01-24-2023 City Council AgendaR EG U LAR C IT Y C O U N C IL MEET IN G
R IC H F IE L D MU N IC IPAL C E N TE R, C O U N C IL C H AMB E R S
J AN U ARY 24, 2023
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
C all into the open forum by dialing 1-415-655-0001 U se webinar access code: 2465 462 4301 and password:
1234.
P lease refer to the C ouncil A genda & M inutes web page for additional ways to submit comments.
A pproval of the Minutes of the (1) L egislative B reakfast of J anuary 12, 2023; (2) C ity C ouncil Work S ession of January
10, 2023; and (3) C ity C ouncil Regular Meeting of January 10, 2023.
AG E N D A APPR O VAL
1.A pproval of the A genda
2.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 approval for a Temporary On-S ale Intoxicating L iquor license for the B lessed Trinity C atholic
S chool, located at S t. Richard's C atholic C hurch, 7540 P enn Avenue S outh, for their 2023 S no*ball D ance
taking place F ebruary 4, 2023.
S taff Report No. 17
B .C onsider the approval of an agreement between the Hennepin C ounty Human S ervices and P ublic Health
D epartment, and the C ity of Richfield P olice D epartment for two full time embedded S enior S ocial
Workers.
S taff Report No. 18
C .C onsider the approval of the bid tabulation and award a contract to Valley P aving, Inc., for the Lyndale
Avenue and 77th S treet Intersection Improvements P roject in the amount of $973,021.20 and authorize the
C ity Manager to approve contract changes up to $175,000 without further C ity C ouncil consideration.
S taff Report No. 19
3.C onsideration of items, if any, removed from C onsent C alendar
PROPOSED ORDINANCES
4.Consider a Second reading and Summary Publication of an ordinance amendment aligning the Zoning Code
with the Comprehensive Plan; eliminating the Two-Family Residential (MR-1) Zoning District, and amending the
Single-Family Residential (R) District.
Staff Report No. 20
RESOLUTIONS
5.Hold a Violation hearing and consideration of a resolution regarding civil enforcement for establishments that
recently underwent alcohol compliance checks conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff, and failed by selling
alcohol to a person under the age of 21.
Staff Report No. 21
6.Consider adoption of a resolution requesting the Legislature allow the City of Richfield to bring the option of a
local sales to voters at a future referendum to fund regionally significant projects in Richfield.
Staff Report No. 22
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
7.City Manager's Report
CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
8.Claims and Payroll
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
9.Hats Off to Hometown Hits
10.Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at
least 96 hours in advance to the Acting City Clerk at 612-861-97 12.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
City Council Work Session
January 10, 2023
CALL TO ORDER
The work session was called to order by Mayor Pro Tempore Supple at 5:32 p.m. in the
Bartholomew Room.
Council Members
Present:
Mary Supple, Mayor Pro Tempore; Simon Trautmann; Sean Hayford Oleary;
Ben Whalen; and Sharon Christensen, Council Member-Elect
Staff Present:
Others Present:
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Amy Markle, Recreation Services Director;
Chris Swanson, Management Analyst; and Kelly Wynn, Administrative
Assistant
Martin Kirsch, Charter Commission President
ITEM #1 SECOND DISCUSSION ON THE CHARTER COMMISSION’S
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE CURRENT CITY CHARTER.
Attorney Tietjen reviewed previous meetings and the Charter amendment process. She then
went over the original proposed change to Chapter 2 Section 2.06 and new proposed changes.
Council Member Hayford Oleary referenced some of the language and asked who would have
rule if the City Manager and Mayor disagreed on a matter. City Manager Rodriguez stated the City
Manager is the employee of the Council so the mayor would have final word.
Attorney Tietjen spoke of the collaborative nature of the process would not give the mayor the
ability to direct say, the Police Chief to do or not do something in an emergency situation.
Council Member Hayford Oleary reiterated his question. Attorney Tietjen stated the Mayor has
the ability to put things in place in an emergency situation.
Council Member Hayford Oleary asked for an example this language would regard.
Attorney Tietjen explained this is a very high-level document and is not as specific as city code
language. It would be up to staff to determine when this would be utilized.
Analyst Swanson stated for most emergencies, there are already processes in place.
Attorney Tietjen spoke of a natural disaster would be a good example in having the mayor to
utilize resources.
City Council Work Session Minutes -2-January 10, 2023
Council Member Trautmann asked about the ‘ability to confer’ language and is it necessary
language to allow the Mayor or Council to confer with staff. Language may obscure the process.
Attorney Tietjen said it does not eliminate the council’s authority to make decisions.
Council Member Trautmann expressed he does not want to change it.
Council Member-Elect Christensen recommended some alternative words of ‘shall’ instead of
‘may.’
Attorney Tietjen stated the goal would be to keep it ultimately flexible.
Council Member Whalen agreed with Council Member Trautmann in that it felt awkward, and it
is unhelpful for staff needing to loop in the whole council during an emergency and recommended the
'Mayor will be the main point of contact for the City Manager, Police and Fire Chiefs.
Council Member Trautmann dovetailed on those comments as this wouldn’t change the
emergency standpoint.
City Manager Rodriguez stated the code does have the mayor as the person who puts an
emergency declaration in place.
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple stated she was comfortable with clarifying who the main point of
contact was.
Council Member Hayford Oleary agreed with Council Member Trautmann and asked what
harm it would have to include the mayor has power in a split-second moment.
Council Member Trautmann stated in split-second moments, the power is with the City
Manager, Police Chief and Fire Chief.
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple asked about the process of getting back to the Charter
Commission. Attorney Tietjen said it would need to be a collaborative discussion, but the Charter
Commission recommends language to go to Council then the vote needs to be unanimous on
language.
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple stated she was fine with the proposed language but asked for
suggestions.
Council Member Hayford Oleary recommended ‘the mayor may direct the City Manager.’
Council Member Whalen stated it leaves a lot of scenarios where the mayor would not do
anything and leaves staff to make all decisions.
City Manager Rodriguez asked if the mayor would direct the City Manager to fire someone,
they would have to do that.
Council Member Whalen said in that example, the mayor would have to prove that to maintain
order, the City Manager would need to fire that person.
City Manager Rodriguez spoke on standards for dismissing the City Manager and discussed
how this same process would not apply to the mayor.
City Council Work Session Minutes -3-January 10, 2023
Council Member Trautmann said the language is not reflected on any current leadership.
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple stated there was consensus on what to take back to charter.
Attorney Tietjen moved on the Chapter 3 section 3.01 and went over original proposed change
and new proposed change.
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple asked for clarification that it can be less than 12 hours in an
emergency.
Council Member Whalen asked what emergency would not go to the mayor but also be able to
hold a council meeting less than 12 hours’ notice.
Attorney Tietjen said the term ‘emergency meeting’ is defined by state statute.
Council Member Trautmann asked if there is anything where notice can be waived.
Attorney Tietjen said that is not governed by state statute but hadn’t considered that language
for charter. She received consensus to proposed changes and moved onto changes for Chapter 3
Section 3.04. She asked if ordinances always require majority of all members of the council. Many
surrounding cities do require that but asked if council would allow some flexibility for resolutions and
motions.
Council Member Whalen stated he was comfortable with motions have just a majority vote but
is more hesitant to resolutions as it may include larger sums of money.
Attorney Tietjen said some resolutions do require a two-thirds majority as it may be a state
statute.
Council Member Hayford Oleary expressed comfortability with keeping it ordinances only.
Attorney Tietjen reviewed Chapter 5 section 5.20 proposed changes.
Council Member Trautmann stated he was comfortable with the Charter Commission’s
recommendations.
Attorney Tietjen reviewed next steps.
President Kirsch thanked Council for the discussion.
ITEM #2 UPDATE ON LOCAL SALES TAX PROJECTS AND FUNDING.
City Manager Rodriguez introduced the Local Sales Tax (LST) item and reviewed numbers
provided by Ehlers regarding a bonding scenario. She believed the city can manage Vets Park and
Wood Lake Nature Center (WLNC) projects at the same time but, because of the significant size of
the project, plan on starting work on the community center after the completion of those projects .
Council Member Trautmann asked about paying off and refinancing old bonds at higher
rates. Analyst Swanson stated the city is not looking at refinancing current debt.
City Council Work Session Minutes -4-January 10, 2023
City Manager Rodriguez stated Ehlers looked at outstanding debt and they could look at the
option of rolling in the community center. She commented there would be two issues of bonds to stay
within $10M per year.
Council Member Whalen asked if the $10M limit would it tie up bonding for street projects.
City Manager Rodriguez confirmed it would and would need to be managed. She then
reviewed principal interest and stated staff will be going back to the extension office to review
projections. Staff also included a draft resolution, but final numbers are still being finalized.
Council Member Whalen asked for confirmation of numbers if the community center were to
wait until 2030.
City Manager Rodriguez stated with inflation, it would $63.8M with underground parking but
$56.8M without. Ehlers is having a difficult time projecting numbers with the uncertainty of the market.
Director Markle stated staff has reached out to other communities and gotten feedback and
are exploring a North/South parking lot along with potential street parking, but both can be
problematic and would be safety concerns.
Council Member Hayford Oleary recommended getting on street parking rolled into the Nicollet
reconstruction.
Council Member Whalen asked about the cost of performing a parking study. Director Markle
stated she would inquire about a quote.
Council Member Trautmann recommended space for a drop off lane to potentially reduce
parking.
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple agreed that a parking study would be a good idea.
Council Member Hayford Oleary asked if it was standard to have a project start five years after
a vote to approve project.
City Manager Rodriguez said staff would do some research and then reviewed next steps.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple adjourned the work session at 6:43 p.m.
Date Approved: January 24, 2023
Mary Supple
Mayor
Kelly Wynn Katie Rodriguez
Administrative Assistant City Manager
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro-Tempore Supple at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
Council Members
Present:
Mary Supple, Mayor; Sharon Christensen; Simon Trautmann;
Sean Hayford Oleary; and Ben Whalen
Staff
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
:
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney;
Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director; Mike
Dobesh, Fire Chief; Jennifer Anderson, Health Administrator;
Chris Swanson, Management Analyst; and Kelly Wynn,
Administrative Assistant
OATH OF OFFICE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER SHARON CHRISTENSEN
Administrative Assistant Wynn administered the Oath of Office to Sharon Christensen.
Council Member Christensen thanked her family, her neighbors, co-workers, and the residents
of Richfield and looked forward to working with everyone.
Council Member Trautmann welcomed Council Member Christensen. He stated it was nice
getting to know her over the past few weeks and he was looking forward to working with her.
Council Member Hayford Oleary appreciated Council Member Christensen’s attention to
details and enthusiasm along with welcoming her to the Council.
Mayor Supple added her welcome and thanks.
OATH OF OFFICE RICHFIELD MAYOR MARY SUPPLE
Administrative Assistant Wynn administered the Oath of Office to Mayor Mary Supple.
Mayor Supple thanked everyone for being at the meeting and stated she looked forward to
working with the residents, Council, and staff as they come together for Richfield.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Council Meeting
January 10, 2023
City Council Meeting Minutes -2-January 10, 2023
Council Member Trautmann welcomed Mayor Supple as a leader for the city. He indicated it
was a privilege to observe her leadership and participate in that and he was looking forward to
working with her again.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Supple led the Pledge of Allegiance.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Supple reviewed the options to participate:
Participate live by calling 1-415-655-0001 during the open forum portion
Call prior to meeting 612-861-9711
Email prior to meeting kwynn@richfieldmn.gov
Karole Kelly-Anstedt, 7123 Oak Grove Blvd, thanked Council for giving her time to make this
public comment in response to Police Strategies a Report on Richfield Police Data presented publicly
on Thursday, November 17, 2022. She commented on the presentation outcomes the community would
like to see moving forward.
Larry Ernster, 6727 Elliot Ave S, stated his objection to agenda item 2B, Zoning Code. He stated
he was against that amendment and specifically the rezoning of every single-family home to low
density. He noted low density designation allows the building of duplexes on every single-family lot.
Mary Best, 6727 Elliot Ave S, spoke of agenda item 2B, zoning. She noted that the Richfield
City Council regularly makes its intentions hard to understand. She believed the city should be
honest with the citizens and tell them of the desire to rezone their homes so they can be
converted into a duplex.
Edwina Garcia, 6908 5th Ave S, congratulated Mayor Supple and Council Member
Christensen. She noted Mayor Supple and her have been friends for many years and she has
appreciated her leadership as well as her role of a teacher.
Kathleen Balaban, 6526 Stevens Ave, welcomed Council Member Christensen
and congratulated Mayor Supple. She then noted the City wanted to build up, but they were doing
nothing about the infrastructure. She spoke of parking issues that come with multi-unit housing
along with increased taxes.
Karen Kaehler, 7632 Sheridan Ave S, stated she had been excited to move to Richfield as she
liked the small town feel yet be close to all the city conveniences. She suggested short-term
rentals (similar to bed and breakfast which are already a stated use in the Ordinance), are antithetical
to the goal of building generational wealth because they remove housing stock from the market
creating a new defined currently permitted use is a first step to eventually moving that use to a
conditional use instead of a permitted use and perhaps banning it altogether as other cities have.
Nick Christensen, 6929 10th Ave, congratulated the new Mayor and City Council Member. He
indicated he wanted to reiterate that he hoped the Council had fresh eyes in this new year and
looked
City Council Meeting Minutes -3-January 10, 2023
deeper into the citizens needs and wants. With respect to the zoning, he stated there was different
layers of it, but he did support the rezoning of the single-family homes in the City.
Steve McPhearson, 6805 Oliver Ave, stated he was against the rezoning as well and he probably
would not have bought his home if he thought there was going to be a duplex across from him. He
expressed concern this would bring down his property value. He indicated if the City wanted to do this
in certain areas, that would make sense, but not all of the City. He believed further thought needed to
be put into this instead of voting on it tonight. He did not think the rezoning was a good idea.
City Manager Rodriguez, read an email submitted by Dave Buzicky 6933 Steven Ave S,
stating his objection to allowing multi-family units in residential neighborhoods. He also mentioned
issues with plowing multi-residential areas.
City Manager Rodriguez, read from a message from Sam Erickson, 7327 Elliot Ave S,
commenting on the living restrictions for the Richfield Fire Department and how it is affecting
recruitment.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Whalen, S/Trautmann to approve the minutes of the: (1) Special City Council Meeting of
November 16, 2022; (2) City Council Work Session of December 13, 2022; (3) Special City Council
Work Meeting of December 13, 2022; and (4) City Council Regular Meeting of December 13, 2022.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #1 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
M/Hayford Oleary, S/Trautmann to approve the agenda removing Item 2B off of the Consent
Calendar and placing that item after Item 3.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #2 CONSENT CALENDAR
City Manager Rodriguez presented the consent calendar.
