rodriguez discussed her appreciation for the discussion and feedback from
council.
ADJOURNMENT
The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:49 p.m.
Date Approved: August 10, 2020
Maria Regan Gonzalez
Mayor
Kelly Wynn Katie Rodriguez
Senior Office Assistant City Manager
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Maria Regan Gonzalez at 7:00 p.m. via WebEx.
Council Members Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor; Mary Supple; Ben Whalen; Edwina Garcia; and
Present: Simon Trautmann
Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; Kristin Asher, Public
Works Director; Jack Broz, Transportation Engineer; Jane Skov, IT Manager;
Blanca Martinez Gavina, Executive Analyst; and Kelly Wynn, Senior Office
Assistant
Others Present: Tasha Ostendorf, Human Rights Commission member; and Judy Moe, Richfield
Disability Advocacy Partnership
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Regan Gonzalez led the Pledge of Allegiance
OPEN FORUM
Senior Office Assistant Wynn reviewed the options to participate:
• Participate live by calling 612-861-0651 during the open forum portion
• Call prior to meeting 612-861-9711
• Email prior to meeting kwynn@richfielmn.gov
Senior Office Assistant Wynn read a comment submitted by email by Allegra Smisek, 7500
Fremont Ave S:
As a Richfield resident, I am very encouraged to hear that the city is hiring someone to
specifically focus on equity. However, "equity" has become a frequently used word by many people and
institutions, and often its meaning is extremely varied or lost completely. It is important to me that the
city council clearly define equity in a way that is highly inclusive. To me, an equitable institution would
consider the perspectives and needs of BIPOC, the LGBTQ+ community, as well as residents of
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Council Meeting
Virtual Meeting held via WebEx
July 28, 2020
Council Meeting Minutes -2- July 28, 2020
differing ages, abilities, and countries of origin. I hope the council will consider these complexities in the
interview process for this new position as well as the future work of the individual that is hired.
Lucianna Jane Wolfstone, 2500 W 66th St, thanked the council for honoring the disability
community and asked the city to include everybody in the equity work.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Garcia, S/Supple to approve the minutes of the (1) City Council Work Session of July 11,
2020; (2) City Council Work Session July 14, 2020; and (3) City Council Meeting of July 14, 2020.
Executive Analyst Martinez Gavina took roll call vote:
Regan Gonzalez: AYE
Supple: AYE
Trautmann: AYE
Garcia: AYE
Whalen: AYE
Motion carried 5-0
Item #1
PRESENTATION OF THE ADA PROCLAMATION
Mayor Regan Gonzalez read the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) Proclamation.
Tasha Ostendorf thanked the City Council, on behalf of the Human Rights Commission, for
recognizing July as ADA awareness month. She stated with all the things the city has done, she also
wanted to emphasize the ongoing efforts to be inclusive.
Judy Moe expressed her gratitude for the council recognizing the 30th anniversary of the ADA.
She then gave an informative background of how the ADA came to be and the extraordinary measures
people went through to end exclusion and segregation.
Senior Office Assistant Wynn read many comments from community members which are
included in a document at the end of the minutes. Comments were submitted by the following Richfield
residents:
• Lee Ohnesorge 7717 Chicago Ave
• Ricardo Perez, 7228 Girard Ave S
• Travis and Jerry Fladmark, 6615 Lake Shore Drive S
• Crystal Brakke, 7015 Columbus Ave
• Bonnie Tortorice, Richfield resident
• Carolyn Martinez, 7204 16th Ave S
Council Meeting Minutes -3- July 28, 2020
• Lisa and Jim Rudolph, 6726 17th Ave S
• Faviola Martinez de Estrada with La Red Latina de Education Temprana MN
• Kristi and Joe Carr, 6304 Blaisdell Ave
• Kim Houle, Richfield resident
• Linda Crear, 7117 Garfield Ave S
• Michelle Ndely, 7304 Garfield Avenue
• Gordon Hanson, 6311 Sheridan Avenue South
• Jennifer Ott, Richfield resident
• Lester Bauer, Richfield resident
• Stephanie Mockobee, Richfield resident
• Anne Flake, 7244 12th Ave S
Council Member Garcia thanked everyone for their comments. She also thanked Judy Moe for
being such a fantastic mentor and bringing a realization to what the ADA does and doesn’t do. She
stated how Judy has become a leader in the community.
Council Member Supple extended her gratitude for sharing all the information and individual
feelings. She thanked everyone for their advocacy. She is happy to say accessibility is now in
discussions for transportation, playgrounds and housing.
Council Member Trautmann thanked Judy Moe for her contributions to the community. He
stated how Judy has become very important and effective. He is appreciative of her presence in his life
and in the disability community.
Council Member Whalen echoed his fellow council member’s comments. He confirmed there is
much work for the city to do to make it entirely inclusive. He spoke of how the Equity Coordinator
position will be a part of the budget and there will be discussions of what the position will look like.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez expressed her feelings along with all council members. She spoke of
what an honor and gift it is to grow leadership within the community and all that R-DAP has done with in
Richfield. R-DAP is a huge asset for the City of Richfield and the ability to work together to continually
build infrastructure.
Item #2
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
M/Whalen, S/Trautmann to approve the agenda
Executive Analyst Martinez Gavina took roll call vote:
Regan Gonzalez: AYE
Supple: AYE
Trautmann: AYE
Garcia: AYE
Whalen: AYE
Motion carried 5-0
Council Meeting Minutes -4- July 28, 2020
Item #3
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Manager Rodriguez presented the consent calendar.
A. Cancel the public hearing to consider the platting and vacation of easements at 6228 Penn
Avenue South and 6200 Queen Avenue South (Lunds & Byerlys) (Staff Report No. 89)
M/Garcia, S/Supple to approve the consent calendar.
Executive Analyst Martinez Gavina took roll call vote:
Regan Gonzalez: AYE
Supple: AYE
Trautmann: AYE
Garcia: AYE
Whalen: AYE
Motion carried 5-0
Item #4
CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT
CALENDAR
None
Item #5
CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF THE SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING SUBSECTION 210.01 OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO CITY
COUNCIL SALARIES (STAFF REPORT NO. 86)
Council Member Trautmann presented staff report 86.
M/Trautmann, S/Whalen to approve the second reading of the ordinance amending Subsection
210.01 of the City Code related to City Council salaries.
Executive Analyst Martinez Gavina took roll call vote:
Regan Gonzalez: AYE
Supple: AYE
Trautmann: AYE
Garcia: AYE
Whalen: AYE
Motion carried 5-0
Council Meeting Minutes -5- July 28, 2020
Item #6
CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF: (1) THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN LAYOUT OF
65TH STREET FROM NICOLLET AVENUE TO 66TH STREET/RAE
DRIVE, INCLUDING THE LYNDALE AVENUE PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
BETWEEN 64TH STREET AND 66TH STREET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION; AND (2) A CONTRACT, NOT TO EXCEED
$439,804, WITH KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR FINAL
DESIGN ENGINEERING OF THE 65TH STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
BETWEEN NICOLLET AVENUE AND 66TH STREET/RAE DRIVE, INCLUDING
THE LYNDALE AVENUE PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN 64TH
STREET AND 66TH STREET. (STAFF REPORT NO. 87)
Council Member Supple read staff report 87.
Senior Office Assistant Wynn read comments submitted by (1) Amanda Vetsch, 6332 Pillsbury
Ave; and (2) Ginny Morin, 6415 Pillsbury Ave S. These comments are included at the end of the
minutes
Assistant Wynn then played voicemails submitted by (1) William Buttedal; and (2) Katherine
Eckelberry. These messages are transcribed and included at the end of the minutes.
Transportation Engineer Broz gave a presentation regarding guiding principles, the five open
houses, comments gathered from residents, project measures, amenities desired, proposed pedestrian
facilities, proposed flood improvement, next steps upon approval.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez asked for discussion on the traffic mitigation and the concerns families
have by traffic coming into the area from the HUB.
Transportation Engineer Broz explained the intersection design will not allow drivers to head
straight north out of the HUB parking lot. Drivers will need to turn right or left so traffic will not be
coming directly into the area.
Council Member Trautmann asked for an explanation for residents as to why this intersection
change will be beneficial for residents.
Transportation Engineer Broz discussed as they looked at existing conditions and the only
entrance to that neighborhood is to go up Pleasant and that is a narrow one way street for access. He
spoke of a study done regarding opening all the streets or other streets and gathered much feedback.
He believed they will be making an impact in equity by providing this access.
Council Member Supple asked for a timeline and if there would be potential flooding remedy.
Director Asher explained the storm water portion would be done alongside the construction but
will need to work with the HUB and their construction.
Council Member Supple then inquired about planning regarding Richfield Lake.
Director Asher stated they are starting to engage in conversations regarding those plans.
Council Meeting Minutes -6- July 28, 2020
Council Member Whalen spoke of the community concern of flooding in Richfield Lake and if
there is an answer for that issue.
Director Asher clarified the water that goes into Richfield Lake, would just get there sooner and
they wouldn’t see much of a difference. Some problems would be consistent clearing near the entrance
to Wood Lake so it doesn’t get worse.
Council Member Whalen proposed the opening up of Pillsbury is the right move along with the
barrier to prevent some traffic. He spoke of how children are on every street and safety is always a
concern. Traffic was originally diverted to allow homes to have cul-de-sacs and quieter streets. He then
addressed the resident’s concerns of being worried about losing biking for children and explained they
will be gaining access to a nearby bike trail.
Council Member Trautmann thanked staff and the Transportation Commission for making
accessibility an importance around Richfield. He spoke of how change is not easy but things such as
this will make the city more equitable.
M/Supple, S/Whalen to approve (1) the preliminary design layout of 65th Street from Nicollet
Avenue to 66th Street/Rae Drive, including the Lyndale Avenue pedestrian improvements between 64th
Street and 66th Street as recommended by the Transportation Commission; and (2) the contract, not to
exceed $439,804, with Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. for final design engineering of the 65th Street
Reconstruction Project between Nicollet Avenue and 66th Street/Rae Drive, including the Lyndale
Avenue pedestrian improvements between 64th Street and 66th Street.
Council Member Supple expressed her gratitude for the re-design of the section along Lyndale
Ave regarding additional on-street parking and changes with pedestrian crossings.
Executive Analyst Martinez Gavina took roll call vote:
Regan Gonzalez: AYE
Supple: AYE
Trautmann: AYE
Garcia: AYE
Whalen: AYE
Motion carried 5-0
Item #7
CONSIDER THE APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OPENING
(STAFF REPORT NO. 88)
Mayor Regan Gonzalez read staff report 88. She stated she was excited to speak with all the
applicants and what a great opportunity it was see what leadership lives within the city. She also
detailed what the council is looking for in commissioners.
M/Regan Gonzalez, S/Trautmann to appoint Brett Stursa as a member to fill the vacant term on
the Planning Commission.
Council Meeting Minutes -7- July 28, 2020
Council Member Supple thanked everyone who interviewed and she is confident Brett will do a
great job.
Council Member Whalen agreed Brett will be great for this position. He then spoke of how
wonderful all the applicants were and hope to continue to see them in the community and on future
commissions. He feels honored to have so many people who are excited to help their community.
Council Member Trautmann is excited to welcome to Brett Stursa. He then thanked everyone
who applied especially new residents; great to see so many getting involved.
Executive Analyst Martinez Gavina took roll call vote:
Regan Gonzalez: AYE
Supple: AYE
Trautmann: AYE
Garcia: AYE
Whalen: AYE
Motion carried 5-0
Item #8
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Rodriguez spoke of the Executive Order Governor Walz issued regarding the
mask mandate for all indoor business and public places. This order will include all city buildings. She
referenced the Minnesota Department of Health has a great frequently asked questions area on their
website for more information.
Item #9
CLAIMS AND PAYROLL
M/Garcia, S/Supple that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
U.S. Bank 07/28/2020
A/P Checks 289288 - 289699 $ 1,339,648.17
Payroll: 155706 - 155993 702,386.79
TOTAL $ 2,042,034.96
Executive Analyst Martinez Gavina took roll call vote:
Regan Gonzalez: AYE
Supple: AYE
Trautmann: AYE
Garcia: AYE
Whalen: AYE
Motion carried 5-0
Council Meeting Minutes -8- July 28, 2020
Council Member Garcia excused herself from the remainder of the meeting at 8:51 p.m.
Item #10
HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS
Council Member Whalen reminded residents the next council meeting will be Monday, August
10 and how residents are able to vote by mail and vote early. He then thanked city staff for gathering
comments regarding the police department manual. He also referenced the Richfield mini-golf course,
free on Wednesdays for 11 and under. There is a Facebook post that has coupons available.
Council Member Supple explained the city is looking for census volunteers and encouraged
residents to fill out their census. Residents can contact Blanca Martinez Gavina by phone at 612-861-
9715 or email at bmgavina@richfieldmn.gov. She then spoke of the Richfield ice arena construction is
coming to a close and should be ready for use on August 10. Council Member Supple also reminded
residents the Night to Unite will be moving from September to October. She then encouraged residents
who are looking for ways to be more involved; to go on the city website of how to participate in
commission meetings.
