Loading...
07-23-2024 City Council AgendaREGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, COUNCIL CHAMBERS JULY 23, 2024 7:00 PM INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Pledge of Allegiance Open forum Call into the open forum by dialing 1-415-655-0001 Use webinar access code: 2631 334 4144 and password: 1234. Please refer to the Council Agenda & Minutes web page for additional ways to submit comments. Approval of the Minutes of the (1) Joint City Council and Planning Commission Work Session of July 9, 2024; and (2) City Council Meeting of July 9, 2024. AGENDA APPROVAL 1.Approval of the Agenda 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.Consider the approval of a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for St. Peter Catholic Church, located at 6730 Nicollet Avenue South, for their Tri Fest Harvest 2024 event taking place September 21- 22, 2024. Staff Report No. 96 B.Consider the approval of a resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for funds in the amount of $91,500.00 to be used for stormwater model updates and capital planning. Staff Report No. 97 C.Ratify the correction of a typographical error in Resolution No. 12222, which authorized an application for Livable Communities grant funding, changing the name of the project from "Richfield Flats" to "Penn Station, 6501-25 Penn Avenue South." Staff Report No. 98 D.Consider the adoption of a resolution appointing election judges for the Primary Election on August 13, 2024. Staff Report No. 99 3.Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar PROPOSED ORDINANCES 4.Consider a second reading and summary publication of an ordinance amendment adjusting parking requirements. Staff Report No. 100 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT 5.City Manager's Report CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 6.Claims and Payroll COUNCIL DISCUSSION 7.Hats Off to Hometown Hits 8.Adjournment 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 City Council Joint Work Session July 9, 2024 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Supple called the joint work session to order at 5:45 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room. Council Members Present: Council Members Absent: Planning Commission Members Present: Commissioners Absent: Mary Supple, Mayor; Sharon Christensen; Sean Hayford Oleary, Ben Whalen Simon Trautmann Brett Stursa, Brendan Kennealy, Cole Hooey, Ben Surma, Matt Taraldsen Eddie Holmvig-Johnson and Stephanie Kowalkowski Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director; Sam Crosby, Planner II; Jennifer Anderson, Support Services Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; Joe Sathe, Assistant City Attorney; Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk; and Kelly Wynn, Administrative Assistant ITEM #1 DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL CANNABIS REGULATIONS City Manager Rodriguez provided a summary and turned the item over to Planner Crosby. Planner Crosby presented the staff recommendation to the group. She shared details related to the retail of cannabis. Council Member Christensen asked for clarification between a retail outlet and a municipal dispensary. Planner Crosby clarified that a municipal dispensary would be considered a retail outlet, just owned municipally. Commissioner Hooey asked why it is a required minimum of three and what that looks like. City Council Work Session Minutes -2- July 9, 2024 Planner Crosby stated that they seem to have the demand for at least three so they should have no problem meeting that minimum. Council Member Hayford Oleary noted his support for the cap of three retail outlets. Commissioner Kennealy asked for clarification on whether a municipal dispensary counts towards the cap. Planner Crosby noted that it does not count towards the cap. Planner Crosby presented details related to the zoning districts and what staff recommends is allowed in these districts. She noted staff recommends only allowing retailers, event organizers, and maybe micro production in the commercial zoning districts. All other uses would be allowed in the industrial zoning district. Commissioner Stursa asked for clarification on what an event organizer means. Planner Crosby explained that it’s a marketing position and wouldn’t be doing any retail sales, just organizing events. Commissioner Kennealy asked if an event organizer would potentially have samples around. Planner Crosby noted that they are not able to sell any products but is unsure about the samples. Commissioner Hooey asked if a general event organizer would need to be classified as this specific type of event organizer if cannabis is available at the event. Assistant Attorney Sathe explained that if an event organizer would be planning an event where cannabis is on site, they would need to obtain this specific license/permit. He explained more details about the regulations related to cannabis at events. Attorney Tietjen explained that a city can have a separate cannabis license than the State has. Council Member Hayford Oleary suggested lifting restrictions on LPHE, since sales are already allowed throughout the community. Planner Crosby agreed and thanked him for catching this. Planner Crosby explained staff recommends adopting the maximum buffers that are allowed by the State. She noted the number of spaces that would be available for retailers based on the maximum buffers, half buffers and no buffers. Commissioner Surma asked for further explanation on the reason for buffers in some areas. Planner Crosby explained the details that are listed in the State statute and how it applied to areas in the city. Assistant Attorney Sathe further explained what is considered a park in relation to the State statute. Commissioner Hooey shared his concerns for increasing stigma around these types of business if they increase these buffers and restrictions. City Council Work Session Minutes -3- July 9, 2024 Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he agrees with Commissioner Hooey and supports the half buffer. Council Member Whalen noted how he feels about the zoning regarding Cedar Avenue. Commissioner Kennealy agreed that the full buffer feels too aggressive. Mayor Supple also shared her agreement for the use of the half buffer. In response to a question by Commissioner Hooey, Manager Anderson explained that since this is a relatively new retail space, they won’t really have studies based on the proximity of cannabis retailers to education centers and the increase in use. However, health studies demonstrate an increase in use in proximity to tobacco shops, which indicates that buffers are effective tools. Council Member Hayford Oleary asked about the process of identification that would take place in these retailers for minors. Manager Anderson noted that other places on the east coast ID at entrance and it might just depend on the retailer. Commissioner Surma also shared his support for a half buffer. Council Member Whalen asked about the turnover rate for these locations available for retail. Planner Crosby noted that some of these businesses already have store fronts purchased in these approved areas and are just waiting on permits. Commissioner Kennealy supports a smaller buffer around schools and parks. Mayor Supple stated that due to further discussion she may be in support of a full buffer and at minimum, a half buffer. Commissioner Stursa noted agreement on a half buffer. Planner Crosby explained the staff recommendation for distance separation of retailers. Council Member Hayford Oleary noted that he feels like they should do nothing about distance separation and leave it up to the small businesses. Commissioner Hooey recommended something smaller, such as 1,000 feet. Council Member Christensen agrees with not implementing a distance separation. Council Member Whalen shared his opinion that some distance separation is desirable. Commissioner Kennealy stated he thinks that half buffers will create enough space between retailers, and they won't need to implement a distance separation. Commissioner Taraldsen stated he doesn't think they need to implement both buffers and distance separations. Commissioner Stursa stated that she supports a short distance separation; like enough to prevent all three from being in the same strip mall City Council Work Session Minutes -4- July 9, 2024 Commissioner Hooey asked about a distance separation regulation on cannabis to tobacco/liquor stores. Planner Crosby presented that staff recommends the same hours of operation as the City’s liquor stores. Commissioner Kennealy noted that surrounding cities have implemented more convenient hours of operations and staff may want to look into changing these suggested hours. Council Member Hayford Oleary shared his concern for treating Sunday differently and would like to see that changed to match other days. Council Member Whalen concurred. Planner Crosby presented the staff recommendation to prohibit cannabis