A.Consider a resolution designating an official newspaper for 2023 (Staff Report No. 01)
Resolution No. 12049
Resolution Designating an Official Newspaper for 2023
B.Consider the approval of a first reading of an ordinance amendment aligning the Zoning
Code with the Comprehensive Plan; eliminating the Two-Family Residential (MR-1) Zoning
District, and amending the Single-Family Residential (R) District (Staff Report No. 02)
C.Consider the approval to designate an Acting City Manager for 2023 (Staff Report No. 03)
D.Consider the designation of a Mayor Pro Tempore for 2023 (Staff Report No. 04)
City Council Meeting Minutes -4-January 10, 2023
E.Consider adoption of a resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to enter into Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT Agency Agreement No. 1052132 for Federal
Participation of Construction to allow MnDOT to act as the City’s agent in accepting federal
aid in connection with transportation projects (Staff Report No. 05)
RESOLUTION NO. 12053
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT NO. 1052132 BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR THE AGENCY DELEGATED
CONTRACTING PROCESS REGARDING FEDERAL FUNDS FOR TRANSPORTATION RELATED
PROJECTS
F.Consider the adoption of a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute
Cooperative Construction Agreement No. 1010958 between the City of Richfield and the
State of Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for construction of the I-494:
Airport to Highway 169 Project 1 (Staff Report No. 6)
RESOLUTION NO. 12054
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE COOPERATIVE
CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT NO. 1010958 BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MNDOT) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE I-494
AIROPORT TO HIGHWAY 169 PROJECT 1
STATE PROJECT NO. 2785-424
STATE AID PROJECT NO. 157-030-007
G.Consider approval of a Construction, Maintenance & Easement Agreement between the
City and Richfield Property Holdings, LLC; 15th NB Property1 LLC; and 6345 Partners, LLC
that grants an easement for public pedestrian access and trail features and defines
ownership and maintenance responsibilities for certain features constructed at 600 64th
Street West (Staff Report No. 07)
H.Consider resolutions designating official depositories for the City of Richfield for 2023,
including the approval of collateral (Staff Report No. 08)
RESOLUTION NO. 12055
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING U.S. BANK A DEPOSITORY OF FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
FOR THE YEAR 2023
RESOLUTION NO. 12056
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS, BANKS, AND CREDIT
UNTIONS AS DEPOSITORIES FOR THE DEPOSIT AND INVESTMENT OF CITY FUNDS IN 2023
RESOLUTION NO. 12052
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AS DEPOSITORIES FOR THE
INVESTMENT OF CITY OF RICHFIELD FUNDS IN 2023
I.Consider a resolution authorizing the use of credit cards by City employees otherwise
authorized to make purchases on behalf of the City, and authorizing City Manager and
Finance Manager to designate employees to whom a card can be issued (Staff Report No.
09)
RESOLUTION NO. 12050
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZNG THE USE OF CREDIT CARDS BY CITY EMPLOYEES AUTHORIZED TO
MAKE PURCHASES ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
J.Consider a resolution adopting the Purchasing and Spending Authority Policy for the
employees and officials of the City (Staff Report No. 16)
RESOLUTION NO. 12051
RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASING AND SPENDING AUTHORITY POLICY
M/Hayford Oleary, S/Trautmann to approve the consent calendar.
City Council Meeting Minutes -5-January 10, 2023
Mayor Supple clarified Item F when it talked about how much the city would be paying for various
bridges, etc. there was no mention of the Chicago Avenue pedestrian bridge. She stated he had
inquired about this and was informed that MnDOT was paying for the entire bridge and the City was not
paying anything.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #3 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT
CALENDAR
None
ITEM #2B
CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT ALIGNING THE ZONING CODE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN; ELIMINATING THE TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (M-1) ZONING
DISTRICT, AND AMENDING THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R) DISTRICT
(STAFF REPORT NO. 02)
Council Member Hayford Oleary presented Staff Report No. 02.
M/Hayford Oleary, S/Whalen to approve the first reading of an Ordinance Amendment aligning
the Zoning Code with the Comprehensive Plan; eliminating the two-family residential (M-1) Zoning
District and amending the Single Family Residential (R) District.
Council Member Whalen clarified some misinformation he has heard. He indicated fourplexes
had been mentioned during the Open Forum, but fourplexes were not included in this at all. He noted
the zero-foot setback was only if the buildings on two lots were sharing a wall. Otherwise, the normal
setbacks were still in place. He stated the bigger issue he wanted to comment on was a sentiment
among the opposition stating renters do not contribute to the community the same way homeowners
did. He stated that was false and he took offense to those statements. He spoke of personal
experience renting in Richfield while he worked at a local church and did community volunteering and
leading volunteers. He indicated if a resident did not want to live next to a renter, that was their
choice and if they don’t want to rent themselves, that was also a choice, but renting is a key part of
people having shelter.
Council Member Trautmann stated for everyone that comes before Council to speak, he
understood it was not always comfortable to come and speak to the City Council. He noted right now
they were not voting for or against this motion today and it would come up again in a couple of weeks.
He invited people to also call or email him. He stated he was in support of the motion and noted this
was a great opportunity for families who are living differently and are living intergenerationally.
Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he agreed with the supportive comments on this item.
He believed staff could have brought Council the bare minimum of slightly changing what was allowed
for single-family homes and they went beyond that to achieve the goals of greater affordability. He did
note his concern as the current language states 4 cars per unit could be on a driveway and with that
language unchanged that would mean a duplex could have 8 cars on a driveway. He asked the
Council to direct staff to maintain the single-family home limit including duplexes so it would be 4 cars
per lot, rather than 4 per dwelling unit.
Council Member Whalen asked if that was in addition to any garage stalls or was it specifically
to outside on a driveway. Director Poehlman responded that cars stored in a garage would not count
toward that limit.
City Council Meeting Minutes -6-January 10, 2023
Council Member Trautmann indicated most of the Council were homeowners and the value of
homes in Richfield have risen significantly in terms of wealth created. He stated if there was a new
home that had two homes they might see a property rise or stay the same. He asked for clarification
that fourplexes were not contemplated. Director Poehlman responded that was correct. She stated
this change would only allow duplexes.
Council Member Whalen asked if the same limits on how big the driveway was could apply.
Director Poehlman responded that was correct and under this new Ordinance, unless it was a twin
home where there was a lot line dividing the properties you could not have two curb cuts, so you
would not actually have two driveways.
Council Member Hayford Oleary asked if 8 cars could be allowed on one driveway if they
could be fit on the driveway if it were a duplex with two units. Director Poehlman responded that was
correct if they could be fit.
Council Member Hayford Oleary asked if cars on the street counted toward this limit and visitor
cars were also exempt; that this applied to regular cars normally kept on the property. Director
Poehlman responded that was correct. She stated the limit came from lots primarily on the arterial
roads where before they had limits on how large driveways could be, people paved their entire front
yard and would park large quantities of cars and cover the entire front yard. She indicated there was
a limit put on the number of cars that could be parked on the driveway. She stated if there were more
cars than four (plus what was parked in the garage) would force that person to park on the street.
She stated this was a tradeoff – do they want the cars on the driveway or on the street? She
indicated in snow emergencies they could move onto driveways/grass and visitors or exempt, but that
was the genesis of this limitation.
Mayor Supple stated that other than during a snow emergency, people are not supposed to be
parking on the grass. Director Poehlman responded that was correct and people are only allowed
parking on their driveway.
Council Member Whalen stated he was comfortable either way but wanted to observe that the
problems they are discussing are not unique to duplexes or to renters. He stated this was something
they ran into with single-family homes as well.
Mayor Supple believed four cars were plenty, but she did not object to having six cars. She
stated 8 was excessive.
Council Member Christensen stated as far as duplexes and double bungalows, it would be
good to have some but perhaps not in every neighborhood. She wanted to take a look at the lot sizes
of the homes. She noted in her home the lot would have handled a double home, but in her
neighborhood the ordinance said she could not be done but a few blocks away there was a lot of
them. With respect to parking, she believed they needed to look at the number of occupants in the
house.
Mayor Supple stated she was in support of this change. She believed it allowed for flexibility
and the city needed to have some flexibility for those people who did want to build generational
wealth. She stated she could see having one generation on one side of the home and another
generation on the other side of the home. She did not believe there would be a flood of duplexes.
Council Member Hayford Oleary asked if staff needed a motion for the outdoor parking or was
that something that will be changed for the second reading, or other options given. Poehlman asked if
he was looking for staff to craft a rule that would reduce the number per unit down to three or was he
looking for staff to have something of a per lot limit of six or are they at four.
Mayor Supple stated her preference would be per lot.
City Council Meeting Minutes -7- January 10, 2023
Council Member Hayford Oleary stated per lot as well. Director Poehlman asked if he was at
six vehicles.
Council Member Hayford Oleary believed it should be four vehicles. Mayor Supple stated she
was okay with that if the rest of the Council was in favor.
City Attorney Tietjen stated if there was direction/consensus to give staff direction on the
change, the change can be made between first reading and second reading so a separate motion was
not necessary and it can be voted on at the second meeting.
Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he wasn’t going to suggest a change to this but he
stated he was glad it would be reduced, but he was disappointed to see a parking minimum they are
providing. He believed that somewhat undermined their goals of providing affordable options. He
stated an example of this is if someone has the money to build a duplex, but wants to build a garage
in five years, he understood that would not be allowed under this. He believed the approach to
parking might be a larger policy discussion but given what they had he was not proposing a change
but he did not think that detail was the right direction and he did not think they should have a
minimum. He noted almost all of the homes in the City were built without a minimum for off-street
parking.
Mayor Supple disagreed in that if they don’t have a requirement for at least a single-family
garage, where are the lawnmowers and the snowblowers, etc. going to end up. She stated the
storage issue was important to her.
Council Member Hayford Oleary agreed this was something they needed to work through, but
he was okay for now.
Mayor Supple clarified this was a first reading and at the next Council meeting it would come
before Council as a second reading and there will be opportunity for the public to weigh in.
Council Member Whalen stated it was a perpetual problem. He resonated with the frustration
with the residents who just found out about this. He noted they did have the second reading before it
was a final approval and asked the residents to continue to give their input and thanked them for
sharing. He noted there was also a full work session where this was discussed a couple of months
ago and he recommended the residents listen to the recording of that meeting where they went into
much more detail as well as the background. He thanked everyone for showing up and engaging.
Management Analyst Swanson indicated a copy of the petition would be distributed to Council.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #4
PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF NEW ON-SALE WINE
AND 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSES FOR NLTT HOCKEY
VENTURES, LLC., DBA MINNESOTA WHITECAPS, LOCATED AT THE
RICHFIELD ICE ARENA, 626 66TH STREET E. (STAFF REPORT NO. 10)
Council Member Whalen presented Staff Report No. 10 and opened the public hearing.
Ken Carter, 7214 Park Avenue, asked if the previous group using this also had a liquor license.
Mayor Supple responded yes.
Bobby Long, NLTT Hockey Ventures, LLC, stated he came here mid-summer to take over the
hockey arena. He indicated they have had great partnerships with the city and also local businesses
City Council Meeting Minutes -8-January 10, 2023
that support them as a team. He noted they buy all of their post-game meals from local restaurants and
they are very excited to be here.
M/Whalen, S/Hayford Oleary to close the public hearing.
M/Whalen, S/Hayford Oleary to approve the issuance of new On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent
Malt Liquor licenses for NTLL Hockey Ventures, LLC., dba Minnesota Whitecaps, located at the
Richfield Ice Arena, 636 66th Street E.
Council Member Whalen thanked NTLL Hockey Ventures for coming tonight and stated the City
appreciated the partnership. He stated he was excited to check this out and encouraged other residents
to join in.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #5
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VACATING AN EXISTING UTILITY
EASEMENT TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW UTILITY AND STORMWATER
EASEMENT AT 6500 NICOLLET AVENUE SOUTH, PARTNERHSIP ACADEMY
(STAFF REPORT NO. 11)
Council Member Hayford Oleary presented Staff Report 11 and opened the public hearing.
M/Hayford Oleary, S/Whalen to close the public hearing.
Moton carried: 5-0
M/Hayford Oleary, S/Whalen to (1) adopt a resolution vacating the existing utility easement at
6500 Nicollet Avenue South; (2) adopt a resolution approving the amended encroachment agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. 12060
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT AT 6500 NICHOLLET AVENUE
SOUTH
RESOLUTION NO. 12059
RESOLUTION AMENDING AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND
PARTNERSHIP ACADEMY LOCATED AT 6500 NICOLLET AVENUE SOUTH
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #6
PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER TO APPROVE THE RENEWAL OF 2023
PAWNBROKER AND SECONDHAND GOODS DEALER LICENSES FOR
METRO PAWN & GUN, INC., 7529 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH (STAFF
REPORT NO. 12)
Council Member Trautmann presented Staff Report 12 and opened the public hearing.
Mark Nichols, Owner of Metro Pawn & Gun, stated this was approximately his 26th appearance
before the Council. He paid his respects to the Council and noted if an issue arose the city could contact
him or John Kunst who has been the manager for 26 years.
Council Member Trautmann thanked Mr. Nichols and Mr. Kunst for attending the meeting.
City Council Meeting Minutes -9-January 10, 2023
M/Trautmann, S/Hayford Oleary to close the public hearing.
M/Trautmann, S/Hayford Oleary to approve the renewal of 2023 Pawnbroker and Secondhand
Goods Dealers Licenses for Metro Pawn & Guns, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South.
Mayor Supple thanked Mr. Nichols for attending.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #7
SECOND READING OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING
THE ZONING CODE IN RELATION TO LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
(STAFF REPORT NO. 13)
Council Member Whalen presented Staff Report 13.
Director Poehlman added while they are reducing the written requirement for trees on an
individual development site, they will be increasing the number of trees in the city as the number of
trees that cannot be planted on a development site will be planted elsewhere in the community such as
the parks and boulevards.
Council Member Trautmann asked if it was possible for families that wanted more trees in their
yards to have more of those trees planted on private property. Director Poehlman responded it would
allow developers to contribute to a fund that would allow the planting in public areas, parks, and
boulevards. She noted it would not allow the trees to be planted on private property, but it could
potentially free up funds that Parks/Rec and Public Works now use for trees.
Council Member Hayford Oleary stated there was a lot of boulevard space that did not currently
have trees, so additional funding for that was helpful. He asked if this was in lieu of a tree protection
ordinance or was this in addition to that potentially happening in the future. Director Poehlman
responded she believed the Sustainability Commission was discussing a potential tree protection
ordinance and this was a separate issue.
Council Member Hayford Oleary stated if a developer put in trees and they died, they were
required to replace them. Director Poehlman responded these trees would be planted in boulevards
and public parks so they would be the city’s responsibility to maintain them.
Council Member Whalen stated if anyone was skeptical as to how this would improve the trees
in the city to look at the staff report. He noted in some cases it could double how many trees would be
getting planted. He shared the discussion the Sustainability Commission had that the flexibility to plant
in a boulevard or contribute cash elsewhere was not a choice but rather a requirement if the trees
cannot be planted on site; the first requirement would always be to plant on site if possible.
M/Whalen, S/Hayford Oleary to (1) approve the ordinance amendment modifying the Zoning
Code in relation to landscaping requirements; and (2) approve a resolution authorizing summary
publication of said ordinance.
BILL NO. 2023-1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING SECTION 544 OF THE ZONING CODE IN RELATION TO
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
RESOLUTION NO.12058
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE MUNICIPAL
CODE IN RELATION TO LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
Motion carried: 5-0
City Council Meeting Minutes -10-January 10, 2023
M/Whalen, S/Hayford Oleary to approve a resolution authorizing establishment of a new special
revenue fund for public tree planting.
RESOLUTION NO. 12057
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR PUBLIC TREE
PLANTINGS
Mayor Supple stated this having a separate fund for this was a step in the right direction.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #8
CONSIDER THE CITY COUNCIL’S APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR’S
APPOINTMENTS OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA)
COMMISSIONERS CONSIDERING OF MARY SUPPLE AND SEAN HAYFORD
OLEARY (STAFF REPORT NO. 14)
Council Member Christensen presented Staff Report 14.