Council Member Trautmann expressed his gratitude to the Edina Fire Department and their
living saving techniques provided to Chief Kewitsch.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez added to Council Member Supple’s comments on the census and the
city is also in need of shift managers to provide assistance in managing shifts throughout the project.
She explained there is only one chance to do this every 10 years; the community really suffers when
undercounted.
Item #11
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:59 p.m.
Date Approved: August 10, 2020
Maria Regan Gonzalez
Mayor
Kelly Wynn Katie Rodriguez
Senior Office Assistant City Manager
Council Meeting Minutes -9- July 28, 2020
ADA PROCLAMATION COMMENTS
My name is Lee Ohnesorge and I use a wheelchair full-time. I have lived in Richfield for 30 years.
That being said, we need many more zero threshold accessible housing, including bathroom showers.
The ada is not a suggestion for what we, the most vulnerable people, need for housing.
I want Richfield to be an accessible community from all angles.
We are only temporarily able-bodied.
Anyone can become disabled at any time!!!
We, the disability community is part of Richfield and require a seat at the table when matters like this
are in discussion.
Thank you for your time, Lee Ohnesorge
7717 Chicago Ave, the Towers
Good evening,
Please see below my comment for the meeting described on the subject line.
I am a resident of Richfield at 7228 Girard Ave S
"Dear mayor and city council, my name is Ricardo Perez, I am a resident of Richfield and I am writing
with two important issues:
1) Please add people with disabilities, non-English speaking community and GLBTQIA+ community in
your efforts to learn about inclusivity. In order for us to learn and adapt to serve the community that
lives in Richfield, we need to be inclusive in who and how we are reaching out to people with different
capacities. Intentionality matters now, more than ever. Please show us with actions your intentions to
be an inclusive city.
2) Please continue your efforts in ensuring the community is able to participate in the decision making
process in our city, especially when our tax dollars are being used to fund projects that impact all of us
now and years to come. Please ensure you are doing everything possible to open a window for the
community to communicate with you. Not doing so, represents a big failure. The pandemic is not going
away any time soon, please adapt and be innovative about how, where, in what languages, in which
platforms you are allowing people to learn about your meetings and how to actively participate in them.
Thank you for your time."
Dear Mayor Regan Gonzalez and council members,
We understand that today a proclamation celebrating the month of July as the 30th Anniversary of the
passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
We are writing in for the public forum today to show support for the disability community in our city and
ask that you include all people in your equity work goals.
Council Meeting Minutes -10- July 28, 2020
This includes the GLBTQIA+ community, the disability community, seniors, non-English speakers,
people of color, the indigenous community, and every other community that makes up our diverse city.
It is imperative that this is made a priority in all areas of our city.
Thank you Mayor, for recognizing the 30th Anniversary of the passing of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Sincerely,
Travis and Jerry Fladmark
6615 Lake Shore Drive S, Unit 910
Richfield, MN 612-224-4466
I am writing to share appreciation for the proclamation taking place at tonight's meeting to mark the
30th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This was a landmark piece of civil rights
legislation and one that deserves recognition.
True access and inclusion for people with disabilities is something we all need to keep working on and
working for because the ADA is not a panacea. This is true at the city level, in our schools, and in every
aspect of our society. We all need to hold ourselves accountable for ensuring that when we set goals
and report outcomes, people with disabilities are included and reflected in our work. We also need to
pay special care to the ways in which disability powerfully intersects with race, class, language, and
other identities and center in our efforts the voices and power of those who experience this reality on a
daily basis.
A Supreme Court justice once said, long ago, that sunlight is the best of disinfectants - meaning that
shining a light on injustice and disparities should theoretically lead to action and justice. Unfortunately
we all know that isn't always the case, but I still think it's what we should be striving for. I appreciate
those in our community who are leading these efforts and challenging us to be better and do better.
Thank you for your time tonight.
Crystal Brakke
7015 Columbus Avenue in Richfield
Dear Mayor Maria Regan Gonzalez and council members,
We understand that today is a proclamation celebrating the month of July as the 30th Anniversary of
the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
We are writing in for the public forum today to show support for the disability community in our city and
ask that you include all people in your equity work goals.
This includes the GLBTQIA+ community, the disability community, seniors, non-English speakers,
people of color, the indigenous community, and every other community that makes up our diverse city.
It is imperative that this is made a priority in all areas of our city. The inclusive playground is fantastic,
but policy must be inclusive as well.
We love having neighbors who support each other, schools that foster growth and a community that
welcomes all.
Council Meeting Minutes -11- July 28, 2020
Thank you Mayor, for recognizing the 30th Anniversary of the passing of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Sincerely,
• Bonnie Tortorice
• Carolyn Martinez (7204 16th Ave S)
• Lisa and Jim Rudolph (6726 17th Ave S)
• Faviola Martinez de Estrada (La Red Latina de Education Temprana MN)
• Kristi and Joe Carr - Joe, is the one that has an amazing lemonade stand every year for Gillette
Children’s. This year due to Covid we had an un-lemonade stand last week and raised over
$10,725 for Gillette more than doubled our last year‘s donation. (6304 Blaisdell Ave.)
• Kim Houle
• Linda Crear (7117 Garfield Ave S)
Dear Mayor Regan Gonzalez and Council members,
Thank you for your upcoming celebration of the 30th Anniversary of the passing of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. As you know, for families and people living with disabilities, this was a momentous and
life-changing Act.
I am writing in for the public forum today asking that you extend your commitment to equity in our city to
include an intersectional analysis, better capturing all people, most especially those who are living with
disability, and who may also suffer at the intersections of race, class, gender, religion, sexual
orientation, language, ethnicity, age etc. It has been well established that the best way to understand
how diversity plays out experientially, is to look not only at a single categorical variable, but also at the
intersections of these identifiers.
I ask that this lens is at the center of our city’s approach to problem solving around equity & inclusion.
We have an incredible community and culture here in Richfield, and it is imperative that we ensure,
through nuanced and accurate analysis, that this culture is experienced by all who call Richfield home.
Thank you Mayor, for recognizing the 30th Anniversary of the passing of the Americans with Disabilities
Act. I look forward to witnessing how Richfield takes action.
Sincerely,
Michelle Ndely
Dear Mayor Regan Gonzalez and City Council Members,
Thank you for recognizing the 30th anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act
with a proclamation to be presented at tonight’s meeting. The passage of this act was a milestone
achievement in the recognition of our fellow citizens who live with disabilities, and I believe it is
important to rededicate ourselves to standing united with the disability community.
Council Meeting Minutes -12- July 28, 2020
Tonight’s proclamation serves as a good reminder of our mission to stand in common purpose with the
disability community. I ask that the City’s future equity work goals recognize all people, including the
disability community. The disability community is an important part of the rich diversity of our city.
In closing, thank you again for recognizing the 30th Anniversary of the passage of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gordon Hanson (6311 Sheridan Avenue South)
Dear Ms. Gonzalez,
I want to Thank you for the Recognition of the
30 th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I can’t think of a more deserving person than
Judy Moe to receive this recognition on behalf of the disabled citizens of Richfield. Judy has been a
wonderful resource and emotion support to many of us.
I am a lifelong Richfield resident. My dad’s Minneapolis home was bought out by the airport and he was
the very first Graduating class of Richfield. I graduated in 1981 , moved and moved back to Richfield
when I got married. Our son graduated from Richfield in 2020.
After being misdiagnosed for 25 years we realized that I had MS. Within 2 years I had an MS episode
that resulted in a stroke that weakened my right side and has now left me confined to a wheelchair.
I met Judy 3 years ago after filing complaints on the way I was rudely treated multiple times by the
Richfield EMTs. They denied everything my family said had happened.
When I spoke to the fire chief I reminded him that when people call them they are at their most
vulnerable and deserve their Respect.
Respect is fluid when you are a part of the Disabled Community.
Am I going to welcomed? Will I be judged by my disability?
As a Homeowner and taxpayer you would hope that access to your community is a given but many
times it is Not.
Our Citizens each have their own strengths and challenges. A strong Community respects those
challenges makes it safe and inclusive. When we make it inclusive for one we make it possible for
many to become involved.
Please remember that not all disabilities are visible but that does not make those citizens any less
valuable.
I Love living in Richfield. Let’s continue to grow and respect all who reside here.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Ott
Dear Mayor Regan Gonzalez and Members of the Richfield City Council,
I am writing today regarding the 30th Anniversary of the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Council Meeting Minutes -13- July 28, 2020
My wife and our son with disabilities moved to Richfield in 2010 and in the past 10 years we have
grown to love the city of Richfield for many reasons, wonderful neighbors, opportunity for our son to
participate in church as a volunteer with Sunday School and communion server, helping at PennFest
and walking in the Richfield Urban Wildland Run/Walk event as a fundraiser for the Richfield Historical
Society.
I have been an active advocate for disabilities for nearly forty years at the capital, as a 10 year board
member and President of Arc Minnesota, and a member of the State Quality Council at the Department
of Human Services. I am also on the Institute of Community Integration Advisory Council at the
University of Minnesota. This experience has helped me to understand the needs of people with
disabilities and the achievements of the ADA over the past 30 years.
Richfield has done a fine job of inclusion for the many groups who have been denied the opportunity to
be included in the very day to day activities that help each of us have a Quality of Life. The job is not
finished and we must actively work to help every person, persons with disabilities, non-English
speakers, and people of color, the indigenous community, the GLBTQIA community and every other
member of our community that makes up our diverse city.
During the past 30 years the ADA has not only made walking on streets and getting into buildings
easier but it has disrupted the biases that marginalized disability communities for centuries.
Thank you for your presentation to Judy Moe in recognition of the 30th Anniversary of the ADA and for
her long time work to improve and give a voice to people in our community who are unable to speak for
themselves.
Sincerely,
Lester Bauer
Richfield Resident
Hello,
I want to send kudos to our Judy Moe of the Richfield Disability Awareness Partnership work.
We are aware that the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act had to be passed because the 1964 Civil
Rights Act did not include discriminating against people with disabilities.
I am grateful for Judy Moe's work with R-DAP. I know that I am grateful for the efforts towards inclusion
of Everyone which the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, and currently the demonstrators and protestors are
making. It is all towards realizing and accepting that we are all out here on this ball in space called
Earth, together. And that each person, no matter how differently we look, or walk, or communicate, has
EQUAL WORTH and deserves to reach their full potential towards the best quality of life they can
achieve, unimpeded by their fellow man, woman or child.
I encourage us All to make efforts to accept the fact that WE ARE ONE, WE ARE ALL HUMANKIND.
And we need to care about one another's welfare. Because when we Each take our last breaths, leave
the life in the body we are in, and transition to the Unknown, all that we really take with us is how we
treated each other.
Thank you, and I hope this recognition gives you some much needed wind beneath your wings, Judy,
and Mayor, and really Everybody!
Stephanie Mockobee, Resident Richfield, MN
Council Meeting Minutes -14- July 28, 2020
To the Richfield City Council,
Thank you so much for recognizing the importance of the Americans with Disabilities Act as an
invaluable tool that allows many people, who would otherwise be excluded, access to our community
life. I appreciate our city’s devotion to meeting the needs of all marginalized people, and to making the
lives of our citizens better every day.
Sadly, many people do not realize that disability is an issue that crosses all social, political, racial,
gender, and economic lines. It affects children and adults, as well as the families who love and care for
them. What we want more than anything is for our families, all of us, to be included in the community
life we love here in Richfield.
To that end, I would love to see Richfield make experience with the disability community, a factor when
choosing a candidate for the position the council is currently creating in order to promote equity.
I’m sure all of you know that our disabled community is always at risk and that they are a vulnerable
population often overlooked when addressing a sea of inequity, all of which is important and should be
rectified.
My family, which includes children with disabilities, is so grateful for your ongoing concern, support, and
dedication to all our citizens.
Thank you,
Anne Flake (7244 12th Ave S, Richfield)
This comment came to me after the meeting had started so it was not read:
Respectfully Mayor Regan Gonzalez & Richfield City Council Members,
My name is Lucianna Jane Wolfstone. I live in FRASER Sheridan Court at 2500 W 66TH ST, APT #
308, Richfield, MN 55423, which is a 30 unit building set aside for people with Developmental
Disabilities only. I am Autistic, Anxious/Depressed, Left-Handed, a Bibliomaniac (5,000+ books in a
one-bedroom apartment), as well as being an Adult with both a Learning Disorder (Dysgraphia) and a
Hoarding Disorder. I am also part of the following communities: European-American, Messianic Jewish,
Autistic, Cat-Lady, and TransFeminine. If you would like to know more about what it is like to live with
this variety of intersectionalities and abilities, please ask me. I would love to volunteer my assistance
however I can with what I know and what I have experienced.
I understand that there will be a proclamation made tonight honoring the month of July 2020 as the
30TH Anniversary of the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
I am writing in for the public forum today to show my very personal support for the Disability Community
in our city and elsewhere in America. I sincerely ask that you explicitly and concretely include all people
in your equity work goals. Also I ask that you would consider intersectional identities when you reach
out to different demographics of people. After all, not a single life is simple or is entirely confined to only
one category.
