07-09-2024 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
JU LY 9, 2024
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: 2630 556 5366 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) S pecial C ouncil C losed S ession of J une 18, 2024; (2) C ity C ouncil Work S ession of
J une 25, 2024; and (3) C ity C ouncil Meeting of J une 25, 2024.
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 the adoption of a resolution identifying the need for L ivable C ommunities P re-D evelopment
funding and authorizing an application for grant funds on behalf of the P enn S tation development, proposed
for 6501-25 P enn Avenue S outh.
S taff Report No. 93
3.C onsideration of items, if any, removed from C onsent C alendar
PR O P O S E D O R D IN AN C E S
4.S econd reading of a transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from the L iquor
C ontribution S pecial Revenue F und.
S taff Report No. 94
5.C onsider a first reading of an ordinance amendment adjusting parking requirements.
S taff Report No. 95
C IT Y MAN AG E R’S R E P O R T
6.C ity Manager's Report
C LAIMS AN D PAYR O L LS
7.C laims and P ayroll
C O U N C IL D ISC U SSIO N
8.Hats Off to Hometown Hits
9.A djournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96
hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9739.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special Closed City Council
Meeting
June 18, 2024
CALL TO ORDER
The special closed meeting was called to order by Mayor Mary Supple at 5:34 p.m. in the
Babcock Room.
Council Members
Present:
Mary Supple, Mayor; Sean Hayford Oleary; Ben Whalen (5:50pm); Sharon
Christensen; and Simon Trautmann
Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
ITEM #1
CONDUCT A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CITY MANAGER KATIE
RODRIGUEZ, PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. 13D.05, SUBD. 3(A).
The Special Closed Session was conducted pursuant to Minnesota State Statute 13D.05, subd.
3(a).
ADJOURNMENT
The special closed meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:24 p.m.
Date Approved: July 9, 2024
Mary B. Supple
Mayor
Kelly Wynn Katie Rodriguez
Administrative Assistant City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
City Council Joint Work Session
June 25, 2024
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Supple called the City Council and Planning Commission joint work session to order at
6:00 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room.
Council Members
Present:
Council Members
Absent:
Planning
Commission
Members Present
Commissioners
Absent:
Mary Supple, Mayor; Simon Trautmann, Sharon Christensen; Sean Hayford
Oleary
Ben Whalen
Chair Eddie Holmvig-Johnson, Commissioners Stephanie Kowalkowski,
Cole Hooey, Brett Stursa, Brendan Kennealy, and Ben Surma.
Matt Taraldsen.
Staff Present:
Guests:
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Melissa Poehlman, Community
Development Director; Sam Crosby, Planner II; and Kelly Wynn,
Administrative Assistant
Mark Forsberg, Principal with RSP Architects; Amy Gudmestad, MICC’s
Executive Director; Ben Lenz, MICC;s Director of Advancement; and Doug
Jandro, Bumpy Lane Development.
ITEM #1
INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF FUTURE PLANS FOR
MINNESOTA INDEPENDENCE COLLEGE AND COMMUNITY
Planner Crosby shared that representatives from MICC will be sharing an overview of a
potential project. She stated that staff will be looking for feedback on this presentation.
Amy Gudmestad, MICC's Executive Director, shared preliminary concepts for
redevelopment of the properties at 2000, 2006, and 2018 - 76th Street West and 7532 and 7526
Morgan Avenue. She explained how important a learning center would be for the MICC
community. She noted that they have had to reimagine their plans for a new learning center to
greatly benefit the growing community. MICC has hopes of providing additional program space
and complimentary housing. The current concept includes five properties, on the north side of
City Council Work Session Minutes
-2- June 25, 2024
76th Street between Morgan Avenue and Newton Avenue. Rather than providing both uses on
the same site, as previously envisioned in 2022, MICC is now considering separating them. The
programming would be provided on one parcel, with the housing on a second parcel, and the two
parcels would share access, parking, storm water, and density.
Mark Forsberg, Principal RSP Architects, shared that they have been planning this project
for quite some time and have had to create new plans for the center. He shared an overview of
the new proposal for the center. He explained that the plans are to create two separate parcels
from the five current spaces. Currently they own four of the five parcels and have a relationship
with the fifth parcel. He noted they plan to have a total of 24 units of housing in the west parcel
directed towards neurodivergent adults. There will be parking spaces located in the back of the
building.
Chair Holmvig-Johnson stated that he would like to see bicycle spaces available and an
entrance on 76 and not just on the back entrance.
Doug Jandro, Bumby Lane Development Company, noted there are grants available to
accommodate bicycle use in the buildings.
Mr. Forsberg shared that they would look into focusing on that suggestion.
Council Member Hayford-Oleary stated he believes that since they are proposing a lower
parking space number, they will rely on people to use buses and bicycle transportation more. Due
to this they should make the main entrance on the south side of the building on 76. He noted that
he feels as if this proposal is significantly worse than the previous plan proposal. He stated that in
addition to moving the main entrance to the south side, he would like activity to be reduced on the
north end. He also shared that he would like to see more than 24 housing units. He noted that
sidewalks should extend to the full property lines and create an adequate buffer to surrounding
neighbors.
Commissioner Surma asked about the plans for phased development.
Mr. Forsberg stated the learning center is going to be developed by the MICC, while the
housing units will be developed by Bumby Lane Co. The timing of these projects is not
determined yet but will be independent from each other.
Mr. Jandro shared that many parents in the surrounding area are very eager t o have
access to affordable housing for their children following graduation from MICC programs.
Mayor Supple asked what happens if one side gets approval/funding and the other
doesn’t.
Mrs. Gudmestad shared that their goal is to create a capital campaign to raise the funding
for the project, so they won’t have to rely on outside funding sources.
Mr. Jandro stated they have data from residents that are occupying the colony, they have
found that less than 10% of residents use cars for transportation. Most residents rely on bus and
bicycle transportation.
Council Member Trautmann shared that he would like to see a higher density of housing,
and possibly switching the buildings.
City Council Work Session Minutes
-3- June 25, 2024
Commissioner Surma asked if this project were to be completed, would the MICC still
have a presence in the colony.
Mrs. Gudmestad stated that their intention is to continue to rent out apartments in the
colony.
The Group discussed the possibilities of switching the buildings. They also discussed the
different building placements in regard to the code requirements.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Supple adjourned the joint work session at 6:30 pm.