businesses as home occupations except for event organizers. There seemed to be general consensus regarding the staff recommendation. Mayor Supple asked if there are any precautions in place around samples that event organizers may give. Assistant Attorney Sathe explained how usually business owners will have to obtain something from a state level. Planner Crosby presented the staff recommendations regarding signage – to reference the state statute in the appropriate locations. There seemed to be general consensus regarding the staff recommendation. Commissioner Hooey asked if there is any City code that regulates the amount of store signage on windows and doors. Planner Crosby noted City code states that no more than 30% of windows can be covered with signage. Commissioner Surma asked what the current rules are around light up signage. Planner Crosby noted that City code does not give much detail on this topic. Director Poehlman explained that flashing signs are prohibited and there are some special rules related to illuminated signs in certain districts. Planner Crosby presented the staff recommendation to implement the maximum fee possible to offset staff time and expenses for compliance inspections. Council Member Hayford Oleary asked how much these fees would be. Manager Anderson explained that the State would license the applicants and the city may provide a registration fee. She estimated the fees might be around $125 and another $125 for renewal. She explained what these fees will cover. Council Member Hayford Oleary supports the maximum fee. Commissioner Taraldsen also supports the maximum fee to better offset staff time being used. City Council Work Session Minutes -5- July 9, 2024 Assistant City Attorney Sathe clarified that the fees are expected to be a maximum of half the state fee or $500 for initial registration and $1,000 per annual renewal. So slightly more, but still relatively low. Commissioner Hooey asked what the process will be for deciding which applicants will be accepted to open retail business. Manager Anderson explained that applicants will apply through the State, and it will go through inspections then be sent to the city. If the city receives more than a few applications, it will likely be first come, first serve. Mayor Supple asked for feedback on limiting shared entrances or requiring a cop or some kind of entrance regulation. The group discussed the possibility of restrictions that could be placed on entrance. Council Member Hayford Oleary supports welcoming these businesses in having a good base relationship with public safety. Planner Crosby provided a brief recap of what had been discussed and decided on during tonight’s meeting and provided the anticipated timeline for moving forward. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Supple adjourned the work session at 6:50 pm. Date Approved: July 23, 2024 Mary B. Supple Mayor Michelle Friedrich Katie Rodriguez City Clerk City Manager 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; Simon Trautmann; Sean Hayford Oleary; and Ben Whalen Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director; Mike Flaherty, Deputy Chief; Jennifer Anderson, Support Services Manager; Mike Dobesh, Fire Chief; Joe Powers, City Engineer; Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk; and Kelly Wynn, Administrative Assistant PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Supple led the Pledge of Allegiance. City Manager Rodriquez welcomed the new City Clerk. 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 Heidi Geibor, 915 Wentworth, Richfield, discussed the problems and solutions she sees with the roads in Richfield. She would like the Council to look into these problems. Sharon Meister, 6414 Harriet Avenue South, Richfield, shared the many issues that have started since the opening of the Lynvue Apartments. She asked the Council to find new ways to face these parking-related issues. Stephanie Sather, 6320 Clinton Avenue, Richfield, asked the Council about the cannabis laws in the City of Richfield. Shelly Jagger, 6420 Harriet Avenue South, Richfield, also brought up concerns in regard to the parking issues brought on by the Lynvue Apartments. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Council Meeting July 9, 2024 CALL TO ORDER City Council Meeting Minutes -2- July 9, 2024 APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Hayford-Oleary, S/Trautmann to approve the minutes of the: (1) Special Council Closed Session June 18, 2024; (2) City Council Work Session Meeting June 25, 2024; (3) City Council Meeting June 25 Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #1 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA M/Whalen, S/Hayford Oleary to approve the Agenda. Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #2 CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager Rodriguez presented the consent calendar. A. 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. (Staff Report No.93) RESOLUTION NO. 12222 RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES PRE DEVELOPMENT FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS M/Whalen, S/Christensen to approve consent calendar. Motion Carried: 5-0 ITEM #3 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR None. ITEM #4 SECOND READING OF A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDING FUNDING FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FROM THE LIQUOR CONTRIBUTIONS SPECIAL REVENUE FUND (STAFF REPORT NO.94) Council Member Whalen presented Staff Report 94. M/Whalen, S/Hayford Oleary to approve the second reading of a transitory ordinance providing for the expenditure of money from the liquor contribution special revenue fund for certain capital improvements. City Council Meeting Minutes -3- July 9, 2024 Whalen noted that the existing liquor store profits are not enough to cover all of the community needs and fund planned projects. Council Member Trautmann discussed examples of what these funds will be used to fix in the City. Motion Carried: 5-0 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 ITEM #5 CONSIDER A FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ADJUSTING PARKING REQUIREMENTS (STAFF REPORT NO. 95) Council Member Hayford Oleary presented Staff Report 95. M/Hayford Oleary, S/Christensen to approve a first reading of an ordinance amendment adjusting parking requirements. Whalen noted that he is more comfortable with the Planning Commission’s version and would like less discretion as a part of the amendment. Council Member Hayford Oleary shared his agreement with Council Member Whalen for the Planning Commission's proposed amendment. He believes they should begin to be more proactive on limiting street parking in these areas. Director Poehlman noted that their preference for discretion is based on access issues and street safety. Fire Chief Dobesh discussed the issues that arise due to these parking problems, noting he would like to be able to maintain some leverage. Deputy Chief Flaherty reported the safety concerns regarding the parking problems. Engineer Powers discussed the problems that may arise in maintenance of roadways as well as supporting public safety. He believes they can approach these problems in a context and site specific lens. Council Member Hayford Oleary asked why it makes sense to have a higher standard for this MR2 MR3 district. Engineer Powers shared this is a City-wide policy that they are concerned with. Director Poehlman noted that this is already the standard in the mixed use districts. She reported that the higher standards are due to where they are located and the issues that they have seen. Mayor Supple explained that she would prefer to allow the discretion in the Staff recommended version to leave room for negotiation. She also feels that it is important to let residents know what certain procedures are. City Council Meeting Minutes -4- July 9, 2024 Engineer Powers explained that they do have a Traffic Control Committee made up of internal staff. Residents can submit a traffic issue on their website and the Committee discusses these on an individual basis. Council Member Trautmann asked if staff had the ability to utilize the Traffic Control Committee. Engineer Powers shared that the Committee is mainly utilized by residents, but staff does have the ability to utilize it and they have considered issues brought up by staff. Mayor Supple asked if they can have sign clarification to show where parking is permitted. Engineer Powers noted that this would be a perfect use for the Committee. Council Member Hayford Oleary asked if they could begin to look at parking restrictions at the development review point of the process when building large spaces like apartment buildings. Engineer Powers explained that they are considering adding this development process. Mayor Supple asked about the procedure for residents who see cars parking near fire hydrants. Deputy Chief Flaherty noted that if a resident sees a parking issue, they can