All People includes, but is not limited to: the LGBTQIA+ Community (aka Sexual, Gender, &
Relationship Minorities (SGRM)); the Disability Community; the Autistic Community; People Who Strive
Council Meeting Minutes -15- July 28, 2020
for Mental Wellness; People who are Left-Handed or Ambidextrous; People of All Ages; Non-English
Speakers; the Community of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC); People of all Religions,
Faiths, and Spiritualties or None at all; Cat-Ladies; and every other community that makes up our
widely diverse city.
It is imperative that actions toward complete inclusivity be made a priority in all areas of our wonderful
city.
Thank you Mayor, for recognizing the 30th Anniversary of the passing of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Sincerely,
Luci Wolfstone.
FRASER Sheridan Court
2500 W 66TH ST, APT # 308
Richfield, MN 55423
763-898-8579
AGENDA ITEM 6 (65TH STREET) COMMENTS
Hello- I live at 64th and Pillsbury. I strongly strongly object to changing the intersection at 65/Pillsbury to
a 2-way street. It would be entirely unfair to this street bear the burden of all in/out traffic for this side of
the neighborhood.
We already have much higher traffic due to our street being the only west access for all of the
apartment buildings- additionally, we have no 4-way stops on Pillsbury or 64th, making every
intersection significantly less safe than others around. if you are going to expand outlets, please expand
on a different street!
We have so many children on this block, not just from single family homes, but from the apartment
buildings as well. Right now, all of these children have a relatively safe and cloistered area to bike and
explore without a huge threat from traffic. During the school year, dozens walk up and down 64th to
their bus stops, every morning and night. And the large majority of them come from or cross Pillsbury to
do so. I am telling you- this intersection is already the sketchiest part Of any elementary kid’s daily
travels.
I have lived here for 9 years, and My taxes go up every single year- about 4,000 this year. That’s more
than $300 a month- pretty high for a single working mother. But I pay that without objection to help
preserve and service the community of Richfield. I love my neighborhood, my town, and my street. I
believe my voice should matter in these decisions. I object to our tax money being used to bring even
more traffic to our street. Please don’t hurt the character of our neighborhood.
Thank you,
Amanda Vetsch
6332 Pillsbury Ave.
Council Meeting Minutes -16- July 28, 2020
I am writing you to express my extreme disappointment and objection to the plans that are being
considered for Pillsbury Avenue. I have included the two officials from the letter that was sent and also
Ms. Garcia as our direct Councilperson and Ms. Regan as our Mayor. I am including the other council
people as well to ensure that our neighborhood’s stance/objections, and especially those on the block
most affected by this proposal, are accurately conveyed.
First, I feel deceived. At the last block party, not even 365 days ago, we were assured that this issue
would not even be considered for two to three years. Yet here we are, 11 months later, the commission
has made recommendations and you loop the residents of this area in at the 11th hour.
My biggest objection to this change is that there literally is no reason for it. This area is not a
destination to which those not going to or from a home here need additional access points. What it
does do is destroy a neighborhood by adding into the mix of homes and children playing and neighbors
creating “the urban hometown” a bunch of impatient drivers looking for a quick way around the mess
made of our streets by reducing everything to one lane and unused bike lanes. On the block that you
are considering making this change, there are FIFTEEN children. That’s fifteen balls that can
inadvertently bounce into the street or children who are learning to ride their bikes having to dodge
impatient drivers without any business to be in this neighborhood except that they are looking for a way
to zip through down in route to somewhere else. By and large not considering who lives there and what
to encounter because they are set on just getting somewhere else.
I have heard it argued that it alleviates traffic on Pleasant, the one way street to the west of
Pillsbury. Yet there is nothing to suggest that traffic on that street is the result of people heading to
their home in this neighborhood. Any traffic is just as likely if not more so to be from the 12+ apartment
buildings that reside on that street and those residents using Pleasant to access their own
homes. When you consider that each building has a minimum of 12 units, if even half of the residents
have a vehicle that comes and goes 2 times a day (once leaving and once returning), that is quite a bit
of traffic. At a conservative estimate, this is 288 car encounters per day. Legitimate traffic that opening
up Pillsbury does not alleviate. What did the study that you did on the traffic there show? What did the
study that you did on Pillsbury traffic show?
I have also heard it argued that this used to be a 2 way street. And? The taxes also used to be a lot
lower. Are we rolling those back too? It’s a ridiculous argument at best because it doesn’t consider
that it was closed off for a reasonS..because it’s NOT a destination that needs to accommodate traffic
coming and going from multiple points. It’s a neighborhood. An urban HOMETOWN that deserves to
be protected by those representing it.
I know that this council has been at odds with this neighborhood for some time over the garage
issue. Do not let that cloud your judgement on doing what is right and rejecting this proposal. It does
NOT serve this neighborhood and only stands to make Richfield residents less safe by knowingly
rerouting impatient traffic heading somewhere else through a 100% residential neighborhood pocket.
Respectfully,
Ginny Morin
6415 Pillsbury Avenue S
Council Meeting Minutes -17- July 28, 2020
Voicemail from William Buttedal, 6401 Wentworth Ave S: I do totally approve of your final plan of
leaving Wentworth and Blaisdell along and converting Pillsbury, it makes a lot of sense. I would like to
make one other comment about 66th Street: I don’t know why that wasn’t made two lanes, all the way
both ways. The single lane traffic on 66th Street all the way back to Nicollet Ave or Lyndale on a bus
line, make no sense. The city took up all that space for bike lanes that nobody uses; there are not 10
bikes that go up and down that street all day and there are 10,000 cars, it makes no sense. There
should be a bus lane on 67th Street.
Voicemail from Katherine Eckelberry, 6409 Pillsbury Ave: I am calling regarding the consideration to
open up Pillsbury Ave to a two way street. We have six children and they bike along that street to the
circle and back. We have small children that range in age and I absolutely do not want to see that
opened up into a two-way. There is no reason to do so. Everybody is just fine being able to get out and
it is a waste of money along with a huge safety issue. I am not the only household with children on this
street and all the families ride down the street. It is not a good idea and would like to see this stopped.
Proclamation of the City of Richfield
WHEREAS, the bold, courageous and powerful women who fought for the 19th Amendment to
the United States Constitution, which was ratified on August 18, 1920, deserve special
celebration by the city of Richfield, especially on the 100th anniversary of its ratification; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota was the 15th state to ratify the 19th Amendment on September 8, 1919;
and
WHEREAS, the fact that today women are active in local, state and federal government and are
running for office in unprecedented numbers reminds us that we all follow in the footsteps of
these resolute American suffragists; and
WHEREAS, the United States of America has yet to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment,
originally written by suffragette Alice Paul in 1923, showing there remains more progress to be
had; and
WHEREAS, it is of importance to acknowledge that though women of color rallied alongside
white suffragettes, many women of color remained disenfranchised by racist policies until the
mid to late 20th century.
WHEREAS, we must look to our history to help us understand the struggles around voting
rights and voter suppression in the United States today; and
WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council and staff identified celebrating diversity and being
equitable as core values, recognizing that our diverse culture is one of our greatest strengths
and assets; and
WHEREAS, the Richfield Human Rights Commission supported this proclamation at its XXX,
meeting and recommended the Richfield City Council do the same; and
Now, THEREFORE, I, Maria Regan Gonzalez, mayor of Richfield, on behalf of the Richfield City
Council, do hereby proclaim the month of August 2020 as Honoring the 100th Anniversary of
the 19th Amendment in the City of Richfield and call on the people of Richfield to o bserve
this month with appropriate programs, activities, and ceremonies, and continue to support
voting rights throughout the year.
PROCLAIMED this 10th day of August, 2020.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #3.A.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 90
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
8/10/2020
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Julie Urban, Housing and Redevelopment Manager
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: John S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
8/4/2020
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
8/4/2020
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider a resolution adopting Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Goals for 2021-2030 and re-enrolling
in the Livable Communities Act Program.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The Livable Communities Act (L C A) provides funding for communities to invest in local economic
revitalization, housing initiatives, and development or redevelopment that connects different land uses and
transportation. The program is a voluntary, incentive-based approach to help communities grow and redevelop
and to address the region’s affordable and life cycle housing needs.
There are three components to participate in the program:
1. Adopt affordable and life-cycle housing goals.
2. Establish a Housing Action Plan.
3. Spend an affordable and life-cycle housing opportunity amount (A L HOA).
The City has been a participant in LC A since its inception in 1995. Goals are established over a 10-year
period, and the City must adopt housing goals for 2021-2030 in order to continue participating and be eligible
to apply for the various funding opportunities.
The Met Council has established the City's affordable housing goal for 2021-2030 as a range of 67 to 121
units and its life-cycle housing goal as 400 units. A range is provided for the affordable units in recognition of
the fact that the estimated funding levels for 2021-2030 can only support the construction of about 45% of the
forecasted need for affordable housing.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Adopt a resolution adopting Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Goals for 2021-2030 and re-
enrolling in the Livable Communities Act Program.
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 L C A was created in 1995 to further the creation of affordable and life-cycle housing across the
metropolitan region. The Metropolitan Council establishes affordable and life-cycle housing goals for
each community, based on overall needs in the metropolitan area, and requires each community to adopt
these goals in order to access LC A funding. The City has been a participant in the L C A since its
inception.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The L C A funds community investment that revitalizes economies, creates affordable housing, and
links different land uses and transportation. L C A’s voluntary, incentive-based approach leverages
partnerships and shared resources to help communities achieve their regional and local goals.
LC A affordable housing goals are established for each community based on the regional need for
low and moderate income housing, defined by the Metropolitan Council as 80% of the Area
Median I ncome ($75,500 in 2019).
LC A life-cycle housing goals are based on the amount of land communities have guided for multi-
family housing in their Comprehensive Plans and the density at which communities expect that
land to develop.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The goals must be adopted by November 15, 2020, in order to participate in the L C A in 2021.
A Housing Action Plan will need to be adopted in 2021.
The Metropolitan Council will hold a public hearing and adopt participating communities' goals in
December 2020.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The City is also required to spend a specified amount of funds each year on affordable and life-
cycle housing, known as the Affordable and Life-cycle Housing Opportunity Amount, or A LHOA.
The City has always far-exceeded the A LHOA required by the L C A.
Participation in the LC A makes the City eligible to apply for Livable Communities Demonstration
Account (LC D A) funds. The City has received numerous LC D A awards for various projects,
including Lyndale Gardens, The Chamberlain, RF64, and most recently, 6501 Penn Avenue.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
None.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Decide not to adopt Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Goals and decline to participate in the L C A Program
in 2021.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
NA
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution Resolution L etter
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM
UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
CALENDAR YEARS 2021 THROUGH 2030
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statutes sections 473.25 to
473.255) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address
housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes
section 473.121; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization
Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account, the Local Housing Incentive Account
and the Inclusionary Housing Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to
metropolitan-area municipalities; and
WHEREAS, a metropolitan-area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup funding
from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development unless the
municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under Minnesota
Statutes section 473.254; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires that each municipality establish
affordable and life-cycle housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the
policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide;
and
WHEREAS, a metropolitan-area municipality can participate in the Local Housing Incentives
Account Program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 if: (a) the municipality elects to
participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program; (b) the Metropolitan Council and the
municipality successfully negotiate new affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality;
(c) the Metropolitan Council adopts by resolution the new negotiated affordable and life-cycle
housing goals for the municipality; and (d) the municipality establishes it has spent or will spend or
distribute to the Local Housing Incentives Account the required Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing
Opportunities Amount (ALHOA) for each year the municipality participates in the Local Housing
Incentives Account Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Richfield:
1. Elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan
Livable Communities Act for calendar years 2021 through 2030.
2. Agrees to the following affordable and life-cycle housing goals for calendar years 2021
through 2030:
Affordable Housing Goals Range Life-Cycle Housing Goal
67-121 400
3. Will prepare and submit to the Metropolitan Council a plan identifying the actions it plans to
take to meet its established housing goals.
Approved: August 10, 2020.
By: By:
Mayor Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #3.B.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 91
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
8/10/2020
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Olivia Wycklendt, C ivil E ngineer
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector/C ity E ngineer
8/4/2020
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: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
8/4/2020
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider a resolution authorizing an Encroachment Agreement between the City of Richfield and
Partnership Academy located at 6500 Nicollet Ave S., allowing Partnership Academy to install and
maintain sport courts, playground equipment and other allowed improvements within the city's existing
utility easement.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Partnership Academy intends to install sport courts adjacent and to the north of their existing building. This is
in addition to the existing playground equipment located at the northeast corner of the parcel. Since no prior
encroachment agreement exists with Partnership Academy, one is required in order to construct and maintain
the sport courts, playground equipment and any other future private improvements within the utility easement.
The encroachment agreement governs Partnership Academy's permitted use of the easement and the
responsibilities of both the city and Partnership Academy as related to the private improvements within the
easement.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution authorizing the encroachment agreement between the City of
Richfield and Partnership Academy located at 6500 Nicollet Ave S., allowing Partnership Academy to
install and maintain sport courts, playground equipment and other allowed improvements within the
City's existing utility easement.