M/Christensen, S/Trautmann to approve the Mayor’s appointment of two members of the City
Council as HRA Commissioners commencing January 10, 2023 and expiring at the end of their
respective current term on the Richfield City Council.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #9
CONSIDER REPRESENTATIVES TO SERVE AS THE 2023 LIAISONS TO
VARIOUS LOCAL, REGIONAL AND STATE ORGANIZATIONS, AND CITY
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (STAFF REPORT NO. 15)
Council Member Christensen presented Staff report 15.
M/Christensen, S/Whalen to designate City Council liaison appointments to various local,
regional, and state organizations, and City boards and commissions.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #10 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Rodriguez thanked Administrator Wynn for the commission process recruitment.
She then congratulated Mayor Supple and Council Member Christensen. She then responded to a
resident’s question from a previous council meeting in regards to parking.
ITEM #11 CLAIMS AND PAYROLL
M/Whalen, S/Hayford Oleary that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
U.S. BANK 12/27/2022
City Council Meeting Minutes -11-January 10, 2023
A/P Checks: 311271 - 311851 $3,700,319.64
Payroll: 175381 – 175684 43630 – 43633 $741,454.98
TOTAL $4,441,774.62
U.S. BANK 01/10/2023
A/P Checks: 311852 - 312174 $1,233,781.11
Payroll: 175685 – 175986 $727,974.75
TOTAL $1,961,755.86
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #12 HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS
Council Member Whalen stated he wanted to give hats off to the weather for all of the snow; to
the snowplow drivers and all of their hard work; and to all of the community for helping others with their
vehicles.
Council Member Christensen stated she attended the Woodlake Nature Centers New Years Eve
event. She stated she had to park several blocks away and appreciated the plowed streets and
sidewalks.
Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he did not have any items tonight but he hoped everyone
had a Happy New Year.
Council Member Trautmann stated he wanted to give hats off to all of the volunteers and to all
of the new Commissioners. He thanked the Red, White, and Blue Days Committee and stated they
were looking for sponsorships and contributions.
Mayor Supple thanked Council Member Trautmann for agreeing to serve as Mayor Pro
Tempore. She gave kudos to the Public Works Department for the fabulous job they did with the snow
plowing. She noted yesterday was Law Enforcement Appreciation Day and she thanked the law
enforcement community for all they do in keeping the residents safe. She noted they had received a
stack of essays from the 5th graders at the STEM school and they had fabulous ideas of what they
would do if they were Mayor for the day.
ITEM #13 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:45 p.m.
Date Approved: January 24, 2023
Mary Supple
Mayor
Chris Swanson Katie Rodriguez
Management Analyst City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special City Council Work Session
January 12, 2023
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Supple at 7:45 a.m. held at Wood Lake Nature
Center.
Council Members Mary Supple, Mayor; Simon Trautmann; Sean Hayford Oleary; Ben Whalen;
Present: and Sharon Christensen
Legislators Present: State Representative Michael Howard, District 50A; Metropolitan Council
Representative Molly Cummings, District 5; Hennepin County Commissioner
Debbie Goettel, District 5; Steve Unowsky, ISD 280 Superintendent;
Jean Heyer, District Office Director for Congresswoman Omar; Ali Isse, Deputy
Director for Congresswoman Omar; Myles Artis Outreach Director for Senator
Tina Smith
Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Sack Thongvanh, Assistant City Manager;
Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director, Jay Henthorne,
Public Safety Director; Kristin Asher, Public Works Director; Amy Markle,
Recreation Services Director; Mike Dobesh, Fire Chief; Kumud Verma,
Finance Manager; Scott Kulzer, Administrative Aide/Analyst; and Chris
Swanson, Management Analyst
Item #1 DISCUSSION WITH LEGISLATORS
The City Council and City staff met with the local Legislators to discuss items of mutual
interest to the City of Richfield.
ADJOURNMENT
The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:15 a.m.
Date Approved: January 24, 2023
Mary Supple
Mayor
Kelly Wynn Katie Rodriguez
Administrative Assistant City Manager
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #2.A.
STAFF REPORT NO. 17
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1/24/2023
REPORT PREPARED BY: Jennifer Anderson, Support Services Manager
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director/Chief of Police
12/27/2022
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
1/18/2023
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider approval for a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Blessed Trinity Catholic
School, located at St. Richard's Catholic Church, 7540 Penn Avenue South, for their 2023 Sno*ball
Dance taking place February 4, 2023.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On December 16, 2022, the City received application materials for a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor
license for the Blessed Trinity Catholic School, located at St. Richard's Catholic Church, 7540 Penn Avenue
South, for their 2023 Sno*ball Dance taking place February 4, 2023. They will serve intoxicating liquor, wine
and 3.2 percent malt liquor from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, February 4, 2023, only.
They will provide food and snacks for dinner. The Blessed Trinity Catholic School has contacted food
sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure proper food handling practices are followed.
The Director of Public Safety has reviewed all required information and documents and has found no basis
for denial.
The City Council has previously granted this license in conjunction with this event.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Approve issuance of a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Blessed
Trinity Catholic School, located at St. Richard's Catholic Church, 7540 Penn Avenue South for their
2023 Sno*ball Dance taking place February 4, 2023.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for the issuance of this license:
The required licensing fee has been paid.
Proof of liquor liability insurance has been provided showing the Catholic Mutual Relief Society of
America affording the coverage.
B.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Richfield City Code Section 1202.05 requires all applicants to comply with all of the provisions of this
code, as well as the provisions of Minnesota Statute Chapter 340A.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The event takes place on February 4, 2023; therefore, consideration of the license is required at the City
Council's J anuary 24, 2023 meeting.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The required licensing fees have been received.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
There are no legal considerations.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
The Council could deny the approval of the Temporary On-Sale I ntoxicating Liquor license for the Blessed
Trinity Catholic School. This would mean the applicant would not be able to serve intoxicating liquor, wine or
3.2 percent malt liquor; however, Public Safety has not found any basis for denial.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Blessed Trinity Catholic staff has been notified of the date of this meeting.
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 18
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/24/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
1/19/2023
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
1/19/2023
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 agreement between the Hennepin County Human Services and Public
Health Department, and the City of Richfield Police Department for two full time embedded Senior
Social W orkers.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Hennepin County has presented an agreement on behalf of the Hennepin County Human Services and
Public Health Department for a Mental Health Program in the Richfield Police Department.
Officers utilize their experience and training in crisis/conflict management, persuasion, de-escalation, mental
health, and serving those with autism to safety resolve crisis incidents while ensuring the individual receives
the necessary services and/or medical attention. Officers also routinely partner with Community Outreach for
Psychiatric Emergencies (C OP E) to assist with calls where a person is in crisis. C OP E provides
emergency intervention services 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, when an adult is experiencing an
emotional crisis that threatens their personal safety.
Richfield Police Officers respond to a multitude of calls for service - typically around 35,000 calls per year.
Notably, mental health-related calls for service have consistently increased over the past 4+ years.
The Richfield Police Department implemented an embedded social worker program in September 2020.
Several other communities throughout Hennepin County already have similar programs in place. Through
collaborative efforts, the embedded social worker program will help achieve numerous goals.
More timely engagement of Senior Social Worker (S S W ) with individuals
I ncreased use of community resources to support individuals
I ncreased use of public assistance programs
I ncreased use of non-urgent health care systems
I mproved engagement of current service providers
Ongoing collaboration and learning between Hennepin County Human Service and Public Health and
police department
I mproving the quality of life for those who suffer from mental illness and have encounters with law
enforcement
Reducing use of force, injury or death to officers and community members
Reducing rate of arrests/prosecution of persons in mental health crisis and increase the number of
persons who remain in community settings with services and supports
Creating cost-savings through reduction of (incarceration and hospitalization) 911 calls regarding
mental health crisis
Reducing repeat calls and visits to the same issue
Improving efficiency of law enforcement response to emergency and non-emergency mental
heal issues
Increasing public satisfaction with the response to mental health emergencies and other metrics
developed during the pilot utilizing key stakeholder and community input
The comprehensive approach to mental illness will ensure community members receive the
assistance/treatment they need.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Approve an agreement between the Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health
Department and the City of Richfield Police Department for two fulltime social workers to the Police
Mental Health Program.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The Richfield Police Department has a Mental Health Program which includes an embedded full-time
Senior Social Worker assigned to the Richfield Police Department.
B.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The Richfield Public Safety/Police Department wishes to contract with Hennepin County for the Police
Mental Health Program.
C.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
The agreement must be signed for the Police Mental Health Program.
D.FINANCIAL IMPACT:
For the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023, the not-to-exceed amount of $132,706
annually.
For the period January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, the not-to-exceed amount of $145,412
annually.
For the period January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025, the not-to-exceed amount of
$145,412 annually.
E.LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
This contract has been reviewed by the City Attorney
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
The Council may choose to not approve the contract; and therefore not allow the City of Richfield Police
Department to partner with Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department and continue a
Police Mental Health Program
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Contract Contract/Agreement
HC# A2110930
1
AMENDMENT #1 TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY
AND CITY OF RICHFIELD
This Joint Powers Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between the County
of Hennepin, Minnesota (“COUNTY”) on behalf of its Human Services and Public Health
Department (“HSPHD”) and City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota
55423, pursuant to the authority conferred upon them by Minn. Stat. § 471.59 and on behalf of it’s
police department, (referred to herein as “POLICE DEPARTMENT”). The parties to this
Agreement may also be referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as “Parties”.
IT IS HEREBY AGREED that Agreement No. #A2110930 between the above-named parties,
including any prior amendments, is hereby amended in accordance with the provisions set forth
below.
The third WHEREAS clause will be amended to read:
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to jointly and cooperatively coordinate their expertise and
delivery of services to further the interests of providing follow up care by two Senior Social
Workers (SSWs) embedded with POLICE DEPARTMENT to prevent reoccurrences of
emergency crises in a manner that most effectively and efficiently supports and protects the
physical, mental and behavioral health of individuals in Hennepin County, subject to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement.
Clause 3, TERM OF THE AGREEMENT, shall be amended to read:
3.TERM OF THE AGREEMENT
The term of this Agreement shall be from January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2025, unless
terminated earlier in accordance with the cancellation/termination provisions of this
Agreement.
Clause 4, CONSIDERATION, paragraph A. and paragraph B., shall be amended to read:
4.CONSIDERATION
A.POLICE DEPARTMENT shall pay ($60,000) Sixty Thousand dollars for the period
January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022.
POLICE DEPARTMENT shall pay ($132,706) One Hundred Thirty-Two Thousand Seven
Hundred Six dollars for the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023.
POLICE DEPARTMENT shall pay ($145,412) One Hundred Forty-Five Thousand Four
Hundred Twelve dollars for the period January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024.
POLICE DEPARTMENT shall pay ($145,412) One Hundred Forty-Five Thousand Four
Hundred Twelve dollars for the period January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025.
HC# A2110930
2
B. For the period January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022, one SSW will be hired,
employed, and equipped by HSPHD and participate in supervision and training by HSPHD
in accordance with local, state, federal, and professional licensure requirements.
For the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2025, two SSWs will be hired,
employed, and equipped by HSPHD and participate in supervision and training by HSPHD
in accordance with local, state, federal, and professional licensure requirements.
EXHIBIT A: Description of Services, shall be replaced with the following revised EXHIBIT A:
Description of Services, as attached which is updated to add a second SSW.
This amendment shall be effective January 1, 2023.
Except as hereinabove amended, the terms, conditions and provisions of said Contract No.
#A2110930 shall remain in full force and effect.
(The remainder of this page intentionally left blank.)
HC# A2110930
3
The Parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions set forth in this Agreement.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Reviewed for COUNTY by the County STATE OF MINNESOTA
Attorney’s Office
By:
Chair of Its County Board
Date:
ATTEST:
Deputy/Clerk of County Board
Date:
By:
County Administrator
Date:
City of Richfield through Richfield Police
Department:
By: ___________________________________
Title: __________________________________
Date: __________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Title: __________________________________
Date: __________________________________
Contract #A2110930
EXHIBIT A: Description of Services
1
January 2023
POLICE DEPARTMENT and HSPHD staff will work collaboratively to prevent
reoccurrences of emergency crises.
Roles and Responsibilities of Parties
A.POLICE DEPARTMENT will provide office space for the Senior Social Workers (SSWs).
B.POLICE DEPARTMENT will run DSL lines at designated office space, as needed, if SSWs
are otherwise unable to access to COUNTY network.
C.POLICE DEPARTMENT will work with the HSPHD Social Work Unit
Supervisor (SWUS) to establish criteria for referrals.
D.POLICE DEPARTMENT will work with the SWUS to develop a referral process.
E.POLICE DEPARTMENT will track referrals and repeat calls.
F.POLICE DEPARTMENT will track mental health calls that involve weapons, use of force
and transportation holds being written.
G.POLICE DEPARTMENT will accompany the SSWs to home visits as needed.
H.HSPHD will be responsible for providing the SSWs with equipment that is
necessary for completing their work. This includes but is not limited to laptop
computer, cell phone, and office supplies.
I.The SSWs will report directly to the HSPHD SWUS.
J.HSPHD will be responsible for transportation/mileage expenses for the SSWs.
The SSWs will be responsible following the HSPHD transportation/mileage
reimbursement policies.
K.The SSWs will provide short-term assistance to individuals in order to connect
the individuals with internal and/or community resources to help meet their
needs. Services will be provided in an ethical and culturally sensitive manner.
L.After being assigned a case, the SSWs will complete a file clearance of the
various systems to determine if the individual is open to social services, county of
financial responsibility, and public assistance programs.
Contract #A2110930
EXHIBIT A: Description of Services
2
January 2023
M. The SSWs will meet the individual, assess the individual’s needs, note
formal and informal supports, and determine where gaps exist.
N. The SSWs will request a new or updated diagnostic assessments as needed.
O. The initial assessment should include the risks to the safety and stability of the
individual as well as the individual’s ability to address such concerns. The SSWs
will also evaluate the need for emergency services and if needed will assist in
making those connections.
P. The SSWs will work with the individual to develop an initial plan that addresses
gaps that exist in the individual’s support system and will work with the
individual to identify and connect with community resources. This plan will be
signed by both the individual and the SSWs.
Q. The SSWs will ensure that release of information forms are signed and that other
paperwork is completed in a timely manner.
R. Client information can only be shared with law enforcement when there is an ongoing
emergency situation and the client information is necessary to protect the health or safety of
the individual or other people. Information disclosed would be limited to that necessary to
address the emergency situation.
S. If community and/or county resources are needed, the SSWs will collect
information needed to determine eligibility for those services. The SSWs will
facilitate referrals to appropriate resources.
T. The SSWs will collaborate with other involved parties as indicated.
U. If eligible for county operated or contracted case management services, the
SSWs will complete the necessary paperwork to transfer the individual to case
management.
V. The SSWs will document all activities and data as requested for tracking
purposes.