call the non- emergency number and they will come and address the issue. Council Member Whalen asked if staff has any comment on the issues related to places where they have enough parking, but are still seeing problems with street parking. Director Poehlman noted that many people prefer to use free street parking rather than pay for parking. She explained that increasing parking restrictions could force more people to pay for parking in the lots. Mayor Supple asked if they are able to require developers to make free parking available in the building. Director Poehlman noted that she doesn't think it aligns with the Council's goals to make developers allow free parking. Attorney Tietjen explained that it could be problematic to require developers to allow free parking. Council Member Trautmann thanked the Council and Staff for their input on the issue. He shared that he is in favor of the Planning Commission's proposal and feels that they should utilize the Traffic Control Committee. Council Member Whalen noted that if they go with discretion, he would like it to be much more specific. Council Member Christensen shared that they could do some negotiation with developers and tenets to solve these parking issues. Mayor Supple reported that she sees a consensus in utilizing tools they already have to take care of all public safety concerns in these areas. She noted that she is concerned with the parking maximums and sees that they should revise the maximum. City Council Meeting Minutes -5-July 9, 2024 Director Poehlman explained that the revised parking maximums are included in the Planning Commission's proposal. Mayor Supple asked if they can require additional parking for the disabled. Director Poehlman explained that handicap parking requirements are prescribed by the building code. She doesn't anticipate a large difference in the amount of handicap stalls. Council Member Hayford Oleary noted that since the streets are so wide it may be harder to regulate parking requirements. Mayor Supple shared that she would like to be proactive on these sidewalk issues instead of reactive. Motion Carried: 4-1 (Mayor Supple) ITEM #6 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT City Manager Rodriguez thanked the Council and Staff for their discussion of the parking issue topic. She asked City Attorney Tietjen to clarify the facts about whether Richfield as a charter city has to State law. Attorney Tietjen shared that charter cities are not exempt from State law. She gave examples of how State laws apply to cities. ITEM #7 CLAIMS AND PAYROLL M/Trautmann, S/Christensen that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. BANK 07/05/2024 A/P Checks: 329475 - 329753 $849,465.53 Payroll: 188804 – 189199 43946 – 43949 $1,008,960.70 TOTAL $1,858,426.23 Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #8 HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS Council Member Whalen thanked all involved in the 4th of July event. He also recommended the story time at Augsburg Park to anyone with small children Council Member Christensen thanked all involved in the 4th of July Committee. She also gave hats off to the weekly farmers market for its continued growth. Council Member Hayford Oleary thanked the 4th of July Committee and the Staff involved. He shared his excitement for the Nicolet Avenue open house. City Council Meeting Minutes -6-July 9, 2024 Council Member Trautmann also thanked all volunteers, staff, and the Committee involved in organizing the 4th of July event. Mayor Supple thanked all community members who spoke at the public hearing and gave feedback. She gave kudos to the Bloomington Public Health, as the CDC has given them reaccreditation for the Public Health Accreditation Board. She thanked the Fire Department for their work in the community. She also reported that the neighbors of Jefferson Park have put together a wildflower garden next to the playground. She thanked anyone involved in the 4th of July event. ITEM #9 ADJOURNMENT M/Trautmann, S/Christensen to adjourn the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Motion carried: 5-0 Date Approved: July 23, 2024 Mary B. Supple Mayor Katie Rodriguez Michelle Friedrich City Clerk City Manager AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #2.A. STAFF REPORT NO. 96 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7/23/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Ellen Cutter, Business Licensing Clerk DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police 7/16/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 7/17/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider the approval of a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for St. Peter Catholic Church, located at 6730 Nicollet Avenue South, for their Tri Fest Harvest 2024 event taking place September 21-22, 2024. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On July 8, 2024, the City received application materials for a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for St. Peter Catholic Church, located at 6730 Nicollet Avenue South, for their Tri Fest Harvest 2024 event taking place September 21-22, 2024. They will serve intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor from 11:00 a.m.to 8:30 p.m. on Saturday, September 21, and from 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on Sunday, September 22, 2024. There will also be food vendors. The Director of Public Safety has reviewed all required information and documents and has found no basis for denial. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve issuance of a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for St. Peter Catholic Church, located at 6730 Nicollet Avenue South, for their Tri Fest Harvest 2024 event taking place on September 21-22, 2024. 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.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): 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. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: There are no critical timing issues. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: The required licensing fees have been received. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: There are no legal considerations. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): The Council could deny the approval of the Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for St. Peter Catholic Church. 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. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: St. Peter Catholic Church staff has been notified of the date of this meeting. AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #2.B. STAFF REPORT NO. 97 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7/23/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Mattias Oddsson, Water Resources Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher - Public Works Director 7/16/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez - City Manager 7/17/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider the approval of a resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for funds in the amount of $91,500.00 to be used for stormwater model updates and capital planning. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: City staff submitted an application for a Planning and Design grant through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Stormwater and Wastewater Infrastructure Projects program. The City received notice that the application was successful in June of this year. The grant funds are planned to be used for updating the 2018 city-wide stormwater model as well as to finance a study that will help identify capital projects that bring flood risk reduction benefits to neighborhoods within the City. The value of the grant agreement is $91,500. The City is committed to a matching amount of $50,000 for a total project effort of $141,500.00 RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: approve the resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (SWIFT Contract No. 243381) BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT The City of Richfield retained Barr Engineering Company in 2018 to develop a City-wide stormwater model. This model is used to ascertain the serviceability of the City’s storm sewer system as well as to identify areas within the City that are vulnerable to flooding under significant storm events. The model outputs are used by staff for asset management and project prioritization purposes. The planning and design study that the City is proposing to undertake with this grant funding will allow for continued progress in this capacity by assessing the City’s vulnerabilities to flood inundation and prioritizing stormwater infrastructure improvements. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS The study will include utilization of the documented environmental justice areas of concern and social vulnerability data. The results of the study will introduce the sought-after considerations of equity into the City’s capital programming for project prioritization. This aspect of capital planning has not been done historically. The funding secured through this agreement will help satisfy two key strategic priorities including Sustainable Infrastructure and Equity and Inclusion. The updated model will inform the asset management plan and serve as a guide to project planning and programming. The outcome of the study for 'project prioritization' will identify capital projects through an equity-based framework. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The resolution authorizing execution of this agreement is required by the MPCA. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The deadline for project completion under the grant agreement is June 30th, 2025, the end of the State's fiscal year. Proceeding with approval of the agreement in a timely manner is crucial to ensure all tasks can be completed in time. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: An amount of $50,000 will be put-forth by the City using Stormwater Utility funds. This is budgeted for in fiscal years 2024 and 2025 (53000-6103). F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The grant agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Grant Agreement Contract/Agreement Resolution Resolution Letter 1 Grant Agreement State of Minnesota SWIFT Contract number: 243381 AI: 92870 Activity ID: PRO20240001 This grant agreement is between the state of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 (“MPCA” or “State”), and The City of Richfield, 6221 Portland Avenue S. Richfield, MN 55423 ("Grantee"). Recitals 1. Under Minn. Stat. § 116.03, subd. 2, the State is empowered to enter into this grant. 2. The State is in need of the Overflow Sewer Grant Program. 3. Grantee will comply with required grants management policies and procedures set forth through Minn. Stat. § 16B.97, subd. 4(a)(1). 4. The Grantee represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all services described in this grant agreement to the satisfaction of the State. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, subd. 1, the Grantee agrees to minimize administrative costs as a condition of this grant. Grant Agreement 1. Term of Grant Agreement 1.1 Effective date: July 12, 2024, Per Minn. Stat.§16B.98, subd. 5, the Grantee must not begin work until this grant contract is fully executed and the State's Authorized Representative has notified the Grantee that work may commence. Per Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, subd. 7, no payments will be made to the Grantee until this grant agreement is fully executed. 1.2 Expiration date: June 30 2025, or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. 1.3 Survival of terms. The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this grant agreement: Indemnification; State Audits; Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; Publicity and Endorsement; Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; and Data Disclosure. 2. Grantee’s duties The Grantee, who is not a state employee, will perform the duties specified in Attachment A, which is attached and incorporated into this grant agreement. Docusign Envelope ID: B1B334A5-8EFB-4211-A712-9F20A9D7AD2B 2 3. Time The Grantee must comply with all the time requirements described in this grant agreement. In the performance of this grant agreement, time is of the essence. 4. Consideration and payment 4.1 Consideration. The State will pay for all services performed by the Grantee under this grant agreement as follows: (a) Compensation. The Grantee will be paid according to the breakdown of costs contained in Attachment A, which is attached and incorporated into this grant agreement. (b) Travel expenses. Reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessarily incurred by the Grantee as a result of this grant agreement will not exceed $0.00; provided that the Grantee will be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current "Commissioner’s Plan” promulgated by the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB). The Grantee will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside Minnesota unless it has received the State’s prior written approval for out of state travel. Minnesota will be considered the home state for determining whether travel is out of state. (c) Total obligation. The total obligation of the State for all compensation and reimbursements to the Grantee under this grant agreement will not exceed $91,500.00 (Ninety-One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents). 4.2 Payment (a) Invoices. The State will promptly pay the Grantee after the Grantee presents an itemized invoice for the services actually performed and the State’s Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services. Invoices must be submitted timely and according to the following schedule: upon completion of services. Email updates about the status of the project are required to be provided to the MPCA Authorized Representative whenever an invoice is submitted to MPCA Accounts Payable. The MPCA Authorized Representative will not approve an invoice through the state system without this project update. Invoices must be emailed to mpca.ap@state.mn.us, and contain the following information: • Name of Grantee • Grantee project manager • Project grant amount • Grant funds expended this invoice • Matching funds expended this invoice • Grant funds expended to date • Matching funds expended to date • Invoice number • Invoice date • MPCA project manager; • SWIFT Contract No. • Invoicing period (actual working period) • Consultant costs; invoices may be requested Docusign Envelope ID: B1B334A5-8EFB-4211-A712-9F20A9D7AD2B 3 • Time breakdown of invoice. Amount billed to date for work, including itemization of actual hourly rates • Itemized per diem expenses; receipts may be requested to be submitted with invoice • Other items as requested If there is a problem with submitting an invoice electronically, please contact the Accounts Payable Unit at 651-757-2491. The Grantee shall submit an invoice for the final payment within 15 (fifteen) days of the original or amended end date of this grant agreement. The State reserves the right to review submitted invoices after 15 (fifteen) days and make a determination as to payment. (b) Federal funds. Payments under this grant agreement may be made from federal funds obtained by the State through Section 319 (h), CFDA number 66.447 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The Grantee is responsible for compliance with all federal requirements imposed on these funds and accepts full financial responsibility for any requirements imposed by the Grantee’s failure to comply with federal requirements. Additional terms and conditions are located at: https://www.epa.gov/grants/grant-terms- and-conditions (c) The Grantee must promptly return to the State any unexpended funds that have not been accounted for annually in a financial report to the State due at grant closeout. 4.3 Contracting and bidding requirements Per Minn. Stat. §471.345, grantees that are municipalities as defined in Subd. 1 must follow the law. (a) For projects that include construction work and have a total project cost of $25,000 or more, prevailing wage rules apply per Minn. Stat. §§ 177.41 through 177.44; consequently, the bid request must state the project is subject to prevailing wage. These rules require that the wages of laborers and workers should be comparable to wages paid for similar work in the community as a whole. A prevailing wage form should accompany these bid submittals. (b) The grantee must not contract with vendors who are suspended or debarred in Minnesota (found on the Minnesota Department of Administration website at https://mn.gov/admin/osp/government/suspended-debarred/. 5. Conditions of payment All services provided by the Grantee under this grant agreement must be performed to the State’s satisfaction, as determined at the sole discretion of the State’s Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The Grantee will not receive payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal, state, or local law. 6. Authorized Representative The State's Authorized Representative is Pam Foster, 525 Lake Avenue South, Duluth, MN 55802, 218-302-6619, pamela.foster@state.mn.us, or their successor, and has the authority to monitor the Grantee’s performance and to accept the services provided under this agreement. Docusign Envelope ID: B1B334A5-8EFB-4211-A712-9F20A9D7AD2B 4 The Grantee’s Authorized Representative is Mattias Oddsson, 6221 Portland Avenue S. Richfield, MN 55423, 612-861-9797, moddsson@richfieldmn.gov, or their successor. If the Grantee’s Authorized Representative changes at any time during this grant agreement, the Grantee must immediately notify the State. 