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
An 18" cast iron water main was installed along 65th St in 1963; in 1982, 65th St was realigned as part of
the HUB construction, while the existing water main remained in place underneath the HUB property. A
utility easement was dedicated over the water main at this time.
Resolution No. 11526 was passed by the City Council on J uly 24, 2018, approving a Conditional Use
Permit allowing construction of a K-8 school (Partnership Academy) on a portion of the H U B
property. T he approved site plans called for a landscaped play area over the utility easement,
which did not require an encroachment agreement. Subsequently, a swingset/playground was
constructed within the utility easement and Partnership Academy requested approval for
construction of paved sport courts, both of which require an encroachment agreement.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The city does not allow any structures to be built in an easement area without an encroachment
agreement.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The encroachment agreement should be approved as soon as possible to minimize any conflicts should
the city require access to the easement.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
There is no cost to the city.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The City Attorney has drafted this agreement and 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
E ncroachment agreement resolution Resolution L etter
E ncroachment A greement C ontract/A greement
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN ENCROACHMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
AND PARTNERSHIP ACADEMY
LOCATED AT 6500 NICOLLET AVE S
WHEREAS, an 18" cast iron water main was installed along 65th St in 1963; in
1982, 65th St was realigned as part of the HUB construction, while the existing water
main remained in place underneath the HUB property; and
WHEREAS, a utility easement was dedicated over the water main at the time of
construction in 1982; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 11526 passed by the City Council on July 24, 2018,
authorized a Conditional Use Permit allowing construction of a K-8 school known as
Partnership Academy; and
WHEREAS, the approved site plans called for a landscaped play area over the
utility easement, which did not require an encroachment agreement; and
WHEREAS, subsequently, a swingset/playground was constructed within the
utility easement and Partnership Academy requested approval for construction of paved
sport courts, both of which require an encroachment agreement; and
WHEREAS, the encroachment agreement shall govern Partnership Academy's
permitted use of the easement and the responsibilities of both the City and Partnership
Academy as related to the private improvements within the easement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, that the Encroachment Agreement between the City of Richfield
and Partnership Academy located at 6500 Nicollet Ave S is authorized.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
August, 2020.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #3.C.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 92
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
8/10/2020
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
8/4/2020
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
8/4/2020
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the adoption of a resolution approving final Richfield 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Note: The full 2040 Comprehensive Plan is available for review on the city's website
(www.richfieldmn.gov/compplan). The size of the document makes it impractical and technologically
difficult to attach directly to this report.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
I n November 2018, the City Council approved and authorized submission of the city's 2040 Comprehensive
Plan to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. Following the preliminary review, minor
modifications were required to meet Metropolitan Council requirements and the Plan was resubmitted. On
September 25, 2019, the Metropolitan Council approved the city's 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Notice of this
approval and that the Plan would now be in effect was communicated to the City Council in the October 11,
2019 City Manager's Report. I t has come to staff's attention that an additional resolution approving the
finalized 2040 Comprehensive Plan is required. The attached resolution officially approves the 2040
Comprehensive Plan that has been published and in use by the city since September 25, 2019.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Adopt a resolution approving the Richfield 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
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 Comprehensive Plan update process has included a number of opportunities for residents
and business owners to participate. These include:
Penn Fest information booth - September 2016 and September 2017
Steering Committee Meetings - April, J une, August 2017, and February 2018
Pop-up events - Metro Transit bus riding May 2017, Loaves and Fishes May 2017, D MV
May 2017, Farmers Market J uly 2017
Survey distribution by Steering Committee Members (primarily April/May 2017).
Open Houses - May 2017, August 2017, March 2018
W iki-map survey - April 2017
Online survey - March 2017
Feedback received has been compiled into two Community Engagement Briefs, available as
Appendix B of the Plan.
A draft of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was submitted to the Metropolitan Council for preliminary
review on May 9, 2018 (prior to consideration by the Richfield Planning Commission and City
Council). All official comments were addressed and the revised 2040 Comprehensive Plan was
presented to the Council for approval.
Metropolitan Council staff deemed the Richfield 2040 Comprehensive Plan complete on J uly 9,
2019 and the Plan was approved by the Council on September 25, 2019.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The Metropolitan Land Planning Act (State Statute 473) provides the requirements for the update of the
Comprehensive Plan.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The City Council recently approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the properties that comprise
the Henley I I development site. I n order to process this amendment, a resolution approving the final
version of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
None
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
None. The City has understood the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to be in effect since September 25,
2019. The attached resolution memorializes this understanding and allows an approved project (Henley
I I ) to continue to move forward.
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
Met C ouncil F inal A pproval L etter E xhibit
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE
RICHFIELD 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.864 requires each local
governmental unit to review and, if necessary, amend its entire comprehensive plan and
its fiscal devices and official controls at least once every ten years to ensure its
comprehensive plan conforms to metropolitan system plans and ensure its fiscal
devices and official controls do not conflict with the comprehensive plan or permit
activities that conflict with metropolitan system plans; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes sections 473.858 and 473.864 require local
governmental units to complete their “decennial” reviews by December 31, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the Richfield 2040 Comprehensive Plan is a planning tool intended
to guide the future growth and development of the City of Richfield in a manner that
conforms with metropolitan system plans and complies with the Metropolitan Land
Planning Act and other applicable planning statutes; and
WHEREAS, the Richfield 2040 Comprehensive Plan reflects a community
planning process conducted in the years 2016 through 2018 involving elected officials,
appointed officials, city staff, community organizations, the public at large, developers,
and other stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.858, the proposed 2040
Comprehensive Plan was submitted to adjacent governmental units and affected
special districts and school districts for review and comment on May 9, 2018, and the
statutory six-month review and comment period has elapsed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield held a public
hearing at its October 22, 2018 meeting, and recommended approval of the 2040
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2018, the City Council approved Resolution No.
11568 authorizing the submittal of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan
Council for review pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.864; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on September 25, 2019, the Metropolitan
Council completed its review of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and found that the Plan
meets the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, that the Richfield 2040 Comprehensive Plan is adopted and is
effective as of the date of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, pursuant to sections 473.864 and 473.865 of
the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, the City of Richfield will: (1) review its fiscal devices
and official controls; (2) if necessary, amend its fiscal devices and official controls to
ensure they do not conflict with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan or permit activity in
conflict with metropolitan system plans; and (3) submit amendments to fiscal devices or
official controls to the Metropolitan Council for “information purposes.”
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
August, 2020.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #3.D.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 93
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
8/10/2020
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: A my Markle, Recreation S ervices D irector
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: A my Markle, Recreation S ervices D irector
8/3/2020
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: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
8/4/2020
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the approval of the first reading of an ordinance that includes requirements for all persons
using designated off-leash dog area(s) in City of Richfield Parks, and schedule a public hearing and
second reading September 8, 2020.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The community is excited for the development of an off-leash dog area within the City of Richfield Park
system. Roosevelt Park has been approved as the location and various site prep and project planning has
occurred. Before construction can begin, an amendment to the Richfield code of ordinances is needed to
support the safety of park guests and dogs.
City staff has studied other off-leash dog area rules and ordinances and has met numerous times to
collaboratively develop a specific ordinance that would create a safe space to both dog owners and dogs to
recreate. The new ordinance will be displayed at the off-leash park entrance as "park rules", and will be used
for safety, education and enforcement when needed.
The ordinance includes both rules for the off-leash dog area and liability for the amenity.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Approve first reading of the ordinance that includes requirements for all persons using
designated off-leash dog area(s) in City of Richfield Parks, and schedule a public hearing and second
reading for September 8, 2020.
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
Richfield residents have communicated that they would like a dog park within the city for several
years. We have received specific feedback from the community at our park system master plan
open houses pertaining to the desire for a dog park and know it will be well supported.
City Staff and W S B Engineers have thoroughly examined several potential sites for the dog park
including both Taft and Donaldson Parks, but for many reasons such as poor soils and feedback
from adjacent neighbors, they have been determined as non-desirable or non-feasible choices for
the site selection.
Roosevelt Park has been carefully studied and recommended by City Staff and the Community
Services Commission as the best choice for a new dog park (C S C approved the recommendation
on 2/18/2020).
City Council approved Roosevelt Park for the location of an off-leash dog area to be developed.
Prep work has been done for the project and now city staff are ready to start the construction.
There is currently no city ordinance(s) supporting the needed requirements for an off-leash dog
area.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
This process provides for public input through a public hearing.
This ordinance will be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter.
Chapter I X of the Ric hfield C ode of Ordinances will be amended to add a new subsec tion 905.43,
Off-Leash Dog Area(s).
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The off-leash dog area at Roosevelt Park will need to begin construction in late September for it to be
completed before the ground starts to freeze. The ordinance that supports the new park feature needs to
be approved before the park can open.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The $80,000 budget for the off leash dog area at Roosevelt Park was previously approved in 2019 and
has been set aside for use when construction can begin. Additionally, approximately $5,000 has been
raised through the Richfield Round-up for Recreation campaign at the municipal liquor stores.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
I n order to safely manage an off-leash dog area, the City Code must be updated to provide for rules and
regulations for such a facility.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
The City Council could postpone the first reading of the ordinance to a future City Council meeting.
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
Off-leash D og A reas C ode of Ordinances Ordinance
BILL NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER IX OF THE
RICHFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO
OFF-LEASH DOG AREAS
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Chapter IX of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended to add a
new subsection 905.43 as follows:
905.43. - Off-leash dog area(s).
Subdivision 1. General Rules for Off-Leash Dog Areas. To enter and use designated
off-leash dog areas in the City, all persons must comply with the following requirements:
1. Dog owners required to obtain a license pursuant to subsection 905.03 shall
have obtained such a license. Dogs not licensed pursuant to subsection 905.03
may enter an off-leash dog area only if the dog is licensed in the city in which
they reside and if they are accompanied by a Richfield resident. All dogs must
display license tags at all times pursuant to subsection 905.03, subd. 1.
2. All dogs must have received a current rabies vaccination pursuant to subsection
905.03, subd. 1.
3. Dogs under four months old and females in estrus (or “in heat”) are not allowed
in off-leash dog areas.
4. Children under 14 years of age may not enter off-leash dog areas without a
parent or guardian.
5. Dog handlers may enter off-leash dog areas with a maximum of three dogs.
6. All dogs must be restrained on a leash prior to entering and upon exiting off-
leash dog areas.
7. Dog handlers must maintain a leash for each of their dogs in their possession
and available for quick use at all times.
8. All dogs must have a dog collar on at all times.
9. Dog handlers shall supervise each of their dogs and ensure that each of their
dogs are within their view at all times.
10. Dog handlers must maintain direct control of each of their dogs at all times.
11. All dog waste must be immediately and properly disposed of.
12. No private dog training is allowed in off-leash dog areas.
13. No food, dog treats, toys, or glass containers are allowed.
14. Any dog that exhibits aggressive behavior must be removed from the off-leash
dog area immediately.
15. Off-leash dog areas designated for smaller dogs shall be limited to dogs that
weigh 25 pounds or less and are no taller than 13’’ at the shoulder.
16. With the exception of wheelchairs or other assistive equipment used by people
with disabilities, no bicycles, strollers, wheeled or motorized vehicles shall be
allowed in off-leash areas.
17. No smoking or alcohol is allowed in off-leash areas.
Subd. 2. Liability. The use of all off-leash dog areas within the City is at the full
discretion and risk of the dog owner or dog handler. All dog owners and handlers
assume any liability for injury or damages caused by their dog(s). The City makes no
guarantee, nor assumes any liability for, the physical condition of the off-leash dog
areas, the behavior of any dog in the off-leash dog areas, or the vaccination history of
any dog in the off-leash area.
Section 2. This ordinance will be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City
Charter.
Adopted by the City of Richfield this ___ day of _________, 2020.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED
ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM #5.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 94
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
8/10/2020
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: B lanca Martinez Gavina, E xecutive A nalyst
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
8/4/2020
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
First reading of an ordinance establishing a prevailing wage policy for city funded capital projects with
estimated costs of $300,000 or more.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
T he City of Richfield is currently required to pay, or require contractors to pay, a prevailing wage for
projects that are funded with state and federal revenue. T he Richfield City Council provided
direction at a work session on February 11, 2020 to expand the prevailing wage requirements to city
funded capital projects to better support the City of Richfield’s economy and enhance the local
standard of living. T he Council also supported staff's proposal to add contractual provisions to future
development agreements to ensure compliance with labor laws and to display posters that provide
support to human trafficking victims at every project work site.
It is in the public's best interest that developments and buildings constructed with financial
assistance from the city be constructed and maintained by the best means and highest quality of
labor reasonably available and that persons working on the buildings and developments be
compensated according to the real value of the services they perform and that wages of laborers,
workers and mechanics on developments and buildings financially assisted by public funds be
comparable to wages paid for similar work in the community as a whole.
Currently, fair wages contractual provisions are part of an upcoming Contract for Private Development with
6345 Partners, L L C which will include provisions such as:
Construction and ongoing operation of the project must comply with all local, state and federal labor
laws.
The Certificate of Completion will be provided upon evidence that all contractors, subcontractors and
laborers have been paid.