Date Approved: July 9, 2024
Mary B. Supple
Mayor
Kelly Wynn Katie Rodriguez
Administrative Assistant City Manager
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Supple at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Council Members Present:
Mary Supple, Mayor; Sharon Christensen; Sean Hayford Oleary
Council Members
Absent:
Simon Trautmann and Ben Whalen
Staff Present:
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney;
Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director; Sack
Thongvanh, Assistant City Manager; Jay Henthorne, Public
Safety Director/Police Chief; and Kelly Wynn, Administrative
Assistant
Others Present: Karole Kelly, Human Rights Commissioner; Debbie Goettel,
Hennepin County Commissioner
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
Mary Best, 67th and Elliott, requested the City Council reject the proposed parking ordinance
that would eliminate or reduce parking requirements for the city due to the proposal including too many
changes that would adversely affect future residences and businesses. She indicated drastically
reducing requirements seemed premature. She recommended they wait to see if there was a problem
and then look at this. She believed this approach also took away the responsibility of the city and moved
it to the residents to deal with.
Larry Ernster, 6727 Elliott, agreed with Mary Best’s comments and requested the Council reject
the proposed parking ordinance that would eliminate or reduce parking restrictions. He pointed out
various times when the Council changed ordinances to eliminate citizen participation and requested the
Council stop changing ordinances to avoid dealing with the citizens. He noted none of the proposed
parking changes were urgent.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Council Meeting
June 25, 2024
City Council Meeting Minutes -2- June 25, 2024
Kathleen Balaban expressed concern about her difficulty getting information from her data
requests she made. She requested the Council set a timeframe that was reasonable for turnaround of
requested data. She asked with respect to staff report number 92 what the financial impact was going
to be. She requested the city do a better job at informing the residents of what they are doing and how
they were doing it.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Hayford Oleary, S/Christensen to approve the minutes of the: (1) City Council Work Session
of May 28, 2024; (2) Joint Council and Transportation Commission Meeting of June 5, 2024; and (3)
City Council Meeting of June 11, 2024.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #1
PRESENTATIONS – 2024 GENE AND MARY JACOBSEN CITIZEN OF THE
YEAR PRESENTATION
Commissioner Karloe Kelly invited Kim Jacobsen to present the 2024 Gene and Mary Jacobsen
Citizen of the Year Presentation to Scott Ramsay.
Scott Ramsay thanked the city for the award and for supporting the park system and the Wood
Lake Nature Center.
Mayor Supple thanked everyone who nominated Mr. Ramsay for the award and shared personal
anecdotes about Mr. Ramsay and his dedication to teaching.
ITEM #2
COMMISIONER GOETTEL WILL PRESENT AN UPDATE ON THE WORK BEING
DONE BY HENNEPIN COUNTY
Mayor Supple welcomed Hennepin County Commissioner Debbie Goettel.
Commissioner Goettel summarized what the Hennepin County Commission did and what
areas they worked on such as unsheltered homeless communities, housing and economic
development, affordable housing, mental health issues around the County, and Hennepin County’s
resource hub availability to businesses. She gave updates on the Southdale project and Augsburg
Park.
Commissioner Goettel stated a goal of the County was to plant 1 million trees by 2030 and
summarized how that was being accomplished.
Commissioner Goettel summarized infrastructure projects coming up in the future including the
Penn Avenue project.
Council Member Hayford Oleary thanked the Hennepin County Commission for their continued
work on improving Richfield’s streets. He noted though that this work came with large bills for the
community, and he would like to see the County pick up more of the cost.
City Council Meeting Minutes -3- June 25, 2024
Mayor Supple thanked Commissioner Goettel for the work and support she did for the city.
She lifted up the social worker program.
ITEM #3
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
M/Hayford Oleary, S/Christensen to approve the Agenda.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #4
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Manager Rodriguez presented the consent calendar.
A. Consider the approval of an amended agreement between the Hennepin County Human
Services and Public Health Department, and the City of Richfield Police Department for two
full-time Senior Social Workers, one embedded and one on the alternative response team.
(Staff Report No. 82)
B. Consider the approval of an agreement for Prosecution Services with the City of Richfield
and H/J Law. (Staff Report No. 83)
C. Consider the adoption of a resolution supporting hazard mitigation planning efforts and
adopting the Hennepin County/All Hazard Mitigation Plan (Staff Report No. 84)
RESOLUTION NO. 12216
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING HAZARD MITIGATION
PLANNING EFFORTS AND ADOPTING THE HENNEPIN
COUNTY ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
D. Consider a resolution extending American Rescue Plan Act funding contract with VEAP, Inc.
from June 30, 2024 to December 31, 2024 (Staff Report No. 85)
RESOLUTION NO. 12217
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF
AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT CONTRACT WITH
VEAP, INC.
E. Consider adoption of a resolution approving a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Edina
for speed limits on shared local streets. Second Reading of an Ordinance (Staff Report No.
86)
RESOLUTION NO. 12218
RESOLUTION APPROVING A JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDINA AND
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR SPEED LIMITS ON
SHARED LOCAL STREETS
F. Consider Adoption of an resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding with the City
of Minneapolis for street limits on shared local streets (Staff Report No. 87)
City Council Meeting Minutes -4- June 25, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. 12219
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF
MINNEAPOLIS AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR
SPEED LIMIT SIGNS ON SHARED LOCAL STREETS
G. Consider a resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of
Minneapolis, et al. regarding the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant (CPRG) Partnership and
scope of work (Staff Report No. 88)
H. First Reading of transitory ordinance proving funding for certain capital improvements from
the Liquor Contribution Special Revenue Fund. (Staff Report No. 91)
BILL NO. 2024-07
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE
OF MONEY FROM THE LIQUOR CONTRIBUTION
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS
M/Christensen, S/Hayford Oleary to approve the consent calendar.
Mayor Supple lifted up the Alternative Response Team and the social worker program and noted
there had been a recent Council Work Session regarding this if anyone was interested in more
information.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #5
CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT
CALENDAR
None.
ITEM #6
CONSIDER FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ADJUSTING
PARKING REQUIREMENTS. (STAFF REPORT NO. 89)
Council Member Hayford Oleary presented Staff Report 89.
Director Poehlman addressed the comments brought up at Open Forum by clarifying parking
and variance requirements for development projects, including staff’s preference for parking
requirements in the MR2 District.
Council Member Hayford Oleary questioned the need for more parking in mixed-use
developments, citing existing standalone mixed-use buildings with limited parking. Director Poehlman
explained that the higher parking ratio for MR3 was to accommodate commercial turnover and free up
parking for multifamily development.
Mayor Supple stated wanted to postpone this until the next meeting because there were two
Council Members not in attendance at this meeting and there was new information in the staff report.
City Council Meeting Minutes -5- June 25, 2024
Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he supported this and did not think it was that big of a
change.
Mayor Supple asked for clarification on staff’s recommendation. Director Poehlman explained
how parking minimums and maximums were determined and that staff was trying to make sure that
there was still the flexibility in the maximums to allow for a project to get there if needed.
Mayor Supple stated she was in support of making sure there were maximums that would allow
for the needed flexibility, but she wanted to hear more about the concerns from the other departments
also as well as more information and discussion about adding the discretion.
Council Member Christensen stated she supported postponing this also.
M/Supple, S/Christensen to postpone discussion to the next Council meeting.
Council Member Hayford Oleary indicated he was not sure what would be accomplished by
postponing this, but he would support it. He highlighted a comment made by Director Poehlman
regarding reducing bias by having clear standards and that was one of the reasons he did not want to
see the city go back to this discretionary language due to it being clearer and more legally defensible.
He indicated he hoped they would keep that to a minimum.
Mayor Supple requested staff put together two sets of alternate language so Council could
compare one which would include discretion and have it at 1.5 and one which was the current language,
so Council would know what they would be discussing and voting on at the next meeting.
Council Member Hayford Oleary also requested in the staff’s report to clearly show where the
MR2 and MR3 was versus the mixed use.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #7
SUMMARY OF THE CITY MANAGER’S ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 2023 TO JUNE 2024, HELD ON
JUNE 11 AND JUNE 18, 2024 AS REQUIRED BY MINN. STATUTES 13D.05
SUBD. 3(A), AND CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE CITY MANAGER
KATIE RODRIGUEZ (STAFF REPORT NO. 90)
Mayor Supple presented Staff Report 90.
M/Supple, S/Hayford Oleary to approve a resolution amending the employment agreement
between the City of Richfield and Catherine Rodriguez, City Manager.
RESOLUTION NO. 12220
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
AND CATHERINE RODRIGUEZ, CITY MANAGER
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #8
City Council Meeting Minutes -6- June 25, 2024
CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONTRACT
WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (POLICE OFFICERS) FOR THE
PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2024 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2025 AND AUTHORIZE
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. (STAFF REPORT NO.
92)
Council Member Christensen presented Staff Report 92.
City Manager Rodriguez presented an update on the police contract negotiations including the
costs.
Assistant Manager Thongvanh thanked the police officers and staff for their dedication and
professionalism in the negotiations.
M/Christensen, S/Hayford Oleary to adopt a resolution approving the provisions of the 2024-
2025 labor agreement with the LELS bargaining unit and authorize the City Manager to execute the
Agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. 12221
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROVISIONS OF THE
2024-2025 LABOR AGREEMENT WITH THE LELS
BARGAINING UNIT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #9
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Rodriguez thanked the Council for their feedback and commitment to continue
improvements for the residents of Richfield.
ITEM #10
CLAIMS AND PAYROLL
M/Hayford Oleary, S/Christensen that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
U.S. BANK 06/21/2024
A/P Checks: 329110-329474 $1,159,119.09
Payroll: 188408-188803 43937-43942 $1,076,424.67
TOTAL $ 2,235,543.76
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #11
HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS
Council Member Christensen gave hats off to the Richfield History Center and noted on January
29 at 1:00 p.m. at the History Center there would be an1860’s style baseball.
City Council Meeting Minutes -7- June 25, 2024
Council Member Hayford Oleary noted Richfield Drives 25 started today. He thanked the Public
Works staff for their work to make this happen. He thanked the Richfield Fourth of July committee for
their work.
Council Member Supple noted if anyone wanted a Richfield Drives 25 sign for their yard, they
were available at the Community Center from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. She also
thanked the Fourth of July committee and noted they were looking for volunteers.
Council Member Christensen reminded the residents that the Fourth of July parade would be on
70th Street.
ITEM #12
ADJOURNMENT
M/Hayford Oleary, S/Christensen to adjourn the meeting at 8:21 p.m.
Motion carried: 5-0
Date Approved: July 9, 2024
Mary B. Supple
Mayor
Kelly Wynn Katie Rodriguez
Administrative Assistant City Manager
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #2.A.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 93
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
7/9/2024
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:Julie Urban, A sst. C ommunity D evelopment D irector
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:Melissa P oehlman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
7/1/2024
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
7/1/2024
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the adoption of a resolution identifying the need for Livable Communities Pre-Development
funding and authorizing an application for grant funds on behalf of the Penn Station development,
proposed for 6501-25 Penn Avenue South.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
J O Companies, LLC (Developer) is seeking to develop the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)-
owned property located at 6501-25 Penn Avenue South with 40 units of affordable housing. The Developer is
proposing to submit a request for a Livable Communities Act (L C A) Pre-Development grant in the amount of
$100,000 to assist with preliminary development activities.
L C A Pre-Development grants are for communities who are defining or redefining a development project that
will support the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities and Thrive MS P 2040 goals. Eligible costs are for
early-stage activities like design workshops, site design, financial studies, project impact analyses, and
community engagement.
Applications are due on J uly 22, 2024. The City is the applicant and recipient of the grant on behalf of the
development. A resolution of support approved by the City Council is required with the application
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Adopt a resolution identifying the need for Livable Communities Transit Oriented
Development funding and authorizing an application for grant funds on behalf of the Richfield Flats
development, 6501-6525 Penn Avenue South.
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
A previous development was proposed for the site in 2020 and received a P re-D evelopment grant;
however, the project did not receive financing and a portion of the funds were returned. The C ity is eligible
to reapply for funding for the current proposal.
The D eveloper presented the project concept to the HRA , C ity C ouncil, and P lanning C ommission on
A pril 15, 2024.
The HRA approved a P reliminary D evelopment A greement with the D eveloper on June 17, 2024, and is
considering an A mendment to the A greement on July 9, 2024.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
The proposed affordable housing development provides an opportunity for the development of accessible
housing units and housing units affordable to households earning 30% of the A rea Median Income (A MI).
The proposed affordable housing development would help to meet the S trategic P lan goal to maintain
Richfield as an affordable place to live.
The D eveloper is in the process of seeking input from the community on the design of the project and is
specifically reaching out to people with disabilities; B lack, Indigenous and P eople of C olor (B IP OC );
people who are or have been unsheltered, and large families with children.
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
The Metropolitan C ouncil requires the C ity to be the applicant and to submit a resolution in support of the
grant application.
It is the C ity's policy to seek grant funding when available and as appropriate.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The grant application is due July 22, 2024, and a resolution of support needs to be submitted as part of
the application.
Awards are expected in S eptember.
F unds must be expended within two years of the grant award.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
F unding would be provided by the Metropolitan C ouncil.
C ommunity D evelopment has the staff capacity to help prepare the application and administer the grant, if
awarded funds.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The C ity will be required to enter into a grant agreement with the Metropolitan C ouncil, if funding is
awarded.
The C ity A ttorney will review the grant agreement prior to execution.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
D ecide not to apply for grant funds.
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
NA
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution Resolution L etter
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES PRE-
DEVELOPMENT FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is a participant in the Livable Communities Act’s
Local Housing Incentives Account Program for 2024 as determined by the Metropolitan
Council, and is therefore eligible to apply for Livable Communities Act Pre-Development
(Pre-Development) grant funds; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets
the Pre-Development Account purposes and criteria and is consistent with and
promotes the purposes of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the policies of
the Metropolitan Council’s adopted metropolitan development guide; and
WHEREAS, the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to
ensure adequate project administration; and
WHEREAS, the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and
regulations as stated in the grant agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in
the grant application submitted on July 22, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City acknowledges Pre-Development grants are intended to fund
projects or project components that can serve as models, examples or prototypes for
development or redevelopment projects elsewhere in the region, and therefore
represents that the proposed project can be replicated in other metropolitan -area
communities; and
WHEREAS, only a limited amount of grant funding is available through the
Metropolitan Council’s Pre-Development grants during each funding cycle and the
Metropolitan Council has determined it is appropriate to allocate those scarce grant
funds only to eligible projects that would not occur without the availability of Pre-
Development grant funding.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
1. It is in the best interests of the City’s development goals and priorities for the
proposed project to occur at this particular site and at this particular time.
2. The project components for which Pre-Development grant funding is sought will
not occur solely through private or other public investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future and will occur within two years after a grant award only if Pre-
Development funding is made available for this project at this time.
3. Represents that the City has undertaken reasonable and good faith efforts to
procure funding for the project components for which Livable Communities
Demonstration Account funding is sought but was not able to find or secure from
other sources funding that is necessary for project component completion within
two years and states that this representation is based on the following reasons
and supporting facts: the Metropolitan Council LCA Pre-Development Program is
one of the few, if only, funding programs that provides pre-development funding.
4. List project or projects applied for here:
Project Name Amount Requested
Richfield Flats $100,000
5. Staff is authorized to submit on behalf of the City an application for Metropolitan
Council Pre-Development grant funds for the project components identified in the
application, and to execute such agreements as may be necessary to implement
the project on behalf of the City.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of
July, 2024.
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED
ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM #4.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 94
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
7/9/2024
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:K umud Verma, F inance D irector
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
7/1/2024
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Second reading of a transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from the
Liquor Contribution Special Revenue Fund.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
As part of the Capital I mprovement Budget (C I B) and annual City Budget process, certain special revenue
funds are allocated each year to fund capital projects identified through the budget process.
The source of the special revenue funds are profits derived from the City’s Liquor Store operation. These
profits are transferred to the Liquor Contribution Special Revenue Fund.
Before the funds can be used for the identified capital projects, the City Charter requires that a transitory
ordinance be used to authorize the expenditure of the funds.
The proposed funding for 2024, per the approved C I B budget, totals $500,000 and encompasses several park
and recreation related projects. The projects are listed below.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Approve the attached transitory ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds from the
Liquor Contribution Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements.
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
A t the D ecember 12, 2023 C ity C ouncil meeting, the C ity C ouncil authorized $500,000 of S pecial Revenue
F unds for improvements to several C ity capital improvements in 2024. Included in the $500,000 are:
The 2024 C IB also provides for expenditures for all types of funds contained in the budget including municipal
state aid, user fees, state grants, county funds, and issuance of debt.
A uthorization by ordinance is not required for expenditures other than S pecial Revenues.
The first reading of the attached ordinance took place on J une 25, 2024.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
C ity C harter S ection 7.12, S ubd. 2 requires that S pecial Revenue F unds used for capital improvements must be
authorized by ordinance
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Under S ection 3.09 of the C ity C harter, a transitory ordinance becomes effective 30 days after publication of the
second hearing notice.
The ordinance requirements must be completed early enough in 2024 so that the capital projects can be initiated
on a timely basis, completed and the funds expended.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
W hile the total 2024 C IB includes total budgeted expenditures of $7,591,350, the portion of the C IB concerning
proposed funding from the S pecial Revenue fund is $500,000.
A transitory ordinance is necessary to finalize the appropriations utilizing special revenue funds pursuant to C ity
C harter.
The source of S pecial Revenue funds is municipal liquor profits.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The C ity C harter requires that a transitory ordinance be used to authorize the expenditure of S pecial Revenue
funds.
The C ity A ttorney has reviewed the transitory ordinance and approved of its contents and its compliance with the
C ity C harter.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Transitory Ordinance for the expenditure from L iquor
C ontribution S pecial Revenue F und Ordinance
BILL NO. 2024-07
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 19.28
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE LIQUOR
CONTRIBUTION SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend
money from the Liquor Contribution Special Revenue Fund for the making of capital
improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue
general obligation bonds.
Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements
which are authorized to be paid from the Liquor Contribution Special Revenue Fund under
Section 7.12, Subdivision 2 of the City Charter, are as follows:
Section 3: The expenditures authorized herein shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are
authorized from time to time by Council action.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of July 2024.
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kelly Wynn, Interim City Clerk
____________________________
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED
ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM #5.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 95
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
7/9/2024
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:S am C rosby, P lanner II
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:Melissa P oehlman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
6/28/2024
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
7/1/2024
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider a first reading of an ordinance amendment adjusting parking requirements.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
At its April 25, 2023, work session on policy topic priorities, the Counc il direc ted staff to examine parking
requirements; to address a few long-standing issues and to continue working on broader city-wide objectives.
A joint work session was held with the Planning C ommission and the C ity C ounc il on February 26, 2024. The
attached ordinance is a result of the direc tion provided by Council Members and Commissioners at the work
session. I n short, the ordinance updates the City’s parking requirements in the following ways:
1. Reduce the requirements for a Class I I I Restaurant.
2. Create a requirement for libraries, museums, and art galleries.
3. Expand the Council’s flexibility in relation to non-driving populations.
4. Adjust the requirement for multi-family housing to be consistent across all zoning districts at 1.25.
Staff from several departments have concerns with this proposed change. While on-
street parking is not a problem in theory, there are concerns with the design of some
rights-of-way that lead to safety issues, specifically:
A lack of sidewalks to replace on-street walking/biking space.