7. Assignment, Amendments, Change Orders, Waiver, and Grant Agreement complete 7.1 Assignment. The Grantee shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this grant agreement without the prior written consent of the State, approved by the same parties who executed and approved this grant agreement, or their successors in office. 7.2 Amendments. Any amendments to this grant agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original grant agreement, or their successors in office. 7.3 Change Orders. If the State's Project Manager or the Grantee’s Authorized Representative identifies a change needed in the workplan and/or budget, either party may initiate a Change Order using the Change Order Form provided by the MPCA. Change Orders may not delay or jeopardize the success of the Project, alter the overall scope of the Project, increase or decrease the overall amount of the Contract/Agreement, or cause an extension of the term of this Agreement. Major changes require an Amendment rather than a Change Order. The Change Order Form must be approved and signed by the State's Project Manager and the Grantee’s Authorized Representative in advance of doing the work. Documented changes will then become an integral and enforceable part of the Agreement. The MPCA has the sole discretion on the determination of whether a requested change is a Change Order or an Amendment. The state reserves the right to refuse any Change Order requests. 7.4 Waiver. If the State fails to enforce any provision of this grant agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or the State’s right to enforce it. 7.5 Grant Agreement complete. This grant agreement contains all negotiations and agreements between the State and the Grantee. No other understanding regarding this grant agreement, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party. 8. Indemnification The Grantee must indemnify, save, and hold the State, its agents, and employees harmless from any claims or causes of action, including attorney’s fees incurred by the State, arising from the performance of this grant agreement by the Grantee or the Grantee’s agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies the Grantee may have for the State's failure to fulfill its obligations under this grant agreement. 9. State audits Under Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, subd.8, the Grantee’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the Grantee or other party relevant to this grant agreement or transaction are subject to examination by the State and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this grant agreement, receipt and approval of all final reports, or the required period of time to satisfy all state and program retention requirements, whichever is later. 10. Government data practices and intellectual property 10.1 Government data practices. The Grantee and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the Docusign Envelope ID: B1B334A5-8EFB-4211-A712-9F20A9D7AD2B 5 State under this grant agreement, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Grantee under this grant agreement. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Grantee or the State. If the Grantee receives a request to release the data referred to in this Clause, the Grantee must immediately notify the State. The State will give the Grantee instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. The Grantee’s response to the request shall comply with applicable law. 10.2 Intellectual property rights (a) Intellectual property rights. The personal computer stormwater management model (PCSWMM) updates, environmental justice analysis, climate adaption assessment, and flood control project identification and feasibility study described in Attachment A are either licensed by third parties or shall be owned by the Grantee or third parties and shall not be considered "Works" or "Documents" under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing exception, the State owns all rights, title and interest in all of the intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and service marks in the Works and Documents created and paid for under this grant agreement. Works means all inventions, improvements, discoveries (whether or not patentable), databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings specifications, materials, tapes, and disks conceived, reduced to practice, created or originated by the Grantee, its employees, agents, and subcontractors, either individually or jointly with others in the performance of this grant agreement. Works includes “Documents.” Documents are the originals of any databases, computer programs, reports, notes studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, disks, or other materials, whether in tangible or electronic forms, prepared by the Grantee, its employees, agents, or subcontractors, in the performance of this grant agreement. The Documents shall be the exclusive property of the State and all such Documents must be immediately returned to the State by the Grantee, at the Grantee’s expense, upon the written request of the State, or upon completion, termination, or cancellation of this grant agreement. To the extent possible, those Works eligible for copyright protection under the United States’ Copyright Act will be deemed to be “works made for hire.” The Grantee assigns all right, title, and interest it may have in the Works and the Documents to the State. The Grantee must, at the request of the State, execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the State’s ownership interest in the Works and Documents. (b) Obligations. (1) Notification and Usage. Upon the State's written request and to the extent permitted by law, the Grantee must promptly furnish the Authorized Representative with complete information and/or disclosure of the Works, Documents, PCSWMM updates, environmental justice analysis, climate adaption assessment, and flood control project identification and feasibility study described in Attachment A. The State shall have the right to use the Works, Documents, PCSWMM updates, environmental justice analysis, climate adaption assessment, and flood control project identification and feasibility study described in Attachment A, in the normal course of government work for State Purposes consistent with this Contract. (2) Representation. The Grantee must perform all acts, and take all steps necessary to ensure that all intellectual property rights in the Works and Documents are the sole property of the State, and that neither Grantee nor its employees, agents, or Docusign Envelope ID: B1B334A5-8EFB-4211-A712-9F20A9D7AD2B 6 subcontractors retain any interest in and to the Works and Documents. The Grantee represents and warrants that the Works and Documents do not and will not infringe upon any intellectual property rights of other persons or entities. Notwithstanding Clause Liability, the Grantee shall indemnify, defend, to the extent permitted by the Attorney General, and hold harmless the State, at the Grantee’s expense, from any action or claim brought against the State to the extent that it is based on a claim that all or part of the Works or Documents infringe upon the intellectual property rights of others. The Grantee will be responsible for payment of any and all such claims, demands, obligations, liabilities, costs, and damages, including, but not limited to, attorney fees. If such a claim or action arises or in Grantee’s or the State’s opinion is likely to arise, the Grantee must, at the State’s discretion, either procure for the State the right or license to use the intellectual property rights at issue or replace or modify the allegedly infringing Works or Documents as necessary and appropriate to obviate the infringement claim. This remedy of the State will be in addition to and not exclusive of other remedies provided by law. (3) License. The State hereby grants a limited, no-fee, noncommercial license to the Grantee to enable the Grantee and the Grantee’s employees engaged in research, scholarly pursuits, municipal infrastructure planning and design, or make capital improvements to make, have made, reproduce, modify, distribute, perform, and otherwise use the Works, including Documents, for research activities, to publish in scholarly or professional journals, for municipal infrastructure planning and design, or make capital improvements provided that any existing or future intellectual property rights in the Works or Documents (including patents, licenses, trade or service marks, trade secrets, or copyrights) are not prejudiced or infringed upon, that the Minnesota Data Practices Act is complied with, and that individual rights to privacy are not violated. The Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the State for any claim or action based on the Grantee’s use of the Works or Documents under the provisions of Clause 10.2(b)(2). Said license is subject to the State’s publicity and acknowledgement requirements set forth in this grant agreement. The Grantee may reproduce and retain a copy of the Works and Documents for research, academic use, municipal infrastructure