W. Participation is voluntary, and the individual served has a right to refuse services.
Contract #A2110930
EXHIBIT A: Description of Services
3
January 2023
Goals of the Police-Mental Health UnitS include, but are not limited to:
A.More timely engagement of SSWs with individuals;
B.Increased use of community resources to support individuals;
C.Increased use of public assistance programs;
D.Increased use of non-urgent health care systems;
E.Improved engagement of current service providers;
F.Ongoing collaboration and learning between HSPHD and POLICE DEPARTMENT;
G.Improving the quality of life for those who have encounters with law
enforcement;
H.Reducing use of force, injury or death to officers and community members;
I.Reducing rate of arrests/prosecution of persons in mental health crisis and increase
the number of persons who remain in community settings with services and
supports;
J.Creating cost-savings through reduction of incarceration and hospitalizationresulting
from mental health crisis;
K.Reducing repeat calls and visits for the same issue;
L.Improving efficacy of law enforcement response to emergency and
non-emergency mental health issues; and
M.Increasing public satisfaction with the response to mental health emergencies and
other metrics developed utilizing key stakeholder and community input.
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 19
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/24/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: S cott K ulzer, A dministrative A ide/A nalyst
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector
1/18/2023
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
1/18/2023
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 bid tabulation and award a contract to Valley Paving, Inc., for the Lyndale
Avenue and 77th Street Intersection Improvements Project in the amount of $973,021.20 and authorize
the City Manager to approve contract changes up to $175,000 without further City Council
consideration.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The traffic signal, signal controller, and A D A facilities at the Lyndale Avenue and 77th Street intersection are
at the end of their useable life and require replacement. This need was first identified in the 2022 C I P as a
requirement for c onstruc tion prior to the 494 Rec onstruc tion P rojec t (scheduled to being in 2024), to ensure
that the signal could accommodate construction traffic and detours without risk of failure.
During preliminary design, the removal of the free-right turn lane from eastbound 77th Street to southbound
Lyndale Avenue was identified as a desired safety improvement that should be completed with the signal
replacement.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve the bid tabulation and award a contract to Valley Paving, Inc., for the Lyndale
Avenue and 77th Street Intersection Improvements Project in the amount of $973,021.20 and authorize
the City Manager to approve contract changes up to $175,000 without further City Council
consideration.
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):
Contracts estimated to have a value over $175,000 must be made by sealed bids, solicited by public
notice, and awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Public Works staff is in communications with the prospective contractor about the project
schedule.
Award of the contract at the J anuary 24, 2023 City Council meeting will allow the contractor to
begin ordering construction materials that will ensure project completion by the end of the 2023
construction season.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
Ten bids were opened and read aloud at the bid opening on J anuary 12, 2023, ranging from
$973,021.20 to $1,116,911.00.
The engineer's estimate for the Project was $743,475.45. Staff and the project consultant believe
the higher than anticipated bid prices are attributable to increases in the costs of materials and
labor being experienced across the nation.
Funding for the Lyndale Avenue and 77th Street I ntersection I mprovements Project will come
primarily from Municipal State Aid funding. Staff have determined that the city's Municipal State
Aid fund can accommodate the increased costs, however the desired cash buffer in the fund will
be decreased for a period of time.
Approximately $121,000 was allocated to the City by MnD OT from the Coronavirus Response and
Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 (C RRS A A). MnD OT requires this funding to be
used for an approved transportation project, and City staff obtained approval for use on this
project.
Sources and Uses for the project are attached.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
T he bid opening held on January 12, 2023 was in accordance with legal requirements.
The ad for bid was published on December 29, 2022 in the Sun Current.
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
B id Tab E xhibit
S ources and Uses S ummary B ackup Material
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
January 12, 2023
10:00 a.m.
Lyndale Avenue and 77th Street Intersection Improvements
Bid No. 22-10
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, there was a meeting of Administrative Staff, and it was
stated that the purpose of the meeting was to receive; open and read aloud bids for the Lyndale Avenue and
77th Street Intersection Improvements Project, as advertised in the official newspaper on December 29, 2022.
Present: Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk/Management Analyst
Joe Powers, City Engineer
Kelly Wynn, Administrative Assistant
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Bidder’s Name ADA
Certificate Bond Non-Collusion Intent to
Comply
Responsible
Contractor
Certificate
Total Base Bid
Valley Paving, Inc. Provided Provided Provided Provided Provided $973,021.20
Ti-Zack Concrete,
Inc. Provided Provided Provided Provided Provided $984,129.13
Eureka
Construction, Inc. Provided Provided Provided Provided Provided $1,012,131.20
McNamara
Contracting Provided Provided Provided Provided Provided $1,030,864.20
Pember
Companies, Inc. Provided Provided Provided Provided Provided $1,034,149.95
Urban Companies Provided Provided Provided Provided Provided $1,043,582.00
New Look
Contracting, Inc. Provided Provided Provided Provided Provided $1,058,781.70
Meyer Contracting,
Inc. Provided Provided Provided Provided Provided $1,105,680.84
Thomas and Sons
Construction Provided Provided Provided Provided Provided $1,116,293.76
JL Theis, Inc. Provided Provided Provided Provided Provided $1,116,911.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the January 24, 2023, City
Council Meeting.
_______________________
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
77th St and Lyndale Ave ImprovementsRichfield Project No. 40010 (MSA)SAP Nos. 157‐363‐035Sources and Uses Tracking ‐ updated 1/17/2023Council Action2022 CIP30% Engineer's Estimate and Project Approval (Updated 1/10/2022)2023 CIP90% Engineer's Estimate (Updated 9/16/2022)Final Engineer's Estimate and Project Bid (Updated 12/22/2022)Contract AwardPlanned Construction Year:2022202320232023 2023 2023Estimated Uses:Design $60,000 $77,000 $90,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000Construction $330,000 $455,000 $455,000 $712,000 $740,000 $973,000Change Orders $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Right of Way$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Legal $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000Construction Admin/Engineering $26,400 $58,000 $46,000 $34,000 $34,000 $34,000Staff$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Contingency $33,000 $45,500 $45,500 $71,200 $74,000 $19,46010% Contingency 10% Contingency 10% Contingency 10% Contingency10% Contingency 2% ContingencyTotal Uses $454,400 $640,500 $641,500 $922,200 $953,000 $1,131,460Sources:Municipal State Aid$455,000$520,000 $521,000 $805,000 $835,000 $1,015,000CRSAA Disbursement$121,000 $121,000 $121,000 $121,000 $121,000Total Sources $455,000 $641,000 $642,000 $926,000 $956,000 $1,136,000Difference $600 $500 $500 $3,800 $3,000 $4,540NotesLow Risk Medium Risk High Risk 1. Staff time paid out of Engineering budget. Budget balanced with MSA funds if needed.2. Apprx $121k provided by Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 (CRRSAA) disbursement from MnDOT. These funds must be used on this project.
AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED
ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM #4.
STAFF REPORT NO. 20
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1/24/2023
REPORT PREPARED BY: Nellie Jerome, Planner I
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director
1/18/2023
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
1/19/2023
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider a Second reading and Summary Publication of an ordinance amendment aligning the Zoning
Code with the Comprehensive Plan; eliminating the Two-Family Residential (MR-1) Zoning District, and
amending the Single-Family Residential (R) District.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
State Statute requires that the City evaluate and revise our Zoning Code to ensure that it does not conflict with
our Comprehensive Plan. In the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the Low-Density Residential (LDR) category
allows for the mixture of single-family detached and attached units, such as duplexes and lower density
townhomes, up to a density of seven dwelling units per acre. Current zoning regulations prohibit the creation
of new single-family lots at the upper end of this density limit, and two-family dwellings are only conditionally
allowed on arterial and collector streets.
To align these two documents, the proposed ordinance would eliminate the MR-1, Two-Family Residential
Zoning District and would instead allow two-family homes by-right in the R District. The R District name would
be changed from Single-Family Residential to Low Density Residential. No changes are proposed to zoning
regulations in the R-1 District, but the name would be changed from Low Density Single-Family Residential to
Single-Family Residential. In addition to the above changes, residential design standards have been revised
to promote livability and aesthetics, regardless of housing type. A full discussion of the specific changes is
provided in the Policy Section below.
The proposed ordinance amendment would resolve outright contradictions between the documents and would
further the 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s goals of “expanding housing choices, promoting modernization of the
housing stock, maintaining affordability, and supporting attractive neighborhoods” (p.59). Additionally,
removing barriers to the creation of "missing middle" housing offers an opportunity to reduce the regional
housing-shortage and for household wealth-building, particularly for those who have been historically kept out
of the market.
The Comprehensive Plan involved an extensive 18-month process that solicited feedback from the community
on the future direction of the City. The proposed changes to bring the Zoning Code into alignment with that
plan have been discussed at three work sessions with the City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA), and Planning Commission. Additionally, a visual preference survey was made available to the
community.
Based on direction from the Council, the proposed ordinance has been modified to limit driveway parking to
four vehicles per lot rather than four vehicles per dwelling unit.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion:
1.Approve a second reading of an ordinance amendment aligning the Zoning Code with the
Comprehensive Plan, eliminating the Two-Family Residential (MR-1) Zoning District, and
amending the Single-Family Residential (R) District.
2.Approve a resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Early in its history, Richfield allowed single and two-family dwellings nearly everywhere. In
1954, the City began restricting the construction of two-family dwellings. While staff
cannot speak to the motives of this change, it is worth noting that it followed shortly after
the 1948 and 1953 court decisions making racially restrictive covenants illegal and
unenforceable. As staff has uncovered through our work with the Just Deeds project,
racially restrictive covenants prohibited many families from partaking in the
development/ownership of a home in Richfield (see attached presentation).
The Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Council in 2018 after 18+ months of public
engagement including:
Penn Fest information booth - September 2016 and September 2017
Steering Committee Meetings - April, June, August 2017, and February 2018
Pop-up events - Metro Transit bus riding May 2017, Loaves and Fishes May 2017, DMV
May 2017, Farmers Market July 2017
Open Houses - May 2017, August 2017, March 2018
Wiki-Map survey - April 2017
Online survey - March 2017
At three work sessions (in March and October of 2021, and in June of 2022), staff heard support
for updating the City’s Zoning Code to not only align lot dimension requirements with the
Comprehensive Plan, but to also allow two-family dwellings by-right within the R District.
A visual preference survey was distributed to the community via social media channels in January
2022. Over the course of the month, 130 responses were received showing a preference for a
minimized driveway area in front yards and for a smaller garage door area on the front façade of
a home. These changes are included in the proposed ordinance amendment.
The origin of the term grandfathered also gives cause to remove it from the Zoning Code as part
of this proposed amendment. Although the 15th Amendment gave African American Men the right
to vote in 1870, some states instituted poll taxes, literacy tests, and other requirements to make
voting difficult. Some states adopted a requirement known as the “grandfather clause,” which only
allowed men to vote if they were the descendants of a voter. In short, if you were white you were
much more likely to be grandfathered in to being able to vote. This was not struck down until 1915,
when the Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal.
An update to the maximum number of cars stored outside was added, per Council direction at the
first reading of the attached ordinance. This additional update clarifies that up to 4 cars may be
stored outside of a garage or enclosure per property, instead of 4 cars per dwelling unit.
B.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Following the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan, MN State Statute 473.864 requires that the City
evaluate and revise our Code of Ordinances to ensure that the two regulatory documents do not
conflict.
The following is a complete list of proposed changes to the Zoning Code:
Establish two-family dwellings in the R District as a permitted use by-right.
Repeal the entirety of the MR-1, Two-Family Residential Zoning District. All properties with
this designation will return to the R Zoning District.
Change the names of the R and R-1 Districts from Single-Family Residential and Low
Density Single-Family Residential to Low Density Residential and Single-Family
Residential, respectively.
Reduce the minimum width in the R District from 50 feet to 47 feet. Reduce the minimum lot
size in the R District from 6,700 square feet to 6,000 square feet. This change reduces the
percentage of nonconforming residential lots from about 17% to about 3%.
Allow smaller lot areas in cases of new, two-unit townhomes in the R District.
I nclude a setback reduction for two-family townhouses allowing them to be attached at the
property line with a zero-foot setback.
Require that a side entrance on a two-family dwelling be set back an additional five feet, for
a total setback of ten feet from the lot line.
Require at least one entrance on the street-facing side of a home that is not a garage
entrance unless special circumstances apply.
Establish a regulation that garages may not be overly prominent on a street-facing side of a
house, and that garage doors may not be forward of the first floor façade of the house.
Update minimum floor area requirements for single family and two-family dwellings to be
960 and 800 square feet, respectively.
Remove requirement to reserve area on the lot for a future construction of space for a
second vehicle in a garage. Maintain requirement for two off-street parking spaces per
dwelling unit, with at least one space being enclosed.
Remove the phrase “grandfather clause” from the nonconforming lot exception title in
subdivision 3 of 514.09. See Historical Context section for additional information.
Minor housekeeping items and clarifications are also included in the ordinance amendment.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
State Statute 473.864 requires that a City’s Code of Ordinances be updated to ensure that it does not
conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper
on October 13, 2022.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the attached ordinance at their
meeting on December 12, 2022.
A First Reading of this amendment was held on J anuary 10, 2023.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Approve the attached ordinance amendment and/or summary publication with modifications.
Deny the ordinance amendment and/or summary publication with a finding that the proposal conflicts
with the Comprehensive Plan.
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
S ummary P ublication Resolution Resolution L etter
Zoning Map B ackup Material
March 2021 Work S ession P resentation B ackup Material
October 2021 Work S ession P resentation B ackup Material
June 2022 Work S ession P resentation B ackup Material
BILL NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD ZONING CODE
REGULATIONS RELATED TO TWO FAMILY USES;
CONSOLIDATING THE R AND MR-1 DISTRICTS INTO A
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT; AND
MODIFYING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
AND LOT DIMENSIONS
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 City Code Subsection 27, Additional Prohibitions, of Section 1305, Parking
and Traffic General Rules, shall be amended as follows:
Subd. 6. Vehicle parking and storage limitations and requirements. The
number of motor vehicles that may be parked on a driveway or approved
parking area of a residential property in the R, and R-1 and MR-1 zoning
districts shall be limited as follows: (Added, Bill No. 2007-19)
a) Number of vehicles. The total number of vehicles shall be limited to
four (4) per unit property. No more than one (1) vehicle of this total
shall be a recreational vehicle as defined by Section 1325 of the
City Code;
b) Counting of vehicles. Vehicles temporarily parked at a residence for
visitation or business service reasons shall not be counted for the
purposes of these numerical limitations. All other vehicles not
housed in a garage, including inoperable vehicles as defined by
Section 1320.13 of the City Code, shall be counted as vehicles for
the purposes of determining the number of vehicles parked on a
driveway or parking area of a residential lot. Nothing in this Section
shall be interpreted as permitting the storage of vehicles if such
storage is not otherwise permitted by code; and
c) City-declared snow emergency. Vehicle limitations shall be
temporarily suspended for the duration of City-declared snow
emergencies.
Section 2 Subsection 507.07 of the Richfield Zoning Code relating to definitions is
amended to update the “townhouse” definition and to remove the “twin
home” definition, to read as follows:
507.07. - Definitions.
…
Subd. 37. "Dwelling." Any building or portion thereof used exclusively
for residential occupancy, including single-family, two-family, and
multifamily dwellings, but not including nursing homes, rest homes, or
hotels.
Subd. 38. "Dwelling, attached." A dwelling that is joined to another
dwelling at one (1) or more sides by a party wall or walls.
Subd. 39. "Dwelling, detached." A single dwelling which is not attached
to another.