Narrow rights-of-way (less than 36 feet wide), particularly on east-west roads, c an make
emergency vehicle access difficult when there’s snow.
Restrictions to on-street parking to address these issues inc rease the need for police
enforcement, and push parking deeper into neighborhoods, resulting in additional
complaints.
Staff recommends retaining and expanding the current disc retionary language; presc ribing a
minimum of 1.5 stalls per unit and allowing a reduction to 1.25 stalls, if adjac ent conditions or
negotiations c an mitigate safety conc erns. "Roadway width and orientation” would be added as a
factor to be considered.
5. I f item #4, above, is adopted, revise the parking maximum, for multi-family only to insure developments
have the flexibility needed to secure financing.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 29th. The Commission recommended approval of the
ordinance as presented, and rec ommended that the Counc il consider an additional study of the City’s sidewalk
policies and funding, as well as additional study of reducing or eliminating parking requirements in areas of
close proximity to high-frequenc y transit lines and stations. Staff agrees that there is a direct nexus
between sidewalks and parking, as well as the factors like road width, and that is why we continue to
recommend that the discretionary language be retained, and even expanded.
At the J une 25th Council meeting, the Council decided to postpone a vote and asked for the following additional
items:
Further discussion on discretion. Discretion allows the ability to consider the impact of parking
reductions on the immediately surrounding area and to negotiate the mitigation of those
impacts. Planning staff and the City Attorney are discussing potential ways to link on-street parking to
sidewalk construction. Additional City staff have submitted comments regarding staff’s recommendation
which is attached.
Alternative ordinance language. Both the originally drafted ordinance and staff's alternative
recommendation are now provided as attachments.
A map showing the location of the MR-2 and MR-3 zoning district compared to the location of the Mixed
Use district (which already allow 1.25 per unit without discretion). The MR-2 and MR-3 districts are
scattered throughout the City and tend to be in more residential areas; and the Mixed Use districts are
mostly concentrated in the Penn Avenue Corridor, the Cedar Avenue Corridor and along the I -494
Corridor. See attached zoning map.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve a first reading of an ordinance amendment to adjust parking requirements.
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
F irst initiated by C ounci l when establishing the 2023 poli cy priorities. A joint work session was held with the
P lanning C ommission and C ity C ouncil on F ebruary 25, 2024. The minutes and staff report from the work
session are attached.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
S trategic Outcomes:
S ustainable Infrastructure – A s pointed out in the initial policy proposal, the availability of parking induces
driving, and driving is a major source of carbon emissions. Therefore, parking contributes to climate
change. It also increases run-off and exacerbates urban heat islands effects.
Maintain Richfield as an A ffordable P lace to L ive – A s land costs rise, and land availability decreases,
the cost of parking increases the cost of housing.
D iversified Tax B ase – Making sure the C ity’s parking requirements are not excessive will allow more
flexibility in the use of existing commercial space, and may facilitate the construction of more floor area
per project.
E quity C onsiderations:
Reducing parking minimums has the potential to increase housing supply, and reduce both fuel
consumption and emissions. It also has the potential to create more room for either green space or
additional development, the latter of which could increase tax base and help keep residential taxes lower.
Most often, the cost of parking is passed down to all. Those that do not own a vehicle, (which tend to be
more marginalized groups) should benefit from reduced parking requirements because it will reduce the
amount that they are subsidizing those that do own a vehicle. Those who own a vehicle may perceive
themselves as burdened by parking reductions. P otential unintended consequences include reducing the
amount of A D A parking (as it is determined by the amount of the provided parking), increased amounts of
on-street parking, and reduced mobility for walkers/bikers on streets accommodating spillover parking.
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
D iscretion is important because without the ability to consider the impact of parking reductions on the
immediately surrounding area, we lose the potential to negotiate the mitigation of those impacts.
Mitigation can be complex - for instance, sidewalk installation could impact street trees or the width of the
adjacent street (curb relocation).
A P edestrian Master P lan was approved in 2018, but the recommended policy changes have not been
formally adopted.
P olicies or work to add sidewalks would be in strong collaboration with, if not led by, the E ngineering
D epartment and would involve the S ustainability C ommission as well as the Transportation C ommission.
If desired, the C ouncil could propose the study of the C ity’s sidewalk policies via the annual P olicy
P roposal P rocess. Once policies and/or infrastructure are in place, discretion would no longer be
needed.
In relation to the transit-oriented reductions, the Metropolitan C ouncil has awarded the C ity $35,000 for
the research, outreach, and rewrite of the MR-2 and MR-3 zoning districts, that project will include study of
transit-oriented reductions.
F inally, staff recommends revising the parking maximums for multi-family residential only - from a
percentage of the minimum, to 1.5 stalls per unit. S ubsection 544.13, S ubd. 6 of the Richfield Zoning
C ode establishes standards for parking maximums. C urrently parking maximums are set at a percentage
of the minimum, (either 110% or 120%) depending upon the size of the project. F inancial institutions
require a certain amount of parking in order to fund new housing projects. S taff wanted to be sure that the
decreased multi-family parking requirement didn’t “pull down” the maximum such that projects would no
longer be financially supported. S ee the revised Table B of “A pproved and E xisting A partment B uildings”
attached. In two of the eight examples, the parking bumped-up against the current maximum. Raising the
maximum to 1.5 stalls per unit would ensure that various project types have the flexibility needed to secure
funding.
F or exact language, see the ordinance, attached.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
In early 2023, the C ity C ouncil requested that this issue be addressed as one of its policy topic priorities. It has
since been included in the P lanning & Zoning work plan and was scheduled to be completed in the first half of
2024.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
It is anticipated that certain multifamily development projects will create the need for on-street parking restrictions
or eliminations. The cost of coordinating, imposing, and enforcing parking restrictions would need to be
absorbed by P ublic Work’s and P ublic S afety’s daily operations.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
Notice of the public hearing at the P lanning C ommission meeting was published in the S un C urrent
newspaper on May 16th.
The P lanning C ommission recommended approval of the attached ordinance at its May 29th meeting.
A S econd Reading and S ummary P ublication of the ordinance has been tentatively scheduled for July 23,
2024.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
A pprove the first reading of the staff recommended ordinance amendment.
D eny the first reading of the attached ordinance amendment and direct staff to reconsider one or more
aspects.