I f the Developer fails to comply with labor laws, they will be in default of the Contract.
I f they are in default, the HRA can delay issuance of the tax increment, reduce the amount of the TI F
by 20% or terminate the Contract.
Additionally, contractors will be asked to display information to bring awareness to labor trafficking practices
on work sites with a job valuation exceeding a specified threshold (to be determined).
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
Approve the first reading of an ordinance establishing a prevailing wage policy for city funded projects
with estimated costs of $300,000 or more.
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
During a work session on February 11th, 2020, City Council reviewed the following staff
recommendations:
Prevailing Wage
The Davis-Bacon and Related Acts, apply to contractors and subcontractors performing on federally
funded or assisted contracts in excess of $2,000 for the construction, alteration or repair (including
painting and decorating) of public buildings or public works.
Costs to the city are medium-high due to the need for oversight, implementation and ongoing
enforcement. The research was inconsistent making it difficult to predict the increase cost if any in
future contracts and the administrative costs of enforcement.
Limitations include increased costs and lack of staff expertise to enforce the prevailing wage
requirements. Based on initial research, Director Asher recommended including a prevailing wage
requirement for any project over $300,000. Though the starting point of $300,000 seems reasonable to
expand a prevailing wage requirement for projects that are not already required, the initial range should
consider costs of implementation and ongoing enforcement.
Redevelopment contractual obligation to follow labor laws
Development Agreements can be written to include:
- a developer commitment to comply with all federal, state and local labor laws;
- a requirement that the developer provide documentation of proper payment to all contractors,
subcontractors and project laborers prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance, and;
- an acknowledgement that failure to comply with the above points would result in a default of the
development agreement and could result in a penalty (such as non-issuance of TI F Note, or, if the TI F
Note has already been issued, delaying, reducing and/or ceasing TI F Note payments.
Costs to the City are medium to high as the HRA could incur legal costs in concluding developer is in
default of contract and/or in withholding funds;
Limitations include:
- Developer may be unaware of all subcontractors and suppliers;
- Staff does not have the capacity to conduct site visits to determine if there are workers who are
excluded from the list;
-May set an unrealistic expectation that staff is monitoring and blame assigned to staff if not followed.
-Language would only be valid until a Certificate of Completion were issued once all contractual
obligations have been met (usually within 18 months of conclusion of construction).
Protection from labor trafficking
Many cities around the country, including the neighboring city of Minneapolis, are passing ordinances
aimed to protect laborers from labor exploitation by contractors and subcontractors.
Labor trafficking is defined as “the severe form of trafficking in persons,” and “the recruitment,
harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of
force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage,
or slavery.
Costs are minimal as there are only additional requirements for contractors to post signs in construction
zones.
Limitations are the lack of resources to investigate labor and human trafficking cases. Cities around the
country are increasing labor and human trafficking public awareness by providing signs in
establishments, city projects and other venues. The signs alert employees and patrons to remedies and
protections related to labor and human trafficking.
City Council agreed with the starting prevailing wage at $300,000 as long as that the set amount be
revisited in the future as the ordinance is implemented. The City Council Members also agreed to move
forward with the redevelopment contractual agreements and the posting of anti-human trafficking posters
at all construction sites.
City Council recommended the staff recommendations to move forward and review future projects. They
also instructed for staff to work with directors to ensure that the ordinance changes are reflected in their
respective departments.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Prevailing wage, contractual provisions and labor trafficking protections aligns with the City of Richfield's
objective to "Cultivate a healthy local economic environment that values the city’s small businesses and
promotes living wage jobs."
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Consider options to make progress on a 2020 City Goal. T he redevelopment agreement for the
Henley II project is the first to incorporate the fair labor contractual provisions.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
Financial impact will have to be determined on a case by case basis.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
Staff have worked with City Attorney Tietjen on the ordinance language and provisions.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
The City Council could reject or modify recommended options to implement additional prevailing wage
requirements, redevelopment contractual obligations provisions and increased labor trafficking awareness.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Ordinance Ordinance
Ordinance Red L ine Ordinance
1
BILL NO. ________
Ordinance No. 2020-__
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PREVAILING WAGE POLICY FOR CITY
FUNDED PROJECTS WITH ESTIMATED COSTS OF $300,000 OR MORE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended by adding the following new
Section:
SECTION 435. PREVAILING WAGE REGULATIONS
435.01. - Purpose.
It is in the public interest that developments and buildings constructed with financial assistance
from the city be constructed and maintained by the best means and highest quality of labor reasonably
available and that persons working on the buildings and developments be compensated according to the
real value of the services they perform and that wages of laborers, workers and mechanics on
developments and buildings financially assisted by public funds be comparable to wages paid for similar
work in the community as a whole.
435.03. - Definitions.
Subdivision 1. The following definitions apply in this Section:
(a) “Basic Hourly Rate” means the hourly wage paid to any employee.
(b) “Prevailing Wage Rate” shall have the meaning contained in Minn. Stat. §177.42, Subd. 6, as
determined for the area including the City of Richfield by the Minnesota Department of Labor and
Industry.
(c) “Apprentice” means a person employed and registered in a bona fide apprenticeship program
registered with the U.S. Department of Labor or with a state apprenticeship agency. "Apprentice"
shall also include a person in the first 90 days of probationary employment as an apprentice who
is not registered in the program but who has been certified by the U.S. Bureau of Apprenticeship
and Training or a state apprenticeship agency or council to be eligible for probationary
employment as an apprentice.
(d) “Project” means erection, construction, reconstruction, remodeling, demolition, or routine
maintenance of City streets, utilities, storm water infrastructure, buildings or parks where the
estimated cost of the work exceeds $300,000 and the City of Richfield (City) or the Richfield
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) lets the work under contract and the project is
financed in whole by City or HRA funds. This includes projects where the City or HRA has
received funds previously from another source and uses such funds for the Project.
“Project” shall not include contracts for the purchase, rental, repair, or maintenance of motor
vehicles or other equipment or personal property. Contracts involving the insertion of public
funds, such as tax increment financing, shall not be considered a Project unless the City or HRA is
a direct party to the contract.
2
(e) “Laborer, Mechanic” means all persons utilized, employed, or working on a Project who are
doing work usually done by mechanics and laborers, including proprietors, partners, and members
of cooperatives.
435.05. - Wage and Hours for City and HRA Projects.
Subdivision 1. Any contract for a Project with an estimated total cost of over $300,000 shall
contain a stipulation that no laborer, mechanic, or apprentice employed directly upon the Project work
site by the contractor or any subcontractor shall be permitted or required to work at a rate of pay less
than the Prevailing Wage Rate.
Subd. 2. The prevailing wage rates, prevailing hour of labor and hourly basic rates of pay shall be
set forth specifically in the contract. All contracts for Projects must include applicable schedules of
prevailing wage rates. Schedules of applicable prevailing wage rates shall be present on all Project job sites
and shall either be posted on the site or be on the person of any supervisor in charge of the job site.
Subd. 3. Upon request of the City or HRA, any contractor or subcontractor working on a
Project shall furnish the City or HRA with a copy of all payrolls relating to the Project. Such payroll
reports shall be submitted on U.S. Department of Labor Standard Forms or their equivalent to the
employee of the City or HRA in charge of supervising contract performance. Payroll so submitted shall
include the classification of each employee and shall set out accurately and completely all the information
required to be maintained under 29 C.F.R. part 5, section 5.5(a)(3)(i).
Subd. 4. No contractor or subcontractor working on a Project shall evade or attempt to evade
the provision of this Section through the use of non-recognized training programs. The only employees
involved in training programs that shall be allowed to work on Projects covered by this Section shall be
Apprentices.
435.07. - Applicability.
This Section shall not apply to contracts for projects estimated to cost less than $300,000; nor to
employees who do no more than deliver materials to the work site. This Section shall apply to employees
who deliver asphalt, concrete, or mineral aggregate such as sand, gravel, or stone where such material is
incorporated into the Project by depositing the material substantially in place, either directly or through
spreaders, from the transporting vehicle.
435.09. - Violations and Penalties.
Subdivision 1. The contractor shall be the responsible party to ensure the payment of prevailing
wages by the contractor or by any subcontractor employed by or performing work as a part of a Project.
Subd. 2. A contractor or any subcontractor who violates the prevailing wage provisions of a
contract shall be liable directly to the underpaid laborer or mechanic for the unpaid wages. A contractor
or subcontractor, by agreeing to perform work on a Project, agrees that laborers or mechanics have such
a cause of action against the contractor or subcontractor.
Subd. 3. Failure to pay prevailing wages may result in, but is not limited to: contract payment
delay, cancellation of the contract, non-issuance of a tax increment financing note, or delay, reduction, or
cessation of tax increment note payments.
Subd. 4. Upon receipt by the City or HRA of a written complaint alleging a violation of this
3
Section or on the initiative of the City or HRA, the City or HRA may refer the complaint to the
Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry to determine whether there has been a violation of this
Section. If the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry declines to conduct an investigation, the City
or HRA may elect, in its own discretion, to either investigate the matter or refer it to an independent
investigator. The City, HRA, and the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry shall have the right to
interview, during working hours, any employees, whether employees of the contractor or any
subcontractor.
Subd. 5. Any person violating this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor with each day of
violation constituting a separate offense.
Section 2.
This ordinance will be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter.
Adopted by the City of Richfield this 10 day of August, 2020.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
1
BILL NO. ________
Ordinance No. 2020-__
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PREVAILING WAGE POLICY FOR CITY
FUNDED PROJECTS WITH ESTIMATED COSTS OF $300,000 OR MORE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended by adding the following new
Section:
SECTION 000. PREVAILING WAGE REGULATIONS
000.01. - Purpose.
It is in the public interest that developments and buildings constructed with financial assistance
from the city be constructed and maintained by the best means and highest quality of labor reasonably
available and that persons working on the buildings and developments be compensated according to the
real value of the services they perform and that wages of laborers, workers and mechanics on
developments and buildings financially assisted by public funds be comparable to wages paid for similar
work in the community as a whole.
000.02. - Definitions.
Subdivision 1. The following definitions apply in this Section:
(a) “Basic Hourly Rate” means the hourly wage paid to any employee.
(b) “Prevailing Wage Rate” shall have the meaning contained in Minn. Stat. §177.42, Subd. 6, as
determined for the area including the City of Richfield by the Minnesota Department of Labor and
Industry.
(c) “Apprentice” means a person employed and registered in a bona fide apprenticeship program
registered with the U.S. Department of Labor or with a state apprenticeship agency. "Apprentice"
shall also include a person in the first 90 days of probationary employment as an apprentice who
is not registered in the program but who has been certified by the U.S. Bureau of Apprenticeship
and Training or a state apprenticeship agency or council to be eligible for probationary
employment as an apprentice.
(d) “Project” means erection, construction, reconstruction, remodeling, or demolition, or routine
maintenance of City streets, utilities, storm water infrastructure, buildings or parks where the
estimated cost of the work eceeds $300,000 and the City of Richfield (City) or the Richfield
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) lets the work under contract and the project is
financed in whole by City or HRA funds. This includes projects where the City or HRA has
received funds previously from another source, and uses such funds for the project is a party to
the contract.
“Project” shall not include contracts for the purchase, rental, or repair, or maintenance of motor
vehicles or other equipment or personal property., or maintenance contracts or any work
performed pursuant thereto including contracts for the maintenance of equipment or personal
2
property or for the routine maintenance or repair of City streets, utilities, storm water
infrastructure, buildings or parks. Contracts involving the insertion of public funds, such as tax
increment financing, shall not be considered a Project unless the City or HRA is a direct party to
the contract.
(e) “Laborer, Mechanic” means all persons utilized, employed or working on a Project who are
doing work usually done by mechanics and laborers, including proprietors, partners, and members
of cooperatives.
000.03. - Wage and Hours for City and HRA Projects.
Subdivision 1. Any contract for a Project with an estimated total cost of over $300,000 shall
contain a stipulation that no laborer, mechanic, or apprentice employed directly upon the Project work
site by the contractor or any subcontractor shall be permitted or required to work at a rate of pay less
than the Prevailing Wage Rate.
Subd. 2. The prevailing wage rates, prevailing hour of labor and hourly basic rates of pay shall be
set forth specifically in the contract. All contracts for Projects must include applicable schedules of
prevailing wage rates. Schedules of applicable prevailing wage rates shall be present on all Project job sites
and shall either be posted on the site or be on the person of any supervisor in charge of the job site.
Subd. 3. Upon request of the City or HRA, any contractor or subcontractor working on a
Project shall furnish the City or HRA with a copy of all payrolls relating to the Project. Such payroll
reports shall be submitted on U.S. Department of Labor Standard Forms or their equivalent to the
employee of the City or HRA in charge of supervising contract performance. Payroll so submitted shall
include the classification of each employee and shall set out accurately and completely all the information
required to be maintained under 29 C.F.R. part 5, section 5.5(a)(3)(i).
Subd. 4. No contractor or subcontractor working on a Project shall evade or attempt to evade
the provision of this Section through the use of non-recognized training programs. The only employees
involved in training programs that shall be allowed to work on Projects covered by this Section shall be
Apprentices.