planning and design, and making capital improvements. The Grantee is responsible for security of the Grantee’s copy of the Documents. The Grantee hereby grants the State a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free, non- sublicensable, perpetual license to use, copy, prepare derivative works, and modify the Works, Documents, PCSWMM updates, environmental justice analysis, climate adaption assessment, and flood control project identification and feasibility study described in Attachment A, for State Purposes consistent with this Contract, provided that any existing or future intellectual property rights in the Works or Documents (including patents, licenses, trade or service marks, trade secrets, or copyrights) are not prejudiced or infringed upon, that the Minnesota Data Practices Act is complied with, and that individual rights to privacy are not violated. Unless otherwise specified in the Contract, the State is the governmental entity on whose behalf or through which the State entered into this contract. State Purpose means a non-commercial purpose consistent with the mission of the governmental entity on whose behalf or through which the State entered into this contract. Docusign Envelope ID: B1B334A5-8EFB-4211-A712-9F20A9D7AD2B 7 11. Workers’ compensation The Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with Minn. Stat. § 176.181, subd. 2, pertaining to workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The Grantee’s employees and agents will not be considered State employees. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act on behalf of these employees and any claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of these employees are in no way the State’s obligation or responsibility. 12. Publicity and endorsement 12.1 Publicity. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of this grant agreement must identify the State as the sponsoring agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State’s Authorized Representative. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Grantee individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from this grant agreement. 12.2 Endorsement. The Grantee must not claim that the State endorses its products or services. 13. Governing law, jurisdiction, and venue Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this grant agreement. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this grant agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 14. Termination 14.1 Termination by the State. The State may immediately terminate this grant agreement with or without cause, upon 30-days’ written notice to the Grantee. Upon termination, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 14.2 Termination for cause. The State may immediately terminate this grant agreement if the State finds that there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of this grant agreement, that reasonable progress has not been made or that the purposes for which the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled. The State may take action to protect the interests of the state of Minnesota, including the refusal to disburse additional funds and requiring the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed. 14.3 Termination for insufficient funding. The State may immediately terminate this grant agreement if: (a) Federal funds. Payments under this Contract will be made from federal funds obtained by the State through Section 319 (h), CFDA Number 66.447 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The Contractor is responsible for compliance with all federal requirements imposed on these funds and accepts full financial responsibility for any requirements imposed by the Contractor’s failure to comply with federal requirements. (b) Or, if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here. Termination must be by written or fax notice to the Grantee. The State is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination. However, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if the agreement is terminated because of the Docusign Envelope ID: B1B334A5-8EFB-4211-A712-9F20A9D7AD2B 8 decision of the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. The State must provide the Grantee notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the State’s receiving that notice. 15. Data disclosure Under Minn. Stat. § 270C.65, subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Grantee consents to disclosure of its social security number, federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Grantee to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities, if any. To protect Grantee’s personal data, Grantee is strongly encouraged to obtain and use a Minnesota tax identification number. 16. Reporting requirements Final Report. By the date specified in the project workplan and in a format provided by the MPCA, the Grantee shall submit a final report to the MPCA, plus all project deliverables identified in the workplan. If the MPCA determines that the information submitted in the Final Report and/or Project Deliverables is inadequate, the Grantee shall prepare and submit additional / corrected information reasonably requested by the MPCA. The Final Report and Project Deliverables shall not be approved by the MPCA and final payment shall not be disbursed unless the Report and Deliverables contains the specified information to the satisfaction of the MPCA. Signatures Docusign Envelope ID: B1B334A5-8EFB-4211-A712-9F20A9D7AD2B Encumbrance VerificationJohnson,Patricia July 12, 2024 Mattias Oddsson https://www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats e-admin9-38b • 9/29/20 Page 1 of 2 Project Workplan Doc Type: Contract SWIFT Contract number: 243381 Agency Interest ID: 92870 Activity ID: PRO20240001 Project title: Overflow Sewer Grant Program (OSG) 1. Project summary: Organization: City of Richfield Contractor contact name: Mattias Oddsson Title: Water Resources Engineer Address: City of Richfield 6221 Portland Avenue S. Richfield, MN 55423 Phone: 612-861-9797 Email: moddsson@richfieldmn.gov Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) contact: MPCA project manager: Pam Foster Title: Asst. CWRF coordinator Address: 525 Lake Avenue South Duluth MN 55802 Phone: 218-302-6619 Email: Pamela.foster@state.mn.us Project information Start date: 07/2024 End date: 06/30/2025 Total cost: $91,500 Brief project summary: The City of Richfield will conduct a Planning and Design Study that will include an assessment on the city’s infrastructure vulnerabilities to flood inundation in order to determine prioritization for stormwater infrastructure improvements. This will include creating hydrologic and hydraulic models to identify flood inundation extents and potential flood-prone structures. This includes making updates to reflect changes in stormwater infrastructure and pond bathymetry as well as incorporating future climate change projections to help consider the impact of long-term extreme weather trends on flood mitigation. The study will also incorporate environmental justice (EJ) data to prioritize capital improvement projects in EJ areas as well as evaluate if there are system deficiencies correlated with environmental justice components. The highest priority areas will be considered for an alternatives-level feasibility study to identify specific green infrastructure and storm sewer improvements that will increase resilience in the most critical areas in the city. The results of this study will be made publicly available through the city website, presented to City Council, and presented at a public open house. 2. Workplan detail Objective 1: Stormwater Planning and Design Study Task A: Project administration and personalized computer storm water management model (PCSWMM) updates: Updates to current hydrologic and hydraulic model to reflect changes in stormwater infrastructure and pond bathymetry and incorporate future climate change projections. Task B: Environmental justice analysis: Use previous infrastructure risk analysis and flood inundation mapping to Attachment A Docusign Envelope ID: B1B334A5-8EFB-4211-A712-9F20A9D7AD2B https://www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats e-admin9-38b • 9/29/20 Page 2 of 2 incorporate environmental justice data to evaluate and prioritize capital improvement projects and identify deficiencies. Task C: Climate adaption assessment: The City plans to model and map the mid-21st century 100-year 24-hour moderate rainfall estimate of 10.2 inches, which is similar to the upper limits of the Atlas 14 90-percent confidence limits, to help consider the impact of long-term extreme weather trends on flood mitigation. Task D: Flood control project identification and feasibility study: study results will be incorporated with available environmental justice data to identify the top priority flood risk areas in Richfield. The three highest priority areas will be considered for an alternatives-level feasibility study to identify specific green infrastructure and storm sewer improvements that will increase resilience in the most critical areas in the city. The results of this study will be made publicly available through the city website, presented to City Council, and presented at a public open house. 