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
P arking Ordinance Original Version Ordinance
P arking Ordinance - A lt. Version - S taff Recommendation Ordinance
Zoning Map, D ec. 2023 B ackup Material
Table B B ackup Material
D epartment F eedback C over Memo
Page 1 of 5
ORIGINAL VERSION
BILL NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD ZONING CODE
REGULATIONS RELATED TO PARKING
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Subsection 525.11 of the Richfield Zoning Code, relating to parking
regulations for multi-family structures in the MR-2 zoning district, is
amended at Subdivision 2, to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Minimum parking for multifamily structures (excluding cluster home
develompments). Two A minimum of 1.25 off-street parking spaces shall be
provided for each dwelling unit. The Council, at its discretion, may reduce the
minimum required parking to not less than 1.5 parking spaces per unit for
multifamily structures with seven or more units, after consideration of factors
including but not limited to the present or future availability of transit services,
shared parking, pedestrian orientation, and occupancy characteristics . In addition,
Tthe Council may further reduce the parking requi rement for senior housing
complexes, or other similarly low-driving populations, including but not limited to,
households earning below 60% AMI, people who are neuro -diverse, and/or people
with disabilities. (Amended Bill No. 2024 -__)
Section 2 Subsection 527.11 of the Richfield Zoning Code, relating to parking
regulations for multi-family structures in the MR-3 zoning district, is
amended at Subdivision 2, to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Minimum parking. Two A minimum of 1.25 off-street parking spaces shall
be provided for each dwelling unit. The Council, at its discretion, may reduce the
minimum required parking to not less than 1.25 parking spaces per unit for
multifamily structures with ten (10) or more units, after conside ration of factors
including but not limited to the present or future availability of transit services,
shared parking, pedestrian orientation, and occupancy characteristics . In addition,
tThe Council may further reduce the parking requirement for senior housing
complexes or other similarly low-driving populations, including but not limited to,
households earning below 60% AMI, people who are neuro -diverse, and/or people
with disabilities. (Amended, Bill No. 2011-19; Bill No. 2024-__)
Section 3 Subsection 537.09 of the Richfield Zoning Code, relating to parking
regulations in the Mixed Use zoning districts, is amended at Subdivision 1,
to read as follows:
Subdivision 1. Off Street Parking Ratios. The following table establishes minimum
parking standards for uses within the Mixed Use Districts.
Page 2 of 5
Table 3
Minimum Parking Standards for Mixed Use Districts
(Amended, Bill No. 2009-6; Bill No. 2019-4; Bill no. 2024- __)
Land Use Type Off Street Parking Ratio
MU-R and MU-C MU-N
Commercial Retail * 4 3
Commercial Services * 3 2
Office * 3.3 2
Civic * 3 2
Hotel or motel (per room) 1 1
Residential Townhouse ** 1.5 1.5
Residential Multifamily ** 1.25 1.25
Other Uses As determined by the Zoning Administrator
City Planner or Designee
*Per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
**Per dwelling unit. The Council may reduce the parking requirement for
senior housing, or other similarly low -driving populations, including but not
limited to, households earning below 60% AMI, people who are neuro -
diverse, and/or people with disabilities.
Subd. 2. Other Parking Requirements. All other parking requirements shall be
dictated by Section 544 of this Code.
Section 4 Subsection 544.13 of the Richfield Zoning Code, relating to the number of
off-street spaces required, the following excerpts from the table in
Subdivision 6, is amended to read as follows (entire table not included):
Subd. 6. Number of Off-Street Spaces Required. Off-street parking spaces shall be
provided according to the following minimum standards. Parking for land uses not
listed below shall be regulated according to the most similar use and/or
authoritative sources as determined by the City Planner.
Land Use Minimum Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required*
COMMERCIAL USES
Libraries, museums or art
galleries
3.33 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
Page 3 of 5
Land Use Minimum Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required*
Class III (Fast
food/convenience)
17 7 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
RESIDENTIAL USES
Multiple-family housing
Single and Two Family For R “Low Density Residential” zones, see Section 514.15, Subd.4
For R-1 “Single Family Residential” zones, see Section 518.15, Subd.3
Multifamily Dwelling 1.25 per unit.
MR-1 District: two-
family dwelling
2 per housing unit, 1 of which must be enclosed. Only one (1) curb cut
is permitted to the property.
MR-2 District: 8 or
fewer units; 9 to 25 units
as a conditional use.
2 per housing unit. May be reduced to 1.25 spaces per unit for 7 or
more units if factors warrant.
MR-3 District: 20 or
fewer units; more than 20
units as a conditional use.
2 per housing unit. May be reduced to 1.25 spaces per unit for ten (10)
or more units if factors warrant.
INSTITUTIONAL/PUBLIC USES
No Changes Proposed
*If calculation results in a fraction, the next higher whole number shall be used traditional rounding
applies. For Mixed Use zones, see Section 537.09.
(Amended, Bill No. 2011-8; Bill No. 2011-13; Bill No. 2013-22; Bill No. 2015-15; Bill No. 2024-__)
Section 5 Subsection 544.13 of the Richfield Zoning Code is further amended at
Subdivision 9.d, to allow administrative approval of on-street parking toward
off-street requirements, to read as follows:
Page 4 of 5
d) Parking for retail and service uses may be reduced if on -street parking is adjacent
to the parcel and where all of the following conditions exist: (Amended, Bill No.
2021-17 )
i. The principal building is located within 20 feet of the front property line;
ii. No parking exists between the front face of the principal building and the street;
iii. A sidewalk exists along all sides of the lot that abut a public street;
iv. A primary building entrance must face the street with parking; and
v. If the Council Director finds that such parking will not be detrimental to the
surrounding neighborhood. (Amended Bill No. 2024-__)
Section 6 Subsection 544.13 of the Richfield Zoning Code is further amended at
Subdivision 8, to adjust the parking maximums for multi-family residential to
1.5 stalls per unit, to read as follows:
Subd. 8. Parking Maximums. The maximum number of parking spaces for any
building or use shall not exceed the amount determined as follows: (Amended, Bill
No. 2022-3;)
a) Except for Multifamily Residential, p Parking lots of more than 20 and less than 51
spaces. Parking lots may not have more than 120 percent of the number of
spaces identified in the above table, not including accessible spaces.
b) Except for Multifamily Residential, p Parking lots of 51 spaces or more. No more
than 110 percent of the number of spaces required as identified in the above
table, not including accessible spaces, are permitted.
c) Multifamily Residential parking lots. No more than 1.5 stalls per unit. (Added, Bill
No 2024-__)
c d) Additional parking may be provided if it does not increase impervious surface
beyond that which would be provided by meeting the maximum parking required.
Examples of additional parking include, but are not limited to, under structure
parking, roof top parking, or structured parking above a surface parking lot.
d e) An applicant may request a modification of the maximum allowed number of
parking spaces by submitting a study of anticipated parking demand. Parking
studies shall be prepared by a professional engineer with expertise in traffic and
parking analysis, unless the Director authorizes an equally qualified individual.
Section 7 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 ___ day of ___, 2024.
Page 5 of 5
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wynn, Acting City Clerk
Page 1 of 4
ALTERNATE VERSION - STAFF RECOMMENDATION
BILL NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD ZONING CODE
REGULATIONS RELATED TO PARKING
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Subsection 525.11 of the Richfield Zoning Code, relating to parking
regulations for multi-family structures in the MR-2 zoning district, is
amended at Subdivision 2, to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Minimum parking for multifamily structures (excluding clust er home
develompments). Two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling
unit. The Council, at its discretion, may reduce the minimum required parking to not
less than 1.25 parking spaces per unit for multifamily structures with seven or more
units, after consideration of factors including but not limited to the present or future
availability of transit services, shared parking, pedestrian orientation, roadway
width, roadway orientation, and occupancy characteristics. In addition, the Council
may further reduce the parking requirement for senior housing complexes, or other
similarly low-driving populations, including but not limited to, households earning
below 60% AMI, people who are neuro -diverse, and/or people with disabilities.
(Amended Bill No. 2024-__)
Section 2 Subsection 527.11 of the Richfield Zoning Code, relating to parking
regulations for multi-family structures in the MR-3 zoning district, is
amended at Subdivision 2, to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Minimum parking. Two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for
each dwelling unit. The Council, at its discretion, may reduce the minimum required
parking to not less than 1.25 parking spaces per unit for multifamily structures with
ten (10) or more units, after consideration of factors including but not limited to the
present or future availability of transit services, shared parking, pedestrian
orientation, roadway width, roadway orientation, and occupancy characteristics. In
addition, the Council may further reduce the parking requirement for senior housing
complexes or other similarly low-driving populations, including but not limited to,
households earning below 60% AMI, people who are neuro -diverse, and/or people
with disabilities. (Amended, Bill No. 2011-19; Bill No. 2024-__)
Section 3 Subsection 537.09 of the Richfield Zoning Code, relating to parking
regulations in the Mixed Use zoning districts, is amended at Subdivision 1,
to read as follows:
Subdivision 1. Off Street Parking Ratios. The following table establishes minimum
parking standards for uses within the Mixed Use Districts.
Page 2 of 4
Table 3
Minimum Parking Standards for Mixed Use Districts
(Amended, Bill No. 2009-6; Bill No. 2019-4; Bill no. 2024- __)
Land Use Type Off Street Parking Ratio
MU-R and MU-C MU-N
Commercial Retail * 4 3
Commercial Services * 3 2
Office * 3.3 2
Civic * 3 2
Hotel or motel (per room) 1 1
Residential Townhouse ** 1.5 1.5
Residential Multifamily ** 1.25 1.25
Other Uses As determined by the Zoning Administrator
City Planner or Designee
*Per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
**Per dwelling unit. The Council may reduce the parking requirement for
senior housing, or other similarly low -driving populations, including but not
limited to, households earning below 60% AMI, people who are neuro -
diverse, and/or people with disabilities.
Subd. 2. Other Parking Requirements. All other parking requirements shall be
dictated by Section 544 of this Code.
Section 4 Subsection 544.13 of the Richfield Zoning Code, relating to the number of
off-street spaces required, the following excerpts from the table in
Subdivision 6, is amended to read as follows (entire table not included):
Subd. 6. Number of Off-Street Spaces Required. Off-street parking spaces shall be
provided according to the following minimum standards. Parking for land uses not
listed below shall be regulated according to the most similar use and/or
authoritative sources as determined by the City Planner.
Land Use Minimum Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required*
COMMERCIAL USES
Libraries, museums or art
galleries
3.33 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
Page 3 of 4
Land Use Minimum Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required*
Class III (Fast
food/convenience)
17 7 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
RESIDENTIAL USES
Multiple-family housing
Single and Two Family For R “Low Density Residential” zones, see Section 514.15, Subd.4
For R-1 “Single Family Residential” zones, see Section 518.15, Subd.3
Multifamily Dwellings 2 per unit. May be reduced to 1.25 per unit if factors warrant.
MR-1 District: two-
family dwelling
2 per housing unit, 1 of which must be enclosed. Only one (1) curb cut
is permitted to the property.
MR-2 District: 8 or
fewer units; 9 to 25 units
as a conditional use.
2 per housing unit. May be reduced to 1.25 spaces per unit for 7 or
more units if factors warrant.
MR-3 District: 20 or
fewer units; more than 20
units as a conditional use.
2 per housing unit. May be reduced to 1.25 spaces per unit for ten (10)
or more units if factors warrant.
INSTITUTIONAL/PUBLIC USES
No Changes Proposed
*If calculation results in a fraction, the next higher whole number shall be used traditional rounding
applies. For Mixed Use zones, see Section 537.09.
(Amended, Bill No. 2011-8; Bill No. 2011-13; Bill No. 2013-22; Bill No. 2015-15; Bill No. 2024-__)
Section 5 Subsection 544.13 of the Richfield Zoning Code is further amended at
Subdivision 9.d, to allow administrative approval of on-street parking toward
off-street requirements, to read as follows:
Page 4 of 4
d) Parking for retail and service uses may be reduced if on -street parking is adjacent
to the parcel and where all of the following conditions exist: (Amended, Bill No.
2021-17 )
i. The principal building is located within 20 feet of the front property line;
ii. No parking exists between the front face of the principal building and the street;
iii. A sidewalk exists along all sides of the lot that abut a public street;
iv. A primary building entrance must face the street with parking; and
v. If the Council Director finds that such parking will not be detrimental to the
surrounding neighborhood. (Amended Bill No. 2024-__)
Section 6 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 ___ day of ___, 2024.