000.04 - Applicability.
This Section shall not apply to contracts for projects estimated to cost less than $300,000; nor to
employees who do no more than deliver materials to the work site. This Section shall apply to employees
who deliver asphalt, concrete, or mineral aggregate such as sand, gravel, or stone where such material is
incorporated into the Project by depositing the material substantially in place, either directly or through
spreaders, from the transporting vehicle.
000.05. - Violations and Penalties.
Subdivision 1. The contractor shall be the responsible party to ensure the payment of prevailing
wages by the contractor or by any subcontractor employed by or performing work as a part of a Project.
Subd. 2. A contractor or any subcontractor who violates the prevailing wage provisions of a
contract shall be liable directly to the underpaid laborer or mechanic for the unpaid wages. A contractor
or subcontractor, by agreeing to perform work on a Project, agrees that laborers or mechanics have such
a cause of action against the contractor or subcontractor.
Subd. 3. Failure to pay prevailing wages may result in, but is not limited to: contract payment
3
delay, cancellation of the contract, non-issuance of a tax increment financing note, or delay, reduction, or
cessation of tax increment note payments.
Subd. 4. Upon receipt by the City or HRA of a written complaint alleging a violation of this
Section or on the initiative of the City or HRA, the City or HRA may refer the complaint to the
Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry to determine whether there has been a violation of this
Section. If the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry declines to conduct an investigation, the City
or HRA may elect, in its own discretion, to either investigate the matter or refer it to an independent
investigator. The City, HRA, and the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry shall have the right to
interview, during working hours, any employees, whether employees of the contractor or any
subcontractor.
Subd. 5. Any person violating this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor with each day of
violation constituting a separate offense.
Section 2.
This ordinance will be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter.
Adopted by the City of Richfield this ___ day of _________, 2020.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED
ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM #6.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 95
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
8/10/2020
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:
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: Joe P owers, A sst. C ity E ngineer
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
8/4/2020
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider an ordinance amending regulations pertaining to the installation of small wireless facilities
and wireless support structures in the right-of-way and a resolution authorizing summary publication
of said ordinance.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
I n 2017, the Minnesota Legislature amended State law to expressly allow the installation of "small wireless
facilities" and "wireless support structures" in the right-of-way. This right is subject to local governmental
authority to manage right-of-way permitting, but the city's authority to deny permits in the right-of-way is
very limited. Cities are permitted to make such facilities or structures a conditional use in right-of-
way located in areas zoned for single-family residential use and given that cities were not permitted
to adopt a moratorium in 2017 to study other potential regulations, the City Attorney recommended
that the Council do this.
Since the adoption of the regulation two years ago, staff has continued to study potential aesthetic and
spacing guidelines for all small wireless facilities. At a May 26 work session, staff presented a set of
regulations to the City Council. Based on feedback at this work session, the minimum separation between
facilities has been increased from 150 feet to 300 feet and language limiting the size of safety signs has been
eliminated. These regulations would apply to installations in right-of-way adjacent to all zoning districts.
Staff also recommended to the Council on May 26 that the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit
(C U P) in the single-family residential districts be removed. T he CUP process invites the public to
participate in the consideration of an application that, in this case, the City has little to no authority to
deny. Participants have frequently expressed health concerns related to Radio Frequency
Electromagnetic Fields (R F E MF); however, the established guidelines for human exposure to R F
EMF are set by the Federal Communications Commission and the City has no authority to deny a
request that meets those requirements. With the adoption of aesthetic and spacing requirements
that will apply to all installations, the C U P process becomes one that invites public comment, but
offers no legitimate opportunity for influence. T his type of process can erode public trust and is
frustrating and inefficient for all involved. T he Council was supportive of this recommendation.
A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 22 to consider the proposed
amendment to remove the C U P requirement from the Zoning Code. After a lengthy debate related
to the usefulness of the CUP in this process, the Commission recommended approval.
Access to a reliable telecommunications network is important for the residents of Richfield. T he
proposed regulations are intended to reasonably regulate the aesthetic impacts that this improved
connectivity and availability will create.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion:
1. Approve a second reading of an ordinance related to the installation of small wireless facilities
and wireless support structures in the right-of-way; and
2. Approve a resolution authorizing summary publication of an ordinance related to the
installation of small wireless facilities and wireless
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
See Executive Summary
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The purpose of both the city's right-of-way management and zoning regulations is to appropriately
protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Richfield.
I f, in a particular case, a requirement of this ordinance was shown to be infeasible, the Statutory
language would require the city to waive that particular requirement.
Summary publication of adopted ordinances is permitted when the verbatim text of the amendment
is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
W hile C OV I D-19 appears to be impacting the short-term outlook for applications and possibly
construction of new facilities, AT&T and Verizon have both indicated that they will expect to apply
for additional facilities this year.
These regulations will only apply to applications submitted after the adoption and publication of this
ordinance.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The City Attorney's office has reviewed the proposed ordinance revisions.
A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on J une 22, 2020. No members of the
public spoke or submitted comments.
The Planning Commission voted (3-2) to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance.
Commissioners Quam and Rudolph dissented.
A first reading of the proposed ordinance was approved by the Council on J uly 14, 2020.
On J uly 22, 2020 the attached letter from Attorney Anthony A. Dorland of Moss & Barnett was
submitted on behalf of Verizon W ireless. The City Attorney's office has reviewed this letter and
determined that no changes to the proposed ordinance are required in order to comply with State
Law. Staff has made a minor modification to the wording of the clause in question to more-clearly
state our intent to require separation of wireless support facilities, and not antennas without
support structures, as allowed by law.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Approve a second reading with modifications.
Reject the proposed ordinance and maintain status quo.
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
Ordinance Ordinance
Resolution - S ummary P ublication Resolution L etter
Verizon L etter B ackup Material
BILL NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
REGULATIONS RELATED TO
SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Subsection 514.05, Subd. 11 of the Richfield City Code related to
permitted uses in the Single-Family (R) Zoning District is amended to read
as follows:
Subd. 11. Minor public utilities, excludingincluding “small wireless
facilities” and associated “wireless support structures.” in compliance with
regulations detailed in Subsection 802.21 of the City Code.
Section 2 Subsection 514.07, Subd. 12 of the Richfield City Code related to
conditional uses in the Single-Family (R) Zoning District is amended to
read as follows:
Subd. 12. Major public utilities, and “small wireless facilities” and
associated “wireless support structures.”.
Section 3 Subsection 518.05, Subd. 11 of the Richfield City Code related to
permitted uses in the Low-Density Single-Family (R-1) Zoning District is
amended to read as follows:
Subd. 11. Minor public utilities, excludingincluding “small wireless
facilities” and associated “wireless support structures.” in compliance with
regulations detailed in Subsection 802.21 of the City Code.
Section 4 Subsection 518.07, Subd. 4 of the Richfield City Code related to
conditional uses in the Low-Density Single-Family (R-1) Zoning District is
amended to read as follows:
Subd. 4. Major public utilities, and “small wireless facilities” and
associated “wireless support structures.”.
Section 5 Subsection 802.21 of the Richfield City Code related to the issuance of
permits to install small wireless facilities in City right-of-way is amended to
read as follows:
.
802.21. Issuance of Permits; Conditions.
Subdivision 1. Permit Issuance. If the Applicant has satisfied the
requirements of this Section, the City shall issue a permit within a
reasonable period of time of receiving a completed application.
Subd. 2. Conditions. The City may impose reasonable conditions upon
the issuance of the permit and the performance of the applicant
thereunder to protect the health, safety and welfare or when necessary to
protect the right-of-way and its current use. In addition, a permittee shall
comply with all requirements of local, state and federal laws, including but
not limited to Minnesota Statutes §§ 216D.01—.09 (Gopher One Call
Excavation Notice System) and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7560.
Subd. 3. Screening. The Permittee shall screen all above-ground facilities
as required by the Director. Screening methods shall include the use of
shrubs, trees and/or landscape rock or installation using camouflaged
forms of the facility.
Subd. 4. Small Wireless Facility Conditions . In addition to subdivisions 2
and 3, the erection or installation of a wireless support structure, the
collocation of a small wireless facility, or other installation of a small
wireless facility in the right-of-way, shall be subject to the following
conditions:
(a) Each small wireless facility antenna (“antenna”) shall be located
entirely within a shroud or canister type enclosure. The diameter of the
antenna enclosure at its widest point should not be wider than two
times the diameter of the top of the wireless support structure.
(b) A small wireless facility and enclosure shall only be collocated on
the particular wireless support structure, under those attachment
specifications, and at the height indicated in the applicable permit
application.
(c) All colors shall match the background of any wireless support
structure that the facilities are located upon. In the case of existing
wood poles, finishes of conduit shall be zinc, aluminum, stainless steel,
or colored to match those metal finishes.
(d) All cables, wires, and connectors related to the small wireless
facility must be fully concealed on the wireless support structure and
shall match the color of the wireless support structure.
(e) No new wireless support structure installed within the right-of-
way shall exceed 50 feet in height without the city's written
authorization, provided that the city may impose a lower height limit in
the applicable permit to protect the public health, safety and welfare or
to protect the right-of-way and its current use, and further provided that
a registrant may replace an existing wireless support structure
exceeding 50 feet in height with a structure of the same height subject
to such conditions or requirements as may be imposed in the
applicable permit.
(f) All antenna enclosures shall either be mounted to the top of the
wireless structure pole aligned with the centerline of the wireless
support structure, or mounted to the side of the wireless support
structure such that the vertical centerline of the antenna enclosure
shall be parallel with the wireless support structure No wireless facility
may extend more than ten (10) feet above its wireless support
structure.
(g) Where an applicant proposes to install a new wireless support
structure in the right-of-way, the city may impose separation
requirements between such structure and any existing wireless support
structure or other facilities in and around the right-of-way. Wireless
support structures shall be located no closer than 300 feet away,
radially, from another wireless support structure.
(h) To the greatest extent possible, new wireless support structures
shall not be located directly in front of any existing residential,
commercial, or industrial structure and shall be located in line with
existing lot lines.
(i) Where an applicant proposes collocation on a decorative wireless
support structure, sign or other structure not intended to support small
wireless facilities, the city may impose reasonable requirements to
accommodate the particular design, appearance or intended purpose
of such structure.
(j) Where an applicant proposes to replace a wireless support
structure, the city may impose reasonable restocking, replacement, or
relocation requirements on the replacement of such structure.
(k) Tree “topping” or the improper pruning of trees is prohibited. Any
proposed pruning or removal of trees, shrubs, or other landscaping
already existing in the right-of-way must be noted in the application
and must be approved by the City.
(l) Ground mounted equipment cabinets shall be the color of brushed
aluminum and additionally screened through the use of shrubs, trees,
and/or landscape rock or installation using camouflaged forms of the
facility.
(m) New small wireless facilities and wireless support structures shall
not be illuminated, except in accordance with state or federal
regulations, or unless illumination is integral to the camouflaging
strategy such as design intended to look like a street light pole.
(n) The small wireless facility operator/permittee shall remove or paint
over unnecessary equipment manufacturer decals. Small wireless
facilities and wireless support structures shall not include
advertisements and may only display information required by a federal,
state, or local agency.
(o) In residential areas, the small wireless facility operator/permittee
shall use a passive cooling system. In the event that a fan is needed,
the small wireless facility operator/permittee shall use a cooling fan
with a low noise profile.
(p) The applicant shall provide photo simulations from at least two
reasonable line-of-site locations near the proposed project site. The
photo simulations must be taken from the viewpoints of the greatest
pedestrian traffic.
Subd. 5. Small Wireless Facility Agreement. A small wireless facility shall
only be collocated on a small wireless support structure owned or
controlled by the city, or any other city asset in the right-of-way, after the
applicant has executed a standard small wireless facility collocation
agreement with the city. The standard collocation agreement may require
payment of the following:
(a) Up to $150.00 per year for rent to collocate on the city structure.
(b) $25.00 per year for maintenance associated with the collocation;
(c) A monthly fee for electrical service as follows:
1. $73.00 per radio node less than or equal to 100 maximum watts;
2. $182.00 per radio node over 100 maximum watts; or
3. The actual costs of electricity, if the actual cost exceed the foregoing.
The standard collocation agreement shall be in addition to, and not in lieu
of, the required small wireless facility permit, provided, however, that the
applicant shall not be additionally required to obtain a license or franchise
in order to collocate. Issuance of a small wireless facility permit does not
supersede, alter or affect any then-existing agreement between the city
and applicant.
Section 5 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 10th day of
August, 2020.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. _____
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE RELATED
TO THE INSTALLATION OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES AND WIRELESS
SUPPORT STRUCTURES IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY
WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendment of the Richfield
City Code; and
WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense
of publication of the complete text is not justified.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication:
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
BILL NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE INSTALLATION OF SMALL WIRELESS
FACILITIES AND WIRELESS SUPPORT STRUCTURES IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY
This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the
Richfield City Charter.