3. Project budget Totals Project Budget Objective 1 Planning and Design Study Total Grant $91,500.00 Docusign Envelope ID: B1B334A5-8EFB-4211-A712-9F20A9D7AD2B RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ACCEPT A SEWER OVERFLOW AND STORMWATER REUSE GRANT FROM THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield is the official governing body of the City of Richfield, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has applied for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Grant; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has awarded up to $91,500.00 in grant funding for this project; and WHEREAS, the funds awarded shall be used for improvements to the City of Richfield’s stormwater model, environmental justice analysis, climate adaptation assessment, and flood control project prioritization; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution by a two-thirds majority of the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to take any and all actions required to accept the grant services and materials for and on behalf of the City. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of July, 2024. Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Kelly Wynn, Interim City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #2.C. STAFF REPORT NO. 98 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7/23/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Julie Urban, Asst. Community Development Director DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Julie Urban, Acting Community Development Director 7/16/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 7/17/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Ratify the correction of a typographical error in Resolution No. 12222, which authorized an application for Livable Communities grant funding, changing the name of the project from "Richfield Flats" to "Penn Station, 6501-25 Penn Avenue South." EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On July 9, 2024, the City Council approved Resolution No. 12222, authorizing application to the Metropolitan Council for Livable Communities Act Pre-Development funding for the proposed Penn Station development to be located at 6501-25 Penn Avenue South. The staff report and resolution mistakenly used two different names for the project, Richfield Flats and Penn Station, including the wrong name (Richfield Flats) in the resolution itself. The grant application and the authorizing resolution were due on July 22nd. The City Attorney determined that the incorrect name was a typographical error and that it was appropriate to correct the error in order to submit the grant application on time. She recommends that the Council ratify that correction to confirm that it meets the Council's intent. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Ratify the correction of a typographical error in Resolution No. 12222 to confirm that the application for Livable Communities Pre-Development grant funds is on behalf of the Penn Station development, 6501-6525 Penn Avenue South. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT JO 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 City recently submitted a request for a Livable Communities Act (LCA) Pre-Development grant in the amount of $100,000 on behalf of the Developer to assist with preliminary development activities. LCA 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 MSP 2040 goals. Eligible costs are for early-stage activities like design workshops, site design, financial studies, project impact analyses, and community engagement. The Developer presented the project concept to the HRA, City Council, and Planning Commission on April 15, 2024. The HRA approved a Preliminary Development Agreement with the Developer on June 17, 2024, and approved an Amendment to the Agreement on July 9, 2024. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS 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 Area Median Income (AMI). The proposed affordable housing development would help to meet the Strategic Plan goal to maintain Richfield as an affordable place to live. The Developer 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; Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC); people who are or have been unsheltered, and large families with children. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The Metropolitan Council requires the City to be the applicant and to submit a resolution in support of the grant application. It is the City's policy to seek grant funding when available and as appropriate. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The grant application was due July 22, 2024, and a resolution of support was required to be submitted as part of the application. Awards are expected in September. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding would be provided by the Metropolitan Council. Community Development has the staff capacity to administer the grant, if awarded funds. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney determined that "Richfield Flats" was a typographical error and that it was appropriate to correct the error in order to submit the grant application on time. She further recommended that the Council ratify the correction to confirm that it met the Council's intent. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): Decide not to ratify the correction and direct staff to pull the grant application from consideration. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: NA ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Redlined Resolution Backup Material RESOLUTION NO. 12222 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 Penn Station 6501-25 Penn Avenue S AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #2.D. STAFF REPORT NO. 99 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7/23/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 7/17/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider the adoption of a resolution appointing election judges for the Primary Election on August 13, 2024. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The State Primary Election is on August 13, 2024. Election judges have been assigned to the precincts based on availability and party balance. There are 87 election judges. An absentee ballot board must also be established per Minnesota Statutes, Section 203B.121. The absentee ballot board, which includes Hennepin County Election Staff, will examine all received absentee ballot envelopes and accept or reject absentee ballots. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt a resolution appointing election judges for the Primary Election of August 13, 2024. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT Minnesota Statute 204B.21 Subd. 2 provides that election judges for precincts in a municipality shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality and that the appointments be made at least 25 days before the election at which the election judges will serve. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The City Council is required by State Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2, to make election judge appointments. The draft resolution contains names of those qualified individuals who have indicated a willingness and ability to serve as an election judge for the Primary Election on August 13, 2024. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Election judge appointment is a requirement per State Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2. The July 23, 2024 Council meeting is the closest meeting after the appointment due date to approve the resolution. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Council must appoint election judges to serve at these elections to comply with Minnesota Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2. Resident and non-residents can complete an application for consideration to serve as an election judge to the County Auditor pursuant to the provisions of M.S. 204B.21 Subd. 1, and may include those who have previously served or have indicated an interest in serving. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): N/A PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Election Judge Appointments - Primary Election 2024 Resolution Letter City of Richfield July 23, 2024 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE PRIMARY ELECTION BEING HELD ON AUGUST 13, 2024 WHEREAS, Minnesota Election Law 204B.21 requires that persons serving as election judges be appointed by the Council; and WHEREAS, the city is responsible for hiring and training election judges and absentee ballot board election judges, and utilizes individuals who have previously served or who are new, and city staff; and WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council also establishes an Absentee Ballot Board as authorized under Minn. Stat. 203B.121, and authorize the City Clerk to oversee the appointment and procedural processes of the Absentee Ballot Board; and WHEREAS, per State Statute, 204B.21, Subd. 2, the Richfield City Clerk is authorized to appoint additional election judges and absentee ballot board election judges within 25 days prior to any election if additional election judges will be required; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, that the individuals named on Exhibit A, and on file in the office of the City Clerk be appointed as the City of Richfield Election Judges for the August 13, 2024, Primary election. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of July, 2024. Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk City of Richfield July 23, 2024 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A Primary Election Judges Joyce Anderson John Ashmead Barbara Bauer Valerie G Belton Rosemary Bernau Rosalie Bjorkman Richard Burgos Christie Burke Willis Cahill Rebecca Case Sally Cassellius Carrie Chillman Mary Clark Margaret Cole Gretchen L Crow John Cushing Scott Dahlquist Blue Delliquanti Callmie V. Dennis Katrina DeVore Cynthia Dubansky Joanne Ehren Dahlquist Taryn Ellis Debbie Eng Carolyn Engeldinger Brie Ericksson Mary Jo Fadell Derek T Field Megan Forsmark Nicole L Franklin Myriah Garvey Arend J Geurink Judith Goebel Jade Goswami Jane Greene Roger Guarino Rebecca Guarino Mary Hayden Dennis A. Heidelberg Ruth Hiland Dean Hoffman Amanda K Kaiser Dawn Keaveny Carol Kellett Claire Killian Erica R. Klein Katie Lankton Joan M Lash Emily Lodermeier Nicole Mattson Adri Melander Robert Mulcahy Sarah Musgrave Carol Nelson Thu T Nguyen Cindy Norland Robert Olson Nathan Palmer Gregg T. Parmelee Wayne Peterson Heather Polivka Susan W. Poore James Reilly Jay E Rossom Richard Rubenstein Robert Sakkinen Maureen Scaglia Lynn M Schoonmaker Anne Schuette Michael Smith K. Lashel Solberg John A Swanson Roger Swanson Elaine Swanson Kristin Swenson Matthew J Taraldsen Cheryl Thiele Davin M Tormanen Mary Jo Tuttle John Twisk Lois Webb-Bradford Mark Wegener Bob Wells Karin Wolverton Charles Wright Amy Yescavage Michael Zazzera AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED ORDINANCES AGENDA ITEM #4. STAFF REPORT NO. 100 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7/23/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Sam Crosby, Planner II DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Julie Urban, Acting Community Development Director 7/16/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 7/17/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider a second reading and summary publication of an ordinance amendment adjusting parking requirements. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At its April 25, 2023, work session on policy topic priorities, the Council directed 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 Commission and the City Council on February 26, 2024. The attached ordinance is a result of the direction provided by Council Members and Commissioners at the work session. In short, the ordinance updates the City’s parking requirements in the following ways: 1. Reduce the requirements for a Class III 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. 5. Revise the parking maximum for multi-family only to ensure 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 recommended that the Council 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-frequency transit lines and stations. Following Council discussion, the first reading was approved on July 9th. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: 1. Approve the second reading of an ordinance amendment to adjust parking requirements, and 2. Approve a resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT Initiated by Council with the 2023 policy priorities. A joint work session was held with the Planning Commission and City Council on February 25, 2024. The Planning Commission public hearing was held on May 29, 2024. The first reading was approved on July 9th. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Strategic Outcomes: Sustainable Infrastructure – As 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 Affordable Place to Live – As land costs rise, and land availability decreases, the cost of parking increases the cost of housing. Diversified Tax Base – Making sure the City’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. Equity Considerations: 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. Potential unintended consequences include reducing the amount of ADA 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.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): A Pedestrian Master Plan was approved in 2018, but the recommended policy changes have not been formally adopted. Policies or work to add sidewalks would be in strong collaboration with, if not led by, the Engineering Department and would involve the Sustainability Commission as well as the Transportation Commission. If desired, the Council could propose the study of the City’s sidewalk policies via the annual Policy Proposal Process. In relation to the transit-oriented reductions, the Metropolitan Council has awarded the City $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. For exact language, see the ordinance, attached. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: In early 2023, the City Council requested that this issue be addressed as one of its policy topic priorities. It has since been included in the Planning & Zoning work plan and was scheduled to be completed in the first half of 2024. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: It is anticipated that certain multi-family 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 Public Work’s and Public Safety’s daily operations. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: Notice of the public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting was published in the Sun Current newspaper on May 16th. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the attached ordinance at its May 29th meeting. The first reading was approved on July 9, 2024. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the ordinance amendment with changes. Deny the ordinance amendment and direct staff to reconsider one or more aspects. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Parking Ordinance Ordinance Summary Publication Resolution Resolution Letter Approved and Existing Apartment Bldgs Backup Material 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 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 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 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 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, pParking 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, pParking 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: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. _____ RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE ADJUSTING PARKING REQUIREMENTS 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 ADJUSTING PARKING REQUIREMENTS This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. This ordinance amendment updates the City’s parking requirements in the following ways:  Reduce the requirements for a Class III Restaurant from 17 stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area to 7 stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.  Create a requirement for libraries, museums, and art galleries of 3.33 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.  Expand the Council’s flexibility in relation to non-driving populations: In addition to senior housing, the proposed amendment adds “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”.  Adjust the requirement for multifamily housing to be consistent across all zoning districts at 1.25 stalls per unit, and eliminate the language for discretion based on context such as pedestrian orientation.  Revise the parking maximum, for multifamily only - from a percentage of the minimum, to 1.5 stalls per unit.  Make a couple minor housekeeping changes. 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 23rd day of July, 2024. Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk Table B: Approved and Existing Apartment Buildings – with maximums – REVISED 7-12-24 Studios 1-bed 2-bed 3-bed Total # Beds Total # Units Parking Req at 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. 37 104 51 0 243 192 240 216 246 1.28 1.01 PMR 2019 264 288 229 243 Landsby 6200 Penn 5 73 49 5 191 132 165 149 216< n/a< .86 MU- C 2019 181 198 170 186 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. < Includes some parking for Lunds grocery store. Yellow highlight indicates project where the current maximum parking limitation would’ve been too restrictive.