Subd. 40. "Dwelling, multifamily." A residential building or portion
thereof used for occupancy by three (3) or more families living
independently of each other. This could be an apartment, a 3-unit
townhouse, or a substantially similar dwelling.
Subd. 41. "Dwelling, single-family." A residential building used for
occupancy by one (1) family.
Subd. 42. "Dwelling, townhouse." A building used for occupancy by
three (3) or more families living independently of each other. Each
dwelling unit is attached horizontally in a linear arrangement with
private front and rear entrances at ground level and has a totally
exposed front and rear wall to be used for entry, light, and ventilation.
Dwelling units may be individually owned and an association fee may
be paid for maintenance of yard and common areas.
Subd. 43. "Dwelling, twin home." A residential building containing two
(2) dwelling units which are completely separate in every way except
that they share a common wall (with no openings) which separate the
units and act as the dividing lot line, where each unit is situated on its
own parcel of land.
Subd. 44. "Dwelling, two-family." A residential building used for
occupancy by two (2) families living independently of each other,where
both units are situated on the same parcel of land . This may be a
duplex, a two-unit townhouse, or a substantially similar dwelling.
Subd. 45. "Dwelling unit." Residential accommodation including kitchen
facilities, permanently installed, which are used for living quarters by
one (1) family.
…
Section 3 Subsection 509.07 relating to Lot provisions is amended to add a new
Subdivision 5, to read as follows:
509.07. - Lot provisions.
Subdivision 1. One building and use. Except in the case of planned
unit developments, group housing developments, and developments in
the Mixed-Use Districts, only one (1) principal building and use may be
located on a lot. This subdivision is not intended to prohibit similar
types of uses from occupying a multi-tenant building if all other
requirements of this Code are met.
Subd. 2. Frontage requirements. Except in a planned unit
development, all lots shall have frontage on a public street.
Subd. 3. Through lots. On a through lot, the lot lines abutting both
street frontages shall be considered front lot lines.
Subd. 4. Front yards. A front yard may not contain any building or other
structure except fencing, ornamental outdoor furniture, parking areas,
signage, and landscaping, as permitted or required under this Code or
the city code except as specifically noted for through lots.
Subd. 5. Primary Residential Entrance. Homes are required to
have a minimum of one (1) primary, non-garage, entrance facing
an adjacent street frontage. Where there is no adjacent street to
which a dwelling entrance may be oriented, or it is not practical to
orient a dwelling to an adjacent street due to lot layout,
topographic, or other characteristics of the site, the dwelling may
orient to a walkway, courtyard, open space, common area, lobby,
or breezeway (i.e., for multiple family buildings), subject to
approval by the Director.
Section 4 Subsection 512.01 of the Richfield Zoning Code relating to the zoning
districts is amended to remove the MR-1 and PMR-1 designations, and to
correct typographical errors, to read as follows:
512.01. - Zoning Districts.
Subdivision 1. Establishment of districts. In order to carry out the
purposes and provisions of this Code, the city is hereby divided into
the following Zoning Districts: (Amended, Bill No. 2008 -12, 2009-5,
2009-7, 2017-6, Bill No. 2021-12)
Residential Districts
Single Family Low Density Residential R
Low Density Single-Family Residential R-1 Two Family Residential MR-1
Multi-Family Residential MR-2 High Density Multi-Family Residential MR-3
Commercial Districts
Service Office S-O Neighborhood Business C-1 General Commercial C-2
Mixed-Use Districts
Mixed-Use Regional MU-R Mixed-Use Community MU-C Mixed-Use Neighborhood MU-N
Industrial Districts
Industrial I
Planned Unit Development Districts
Planned Residential PR Planned Two Family Residential PMR-1 Planned Multi-Family Residential PMR Planned Neighborhood Commercial PC-1 Planned General Commercial PC-2
Planned Mixed Use PMU
Overlay Districts
Airport Impact Runway Overlay District AR Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District PAC
Cedar Avenue Corridor Overlay District CAC
Veterans Park Area Overlay District VPA
Section 5 Subsection 512.05 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to remove
the MR-1 column, to read as follows:
512.05. - Permitted, Conditional, Accessory and Prohibited Uses in
Residential Districts.
The following table summarizes which land uses are classified as
permitted, accessory, conditional or prohibited in the Residential
Districts. Refer to Sections 514 through 527 for complete regulations.
P: Permitted
A: Accessory
C: Conditional
N: Null or Prohibited
Land Use R R-1 MR-1 MR-2 MR-3
Residential
Single-family detached dwellings P P P N N
Two-family dwellings C P N P P P
Twin homes N N C N N
Multifamily dwellings (minimum 3
units)
N N N P/C P/C
Cluster home developments C N C C N
Other
Bed and breakfast inns C C N N N
Cemeteries C N N N N
Day care facilities P/C P P/C P/C P/C
Emergency shelters C N C C C
Fences, walls and hedges A A A A A
Foster family homes A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C
Garages/carports for a residential
structure
A A A A A
Gazebos/greenhouses A A A N N
Governmental buildings P N C C C
Home occupations A A A A A
Libraries (public) P N C C C
Parking A A A A A
Private driveways A A A A A
Public utilities, major C C C C C
Public utilities, minor A A A A A
Recreational facilities, noncommercial,
principal use
C C C N N
Religious institutions C N C C C
Residential care facilities P P P/C P/C P/C
Roomer A A N N N
Satellite dish antennas A A A A A
Schools, public or private C N C C C
Storage buildings A A A A A
Swimming pools, private A A A A A
Telecommunication towers C C C C C
Utility buildings accessory to
telecommun.
towers and antennas
A N A A A
Section 6 Section 514 of the Richfield Zoning Code related to the R, Single-Family
Residential District is retitled and revised to read as follows:
SECTION 514 - SINGLE-FAMILY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (R)
514.01 Purposes. The purposes of the R District regulations are to protect
and preserve the single-family low density residential character of the R
District; reserve appropriate locations for single-family low
density dwellings; provide opportunities for cluster housing development;
minimize traffic congestion and the overloading of utilities; and provide
residential locations that are safe, attractive, and quiet.
514.03. - Permitted uses.
Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are permitted uses in
the R District.
Subd. 2. Single-family (detached) dwellings and two-family
dwellings.
Subd. 3. State-licensed day care facility serving 14 or fewer children.
Care facilities located within the R District shall be subject to the same
zoning regulations as single-family dwellings in the R District except
that one nonresident employee shall be permitted in accordance with
State requirements. (Amended, Bill No. 2016-3)
Subd. 4. State-licensed residential care facility serving six (6) or fewer
persons, or a housing with services establishment registered under
M.S. 144D serving six (6) or fewer persons. Care facilities located
within the R District shall be subject to the same zoning regulations as
single-family dwellings in the R District.
Subd. 5. Governmental buildings and public libraries.
514.05 Accessory building and use regulations.
…
Subd. 3. Private garages (includes attached and detached) or carports:
a) That do not exceed 1,000 square feet in floor area. In the case
of detached garages, floor area shall include space devoted to
vehicle parking, storage and non-garage uses such as an
accessory dwelling unit, office, or similar habitable space. The
first 400 square feet of space devoted to an accessory dwelling
unit is exempt from this requirement, provided the site complies
with part (b). Floor area shall not include crawl spaces or attic
storage;
b) That do not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square feet (or 13%
of lot area in the case of lots of 15,000 square feet or more) in
floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and
attached garages on the lot;
c) That are constructed in accordance with Subdivision 2 of this
subsection; and
d) In no event shall the height of a garage door or carport opening,
measured from the floor to the trim covering the door header,
exceed nine (9) feet.
e) Attached garages where one or more garage doors face a
street:
i. the total width of all garage doors on that building
elevation shall not exceed 50 percent of the width of
that elevation. A garage door is considered to be
facing a street where the opening is parallel to, or
within 45 degrees of, the street right-of-way line.
ii. Attached garages shall not extend closer towards the
front lot line than the facade of the habitable first
story portion of the primary structure.
…
Subd. 6. Private driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and
sidewalks for residential uses, provided the following conditions are
met:
a) All such driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and
sidewalks shall be set back no less than one foot from any lot
line abutting another parcel, except that upon written request
from the landowner, the Director may reduce or rescind this
setback requirement for shared access agreements or with a
finding of necessity and public convenience;
b) All such driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and
sidewalks shall be constructed with concrete, asphalt, concrete
pavers, brick set in compacted sand, or other material approved
by the Director;
c) No parking area shall be permitted in the front yard area except
as allowed by paragraph d);
d) Within the front yard area, vehicles shall only be parked on the
driveway area;
e) Driveways, where located within the boulevard or the front yard
area, are subject to the following requirements:(
i. Width shall not exceed 35 percent of the front yard area,
up to 20 feet maximum, whichever is less (curb cut radii
excluded);
ii. Driveway width shall not exceed the width of the curb cut
within 20 feet of the curbline. Beyond that point, width
may increase to the number established by item (i). The
expanded portion of the driveway shall be screened with
plantings;
iii. Curb cut radii (five (5) feet minimum) shall not encroach
upon the boulevard of abutting properties;
iv. On corner lots, driveways shall be set back at least 30
feet from an intersection, as measured from the point
where the extended curblines of the streets intersect;
v. Only one (1) curb cut shall be permitted from a public
street to a lot. Lots with alley access shall not be
permitted to install a curb cut;
vi. Upon written request from the landowner, items (i), (ii),
(iii), (iv) and (v) above may be varied by the Director with
a finding of necessity and public convenience;
f) Any expansion, installation, or replacement of a driveway,
parking or turnaround area on a lot shall be subject to a city
permit;
g) Any expansion, installation or replacement of a curb cut from a
public street to a lot shall be subject to a city permit and any
curb cut abandoned with the installation of a new cut shall be
extinguished and replaced with curb and gutter according to
specifications determined by the Director of Public Works;
h) A turnaround area may be located within a front yard subject to
the requirements of this paragraph. The turnaround area is
limited to the front yard of arterial streets only. The turnaround
area cannot exceed 150 square feet. The turnaround area must
be contiguous to the driveway. The turnaround area shall be set
back no less than three (3) feet from any public sidewalk.
…
Subd. 8. Internal, attached, and detached accessory dwelling units shall
be allowed, provided that:
a) The principal residential structure is a permitted or conditional
single-family or two-family dwelling;
b) No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on a
lot;
c) The lot must meet current minimum width and depth
requirements;
d) The creation of an accessory dwelling unit shall not create a
separate tax parcel;
e) An owner of the property must occupy at least one dwelling unit
on the lot as their primary place of residence. Proof of
homesteading shall be required and variances from this
provision shall not be considered;
f) A rental license for the non-owner-occupied unit shall be
required in accordance with Section 407 of the City Code;
g) Accessory dwelling units must have a minimum area of 300
square feet and cannot exceed 800 square feet or the gross
floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is less;
h) Principal dwelling units must continue to meet minimum floor
area requirements or not increase the degree of nonconformity
in this matter;
i) The primary exterior materials of an attached accessory
dwelling unit must match those of the principal structure.
Exterior materials for new construction related to any type of
accessory dwelling unit must match the structure to which it is
attached;
j) The creation of an attached or internal accessory dwelling unit
shall not result in the creation of additional entrances facing the
public street on the primary structure;
k) Exterior stairways leading to an upper story accessory dwelling
unit shall be allowed so long as the staircase and railing are not
constructed with raw or unfinished lumber;
l) Detached accessory dwelling units are permitted only as a part
of an approved accessory garage structure;
m) Conversion of garage space to an accessory dwelling unit is
prohibited unless the garage space is replaced. Space within a
garage that exceeds what is necessary for two vehicles may be
converted without replacement; and
n) A minimum of three off-street parking spaces is required in
order to add an accessory dwelling unit of any kind.…
514.07. - Conditional uses. [This subdivision is amended to repeal
Subdivision 2, and to renumber all subsequent subdivisions.]
Subd. 2. Two-family dwellings, provided the following conditions are
met:
a) The lot shall abut an arterial or collector street;
b) The lot area and width shall comply with Section 514.11, Subd.
2 of this Code;
c) Two (2) off-street parking spaces, one (1) of which must be
enclosed in a garage, shall be provided for each dwelling unit;
d) Private driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas and
sidewalks shall comply with Section 514.05 Subd. 8 of this
Code;
e) For new construction each dwelling unit shall contain at least
960 square feet of interior floor space, and for conversion of a
single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling each unit shall
contain at least 500 square feet of interior floor space. For the
purpose of this subsection, interior floor space shall include the
total horizontal area of the dwelling unit as measured from the
interior walls of the unit; and
f) The structure shall meet all setback requirements for two-family
dwellings as indicated under Section 514.13, except that a
single-family dwelling which does not meet the required two -
family interior side setback may be converted into a two-family
dwelling if the dwelling is not expanded or if the expansion
meets all applicable two-family dwelling requirements.
…
514.09. - Prohibited uses. Any land use not listed as permitted, accessory
or conditional in this Section or subsection 512.05 is prohibited in the R
District unless the use is found to be substantially similar to a use listed,
as determined by the city in accordance with Section 509.23 of this Code.
514.11. Lot Area, dimensions and coverage.
Subdivision 1. The standards set out in this subsection apply in the R
District.
Subd. 2. Minimum lot area, dimensions and coverage.
Land use Lot area
(sq. ft.)
Lot width
(feet)
Lot depth
(feet)
Max. lot
coverage
Maximum
impervious
surface
Single-Family and Two-
Family1
6,700
6,000
50 47 100 35% 45%
Two-Family 9,000 60 100 35% 45%
Cluster home
Development in R-SFH
Guided Area
2,900
Per Unit
60 100 35% 75%
Cluster home
Development in
Non-R-SFH Guided Area
4,000
Per Unit
60 100 35% 75%
Non-residential 40,000 150 100 50% 85%
1 Every lot or plot upon which there is erected a dwelling as part of a two-
unit townhouse shall have a minimum of one-half (1/2) of the minimum lot
area established above and a minimum width of twenty-five (25) feet.
Subd. 3. Nonconforming Residential Lot Dimensions. Special grandfather
clause for certain R lots. A lot that was a lot of record on or before June 1,
1995, located in the R District which does not meet the minimum
requirements set forth in this Code as to area and dimensions, may be
used for single-family (detached) development provided that the width of
such lot is not less than 40 feet and such lot contains at least 5,000
square feet in area.
Section 514.13. Building setback and height.
Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards set out in this subsection
apply in the R District.
Subd. 2. Building setback and maximum height (measurements in
feet).
Use Front Rear Interior
Side
Street/Corn
er Side
Maximum
Height (as
defined
in 507.07,
Subd. 53)
Single- or two-family
building
(but see Subd. 3 and
5)
30 25 5
(but see
Subd. 3
and 10)
12 2528
Two-family building
(but see Subd. 3 and
5)
30 25 10 12 25
Cluster home
development in R-
SFH guided area
(but see Subd. 3 and
5) 1
10 25 5 12 25
(but see
Subd. 98)
Cluster home
development in non-
R-SFH guided area
(but see Subd. 3 and
5) 1
30 25 5 12 25
(but see
Subd. 8)
Accessory - garage
(but see Subd. 3-6)
30 3
(5 if utility
easement
or greater
than 14 ft.
tall)
5 12 142
(but see
Subd. 7)
Accessory -
nongarage
(but see Subd. 4 and
5)
30 3
(5 if utility
easement)
5 12 123
Nonresidential
building (but see
Subd. 5 and 7)
40 30 30 30 42
Accessory building to
nonresidential use
(but see Subd. 5)
40 10 10 30 15
1 Setbacks for cluster home developments shall apply to the perimeter of the
development. Setbacks between attached and detached units within a
townhome or a cluster home development must comply with applicable building
and fire codes. (Added, Bill No. 1996-22)
2 For garages, height is measured on the side of the building with the vehicle
door.