This ordinance revises rules related to the installation of new small wireless (cellular
phone) facilities and their support structures. The approved ordinance removes the
requirement for a Conditional Use Permit prior to the installation of such equipment in
single-family residential districts and instead establishes aesthetic and spacing
requirements for all new facilities to be installed in the public right-of-way, in any zoning
district in the City. Requirements include screening of ground equipment, matching the
color of new equipment to the support structure to which it is affixed or to surroundings,
height limitations, mounting preferences, spacing requirements, location preferences along
lot lines, passive cooling systems, prohibits advertising, and regulates the trimming of trees
to facilitate installation.
Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office
during normal business hours or upon request by calling the Department of Community
Development at (612) 861-9760.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
August, 2020.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
150 South Fifth Street | Suite 1200 | Minneapolis, MN 55402
P:612-877-5000 F:612-877-5999 W:LawMoss.com
6393479v1
July 22, 2020
VIA E-MAIL (MPoehlman@richfieldmn.gov)
City of Richfield City Council
c/o Melissa Poehlman, AICP
Asst. Director of Community Development
Richfield City Hall
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: City of Richfield’s Proposed Small Cell Right-of-Way and Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Dear City Council Members:
Our law firm represents Verizon Wireless in its wireless communications network development activities in
Minnesota, including in the City of Richfield. Verizon Wireless is actively working to enhance its wireless
network in the Richfield area. We recently reviewed the City’s proposed amended regulations for the
installation of small wireless facilities within the public rights-of-way. We can see how much time and
careful thought the City has devoted to planning how this important technology will be deployed throughout
the City as the proposed ordinance amendments are for the most part consistent with State and Federal
law. There is, however, one proposal that Verizon Wireless respectfully requests the City Council to modify:
the proposed 300-foot separation distance for small wireless facilities and wireless support structures.
Section 802.21, Subd. 4 (g) of the City Code should be revised to be consistent with
Minnesota’s small cell statute. As proposed, the following would be added to Subdivision 4 of Section
802.21:
Small wireless facilities and wireless support structures shall be located no closer than 300
feet away, radially, from another small wireless facility and wireless support structure.
This language is inconsistent with Minnesota’s small cell statute that was enacted in 2017. Specifically,
Minn. Stat. Sec. 237.163, Subd. 3b (b) provides that a new wireless support structure can only be subject
to a separation requirement in relation to other wireless support structures. The statutory language does
not restrict the placement of the antenna facilities — only the placement of new small cell poles in relation
to other small cell poles. The statutory language is an aesthetic requirement intended to allow a
municipality to prohibit multiple new small cell poles from being clustered together, such as both an AT&T
and Verizon Wireless small cell pole being placed on the same corner.1 Thus, Minnesota law would allow
small wireless facilities to be collocated on an existing utility pole that was near an existing small wireless
facility site while the proposed draft language would prohibit this.
To remedy the draft language’s inconsistency with State law, Verizon Wireless suggests the following
revised language:
A new wireless support structure shall be located no closer than 300 feet away, radially,
from another wireless support structure, unless the Director approves a shorter separation
distance in a particular case.
1 We understand that there was some belief that a spacing requirement is to prevent radio frequency
interference. This is not accurate. In downtown Minneapolis, multiple small cell facilities are located on
the same block and often across the street from each other. To the casual observer, the facilities are
indistinguishable from other utility and light poles in the downtown area.
Page 2 of 2
6393479v1
Verizon Wireless proposes that the Director have the flexibility to approve a shorter separation distance in
a particular case because, at times, there are practical and technical reasons why a small cell pole may
need to be placed closer than 300 feet from another small cell pole. For example, small cell facilities and
poles are often placed first in the areas with the greatest foot traffic and cell phone usage, such as in
commercial areas and areas surrounding college campuses. As multiple cell phone companies serve these
businesses and residents, a strict 300-foot separation requirement may materially inhibit wireless service
in these areas.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently promulgated regulations that establish the scope
of aesthetic requirements, such as a separation requirement, that local governments can adopt. In regard
to minimum separation requirements, the FCC stated that aesthetic requirements that are more
burdensome than those the locality applies to similar infrastructure deployments are not permissible, and
a minimum spacing requirement that has the effect of materially inhibiting wireless service would be
considered an effective prohibition of service. FCC’s September 26, 2018, Small Cell Order at ¶87. It was
also noted by the wireless providers that spacing restrictions stifle technological innovation and
unnecessarily burden the ability of a provider to use the best available technological to serve a particular
area; for example, some technology will require higher band spectrum for greater network capacity, yet
some millimeter wave spectrum simply cannot propagate long distances let alone a few hundred feet. FCC
Small Cell Order at note 250.
In conclusion, Verizon Wireless respectfully requests the City Council modify the proposed 300-foot
separation distance language as outlined above. Verizon Wireless appreciates the thoughtful planning and
drafting the proposed right-of-way and zoning ordinance amendments embody. Please include this letter
as part of the public record for the upcoming City Council meeting. Verizon Wireless looks forward to
working with the City of Richfield in deploying this important technology.
Sincerely,
Anthony A. Dorland
Attorney at Law
(612) 877-5258
anthony.dorland@lawmoss.com
cc: Tammy Hartman, Verizon Wireless
AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM #7.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 96
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
8/10/2020
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Nellie Jerome, A ssistant 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
8/4/2020
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
8/4/2020
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the approval of an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow building renovations and
site improvements at Hope Presbyterian Church, 7132 Portland Avenue.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Hope Presbyterian Church (Applicant) is requesting approval of an amendment to a conditional use permit
(A C UP) in order to make renovations to their building and property. This site is located in the Single-Family
Residential Zoning (R) District. The Church and affiliated programming are conditionally allowed uses.
The renovations include removal and replacement of the eastern portion of the existing building on the north
side of the property. The new addition will be set back farther from Portland Avenue and will include a new
and more prominent entrance, a multipurpose room and internal gathering spaces. The Applicant is planning
to renovate the lower level as well, including consolidating offices and updating the children's
spaces. Materials will include brick to match the existing brick, stone and stucco/E I F S. New metal roofing and
large glass windows will accent the building. Hope Church recently held an open house to discuss the project,
to which they invited all neighbors within 1,000 feet of the property.
T he site will continue to meet the conditions specific to a church use in the Single-Family
Residential Zoning (R) District and meets most general performance standards specified by the
Code. A description of conditional use permit requirements is attached. T he one exception may be
parking, although the calculation of parking for a property with such a variety of uses and schedules
is difficult to calculate. Depending on the way in which those uses are calculated, the property may
exceed maximum allowable parking. T he Applicant is proposing to add additional parking spaces
near the main entrance of the church on the Portland side of the building. T here are several reasons
to consider and approve this in this particular instance:
To provide more convenient parking for those attending services and thereby reduce the need
to use the northern parking lot which is located off of a local street;
To allow for separate parking areas if church services are taking place at the same time as
one of the several school/day care programs that operate out of the southern or 4th Avenue
portion of the building; and
To strategically plan for possible future redevelopment of the southern half of the property.
Staff is recommending that the approval of this AC U P include two stipulations:
1. T hat the southern, undeveloped portion of the property be maintained as landscaping or
grass; and
2. T hat a comprehensive review of parking would be required prior to any future modifications to
the parking lot south of the proposed limits of construction, or any requests for redevelopment
of the currently vacant land.
Finding that the proposal meets requirements, staff recommends approval of the attached resolution
for an amendment to a conditional use permit at Hope Presbyterian Church, 7132 Portland Avenue.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve of the attache d re solution for an amendment to a conditional use pe rmit
to allow building re novations at Hope Presbyte rian Church, 7132 Portland Ave nue.
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 Applicant has existed as a congregation since 1954. Currently this facility has C UPs for programs
such as a high school, a Montessori School, an adult daycare, a preschool, and after-school programs.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Section 514.07 of the Zoning Code deals with conditional uses in the R, Single Family Residential
Zoning District. Subdivision 7 describes requirements for religious institutions and related
convents or parsonages as a conditional use in this District.
I n addition to the request for a C UP, the Applicant is requesting that the City vacate the most
southerly, approximately 66-feet of the 5th Avenue right-of-way, north of the existing building. This
request is supported by the Public W orks Department and will be considered separately by the
City Council.
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 J uly 14, 2020. A
decision is required by September 12, 2020 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:
None.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
Notice of Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper and
mailed to properties within 350 feet of the site on J uly 16, 2020.
A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on J uly 27, 2020. There were no
public comments.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposal.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Approve the proposed amendment with additional and/or modified stipulations.
Deny the proposed amendment with findings that it does not meet City requirements.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Keith Koenig, Hope Church; Angie Knodel, A I A, Vanman Architects and Builders; Benton Ford, P.E., Rehder
& Associates, I nc.
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution Resolution L etter
C UP Requirements B ackup Material
P lans - A rchitectural B ackup Material
P lans - C ivil B ackup Material
C hurch occupancy and use table B ackup Material
Zoning Map B ackup Material
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A
REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (ACUP)
TO ALLOW BUILDING RENOVATIONS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT
HOPE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 7132 PORTLAND AVENUE.
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
approval of an amendment to a conditional use permit for a parcel of land commonly known as
7132 Portland Avenue (the “property”) and legally described as:
Lot 1, Block 1, HOPE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH ADDITION, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
and
That part of the South Half of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quartere of the Northeast Quartere of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24 lying south
and east of Lot 1, Block 1, HOPE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH ADDITON, except road.
WHEREAS, Hope Church has existed as a congregation since 1954 and this location
holds ACUPs for programs such as a high school, a Montessori School, an adult daycare, a
preschool, and after-school programs; and
WHEREAS, the requested amendment to the conditional use permit meets those
requirements necessary as specified in Richfield’s Zoning Code, Section 514.07, Conditional
uses, Subd. 7, conditions for religious institutions and related convents or parsonages; and
WHEREAS, the requested amendment to the conditional use permit meets those
requirements necessary as specified in Richfield’s Zoning Code, section 514.11, Lot Area,
dimensions and coverage; and section 514.13, building setback and height; and
WHEREAS, the property will be brought into compliance with the parking maximum
section of the zoning code, 544.13, Subd. 7, upon any future modifications to the parking lot
south of the proposed limits of construction or upon requests for redevelopment of the
currently vacant land.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield held a public hearing for
the requested amendment at its July 27, 2020 meeting; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper
and mailed to properties within 350 feet of the subject property; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: With respect to the application for requested amendment to a conditional use permit at the above mentioned property, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: 1. The City Council adopts as its Findings of Fact the WHEREAS clauses set forth above.
2. An amended conditional use permit is approved to allow modifications to an existing building
3. The approved, amended conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions: • A recorded copy of the approved resolution must be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit;
• The property owner is responsible for the ongoing maintenance and tending of all landscaping in accordance with approved plans;
• The southern, undeveloped portion of the property be maintained as landscaping or grass for as long as it remains undeveloped;
• A comprehensive review of parking would be required prior to any future modifications to the parking lot south of the proposed limits of construction, or any requests for redevelopment of the currently vacant land.;
• The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits, compliance with all requirements detailed in the City’s Administrative Review Committee Report dated July 7, 2020, and compliance with all other City and State regulations;
• Approval of the vacation of the portion of 5th Avenue at the northern boundary of the site prior to issuance of a building permit;
• Community development approval of final bike rack quantities and locations. One bike rack must be on Portland Ave side of the building;
• Community development approval of trash enclosure materials and design;
• Approval of separate sign permits is required;
• Approval of a final landscaping plan and lighting plan prior to issuance of the building permit;
• The approved, amended 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, amended conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of August
2020.
___________________________________
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
Code Requirements / Required Findings
Part 1 – Conditional Use Permit: The findings necessary to issue a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) are as follows (547.09, Subd. 6):
1. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. This requirement is met. The location of the facility is
designated as “Quasi-Public” land use which includes all civic, county and state
facilities (excluding parks); religious facilities, schools and other similar non-profit
uses. This is a religious facility with a school connected.
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. This requirement is met. The purpose of the Zoning Code is to protect and
promote the public health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and
general welfare of the City. The proposed use is consistent with these intentions.
The property is in the Single-Family Residential (R) District. The purpose of the R
District is to provide residential locations that are safe, attractive and quiet. The
continued use of this property as a conditionally-permitted church meets these
requirements.
3. The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or
urban design guidelines. There are no specific redevelopment plans that apply.
4. The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards
specified in Section 544 of this code. The proposed use meets most requirements in
this section, but under certain calculations exceeds the maximum allowable number
of parking stalls. The applicant is providing additional parking stalls nearer to the
reconstructed main entrance of the church (off of Portland Avenue). Future
redevelopment of the southern half of the parcel or reconstruction of the southern
parking lot (outside of current construction limits) offers a better opportunity to
comprehensively review and adjust parking. The resolution approving this
amendment includes a stipulation requiring that parking be reviewed upon either of
these triggers.
5. The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities,
utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. This requirement is met.
6. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare.
This requirement is met.
7. There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. This requirement is
met. Hope Church has existed as a congregation since 1954, and this community
gathering space is important to many residents as a resource and as a space for
spiritual health.
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.
VANMAN ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS - 9600 54th Ave N #180 - Plymouth, Minnesota 55442 - 888.327.2817 - 763.541.9552 - 763.541.9857 - www.vanmanab.com
COPYRIGHT 2020C
JUNE 22, 2020HOPE CHURCH 7132 Portland Ave S, Richfield MN 55423
A-1
Hope Church
Conditional Use Permit for:
A1 - TITLE SHEET
A2 - BUILDING USAGE PLAN
A3 - MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
A4 - LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
A5 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A6 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
CIVIL SHEETS
(BY REHDER AND ASSOCIATES)
SHEET INDEX
OWNER:
ARCHITECT:
HOPE CHURCH
7132 PORTLAND AVE S
RICHFIELD, MN 55423
VANMAN ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS
9600 54TH AVE N, SUITE 180
PLYMOUTH, MN 55442
PHONE: 763-541-9552
FAX: 763-541-9857
ARCHITECT: ANGIE KNODEL, AIA
(angie@vanmanab.com)
CIVIL ENGINEER:
CONTRACTOR:
REHDER AND ASSOCIATES
3440 FEDERAL DR #110
ST. PAUL, MN 55122
PHONE: 651-452-5051
FAX: 651-452-9797
ENGINEER: BENTON FORD
(BFord@rehder.com)
VANMAN ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS
9600 54TH AVE N, SUITE 180
PLYMOUTH, MN 55442
PHONE: 763-541-9552
FAX: 763-541-9857
PROJECT MANAGER: TAD SWEDIN
(tad@vanmanab.com)
PROJECT TEAM:
$182,000
$151,000
$149,000$193,000
MONTESSORI SCHOOL
MONDAY - FRIDAY
7AM TO 6PM
RECP - RICHFIELD SCHOOLS
MONDAY - FRIDAY
7AM TO 5PM
FRONTIER FELLOWSHIP
OFFICES
MONDAY - FRIDAY
9AM TO 5PM
VINES + BRANCHES
WED / THURS 6PM-9PM
SAT 9AM TO NOON
SANCTUARY
SUN 8AM-8PM
WED 7PM TO 9PM
CHURCH ADMINISTRATION
MON- FRI
7AM TO 5PM
CHAPEL
SUN
9AM TO 9PM
MULTI-PURPOSE
SUN
9AM TO 9PM
UNKNOWN - POSSIBLE
FUTURE RENTAL
GYM
KITCHEN
SOCIAL EVENTS ROOM
MON - SUN
7AM - 9PM
Phoenix Cove Adult Daycare
MON-THUR 8AM-8PM
Young Life
MON & THURS
4PM-8PM
3,264 SF651 SF6,650 SF6,749 SF6,674 SF525 SF4,854 SF5,523 SF3,137 SF859 SFSUNDAY USES
MONDAY - FRIDAY ACCESSORY USES
KEY
CHAPEL
MON - FRI
9AM TO 9PM 859 SF3,197 SFMULTI-PURPOSE
MON - FRI
9AM TO 9PM 3,197 SF4,854 SFNote: 1 parking space per 3 seats based on rated design
capacity of worship space.
Worship seats 500 = 167 parking spaces required*
*Plus additional parking spaces as applicable for
accessory facilities which are used concurrently
RED TEXT INDICATES
SQUARE FOOTAGE
PRESCHOOL & LATCHKEY
MON - FRI
6AM-6PM
YOUTH ROOM
MON, WED & THURS
4PM-9PM
SUNDAY SCHOOL
SUN
8AM-NOON
5,173 SF 5,173 SF1,467 SFVANMAN ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS - 9600 54th Ave N #180 - Plymouth, Minnesota 55442 - 888.327.2817 - 763.541.9552 - 763.541.9857 - www.vanmanab.com
COPYRIGHT 2020C
JULY 13, 2020HOPE CHURCH 7132 Portland Ave S, Richfield MN 55423
SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0"A-2
1 MAIN LEVEL BUILDING USAGE PLAN
SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0"A-2
2 LOWER LEVEL BUILDING USAGE PLAN
A-2
REVISED
859 SF
Dickson
Chapel
5523 SF
worship
4189 SF
fellowshipfireplace 3197 SF
multi purpose
169 SF
office 7
97 SF
office 1
99 SF
office 2
93 SF
office 4
120 SF
office 691 SF
office 5
169 SF
office 3
252 SF
conf
282 SF
storage
79 SF
IT room
down childrens
check-in
welcome
desk
190 sf additional
platform
up
up
open to
below
25 1/2"
high
69 SF
sound
booth
elev
8 9
73 SF
toilet
193 SF
work room
5cafe
385 SF
kitchen
182 SF
storage
244 SF
mens
247 SF
womens
414 SF
nursery
outdoor
patio
seating
1174 SF
circulation
6
3
44 SF
toilet
4
7
199 SF
vest
126 SF
vest
912 SF
circulation
library
152 SF
prayer
room
1
248 SF
reception
1057 SF
open office
1522 SF
fellowship
down
ADMINISTRATION
CIRCULATION
MULTI-PURPOSE
UTILITY / STORAGE
VINE + BRANCHES
WORSHIP
YOUTH
64 SF
family toilet
23 SF
jan
mini
fridge
kitchenette
alarm, internet,
phone and copy paper
undercabinet
cart storage
copier copier
mailboxescustodial desk and
bookrack paper shredder2
10
hidden cabinetry / libraryVANMAN ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS - 9600 54th Ave N #180 - Plymouth, Minnesota 55442 - 888.327.2817 - 763.541.9552 - 763.541.9857 - www.vanmanab.com
COPYRIGHT 2020C
JUNE 22, 2020HOPE CHURCH 7132 Portland Ave S, Richfield MN 55423
A-3NORTH
650 SF
latchkey 2
874 SF
choir room
418 SF
kitchenette /
storage /
small office
area
1031 SF
children +
youth lobby
297 SF
shop
730 SF
youth 1
194 SF
girls726 SF
youth 2
60 SF
elev eq
701 SF
preschool 1
705 SF
preschool 2
1001 SF
hall up38 SF
toilet
ramp down647 SF
children +
youth lobby
75 SF
storage63 SF
organ
bellows
97 SF
storage
97 SF
storage
up89 SF
jan
185 SF
mech
812 SF
halldownshelving with hooks hung low for preschool38 SF
toilet
38 SF
toilet
38 SF
toilet
670 SF
latchkey 1
734 SF
storage
194 SF
boys
248 SF
youth storage
VANMAN ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS - 9600 54th Ave N #180 - Plymouth, Minnesota 55442 - 888.327.2817 - 763.541.9552 - 763.541.9857 - www.vanmanab.com
COPYRIGHT 2020C
JUNE 22, 2020HOPE CHURCH 7132 Portland Ave S, Richfield MN 55423
NORTH
A-4
PREFINISHED STANDING
SEAM METAL ROOF SYSTEM
WHITE PAINTED STEEL CROSS
T/ ROOF PITCH
117' - 10"
GRADE
100' - 0"
T/ PEAK
129' - 10"
T/ STEEL CROSS
147' - 0"
T/ PARAPET
116' - 0"
PREFINISHED MTL FASCIA
ALUMINUM CURTAINWALL
EIFS FINISH
MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER
BRICK VENEER W/ BRICK LEDGE
ALUM DOOR & FRAME
ALUM WINDOW, TYP
PREFINISHED MTL FASCIA
ALUM ENTRANCE
SYSTEM
EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN
MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER
PREFINISHED STANDING
SEAM METAL ROOF SYSTEM
EIFS
PREFINISHED MTL COPING
GRADE
100' - 0"
T/ STEEL CROSS
147' - 0"
T/ PARAPET
116' - 0"
T/ PITCH ENTRY ROOF
122' - 4"
EXISTING BUILDING
MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER, TYP
PREFINISHED MTL FASCIA
PREFINISHED STANDING SEAM
MTL ROOFING SYSTEM
EIFS
ALUM ENTRANCE SYSTEM
WHITE PAINTED STEEL CROSS
EIFS
ALUM WINDOW, TYP
MANUFACTURED
STONE VENEER
SIGNAGE, BY OWNER EXISTING BUILDING
ALUM CURTAIN WALL, TYP
EIFS
EXISTING BRICK VENEER
EXISTING HM DOOR
EIFS
PREFINISHED
MTL COPING
MANUFACTURED
STONE VENEER
BRICK VENEER W/
BRICK LEDGE
ALUM WINDOW, TYP
EIFS
VANMAN ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS - 9600 54th Ave N #180 - Plymouth, Minnesota 55442 - 888.327.2817 - 763.541.9552 - 763.541.9857 - www.vanmanab.com
COPYRIGHT 2020C
JUNE 22, 2020HOPE CHURCH 7132 Portland Ave S, Richfield MN 55423
A-5
SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"A-5
1 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"A-5
2 EAST ELEVATION
GRADE
100' - 0"
T/ PARAPET
116' - 0"
T/ STEEL CROSS
138' - 3"
PAINTED WHITE
STEEL CROSS
T&G CEDAR SOFFIT
T/ PITCH ENTRY ROOF
122' - 4"
PREFINISHED MTL FASCIA
ALUM WINDOW
PREFINISHED STANDING
SEAM MTL ROOFING
SYSTEM
EIFS
MANUFACTURED
STONE VENEER
ALUM STOREFRONT, TYP
PREFINISHED MTL FASCIA
MANUFACTURED
STONE VENEER
ALUM ENTRANCE
SYSTEM
EIFS
PREFINISHED
MTL FASCIA
PREFINISHED STANDING
SEAM MTL ROOFING
SYSTEM
ALUM STOREFRONT, TYPMANUFACTURED
STONE VENEER
BRICK VENEER W/
BRICK LEDGE
ALUM WINDOW, TYP SIGNAGE, BY OWNER
EXISTING BUILDING
PREFINISHED
MTL COPING
T/ STEEL CROSS
147' - 0"
GRADE
100' - 0"
T/ PARAPET
116' - 0"
SIGNAGE, BY OWNER
EXISTING BUILDING
WHITE PAINTED STEEL CROSS
PREFINISHED MTL FASCIA
EIFS PREFINISHED MTL FASCIA
MANUFACTURED
STONE VENEER
EXISTING BUILDING
PREFINISHED
MTL FASCIA
MANUFACTURED
STONE VENEER, TYP
ALUM WINDOW, TYP
BRICK VENEER W/
BRICK LEDGE
PREFINISHED
MTL COPING
VANMAN ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS - 9600 54th Ave N #180 - Plymouth, Minnesota 55442 - 888.327.2817 - 763.541.9552 - 763.541.9857 - www.vanmanab.com
COPYRIGHT 2020C
JUNE 22, 2020HOPE CHURCH 7132 Portland Ave S, Richfield MN 55423
A-6
SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"A-6
1 SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"A-6
2 WEST ELEVATION
Hope Church
See sheet A-2 for additional information 7/13/2020
Sunday Uses Sq Ft Occupants Factor
Sanctuary 5,523 500 seats
Chapel*859 58 15
Multi-Purpose**3,197 214 15
Sunday School***5,173 258 20
Social Events Room****4,854 324 15
TOTAL 19,606 1354
Monday - Friday Accessory Uses
Church Administration 3,137 32 100
Chapel*859 58 15
Multi-Purpose**3,197 214 15
Pre-school LatchKey***5,173 258 20
Youth Rooms (*portion shared)1,467 included above 20
Young Life****4,854 324 20
Vines + Branches 3,264 33 100
Frontier Fellowship Offices 651 7 100
RECP Richfield School 6,650 333 20
Unknown Future Rental 6,674 67 100
Montessori School 6,749 338 20
Kitchen 525 3 200
TOTAL 43,200 1667
* indicates shared or dual use space AND calculated in both scenarios
(CO RD NO 52)70TH ST W
69TH ST W
BLAISDELL AVE SNICOLLET AVE S72ND ST W
BLAISDELL AVE SNICOLLET AVE SSTEVENS AVE S2ND AVE S3RD AVE SCLINTON AVE S4TH AVE S5TH AVE SPORTLAND AVE S72ND ST W
73RD ST W
74TH ST W
73RD ST E
74TH ST E
70TH ST W
69TH ST W
71ST ST W1ST AVE SSTEVENS AVE S3RD AVE SCLINTON AVE S4TH AVE S5TH AVE SPORTLAND AVE SOAKLAND AVE SPARK AVE SCOLUMBUS AVE SCHICAGO AVE S5TH AVE S4TH AVE SCLINTON AVE S3RD AVE SSTEVENS AVE S1ST AVE SNICOLET AVE S2ND AVE SBLAISDELL AVE S11TH AVE S10TH AVE SELLIOT AVE SCHICAGO AVE SCOLUMBUS AVE SPARK AVE SOAKLAND AVE S71ST ST EELLIOT AVE S10TH AVE S11TH AVE S11TH AVE S10TH AVE SELLIOT AVE SCHICAGO AVE SCOLUMBUS AVE SPARK AVE SOAKLAND AVE S1ST AVE SRichfield Zoning Map
LAST UPDATED: 5/20/2020
Context Map
Hope Church Owned Parcels
Park (Zoning District is R)
R Single-Family
MR-1 Two-Family
MR-2 Multi-Family
MR-3 High-Density Multi-Family
SO Service Office
C-1 Community Commercial
±0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.60.075 Miles