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wynn, Acting City Clerk
Wilson Pond
Adams HillPond
SheridanPark Pond
Richfield Lake
Wood Lake
AugsburgPond
Norby'sPond
MilnerPond Legion Lake
ChristianParkPond
71st 1/2
70th 1/2
LOGAN75th
VINCENTUPTONTHOMASWASHBURNXERXESI - 494
78th
77th
76th
OLIVERNEWTONMORGANSHERIDANRUSSELLQUEENPENN74th
72nd
73th
71st
69th
70th
DUPONTKNOXJAMESIRVINGHUMBOLDTGIRARDFREMONTEMERSONCOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDGRANDHARRIETLYNDALE62nd
67th
68th
66th
65th
64th
63rd SHERIDAN1700240031002300WASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRAND69th
71st
72nd
73th
74th
75th
78th
70th
76th
77th
COLUMBUS2nd1stSTEVENSPLEASANTPILLSBURYBLAISDELLWENTWORTHNICOLLET3rdCLINTON4th5thPORTLANDOAKLANDPARK10th11th12th13th14thELLIOTCHICAGO15th16th17th18thCEDARBLOOMINGTON62nd
63rd
64th
65th
67th
68th
66thCOLUMBUSPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1st2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18th
1900800900100011001200130018006005004003002005010012420030032440050062070072080090010001100130014001500160017001800100152419006001200000700140029002800270026002500220021002000300015001600Washington
LincolnField
Donaldson
RooseveltFremontMadisonGarfieldRichfieldLake ChristianAdamsHill
Sheridan
Wood LakeNatureCenter
Vets Memorial
Taft
Taft
Little Bob'sNicolletMonroeApple BlossomHerediaFairwoodJeffersonAugsburg
C i t y of Ri c h f ie l d Zo n i n g M ap
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
¯
Community Development DepartmentApril, 2023
Legend
R Low DensityResidential
R-1 Single FamilyResidential
PMR Planned Multi-Family
MR-2 Multi-Family
MR-3 High-DensityMulti-Family
SO Service Office
C-1 CommunityCommercial
C-2 GeneralCommercial
PC-2 Planned GeneralCommercial
PMU Planned MixedUse
MU-C Mixed Use-Community
MU-N Mixed Use-Neighborhood
MU-R Mixed Use-Regional
I Industrial
Cedar Ave CorridorOverlay District
Penn Ave CorridorOverlay District
Veteran's Park AreaOverlay District
Parks
Lakes
City Limits
Table B: Approved and Existing Apartment Buildings
Studios 1-bed 2-bed 3-bed Total
#
Beds
Total
#
Units Parking Req @ 1.25 /unit With 10% Credit # Parking Built @ Per
Unit
Ratio
Per
Bed
Ratio Zoning Year
Built Current max (110%) If max. is 1.5/unit * If in St. Louis Park * If in Hopkins Emi
101 E. 66th Str.
38 30 11 1 93 80 100 90 116^ 1.45 1.25 PMU N/A 110 120 91 92
RF Flats
7700 Pillsbury
0 13 27 15 112 55 69 62 83 1.5 .75 PMR N/A 76 83 84 97
Novo
2400 66th Str.
29 94 56 0 235 179 224 202 259< 1.45 1.10 PMR 2018 246 269 217 235
Landsby
6200 Penn
21 52 49 5 186 127 159 143 159 1.25 .85 MU-
C
2019 175 191 154
181
Chamberlain
6700 RF Pkwy.
138 59 82 2 367 284 355 319 333 1.17 .90 PMR 2018 391 426 340 365
Concierge
7700 Penn
0 696 2 0 700 698 873 786 1,079 1.55 2.8 MR-
3
1968 960 1047 734 700
Riley
600 W. 64th Str.
78 25 1 0 105 104 130 117 121 1.16 1.15 PMU 2021 143 156 110 105
Rya
6400 RF Pkwy
50 86 74 8 308 218 273 246 297 1.36 0.96 PMR 2021 300 327 276 300
# For being within a quarter mile of a frequent transit route
@ Both Emi and RF Flats have not been constructed yet – just approved.
* Number of parking spaces required if St. Louis Park or Hopkins regulations were applied.
^ Includes a small commercial space on the first floor.
< parking above the maximum allowed b/c it did not increase impervious surface (interior to garage).
Department Feedback
Fire
• Access to congested parking areas is challenging for fire apparatus and firefighters to navigate. This is
dangerous for the personnel exiting and entering the apparatus, who must retrieve equipment
quickly.
• The fire department responds to medicals with an ambulance, which also has difficulty accessing
single-family homes and apartment buildings. Remember that certain call types may also include the
police department’s response, adding to the number of vehicles.
• Safety for the residents is also a concern, and they must mitigate around an emergency scene. The
road is often blocked until all units clear.
Public Safety
• A reduction in available parking stalls could force individuals with vehicles, or those dependent on
vehicle transportation (persons with disabilities requiring handicap parking or special transportation
arrangements), to park further from their destination. It is important that the disability community
is brought to the table to find strategies that do not create inaccessible environments for individuals
with disabilities or people with limited mobility. A lack of adequate, proximal parking for disabled
persons may result in increased traffic/parking-related complaints (for example, more frequent
handicap parking violations).
• A reduction in available off-street parking stalls could force more vehicles to park on public streets.
In Richfield, some streets are narrower than others. An increase in on-street parking density and
weather (snow) could adversely affect the ability for traffic to safely navigate the roadway –
especially larger vehicles such as garbage trucks, buses, or emergency vehicles. These issues were
regularly addressed by Richfield’s Traffic Control Committee – and often required on-street parking
restrictions (temporary or permanent) that required additional enforcement efforts.
• Vehicle-cluttered public streets – especially those without a nearby sidewalk or bicycle path - could
be more hazardous to bicyclists and/or pedestrians. Narrower roadways, due to congested on-street
parking, could force bicyclists and pedestrians onto the main travelled portion of the roadway and
increase the risk of a collision with a motor vehicle.
Public Works
The primary concern from Public Works staff is that a blanket reduction in parking minimums may result
in excessive on-street parking in areas that are not suited to handle this amount of parking (e.g.
developments bordering arterial roads with little or no on-street parking available, areas with narrow
roadway widths, areas where winter maintenance may be difficult or impossible with on-street parking,
areas where public safety operations or access would be impacted by on-street parking, areas where on-
street parking is already fully or partially restricted and such restrictions must remain in-place, etc.)
Public Works staff preference is that the current discretionary language be retained and to allow a
reduction to 1.25 stalls with consideration of site specific and context sensitive factors (as recommended
in the staff report). Alternatively, Public Works staff are not opposed to a blanket reduction in the
requirement to 1.25 stalls/unit, but request that there is either clear language in the ordinance or at
minimum a clear understanding from Council that on-street parking restrictions (and the resulting
effects) may be required during development plan approvals or after construction if safety and/or
maintenance issues arise.