3 For nongarage accessory structures, height is measured from the ground level
to the highest point of the roof.
Subd. 3. Setback reductions for principal buildings. The following
setback reductions apply in the R District:
a) On a corner lot, the street side setback requirement shall be the
lesser of 12 feet or the established street side setback of the
existing principal building on the same lot for single-family, two-
family and cluster home development structures. In any case
the provisions of paragraphs d) and e) of this subdivision shall
be applicable; (Amended, Bill No. 1996-22)
b) The front setback requirement for a new single-family dwelling,
two-family dwelling, or cluster home development on a lot may
be reduced to not less than the average existing front setback of
the dwelling(s) which front on the same street and abut such lot,
to a minimum setback of 20 feet; (Amended, Bill No. 1996-22)
c) With respect to single-family homes existing on or before June
1, 1995, the interior side setback requirement may be reduced
to not less than three (3) feet for the purpose of constructing an
attached garage or a two-car garage to replace a single-car
garage, provided the following conditions are met:
i. A letter of consent signed by the owner of the property
that abuts the interior lot line shall be submitted to the
city;
ii. The garage shall be located a distance of not less than
eight (8) feet from any building on an abutting lot;
iii. The width of the garage shall not exceed 20 feet, and the
length shall not exceed 26 feet;
iv. Accessory garages built under this Subdivision are
limited to 14 feet in height;
v. The garage wall most parallel and adjacent to the interior
lot line shall have no more than a one-foot roof overhang
(eave projection); and
vi. A drainage plan shall be approved by the Engineering
Department prior to issuance of building permits.
d) Windows or window units may project a maximum of 24 inches
into a required front yard, street side yard, or rear yard of a
dwelling, provided that the floor area is not increased by more
than ten (10) square feet, however, in no case shall they be
closer than six (6) feet from any lot line;
e) Those items classified as "not encroachments" in Section
509.11
f) The setback requirements for cluster home developments may
be reduced to 25 feet in the front and 12 feet in the rear if the
following criteria are met:
i. The project can demonstrate that a superior design is
achieved through the reduced setback. Evidence of a
superior design may include but is not limited to the
preservation of a natural feature, creation of an amenity,
creation of public open space, or incorporation of special
features to meet the needs of the target population;
ii. The reduced setback does not adversely affect the
overcrowding, or other similar impacts; and
iii. The impact of the reduced setback is minimized through
the presence of features such as landscaping or other
means of buffering, a limited number of building openings
in the portion of the structure that infringes upon the
setback, building orientation, minimized garage door
dominance, or other similar features.
g) In required front yards, covered porches attached to the
principal building that extend no more than ten (10) feet,
provided that the porch is no closer than 20 feet from the front
lot line and that the design of the porch is approved by the
Community Development Director. The Community
Development Director must make the following findings to
approve a porch encroachment up to ten (10) feet:
i. The exterior materials of the proposed porch are
consistent or complementary in color, texture and quality
with those visible at the front of the dwelling;
ii. The roof of the proposed porch is properly proportioned
to and integrated with the roof of the dwelling and has no
less than a 3:12 slope;
iii. The base of the porch is not open and its appearance is
consistent with the base of the dwelling;
iv. At least 65 percent of the exposed porch facade is open
or occupied by windows, screens, and/or doors of
transparent material; the facade constitutes the area from
the floor level of the porch to the porch ceiling; and
v. Plans are prepared by a registered architect or reviewed
by the a design advisor selected by the Community
Development Department;
The Director may attach conditions to the approval of the
porch encroachment as needed to make the required
findings; and
h) In required residential street/corner side yards, covered porches
attached to the front of a principal building that extend no more
than ten (10) feet, provided that the porch is no closer than 20
feet from the street side lot line and that the design of the porch
is approved by the Community Development Director. The
Director must make the findings required by Section 514.13,
Subd. 3(g). The Director may attach conditions to the approval
of the porch encroachment as needed to make the required
findings. (Added Bill No. 1998-12; amended Bill No. 2015-4)
i) In the case of townhouses, the shared interior side setback
may be reduced to (0) zero.
...
j)
Subd. 10. Two-family Dwelling Side Entrances. For two-family
dwellings on interior lots: A main entrance to either unit from a
side yard is not allowed within 10 feet of the side property line
(Figure 11.1).
Figure 11.1
514.15. Additional regulations.
Subdivision 1. Standards. Developments shall be constructed and
maintained in accordance with the standards set out in this subsection.
Subd. 2. Dimensions and floor area. Single-family and two-family
dwellings constructed after June 1, 1995 shall be a minimum of 22 feet in
length and width for at least 50 percent of each distance as measured
from outside wall surfaces., and Single Family dwellings shall contain a
minimum of 960 square feet of gross floor area. Two-Family dwellings
shall contain a minimum of 800 square feet of floor area per dwelling
unit. Dwellings in cluster home developments shall be a minimum of 16
feet in width for attached units.
Subd. 3. Garage planning. Building plans submitted after July 5, 2008 for
new single-family dwellings 1,200 square feet or less shall include garage
space for not less than one (1) vehicle. and shall designate area on the lot
for future construction of garage space for a second vehicle that will not
require any variances. Building plan submitted after July 5, 2008 for new
single-family dwellings over 1,200 square feet shall include garage space
not less than two (2) vehicles. For the purposes of this subdivision only,
each vehicle shall require a garage space of not less than ten (10) feet in
width by 20 feet in depth.
Subd. 4. Parking requirement. For two-family, twin home dwellings, and
cluster home developments, Tthere shall be provided on the site at least
two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit, of which at least one (1) space
per dwelling shall be enclosed in a garage. (Added, Bill No. 2014-4)
…
Section 7 Section 522 of the Richfield Zoning Code, the Two-Family Residential
District (MR-1), is repealed.
Section 8 Section 529.11 Subdivision 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code related to
dimensional requirements of the S-O District is amended to read as
follows:
Subdivision 1. [ Generally. ] The following dimensional requirements
apply to the S -O district. All dimensions are in feet unless otherwise
noted.
Minimum lot width Interior lot: 60 Corner lot: 75
Minimum lot area 8,000 square feet
Maximum impervious surface coverage 75 percent
Setbacks - building Principal
building
Accessory
building
Front (see also Subd. 2) 30 30
Rear
Adjacent to R, R-1 or MR-1 District 15 8
Adjacent to non-R, R-1 or MR-1 District 5 5
Interior side
Adjacent to R, R-1 District 15 15
Adjacent to non-R, R-1 District 5 5
Street/corner side (see also Subd. 3) 12 12
Setbacks - parking measured from property line)
Front (but see Subd. 5) 8
Street/corner side (but see Subd 5) 8
Interior lot line
Adjacent to R, R-1 or MR-1 District 10
Adjacent to non- R, R-1 or MR-1 District 5
Height limitations Principal building Accessory building
Maximum building height 30 15
Story limitations 2 stories 1 story
Section 9 Section 532.11, Subdivision 1, of the Richfield Zoning Code related to
dimensional requirements of the C-1 District is amended to read as
follows:
Subdivision 1. The following dimensional requirements apply to the C-1
district. All dimensions are in feet unless otherwise indicated:
Minimum lot width Interior lot: 60 Corner lot: 75
Minimum lot area 8,000 square feet
Maximum impervious surface coverage 80 percent
Setbacks - building Principal
building
Accessory
building
Front (see also Subd. 2) 30 30
Adjacent to arterial roads See Subdivision 2
Rear (see also Subd. 4)
Adjacent to R, R-1 or MR-1 District 10 8
Adjacent to non-R, R-1 or MR-1 District 5 5
Street/corner side (but see Subd. 3 and 4) 20 20
Interior side (see also Subd. 4)
Adjacent to R, R-1 or MR-1 District 10 8
Adjacent to non- R, R-1 or MR-1 District 5 5
Maximum building height 30 15
Story limitations 2 stories 1 story
Setbacks - parking (measured from the property line)
Front (but see Subd. 5) 8
Side/corner side (but see Subd 5) 8
Interior side
Adjacent to R, R-1 or MR-1 District 10
Adjacent to non-R, R-1 or MR-1 District 5
Section 10 Section 534.11 Subdivision 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code related to
dimensional requirements of the C-2 District is amended to read as
follows:
Subdivision 1. The following dimensional requirements apply to the C-2
District. All dimensions are in feet unless otherwise indicated:
Minimum lot width Interior lot: 75 Corner lot: 90
Minimum lot area 9,000 square feet
Maximum impervious surface coverage 85 percent
Setbacks: building Principal
building
Accessory
building
Front (see also Subd. 2) 35 35
Adjacent to arterial roads See Subdivision 2
Rear (see also Subd. 4)
Adjacent to R, R-1 or MR-1 District 15 8
Adjacent to non- R, R-1 or MR-1 District 5 5
Street/corner side (but see Subd. 3) 25 25
Interior side (see also Subd. 4)
Adjacent to R, R-1 or MR-1 District 15 8
Adjacent to non- R, R-1 or MR-1 District 0 0
Maximum building height (but see Subd. 5) 40 15
Story limitations 3 stories 1 story
Setbacks: parking
Setbacks: parking
Front (but see Subd. 6) 8
Street/corner side (but see Subd. 6) 8
Interior lot line
Adjacent to R, R-1 or MR-1 District 15
Adjacent to non- R, R-1 or MR
1 District
5
Section 11 Section 541.17 Subdivision 2 of the Richfield Zoning Code related to
district boundaries of the Airport Impact Overlay district is amended to
read as follows:
Subd. 2. District boundaries. The provisions of subsections 541.75 and
541.77 shall apply to all lots or parcels of record within the City of
Richfield having an underlying zoning designation of Single-family Low
Density Residential (R), Low Density Single-family Residential (R-1),
Two-Family Residential (MR -1), Multifamily Residential (MR-2), and High
Density Multifamily Residential (MR -3) and located within or touched by
the 2007 60 -64 DNL contours as shown at Appendix A of the Consent
Decree, which contour map is incorporated into this ordinance by
reference.
Section 12 Section 542.03 Subdivision 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code related to the
scope of PUD Districts is amended to read as follows:
Subdivision 1. [Table of PUD Districts.] Planned district regulations are
applied in conjunction with a guiding district, as described in the following
table. The planned district provisions may modify any portion of the
regulations of the guiding district or other regulations of the code. The
provisions may apply additional requirements o r allow exceptions to
general regulations:
PUD District Abbreviation Guiding Districts
Planned Residential PR R and R-1
Planned Two Family Residential PMR-1 MR-1
Planned Multifamily Residential PMR MR-2 and MR-3
Planned Service Office PS-O PS-O
Planned Neighborhood Commercial PC-1 C-1
Planned General Commercial PC-2 C-2
Planned Mixed Use PMU MU-N, MU-C, and MU-R
Planned Industrial PI I
Subd. 2. Minimum area. A PUD district shall contain not less than one (1)
acre (43,560 square feet) in lot area. With respect to planned unit
developments only, lot area may include (at the discretion of the Director),
areas of the right-of-way that are improved and integral to the design of
the project. (Amended, Bill No. 2014-4)
Subd. 3. PMR-1 density limitation. In the PMR-1 District, the density of
two-family dwellings shall not exceed ten (10) dwelling units per acre.
…
Section 13 Section 549.23, Subdivision 1, of the Richfield Zoning Code related to the
Residential District signage is amended to read as follows:
Subdivision 1. Residential districts.
a) Within residential zoning districts, freestanding signs are permitted as
follows:
District Maximum sign area of
single sign
Maximum
height
Total area of all
freestanding signs
R, R-1, MR-1 6 square feet 6 feet 12 square feet
MR-2, MR-3 24 square feet 8 feet 36 square feet
Permitted Nonresidential
Uses
50 square feet 20 feet 100 square feet
b) Within residential zoning districts, wall signs are permitted as follows:
District Maximum sign area of single sign
R, R-1, MR-1 Not permitted except as required by Section 549.21,
Subd. 3. MR-2, MR-3 10 percent of total wall area of the wall to which sign
is attached Permitted Nonresidential
Uses
10 percent of the total wall area of the wall to which
sign is attached
c) Within residential zoning districts, the following types of signs are
prohibited:
i. Dynamic displays, except for nonresidential uses; and
ii. Marquee signs; and
iii. Any sign not expressly permitted by this subdivision is prohibited in
residential districts.
b. Scoreboards for public parks and public or private schools are permitted
as follows:
i. One (1) scoreboard not exceeding 18 feet in height or 100 square
feet is surface area is allowed per playing field, not including fields
used only for practice; and
ii. Commercial or noncommercial speech shall be permitted on the
scoreboard as follows:
1. Commercial and noncommercial messages shall not
comprise more than 25 percent of the area of the
scoreboard; and
2. Commercial and noncommercial messages shall not be
illuminated.
Section 14
Section 15
The Zoning District titles in Appendix I - Boundaries of Zoning Districts,
are amended to read as follows:
…
Section 6. – Low Density Residential Residence District (R).
…
Section 11. - Single Family Residential Residence District (R-1).
…
Section 19. - Airport Impact Runway Overlay District (AR).
…
Appendix I – Boundaries of Zoning Districts, Section 12, Paragraphs (1)
through (81) of the Richfield City Code is repealed, rezoning all affected
property as Low Density Residential District - R.
Section 16 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 24th day of January,
2023.
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. _____
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION
OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD ZONING CODE
REGULATIONS RELATED TO TWO FAMILY USES;
CONSOLIDATING THE R AND MR-1 DISTRICTS INTO A
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT; AND
MODIFYING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
AND LOT DIMENSIONS
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 AMENDING THE RICHFIELD ZONING CODE
REGULATIONS RELATED TO TWO FAMILY USES;
CONSOLIDATING THE R AND MR-1 DISTRICTS INTO A
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT; AND
MODIFYING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
AND LOT DIMENSIONS
This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City
Charter.
This ordinance aligns the City’s Zoning Code with its 2040 Comprehensive Plan. It
eliminates the MR-1 Zoning District and allows two-family homes by-right in the R District. The R
District name will change from Single-Family Residential to Low Density Residential. The R-1
District name will change from Low Density Single-Family Residential to Single-Family Residential,
with no additional changes to the zoning regulations. In addition to the above changes, residential
design standards have been revised to promote livability and aesthetics, regardless of housing
type.
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 24th day of January, 2023.
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
Residential Zoning District Update
CC/PC Work Session –March 23, 2021
Background
•It’s time to Implement the Comprehensive
Plan!
•(we’re compelled to align the Zoning Code
with the Plan, but) We want to honor the
work and engagement that was put into
the plan.
•Start with the R district as the predominate
Zoning Category.
Background
R District –Single Family Home
•Current minimum lot size for single-family
home: 6,700 square feet
•A high proportion of lots are
nonconforming (17% or approx. 1 in 6)
•Comprehensive Plan would allow lots that
are 5,886 square feet.
R District –Two Family Home
•Current minimum lot size for two-family
home: 9,000 square feet.
•Conditional Use Permit required in all
instances.
•Only allowed on arterials and collector
streets.
So What
•We could narrowly focus on adjusting the
dimensional standards
•But, we feel compelled to examine this in
the context of wider issues and trends
Macro trends
•People want to be in Richfield!
–New families (proximity to key services &
employment centers, high connectivity, high
quality of life)
–Existing residents/families; stay close to
family, housing life cycle
•Trends in housing type delivery
•Rise of “Missing Middle” housing
MF Trends
•New MF Developments: ▲units per
building; ▼bedrooms per unit
BEDROOMS -Renter Occupied Units (2019 ACS)
No bedroom 252 4.20%
1 bedroom 3,112 51.89%
2 bedroom 1,823 30.40%
3 bedrooms 507 8.45%
4 bedrooms 243 4.05%
5 or more bedrooms 60 1.00%
Missing Middle Housing
•Context sensitive (house-scale
development)
•Wealth building
MMH: Duplex
What direction we want
•Continue to explore allowing duplexes
–Where
–By-right
•Direction on Lot sizes
Next Steps
•Take direction from tonight’s discussion
and work on the details for the R District
•Additional areas to align Zoning with the
Comp Plan
–Change in zoning designations
–Examine the provisions of additional Districts
Thoughts, Comments,
Questions?
Question
•At some point in your life have you lived in
a…
–Single Family Home?
–Townhouse?
–Duplex or triplex?
–Apartment building or condo?
Missing Middle Housing
Session Overview
•Start with brief background on Zoning and
Development in the Community
•Overview of proposed R district Changes
•Framework for changes to duplex
regulations
Process Overview
•Align Zoning with guidance of the Comp
Plan
•Started with LDR areas, the largest
geographic area
•honor work that went into the Plan, and
obligated to allow property owners to
develop up to the maximum limits
Background
•Timeline tells a powerful story about the
role of zoning in the development of the
community.
–Speaks to who was welcome in the
community.
•Important to examine for our commitment
to rooting equity in our work
Pre-war Richfield
Atlas of Hennepin County, Minnesota (1913)
Richfield in 1940
Then in 1941…
Richfield in 1957
LDR
•Allows for the mixture of single-family
detached and attached units, such as
duplexes and lower density townhomes.
•1-7.4 units per acre
•Existing density ~4.9 units per acre
LDR
•The R District is the primary Zoning
Category for areas guided LDR.
•R District evaluation in part an academic
exercise to get up to 7.4 units per acre.
LDR –R District
•Proposed Changes for R district:
–6,000 sq. ft. Lot Area Minimum [6,700 sq. ft.
existing]
–45 ft. Lot Width Minimum [50 ft. existing]
LDR –R District
•Proposed Changes for R district
Continued:
–Eliminate Lot Depth Minimum [100 ft.]
–Expand eligibility for duplexes
•More later…
Existing Minimum Proposed Minimum
LDR –Other Zoning Districts
•Maintain R-1 as is.
•Dissolve MR-1 district, rezone those
properties to R.
•Update Nomenclature
–LDR & LDR-Large lot
Duplexes
•In March we heard openness to expanding
permissions for duplexes.
–at a minimum, allow by-right on busier roads,
street corners, and near more intense zoning
•Allow as a conditional use everywhere else
•Goal of introducing these types into
established neighborhoods with
predictable results
Building Form
•Looking at form based coding principles to
make sure new
development/redevelopment fits the
neighborhood.
–Form based concepts are already in the
zoning code i.e. build to lines in the MU
Districts
FBC at the LDR scale
•Iowa City, IA Example:
–Duplex side-by-side
–Height
–Building dimensions
•Main Body and Wings
–Building frontage
–Frontage design requirements
•i.e. porch, inset porch, stoop, etc.
–Parking location
Visual Preference Survey
•Help calibrate these form based principals to
Richfield.
•It will show a building (duplex) in the region
•Prompt will be if the displayed image is
appropriate for the Community, open ended
comments
•Divided into sections focusing on:
–Building bulk, Entries/Porches/Stoop, Parking
(Garages and Driveways), and Exterior Design.
Visual Preference Survey
Public Engagement
•As a Zoning Amendment, a PH at the PC
is required; followed by two readings by
the Council
•Visual Preference Survey to public?
Discussion Questions
•Concurrence on direction on SF lot
changes.
•Interest in Form-based Principles as the
direction we’re heading with non-SF
types?
•Direction on Visual Preference Survey as
means to get public input.
Missing Middle Housing
Process Overview
•Align Zoning with guidance of the Comp
Plan
•Started with LDR areas, the largest
geographic area
•Honor work that went into the Plan
•Obligation to allow development up to
prescribed limits
Missing Middle Housing Recap
•House-scale development
•Precedent in City’s Development Pattern
•Wealth building
Process Overview
•Started with academic exercise of aligning SF
regulations to density prescription (up to 7.4
units/ac).
•Heard openness to expanding eligibility for
duplexes and consolidating R & MR-1
•Visual Preference Survey as means to get
public input and shape policy
–Approach: If we’re to allow dplx in more locations;
look at design principles that would apply to all
LDR types
Visual Preference Survey
•Open for one month (Jan ‘22)
–Publicized on Social Media multiple times
•130 Responses
–Did not collect demographic information
•Respondents prompted to provide
responses on Building Size, Entries,
Parking, and Overall Design.
Overall Direction
•More concern with size of the building than
what goes on inside.
•Staff Recommendation: Allow duplexes
on all lots allowing SF.
•Update the code to ensure least desirable
features/characteristics are prevented.
Building Size
•Range: 95.4% -32.8%
•Trend: Bungalow/craftsman.
Top 3
Bottom 3
Policy Direction: Size
•Already have building height
–prevailing height or height averaging to
ensure consistency?
•Maximum building width?
Entry/Doorway/Porch
•Range: 96.9% -61.5%
•Trend: All ok, sole front door rates highest
Top 3
Bottom 3
Policy Direction: Entry
•Require entrance on two side if on corner
lot?
•Restrict to one main entrance on front?
•If entrance is on side; do we require
setback (say 10ft)?
Parking
•Range: 97.7% -21.7%
•Trend: Rear garage; no large door bays
Top 3
Bottom 3
Policy Directions: Parking
•Existing driveway width requirements
•Minimize prominence of garages
–Limit the amount of front facing garage
(attached) door: 50%
–Prohibit protruding garage: require attached
garage be no further than habitable portion
Overall Design
•Range: 95.3% -26.6%
•Bungalow/Craftsman vs Garage
Top 3
Bottom 3
Policy Directions: Design
•Not a clear directional response
•If concerning, could look to codify Richfield
Rediscovered Requirements
–Materials
–Windows/Opening
–Articulation
–Roof design
•Adds to review complexity
Recommendation
•Reduce lot sizes to match Comp Plan
•Allow duplexes by right
•Limit garage prominence
•Add’l setback for side entry to duplex,
corner lots one entry or one per side
•Reduce garage requirement to one stall
Feedback?
Next Steps
•Public hearing at Planning Commission
•Consideration by Council
AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM #5.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 21
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/24/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jennifer A nderson, S upport S ervices Manager
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
1/17/2023
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: NA
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
1/19/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Hold a Violation hearing and consideration of a resolution regarding civil enforcement for
establishments that recently underwent alcohol compliance checks conducted by Richfield Public
Safety staff, and failed by selling alcohol to a person under the age of 21.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Alcohol complianc e chec ks were c onducted by Ric hfield Public S afety staff on December 17, 2022.
Compliance c hecks are done to determine the availability of alc ohol to people under 21 and meet State
Statutes. There are currently 31 establishments in Ric hfield that hold lic enses to sell alcohol. Compliance
checks were attempted at all 31 establishments. Two establishments were closed at the time the
checks were conducted, and one did not have alcohol in stock. One establishment holds a license,
but does not sell alcohol.
Five of the 31 establishments sold alcohol to an underage person. The ac tion being taken today is for civil
enforcement and penalties against these establishments.
I t is a first time offense for the following establishments:
MC Richfield, L LC d/b/a Millions Crab located at 9 66th Street East
Thompson's Fireside Pizza, I nc d/b/a Fireside Foundry located at 6736 Penn Avenue South
Henry Thou, d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant located at 2910 66th Street West
The remaining two establishments have failed two or more alc ohol compliance chec ks in the past. Resolution
No. 9511 stated if the offense oc curs outside one y ear (365 day s) of the first offense, it will be c onsidered a
first offense. The following establishments failed outside the one y ear (365 days) and is c onsidered a first
offense.
Davanni's Inc. d/b/a/ Davanni's Pizza and Hot Hoagies located at 6345 Penn Avenue South
Los Sanchez Taqueria I I , L L C d/b/a Los Sanchez Taqueria located at 2 66th Street West
Establishments will be given an opportunity to admit they made an unlawful sale to an underage person and
agree to the penalties imposed by the City Council, or deny the allegations and request a c ontested case
hearing.
The City Council will adopt a resolution imposing the penalties for establishments that admit to the violation. I f
the allegation is denied and a c ontested case hearing is requested, the City Council will refer the matter to an
independent hearing examiner. Establishments will be notified of the hearing date and given the opportunity to
present evidence and rebut the City’s evidence at the hearing.
For first time violators, Public Safety recommends the City Council follow the guidelines set forth in
Resolution No. 9511.
Suspend their license to sell alcohol for five days.
Pay a $1,000 civil fine.
Meet with the Director of Public Safety to present a written action plan to ensure future compliance.
Require a manager to attend an alcohol compliance training and awareness presentation with costs
paid by the establishment. The training must be conducted by a private firm and approved by Public
Safety.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve the attached resolutions regarding civil enforcement for establishments that failed
alcohol compliance checks by selling alcohol to an underage person.
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
Alcohol compliance checks started in 1999 to determine the availability of alcohol to underage people
and meet State Statute. Civil penalties imposed for failing alcohol compliance checks are an incentive for
establishments to provide ongoing employee training.
On December 17, 2022, Richfield Public Safety conducted alcohol compliance checks at 31
establishments in Richfield that sell alcohol. Two underage persons, a 17 and 20 year old, assisted with
the compliance checks. The following 5 establishments sold alcohol to a person under the age of 21.
Davanni's I nc. d/b/a/ Davanni's Pizza and Hot Hoagies.
Los Sanchez Taqueria II, L LC d/b/a Los Sanchez Taqueria.
MC Richfield, LLC d/b/a Millions Crab.
Thompson's Fireside Pizza, I nc d/b/a Fireside Foundry.
Henry Thou, d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
I t is a violation of Minnesota State Statute to sell alcohol to a person under the age of 21.
Resolution No. 9511 specifies certain improper conduct of alcohol license holders and delineates the
progressive discipline that can be expected when violations occur, such as the sale of alcohol to an
underage person.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Fine and suspension requirements must be met by February 24, 2023.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The fine being recommended at this time is intended to recover 100% of the costs for conducting the
compliance checks and to impose a financial penalty.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The employee of each establishment that sold alcohol to a person under the age of 21 has been charged
with Gross Misdemeanor Furnishing per state statute.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
The Council may consider taking more or less severe action against the establishments that sold alcohol to an
underage person; however, that would deviate from the guidelines set for progressive discipline in Resolution
No. 9511.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Representatives from each establishment will be present. They have been notified in writing of this
requirement.
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
A lcohol Resolution 1-24-2023 C over Memo
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE LIQUOR LICENSE FOR THOMPSON’S
FIRESIDE PIZZA, INC. d/b/a FIRESIDE FOUNDRY, 6736 PENN AVENUE
SOUTH AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR FIRST TIME ALCOHOL
COMPLIANCE FAILURE
WHEREAS, Thompson’s Fireside Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Fireside Foundry
(“Licensee”) holds On Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Sales Liquor Licenses from
the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2022, the City of Richfield Public Safety
Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee’s establishment and
during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee, sold alcohol to an
underage person; and
WHEREAS, this is their first alcohol compliance check failure; and
WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on
January 24, 2023 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the penalty
imposed by this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield as follows:
1. The Licensee’s On Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Sales Liquor licenses
are hereby suspended for a period of five (5) consecutive days,
commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but
to take place within 30 days after their Council appearance.
2. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before February 24,
2023, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the
City of Richfield in the amount of $1,000.
3. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by February 2 4, 2023 to present a
written action plan to ensure future compliance.
4. A manager must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness
training conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all
costs paid by the establishment.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of January 2023.
_________________________
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE LIQUOR LICENSE FOR DAVANNI’S INC.
d/b/a DAVANNI’S PIZZA AND HOT HOAGIES, 6345 PENN AVENUE SOUTH
AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR FIRST TIME ALCOHOL
COMPLIANCE FAILURE
WHEREAS, Davanni’s Inc. d/b/a Davanni’s Pizza and Hot Hoagies
(“Licensee”) holds On Sale Wine and On Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor Licenses from the
City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2022, the City of Richfield Public Safety
Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee’s establishment and
during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee, sold alcohol to an
underage person; and
WHEREAS, this is their first alcohol compliance check failure; and
WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on
January 24, 2023 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the penalty
imposed by this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield as follows:
5. The Licensee’s On Sale Wine and On Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor licenses are
hereby suspended for a period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing
on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place
within 30 days after their Council appearance.
6. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before February 24,
2023, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the
City of Richfield in the amount of $1,000.
7. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by February 2 4, 2023 to present a
written action plan to ensure future compliance.
8. A manager must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness
training conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all
costs paid by the establishment.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of January 2023.
_________________________
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE LIQUOR LICENSE FOR LOS SANCHEZ
TAQUERIA II, LLC d/b/a LOS SANCHEZ TAQUERIA, 2 66TH STREET WEST
AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR FIRST TIME ALCOHOL
COMPLIANCE FAILURE
WHEREAS, Los Sanchez Taqueria II, LLC d/b/a Los Sanchez Taqueria
(“Licensee”) holds On Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Sales Liquor Licenses from
the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2022, the City of Richfield Public Safety
Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee’s establishment and
during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee, sold alcohol to an
underage person; and
WHEREAS, this is their first alcohol compliance check failure; and
WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on
January 24, 2023 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the penalty
imposed by this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield as follows:
9. The Licensee’s On Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Sales Liquor licenses
are hereby suspended for a period of five (5) consecutive days,
commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but
to take place within 30 days after their Council appearance.
10. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before February 24,
2023, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the
City of Richfield in the amount of $1,000.
11. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by February 2 4, 2023 to present a
written action plan to ensure future compliance.
12. A manager must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness
training conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all
costs paid by the establishment.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of January 2023.
_________________________
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE LIQUOR LICENSE FOR MC RICHFIELD,
LLC d/b/a MILLIONS CRAB, 9 66TH STREET EAST AND IMPOSING A CIVIL
PENALTY FOR FIRST TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE
WHEREAS, MC Richfield, LLC d/b/a Millions Crab (“Licensee”) holds On
Sale Wine and On Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor Licenses from the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2022, the City of Richfield Public Safety
Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee’s establishment and
during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee, sold alcohol to an
underage person; and
WHEREAS, this is their first alcohol compliance check failure; and
WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on
January 24, 2023 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the penalty
imposed by this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield as follows:
13. The Licensee’s On Sale Wine and On Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor licenses are
hereby suspended for a period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing
on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place
within 30 days after their Council appearance.
14. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before February 24,
2023, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the
City of Richfield in the amount of $1,000.
15. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by February 2 4, 2023 to present a
written action plan to ensure future compliance.
16. A manager must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness
training conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all
costs paid by the establishment.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of January 2023.
_________________________
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE LIQUOR LICENSE FOR HENRY THOU
d/b/a RED PEPPER CHINESE RESTAURANT, 2910 66TH STREET WEST AND
IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR FIRST TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE
FAILURE
WHEREAS, Henry Thou d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant
(“Licensee”) holds On Sale Wine and On Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor Licenses from the
City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2022, the City of Richfield Public Safety
Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee’s establishment and
during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee, sold alcohol to an
underage person; and
WHEREAS, this is their first alcohol compliance check failure; and
WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on
January 24, 2023 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the penalty
imposed by this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield as follows:
17. The Licensee’s On Sale Wine and On Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor licenses are
hereby suspended for a period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing
on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place
within 30 days after their Council appearance.
18. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before February 24,
2023, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the
City of Richfield in the amount of $1,000.
19. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by February 24, 2023 to present a
written action plan to ensure future compliance.
20. A manager must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness
training conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all
costs paid by the establishment.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of January 2023.
_________________________
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM #6.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 22
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/24/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: C hris S wanson, Management 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: A my Markle, Recreation S ervices D irector
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
1/18/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider adoption of a resolution requesting the Legislature allow the City of Richfield to bring the
option of a local sales to voters at a future referendum to fund regionally significant projects in
Richfield.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The Richfield City Council have identified a need for funding for important capital projects in our park and
recreation system. One way to secure additional local funding for regional infrastructure projects is to
implement a Local Sales Tax (L S T). Local sales taxes must be approved by the voters through a local
referendum. Before bringing the option to voters, the Legislature must first authorize the City via special
legislation.
The City contracted with the University of Minnesota to analyze the impact of a local sales tax in Richfield.
Based on the study, staff estimate a 0.5% tax over a 20-year period will total about $98M. The study also
predicts that slightly less than half of the tax would be paid by residents, and the increased cost per resident
was calculated to be approximately $30.77 if the tax was in place for 2019.
Following discussions with Council during the December 8, 2022 and J anuary 10 work sessions three
regionally significant projects meeting the state requirements for LS T funding have been identified. This
includes the Wood Lake Nature Center, Veterans Park Complex, and the Richfield Community Center
Project. Many of the project costs included must be done in the next 5-10 years to continue providing these
amenities to residents. There is not currently a sufficient alternate revenue source for the rehabilitation of
these park and recreation assets.
If Council approves the attached resolution, the final signed document will be submitted to the chairs
and ranking members of the House and Senate tax committees by January 31, 2023. Approval from
the legislature does not obligate the city to implement the tax, but does provide the option. If
approved by the Legislature, the city may bring the proposed tax to the voters for approval at a
general election within two years. Discussions have focused on the November 2024 election.
Description of the projects are presented below:
Wood Lake Nature Ce nte r
Estimated Project Timeline: 2025-2026
Total Project Cost: $24M ($11M covered by L ST )
Includes new building, trail improvements and garage facilities
Veterans Park Complex
Estimated Project Timeline: 2025-2026
Total Project Cost: $9M
I ncludes improvements to aquatics, ice arena, park, trails, band shell, picnic pavilion, and mini-golf
building
Richfield Community Center Project
Estimated Project Timeline: 2031-2032
Total Project Cost (new building): $55M ($45M covered by L S T)
I ncludes two gyms, a walking track, multipurpose program spaces
Proposed project costs would be be funded with bonding which adds approximately $29M in financing costs.
Therefore, estimated total projects costs are approximately $94M.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
Adopt a Resolution requesting the Legislature allow the City of Richfield to bring the option of a local
sales to voters at a future referendum to fund regionally significant projects in Richfield.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
T he City Council discussed a local sales tax at both the December 8, 2022 and January 10,
2023 work sessions, and directed staff to prepare a resolution to seek authority from the
Legislature. Additionally, authority for a L ST for Richfield is included in the city’s 2023
Legislative priorities.
At the work sessions staff explained the process to implement a local sales tax, and the potential financial
impact. Council then prioritized those projects that qualified to be funded with a local sales tax.
Prior to the work sessions the City contracted with the University of Minnesota’s Extension Center for
Community Vitality to perform a L S T analysis for Richfield. The Extension Center is a leader in this field
of study, providing analyses for many neighboring communities including: Maple Grove, St. Louis Park,
Oakdale, Bloomington, and Edina. This L S T analysis provided information on future revenue and the
community impact of a 0.5% local sales tax in Richfield.
This LS T study evaluated several factors and provides:
A projection for estimated taxable sales in the community.
An estimated taxable sales generated by non-residents. Analysis of the City's sales tax sector
distribution.
A summary of the taxable retail and service sales by comparable communities for subsequent
years once a local option sales tax was implemented.
An estimate for the total revenue per year from a L S T in Richfield.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
State statute guides this process. As the law reads now, the ballot must contain a separate
question for each proposed project with a maximum of five projects. Only projects that receive a
majority “yes” vote will be funded with the proposed tax. If there are projects not approved by
the voters, the total revenue raised, and the duration of the tax must be reduced by an amount
proportional to the cost and timeframe of the failed initiative.
Minn. Stat. § 297A.99.defines a "capital project" or "project" as:
A single building or structure including associated infrastructure needed to safely access or use
the building or structure;
I mprovements within a single park or named recreation area;
A contiguous trail.
The city must also determine the length of time the tax will be in effect if all proposed projects are
approved. I t is recommended the timeframe is no longer than 20 years. Historically, most LS T have
ended before the timeframe as the max tax revenue was collected.
I t is important to note that with the change in appointments to the tax committees there may be changes
in the rules and statutes that determine the process for implementation of a LS T.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The City must submit a resolution to the legislature asking for LS T referendum authority by J anuary 31
in order for the request to be considered during the 2023 legislative session. I f Council does not approve
the resolution, the city may submit a request for L S T referendum authority to the legislature next year or
may decide to not pursue a local sales tax.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
A LS T would place a tax on certain product sales or services within the municipality. All goods or
services that are otherwise exempt from taxation are exempt from LS T. Most communities implementing a
local sales tax have set it at 0.5% (one-half percent) for up to 20 years. Current projections for a
Richfield 0.5% sales tax over a 20-year period total about $98M.
By enacting a LS T, about half the burden of funding these projects would move to non-
residents. T he analysis estimates the non-residents portion of revenue would account for 54.5%
of taxable sales in Richfield subject to a L ST. If a 0.5% LS T was in place in 2019, Richfield
would have collected an additional $2.5M in tax proceeds that year. Of that amount, non-
residents would have contributed a majority of the revenue, roughly $1.35M, while Richfield
residents would have contributed $1.14M. Based on these estimates, each Richfield resident
would have paid, on average, an additional $30.77 in sales tax in 2019. Also of note, every city
that surrounds Richfield has in place or is seeking a LS T.
Since the L S T report from the extension office was completed, the Minnesota Department of Revenue
released final 2020 taxable sales number. I n 2020, total taxable sales in Richfield were $808 million.
Based on Department of Revenue estimates, its estimated that approximately $560 million would have
been subject to a tax in 2020. A 0.5% LS T rate would have generated an annual amount of around $2.8
million dollars if in place in 2020.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
Legal counsel has reviewed the proposed resolution.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
I f Council does not approve the resolution, the city may submit a request for LS T referendum authorization to
the legislature next year or may decide not to pursue a local sales tax.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
N/A
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution adopting a L ocal S ales Tax for Richfield Resolution L etter
1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOCAL SALES TAX AND
AUTHORIZING ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TAXES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the “City”), has identified
three regionally significant capital improvement projects for local sales tax consideration; and
WHEREAS, the City has proposed several regionally significant projects and improvements of
which the capital costs cannot be adequately funded with existing resources. The City desires to submit a
proposal to the Minnesota Legislature to allow the City to propose a 0.5% (one half of one percent) local
sales tax (“sales tax”) to voters to be imposed on the gross receipts from taxable retail sales in the City.
The proceeds of the sales taxes would be used to pay the capital costs of constructing and rehabilitating
the regionally significant projects described below. The sales tax will be in effect until the capital costs
of the projects, , interest and financing costs related to the issuance of bonds, are paid or 20 years
after imposition of the sales tax, whichever is earlier ; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 297A.99 provides, in part, that a political subdivision
may impose a local sales tax if permitted by special law and if approved by the voters of the political
subdivision, and that before a governing body requests legislative approval of a special law for a local sales
tax, the governing body must adopt a resolution indicating approval of the tax. The resolution must also
provide the following: the proposed tax rate; how the revenues will be used; documentation of the regional
significance of each project, including the share of the economic benefit to or use of each project by persons
residing, or businesses located, outside the jurisdiction; the total revenue that will be raised before the tax
expires; and the estimated length of time the tax will be in effect.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1.The City Council hereby requests the authority to propose a local sales tax in the amount
of 0.5%, to the voters of the City of Richfield. The city estimates a local sales tax of 0.5% would generate
approximately $3.5-6.7M million annually over 20 years for estimated total sales tax revenues of
approximately $98 million. The anticipated total project costs to be financed with sales tax are estimated at
$65 million. Total debt service on the bonds to be issued, including interest and financing costs over 20
years, is expected to be approximately $94 million.
2.The revenues derived from imposition of the sales tax will be used to pay the capital costs
of constructing, rehabilitating, and the associated interest and financing costs for these regionally significant
projects: (a) Wood Lake Nature Center Building; (b) Veterans Park Complex; and (c) Community Center
Projects (collectively as the "Projects").
3.The Wood Lake Nature Center ("WLNC") is a regionally significant place of
environmental education in the metro area. The WLNC serves as a gateway to nature for residents and
visitors across the region. The WLNC sees over 100,000 people visiting each year with 22,500 people
attending programming. At 51-years-old, the building needs replacement. The building in not ADA
accessible, is infested with rodents, and is no longer able to provide the high level of environmental
education and immersion the region expects and deserves. A new WLNC building will enable Richfield to
meet ADA standards and greatly improve upon the appearance, condition, and functionality of the old
building. The proposed WLNC building is 19,000 square feet with modern classrooms, inviting engagement
2
areas, and indoor and outdoor learning spaces. Trail improvements would help prevent annual flooding.
The WLNC currently hosts over 730 free to low-cost programs annually; 65% of program attendees are
from outside of Richfield and 70% of those that rent equipment such as cross-country skis and snowshoes
are non-Richfield participants. Thousands of school-aged students enjoy award-winning environmental
education programming every year, coming from school in communities such as North Minneapolis, Edina,
St. Paul, and Bloomington. The WLNC puts on an annual race that supports free field trips to the local
school district that has over 70% minority enrollment and offers a bus scholarship to any schools across the
region that need field trip support. Over 4,300 volunteer hours are served at WLNC each year, this amazing
team represents a wide variety of cities across the metro area. The WLNC is truly an accessible regional
gem that continues to serve as a vital bridge from our busy urban environment to the natural world. The
WLNC is an estimated $24 million construction project, about half will be covered by partner funding,
the remaining $11 million will be covered by the sales tax. The sales tax will be in effect until the
project’s costs of approximately $11 million, plus interest and financing costs as referenced above, are
paid or 20 years after imposition of the sales tax, whichever is earlier.
4. The Veterans Park Complex Project (the “Veterans Complex”) would protect and
enhance the existing services provided by the current ice arena and pool. The Veterans Complex project
would update outdated, structurally limiting facilities at the Veterans Complex, specifically this would
revitalize the pool which was installed in 1961 and is already on borrowed time. The Veterans Complex
project has regional significance because the pool provides recreational opportunities for hundreds of
thousands of visitors, from across the state, each year. The pool also serves to provide a respite from the
heat for people across the metro area during the hot summers, over 35% of all pool passes holders are from
Minneapolis alone. The Veterans Complex also includes the ice arena, which is home to the Minnesota
Whitecaps, a women’s professional ice hockey team in the Premier Hockey Federation. The Minnesota
Whitecaps play teams from all over the United States and Canada, with upwards of 1,800 hockey fans
attending each of the 12 home games per season. Besides being a home to the Minnesota Whitecaps,
the arena hosts the Adult Hockey Association and many regional recreational and youth organizations
such as the Minneapolis Storm, and Jefferson and Edina Youth Hockey. On average the arena hosts
over 15 hockey tournaments a year, drawing people from as far away as California and Canada.
Annually, the arena hosts all first and fourth grade students from Richfield Public School (over 70%
minority enrollment), for a free Learn to Skate Program that provides access and opportunity for
students to experience the sport of skating. The arena hosts numerous figure skating competitions and
hockey championships, bringing in visitors from across the state. The arena is also home to the
Richfield Curling Club, one of just 29 clubs in the state, drawing curlers from across the state. The
arena sees an annual visitor amount of 500,000, many from outside the metro. This is an estimated $9
million project. The sales tax will be in effect until the project costs of approximately $9 million, plus
interest and financing costs as referenced above, are paid or 20 years after imposition of the sales,
whichever is earlier.
5. The Richfield Community Center Project (the “Community Center”) is a regionally
significant place of community meeting and gathering, continuing education, and resident support
services for the area. Since 1975, the Community Center has been housed in the original county library
constructed in 1961. It is an old building that requires many upgrades to remain functional. Even with
improvements, however, the building itself currently meets only some of our community’s needs.
There is a significant need for a new building that will better fit present demand and future usage as we
still support the programs at the Community Center. Daily, the Community Center hosts a large
breadth of senior programming that includes active wellness, daily fitness and learning classes as well
as the last public communal lunch program for seniors in Minnesota. The Community Center hosts an
annual tax program that serves over 600 people from around the region. There are numerous weekly
3
and monthly special events such as Fare for All, seasonal food markets and art boutique that draw
participants from the metropolitan area , as well as adaptive recreation programs. The Community
Center is accessible being located on a major bus and bike route, so it is an easy destination for many
across the region. This is an estimated $55 million project, its estimated $45 million will be covered
by the sales tax, with the remaining amount covered by other sources . This may include a future parks
funding through a property tax referendum. The new Richfield Community Center will fit the current
and future needs of the regional community and include spaces for people of all ages to gather to be
active, learn and foster wellness opportuni ties. The sales tax will be in effect until the project costs of
approximately $45 million, plus interest and financing costs as refer enced above, are paid or 20 years
after imposition of the sales, whichever is earlier.
6. It is in the best interest of the health, welfare, and safety of the City and its residents
and it is necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of the affairs of the City that the
acquisition and betterment of the Projects, or any part thereof, be financed in whole or in part by the
issuance and sale of the City's general obligation bonds (“Bonds”) pursuant to the City's Charter,
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, as amended, or any other applicable law. The anticipated total
financing costs is estimated to be $94 million and the total revenues to be generated from the local sales tax
is expected to be approximately $98 million. The local sales tax will be used to pay the principal amount
of one or more series of Bonds and the interest accruing on such bonds. The City may accept an offer to
purchase the Bonds, and the City may sell the Bonds, at a price that results in the receipt of original issue
premium in any amount.
7. The City Treasurer and the City Manager, or their designees, are hereby authorized to take
all actions necessary or appropriate, and in accordance with applicable laws of the State of Minnesota, to
prepare and submit to the Minnesota Legislature for enactment a special law authorizing the local sales tax
referred to in this Resolution.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 24th day of January 2023.
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk