2025-02-24 WS Planning Commission and City Council AgendaJOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL W ORK SESSION
RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, BARTHOLOMEW ROOM
FEBRUARY 24, 2025
5:45 PM
Call to order
1.Discuss the potential changes to the MR-2 & MR-3 zoning districts.
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.
AGENDA SECTION:Work Session Items
AGENDA ITEM #1.
STAFF REPORT NO. 5
WORK SESSION
2/24/2025
REPORT PREPARED BY: Sam Crosby, Planner II, and Lance Bernard, Director of Planning, TC2
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director
2/18/2025
Sack Thongvanh, Asst. City Manager
2/19/2025
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
ITEM FOR WORK SESSION:
Discuss the potential changes to the MR-2 & MR-3 zoning districts.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The current development parameters of the MR-2 “Multifamily Residential” and MR-3 “High Density
Residential” zoning districts are outdated and impractical. The City is modernizing these districts to:
facilitate infill development of small-sized multifamily housing,
better align with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan goals (see Attachment A), and
accommodate the density ranges prescribed by the medium and high density residential land use
categories (35 units per acre, and 100 units per acre, respectively).
The goal is to appropriately regulate new multifamily housing, while maintaining context sensitivity, and
promoting both an attractive street frontage and pedestrian friendly design. It is important to note that this
effort does not involve rezoning any properties at this time (see Attachment B).
The modernization of the MR-2 and MR-3 zoning districts will follow a three-tiered approach, which breaks
the project down into manageable parts (see Attachment C). Tier I tackles high level design elements, which
pertain to building size and placement. Tier II will concentrate on the building itself, and Tier III will address
remaining design elements, such as lighting and screening.
This first work session will focus on Tier 1, High Level Standards (see Attachment D). In Tier I, staff has
applied the philosophy that zoning regulates a building’s exterior, while the building code governs its interior.
Consequently, Tier I includes parameters such as height and setbacks, while the number of units within the
building would be determined by factors such as floor area and egress requirements.
The Tier I standards also look to expand housing options and improve affordability by reducing parking
requirements and streamlining the permitting processes. Based on feedback from the 2024 parking code
update, staff have identified areas where residential parking requirements could be further reduced or
eliminated (see Attachment E). Additionally, staff will emphasize design standards to enhance confidence in
project outcomes, allowing for a more efficient review and approval process for smaller projects.
During the work session staff will: briefly outline the project goals and explain the project approach;
summarize the Tier I, High Level Recommended Standards graphically depicted by fit test scenarios; and
review the next steps.
DIRECTION NEEDED:
Staff is seeking direction on the proposed Tier I, High Level Recommended Standards (Attachment
D). Are we on the right track, or are there specific parameters we should reconsider before moving
on? Also, we welcome any feedback on the public engagement activities and next steps.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Historically, Richfield - and many other suburbs around the country - began turning away from middle housing
types during the post-WW2 housing boom that prioritized single family housing. Multifamily development
requirements that ascribe the same height and setback requirements as single-family homes have contributed
to a lack of middle housing types being built over the past 40 years.
Modernizing these historically restrictive regulations is one the most effective ways to facilitate the development
of a diversity of housing options. Diverse housing options increase both choice and affordability, which were
both citied by community members as significant concerns and high priorities during the 2018 Comprehensive
Plan Update.
As a result, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan initiated two significant zoning updates related to housing. The first,
which pertained to the “Low Density Residential” land use category, reintroduced duplexes to the “R” Low
Density Residential zoning district and adjusted development parameters to support their construction. This
was completed in 2023. Now, this second update, pertaining to the “Medium Density Residential” and “High
Density Residential” land use categories, aims to adjust development parameters in associated zoning
districts to accommodate missing middle type housing and infill development.
With the financial support of a Met Council Livable Community Act Policy Development Grant, staff has been
collaborating with TC2, a planning consulting firm, to analyze existing conditions, identify the challenges and
opportunities associated with various infill examples (see Attachment F), and research best practices. After
developing the recommended high-level standards, the consultants tested them on several parcels and
analyzed the viability of their development (see Attachment G). The suggested standards were also routed to
the City's Administrative Review Committee (ARC) for feedback and adjusted accordingly. The
recommendations before you are the result of these efforts.
B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS
The changes being considered support more than one of the Council’s strategic outcomes. First and foremost,
it will help maintain Richfield as an affordable place to live.
It will also promote climate resiliency, as facilitating the construction of infill housing helps mitigate sprawl and
dependence on private automobiles. Smaller dwellings have a lower per capita energy use. According to the
American Council for Energy Efficiency and Economics, shared walls and HVAC systems utilize far fewer
resources than detached dwellings.
The proposed increase in administrative project approvals will further the Community Development strategic
initiative to “update development review processes and procedures."
Finally, the changes would also help to reduce racial inequities and barriers for traditionally excluded groups.
Middle housing has historically given working-class families, which tend to have a greater population of people
of color, access to more affordable homes. Facilitating the development of missing middle housing near jobs,
amenities, services and transit will make strides toward undoing past discriminatory practices by providing
more units that are attainable to communities of color. Regardless of race or income, housing should be
available for everyone; arguments to the contrary are exclusionary.
C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
The 2040 Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 2018) is the foundation for this work. Attachment A is a list of
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies that support the code analysis and reform.
In short, the goal of the project is to make it feasible to build missing middle housing in Richfield. This will
increase housing options, support housing affordability, optimize land use, and support a walkable community,
among other things.
Next Steps and Public Outreach
March 2025:
Launch a project website that provides information about the project and the opportunity to provide
comments and suggestions.
Mail a postcard to owners of properties that are either currently zoned MR-2 or MR-3, or are guided to
become these zoning districts in the future. The postcard will direct people to the City’s website.
Promote the project and its website through social media channels, Richfield Recap, and local
newspaper.
Reach out to the Chamber of Commerce, Realtors Association, and housing advocacy groups.
March-April 2025: Assess the Tier II and Tier III parameters.
May: Hold a second work session to review Tier II and III parameters.
May-July 2025: Additional public outreach prior to drafting the formal ordinance language.
D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
Metropolitan Council grant funds need to be used by the end of June 30, 2026.
Staff hopes to complete the zoning code updates by the fall of 2025, to coincide with the next
comprehensive plan update which will start in 2026.
E.FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
ALTERNATIVE(S):
Offer modifications or further suggestions.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
A. Related Comp Plan Goals and Policies Backup Material
B. Existing & Future Multifamily Parcels Map Backup Material
C. Three Tiers Overview Backup Material
D. Tier I, High Level Recommended Standards Backup Material
E. Areas for Potential Parking Reductions Map Backup Material
F. Infill Project Examples Backup Material
G. Fit Test Scenarios Backup Material
Related Comp Plan Goals and Policies
CP Goals:
Provide a full range of housing choices that meet residents’ needs at every stage of their lives,
and ensure a healthy balance of housing types that meet the needs of a diverse population with
diverse needs.
Maintain and enhance Richfield’s commitment to housing … redevelopment, resulting in an
attractive, desirable and prosperous community.
CP Policies:
Strongly encourage pedestrian-friendly and transit-friendly building and site design through
measures such as higher density development and growth, which is located along major
transportation routes.
Regularly review land use and zoning ordinances to ensure maximum opportunities for
strengthening housing choices.
Promote the development of a balanced housing stock that is available to a range of income
levels.
Establish a land use pattern and supporting infrastructure that preserves and enhances the
ability of residents to make personal connections in their neighborhoods.
Provide a full range of housing choices that contribute to vital and desirable neighborhoods that
welcome diversity of age, race, and physical ability; while maintaining a comfortable small town
atmosphere.
Require site design and architectural characteristics that provide appropriate transitions
between lower and higher intensity uses.
Develop residential standards (scale, density, etc.) for redevelopment areas that create
neighborhood character.
Focus commercial and higher density residential development along major thoroughfares.
Ensure that redevelopment and infill projects maintain the integrity of existing neighborhoods.
Give priority to projects that meet the following criteria when considering proposals for market-
rate, multifamily housing:
» Located in transitional areas between single-family neighborhoods and commercial areas.
» Offers a complementary size and style to the community.
» Includes a mix of unit sizes and amenities.
» Includes amenities to build community and encourage active lifestyles.
» Offers a mix of residential and complementary commercial uses that embody and preserve the
feel of the “Urban Hometown” in their design.
» Offers flexibility in their design to accommodate market changes.
THE THREE TIERS OVERVIEW
(MR-2 & MR-3 Ordinance Revision Steps)
In order to manage the scope of updating two zoning districts at the
same time, building regulations for multifamily housing have been
broken-down into three tiers:
Site Area (lot size)
Building (aka lot) Coverage
Impervious Area
Lot Width
Building Height
Setbacks
Parking
Unit Sizes
Open Space
Number of Units by Bedrooms
Approval Process
Massing Limits (4th floor
setbacks, wall plane changes)
Minimum Window Requirements
Blank Wall Limits
Principal/Front Entry Emphasis
Interaction with Street
Parking Location, Setbacks
Shared Access
Use of alley required when
present
Roof Overhangs
Contextual Considerations
Exterior Materials
Lighting
Sidewalks
Trash Enclosures
Other Screening Requirements
Purpose Section
TIER I, HIGH LEVEL: SIZING AND PLACING THE BOX
TIER II, MID LEVEL: SHAPING THE BOX
TIER III, GROUND LEVEL: DETAILS AROUND THE BOX
Richfield City Council/Planning Commission Work Session (Feb.24, 2025)
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 1
Tier I, High Level - Recommended Standards
If a standard conflicts with an existing overlay district provision, the overlay district provision prevails.
1. Site Area
City Definition: Subd. 68."Lot area." The total horizontal area bounded by the front, side, and rear
lot lines. With respect to planned unit developments only, lot area may include, at the discretion of
the Director, areas of the right-of-way that are improved and integral to the design of the project.
(Amended, Bill No. 2014-4).
Purpose: A minimum lot size dictates how much land is required for different types of
development, ensuring appropriate density and promoting compatible land use.
Medium Density Standard
a) Existing MR-2: 15,000 sf (0.34 acres) min.
b) Proposed: 6,000 sf (0.13 acres) min.
High Density Standard
a) Existing MR-3: 60,000 sf (1.37 acres) min.
b) Proposed: 6,000 sf (0.13 acres) min.
Reasoning: The proposed standards are the same standard as the R zoning district. The goal is to
permit the smallest allowed use (3 units) on a standard-sized lot. This approach minimizes the
need for land assembly, which has been identified as a key obstacle for middle housing.
2. Lot Coverage
City Definition: Subd. 70. "Lot coverage." The total ground area covered by buildings on a lot,
excluding uncovered swimming pools, uncovered porches, or uncovered ground level landings.
Purpose: Lot Coverage limits help to control the ground cover of a project and the intensity of
development in a zoning district.
Medium Density Standard
a) Existing MR-2: 30% max.
b) Proposed: 45% max.
High Density Standard
a) Existing MR-3: 30% max.
b) Proposed: 55% max.
Reasoning: Lot coverage will naturally be limited by parking and impervious surface.
3. Impervious Surface
City Definition: Subd. 63. "Impervious surface." A surface that has been compacted or covered
with a layer of materials so that it is highly resistant to infiltration by water. It includes surfaces
such as compacted sand, limerock, or clay, as well as most conventionally surfaced streets, roofs,
sidewalks, parking lots, and other similar surfaces. Open uncovered decks or porches are not
included.
Richfield City Council/Planning Commission Work Session (Feb.24, 2025)
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 2
Propose: Limiting the amount of impervious surface helps regulate infiltration to reduce runoff
and flooding.
Medium Density Standard
a) Existing MR-2: N/A
b) Proposed: 70% max.
High Density Standard
a) Existing MR-3: N/A
b) Proposed: 75% max.
Reasoning: The proposed standards work with the minimum parking requirement. Mixed use
districts provide similar standards for impervious surface and open space requirements.
4. Site Width
City Definition: Subd. 76. “Lot line, front." On an interior lot, the lot line abutting a street; or, on a
corner lot, the shorter lot line abutting a street (or as otherwise designated by the Building
Official); or, on a through lot, the lot lines abutting the streets.
Purpose: A minimum lot width helps ensure that lots are wide enough to accommodate buildings,
driveways, and landscaping, promoting functional and accessible site design.
Medium Density Standard High Density Standard
a) Existing MR-2: 75 feet min. a) Existing MR-3: 150 feet min.
b) Proposed: 50 feet min. b) Proposed: 50 feet min.
Reasoning: The proposed standards are based on the prevalence of existing lots, helping to avoid
land assembly, which has been identified as a key obstacle.
5. Building Height
City Definition: Subd. 59. "Height of building." The vertical distance to the highest point of the roof
for flat roofs; to the deck line for mansard roofs; and to the average height between the highest roof
ridge and its associated eaves for gable, hip and gambrel roofs, as measured from the average
elevation of the lot adjoining the front building line.
Purpose: Building height limitations help to prevent overshadowing and to ensure compatibility
with surrounding structures.
Medium Density Standard
a) Existing MR-2: 35 feet max.
b) Proposed: 3 stories, 36 feet max.
Reasoning: Twelve feet per story provides sufficient design flexibility to accommodate two to three
story buildings.
Richfield City Council/Planning Commission Work Session (Feb.24, 2025)
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 3
High Density Standard
a) Existing MR-3: 50 feet max
b) Proposed: minimum 3 stories; maximum 5 stories, 60 feet
Additional building height standards include:
• Proximity to Transit Stations: Buildings within one block north or south of a high frequency
transit station or within the expanded Lyndale/66th “Downtown” area (see map) may extend
up to six stories (or 72 feet) to support transit-oriented development.
• When more than four stories: Floors above the third floor shall be stepped back a minimum
of 15 feet when adjacent to public streets and public land. Step backs may be adjusted
depending on specific site conditions and building placements.
• Transition Zones: Where a high-density residential zone abuts the south side of a Low
Density Residential District (R or R-1), the height of buildings within 50 feet of the boundary
shall not exceed three stories (or 38 feet) to maintain a gradual transition. (Simulates an
MR-2 height building, for the width of the minimum lot width requirement, when adjacent to
single or two family residential.)
• Section 544.23 requires that no building shall be so tall that its shadow is cast across more
than 50% of land used guided for a single-family or two-family building between the hours
of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on any day of the year.
Reasoning: Provides adequate transition between R and MR zoning districts. Minimum height
requirement ensures the efficient use of land and promotes a pedestrian-friendly streetscape.
Maximum height is balanced accordingly with MU-N zoning district that is eight stories max.
6. Setbacks
City Definition: Subd. 116. "Setback." The minimum horizontal distance required between a
building, structure, parking lot or other site improvement and the related front, side or rear lot
lines.
Purpose: Setbacks provide a buffer from property lines, space to accommodate landscaping or
walkways, and to ensure adequate light, ventilation, and privacy for neighboring properties.
Medium Density Standard
Front Setback
a) Existing MR-2: 30 feet min.
b) Proposed: 15 feet min and allow 6 feet of encroachment for front entry features, which are
unenclosed.
Side (Interior) Setback
a) Existing MR-2: 20 feet min. or building height
b) Proposed: 5 feet min.
Richfield City Council/Planning Commission Work Session (Feb.24, 2025)
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 4
Side (Corner) Setback
a) Existing MR-2: 30 feet min.
b) Proposed: 15 feet min.
Rear Setback
a) Existing MR-2: 25 feet min. or building height
b) Proposed: 20 feet min.
Reasoning:
• Front Setback: Encroachment “allowance” encourages front entry features which are “see
through” (i.e., decks, porches) but nine feet still allows enough space for front yard trees.
• Side (Interior) Setback: There are two story SFR with five foot side yard setbacks, one more
story is not a significant difference. In many cities, three stories are allowed for SFR as well.
• Side (Corner) Setback: A reduced setback aligns with the proposed front yard setback
while still supporting the maintenance of site triangle and planting areas within the side
yard.
• Rear Setback: A reduced setback provides greater flexibility with shallower multifamily lots
and aligns with some existing medium density development.
High Density Standard
Front Setback
a) Existing MR-3: 40 feet min.
b) Proposed: 15 feet min and allow 6 feet of encroachment for front entry features, which are
unenclosed (i.e., porches).
Side (Interior) Setback
a) Existing MR-3: 30 feet min or building height
b) Proposed: 8 feet min.
Side (Corner) Setback
a) Existing MR-3: 40 feet min.
b) Proposed: 15 feet min.
Rear Setback
a) Existing MR-3: 35 feet min.
b) Proposed: 20 feet min.
Reasoning:
• Front Setback: Encroachment “allowance” encourages front entry features which are “see
through” (i.e., decks, porches) but nine feet still allows enough space for front yard trees.
• Side (Interior) Setback: Building height adjacent to side lot lines limited based on context –
see height section.
Richfield City Council/Planning Commission Work Session (Feb.24, 2025)
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 5
• Side (Corner) Setback: A reduced setback aligns with the proposed front yard setback
while still supporting the maintenance of site triangle and planting areas within the side
yard.
• Rear Setback: A reduced setback provides greater flexibility with shallower lots.
7. Parking Requirements
City Definition: Subd.93 “Parking lot (area).” An authorized area not within a building where motor
vehicles are stored for the purpose of temporary, daily, or overnight off-street parking.
Purpose: Parking minimums provide adequate space for parking vehicles relative to anticipated
demand.
Medium & High Density Standard
a) Existing MR-2 and MR-3: 1.1 parking stalls per unit. (Based on 1.25 per unit with a 10% credit
for being within a 1/4-mile radius of a Frequently Operating Transit Line (FOTL), and a 5% credit
for extra bike parking.)
b) Proposed: Maintain existing standards and add the following:
• Reduce to 0.5 parking stalls per unit for parcels located 1 block* north or south of a High
Frequency Transit Station (HFTS).**
• Reduce to zero (0) parking stalls per unit if located within the expanded 66th/Lyndale
“Downtown” area.***
• Reduce parking requirements for cluster developments in the MR-2 zoning district to 1.25
parking stalls per unit. (Missed during last year’s parking update.)
• If an alley is present, allow direct pull-in parking stalls.
• Allow on-street parking to count towards triplex and fourplex on-street parking
requirements only if:
o the roadway (back of curb to back of curb) is 36 feet wide or greater,
o sufficient driveway space exists such that the full parking requirement could be
parked on-site during a snow event (e.g., tandem stacked in driveway),
o the applicant agrees to provide notification to future residents through lease and/or
sale agreements, so that residents are aware of snow emergency requirements to
move cars off-street, prior to moving in, and
o The City adopts two changes to the municipal code:
Add a clause that explicitly states that all on-street parking is public parking
and may be occupied by any vehicle regardless of vehicle ownership or
property ownership.
Section 1310 regarding residential parking permits, which has never been
used, is deleted.
* One block meaning where the next street to the north or south crosses - or would cross if the street
went through – see attached map.
** To be defined as stops with a 15-minute headway or less.
Richfield City Council/Planning Commission Work Session (Feb.24, 2025)
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 6
***To be described as being located on: either side of 66th Street, between Rae Drive to the west and
Stevens Avenue to the east; on either side of Lyndale Avenue, between Highway 62 to the north and either
67th Street W (along east side) or Lake Shore Drive (along west side) to the south; and on either side of
Nicollet Avenue, between 64th Street to the north and 67th Street East/AHA Way to the south.
Reasoning: The proposed standards help support Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and
walkable/bikeable neighborhoods. A half stall per unit around high frequency transit stations is
intended to accommodate maintenance calls, deliveries, and shared car programs, etc.
The zero (0) parking area is generally understood to be the downtown area, but since it has not
been formally defined, the term cannot yet be used. Once an official downtown area has been
adopted, the designated area can be adjusted accordingly. The off-street parking allowance
caveats are based on feedback from Engineering and Public Works.
8. Unit Sizes
City Definition: N/A
Purpose: A way of indirectly regulating housing density.
Medium & High Density Standard
a) Existing MR-2 and MR-3:
Eff: 400 sf min.
1 bed: 550 sf min.
2 bed: 750 sf min.
3+: add 150 sf for each bedroom over 2 beds
b) Proposed: Eliminate.
Reasoning: The building code already sets requirements for bedroom sizes, so having additional
regulations would be redundant and confusing. The focus should be on regulating the overall
structure, not its interior layout.
9. Open Space
City Definition: Subd.90 “Outdoor Open Space.” Lawns and other natural areas and open
courtyards. Open space does not include driveways, parking areas or sidewalks.
Purpose: Requiring a minimum amount of open space ensures that residents have readily
accessible areas for passive enjoyment. The City also has a definition for “Useable Open Space”
which is meant to be for more active enjoyment and does not include required landscape setback
areas unless intentionally designed for such.
Richfield City Council/Planning Commission Work Session (Feb.24, 2025)
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 7
Medium & High Density Standard
a) Existing MR-2: Min. of 325 sf per unit / MR-3: Min. of 300 sf per unit
b) Proposed: Eliminate the outdoor open space definition and instead use the “Useable Open
Space” definition, which is already used in the mixed-use districts. And require 10% of the lot
for MR-2 and 15% of the lot for MR-3, rather than a per unit calculation. Also retain the existing
balcony credit but limit hard-surfaced amenities to not more than 10%.
Reasoning: Both a single open space definition, and lot-based versus unit-based requirement,
will simplify and streamline the code. Richfield does not have a park dedication requirement,
which is typically 10% of a lot area and sometimes applies in addition to open space
requirements. Currently, in MR-2 and MR-3 districts, balconies and porches of at least 70 square
feet and seven feet in width, directly accessible from individual dwelling units, may count as 175
square feet toward open space requirements.
10. Number of Units by Bedrooms
City Definition: N/A
Purpose: Limits to the number of efficiency units was likely adopted (circa 1995) to ensure that a
variety of unit sizes were provided, to provide diversity in housing options. Smaller units tend to be
more affordable, while larger units tend to serve families. There is a benefit to having a variety of
unit sizes available, to serve a broad population, but at what proportion depends upon the
demographic of the rental community. Consequently, any one-unit size should not be severely
limited.
Medium & High Density Standard
a) Existing: Number of efficiencies limited to 20% of the units in MR-2, and 25% of the units in
MR-3.
b) Proposed: Eliminate.
Reasoning: Allow the market to determine the number of units. Similar to the rationale for unit size
standards, regulations should focus on the overall structure rather than its interior layout.
11. Approval Process
Purpose: To ensure proposals meet zoning rules and regulations consistently and in alignment
with the intent of the code.
Background: Currently, all commercial, industrial, multiple-family housing (3 or more units) and
institutional development applications are required to obtain full site plan approval. Full site plan
approval includes a public hearing, which takes - at a minimum - two months, and increases
project costs. The shift to an administrative site plan approval would not include a public hearing
process, can generally be processed in one month, and the application fee is less expensive.
Richfield City Council/Planning Commission Work Session (Feb.24, 2025)
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 8
Historically, Richfield has allowed multi-building developments called “group housing
development”. Currently, the code defines group housing as: “A development located on a single
lot that consists of two or more buildings, each of which contains 3 or more dwelling units”. This is
probably a relic from before the PUD code was adopted.
Medium Density Standard
a) Existing MR-2: Up to 8 units = site plan approval, 9 to 25 units = conditional use permit, over 25
units = not allowed no matter the lot size.
b) Proposed: By administrative site plan approval (no PC or CC) – Up to 16 units. Full site plan
approval (with PC & CC) for between 17 to 40 units. Conditional Use Permit for over 40 units.
Allow cluster homes as a permitted use with the same thresholds.
Reasoning: Will help shorten the application process and avoid the uncertainty of unknown
conditions for smaller projects, a stated obstacle.
High Density Standard
a) Existing MR-3: up to 20 units = site plan approval, more than 20 units = conditional use permit.
b) Proposed: By administrative site plan approval (no PC or CC) up to 40 units. Full site plan
approval (PC & CC) for between 41 to 100 units. Conditional Use Permit for over 100 units.
Change the name of the term “Group Housing Development” to “Multi-Building Development”
to avoid confusion and add “Multi-Building Development” as a permitted use in both MR-2 &
MR-3 districts, subject to the same thresholds.
Reasoning: For thresholds, same as for Medium Density. For multi-building development, this
would eliminate the need for a PUD if more than one principal building is desired on one lot. (A
PUD also triggers a rezoning and a conditional use permit.)
1 2 3 4 5 7 8
Sheridan Place Condos Penn Place TH Linden Row Condos Maple Court Condos Parkway Flats Cathedral Hill Apts.MPHA 6 Plex
Lot Size 0.47 ac (20,473 sq. ft.)0.56 ac (24,394 sq. ft.)0.25 ac (10,890 sq. ft.)0.44 ac (19,166 sq. ft.)0.24 ac (10,454 sq. ft.)1.93 ac (84,071 sq. ft.)0.28 ac (12,197 sq. ft.)
Number of Units 5 7 3 6 6 60 6
Density 10.6 du/ac 12 du/ac 12 du/ac 13.6 du/ac 25 du/ac 31 du/ac 21 du/ac
Building Height 2.5 stories 2.5 stories;
25 feet 2 stories 1 story 3 stories 3.5 Stores 3 stories
Lot Width 128'133'90'90.5'89'N/A 123'
Front Setback ~28'17'~26'~60'~15'10-12 '15'
Side Setbacks ~28' & 10'5' & 12'~5' & 25'10'~5' & 15'~8' btwn bldgs based on bldg. height (5' to 20')
Rear Setback ~42'~78'~48'58'~56'N/A based on bldg. height (5' to 20')
Amt. of Parking 10 encl, 10 unencl 2 car gar/unit 5 encl + 5 dw None, but could be 6 (1/unit)70 (1.16/unit)5 surface spaces
Parking Setbacks ~15 from alley 3'1-3 feet N/A ~0-5 ft.~ 8' front, 10' side
Bldg. Coverage ~45%33%26%~23%~32%70% max
Impervious ~63%75%?27%?~65 ~68%85% max
Year Built 2009 2004 2021 1928 2021 1904 2022 - 2023
Comments Alley access Corner lot, "Cluster Home
Regs" applied
Approx. 1,500 sq. ft. open = 500
sf/unit.
~2,100 sq. ft. courtyd =
350 sf/unit
(if front yd reduced to 10',
~17.6 du/ac)
Shared Access
12,132 sq. open space =
202 sf/unit
(0.27 ac per bldg.) Not small lot,
and not infill, but still a great
example.
Affordable, modular, 2023
Fianance & Commerce Top
Project. Ten 3-story 6-plex bldgs
and six, 2-story 4-plex modular
buildings.
Address 5000-5008 Sheridan Ave S, Mpls 6833-6845 Penn Ave, RF 3115-3123 43rd Str W, Mpls 17-27 54th Str E, Mpls 3915 31st Street W, St. Louis Park 268 Dayton Avenue, St. Paul 1602 & 1606 Penn Ave N, Mpls
Elevation
Aerial
~ Means approximated by aerial measurement
Medium Density
I N F I L L P R O J E C T E X A M P L E S
9 10 11 12 13 14
Pleasant Ave Apts Vista 44 Novelty Aster Commons 50th & Lyndale Apts Firefly
Lot Size 0.25 ac each (10,890 sq. ft. ea.)0.95 ac (41,382 sq. ft.)0.11 ac (4,792 sq. ft.)0.58 ac (25,265 sq. ft.) 0.26 ac (11,326 sq. ft.) 0.12 ac (5,227 sq. ft.)
Number of Units 11 each 50 7 38 units 20 12
Density 44 du/ac 52 du/ac 63 du/ac 65 du/ac 77 du/ac 100
Building Height 2.5 stories 4 stories; 49'10"3 stories
3 stories;
35 feet
4 stories;
52 ft, 6 in.3
Lot Width 98' each 121'38.9'220'97'38.4'
Front Setback ~22'28'20'10'15'20'
Side Setbacks ~10' & ~40 6' & 27'/ 43'5'5' & 58'7' & 15'5'
Rear Setback ~8'8'36.5'27'7'14.5'
Amt. of Parking 11 per bldg (1/unit)12 surface, 46 ug (1.16/unit)None 11*31 enclosed None
Parking Setbacks none 5' S, 10' F NA 15'N/A: all underground NA
Bldg. Coverage ~34%43%41%36%61%47%
Impervious ~68%71%60%69%82%63%
Year Built 1961 2023 2021 Not Yet Not Yet 2023
Comments Shared access, no ADA stalls Beacon Affordable Housing Project All 2 bedrooms, alley access
* Non-driving population near a transit
stop, MU-N Standards applied, w/ 5' var.
from 15' front setback to allow 10'
(Could've had ~24 more stalls
underground for a total of about 30)
19 undergound, 12 w/ car lift,
for 31 parking stalls total.
Dvlpr said couldn't be built today
because of interest rates. Whittier
Neighborhood.
Address 6301 & 6313 Pleasant Ave, RF 44 12th Ave. S, Hopkins 2521 Bloomington Ave. S, Mpls 6613-6625 Portland Ave, RF 5005 Lyndale Ave S, Mpls 2716 Grand Ave. S, Mpls
Elevation
Aerial
I N F I L L P R O J E C T E X A M P L E S
High Density
15 16 17 18
Solstice Apts. The Aubrey 1000 Main N&E
Lot Size 0.18 ac (7,841 sq. ft.)0.33 ac (14,375 sq. ft.)0.30 ac (13,030 sq. ft)0.49 ac (21,344 sq. ft.)
Number of Units 23 47 49 95
Density 128 du/ac 142 du/ac.163 du/ac 193 du/ac
Building Height 4 stories 5 stories 5 stories / 58.6'6 stories / 74'
Lot Width 60'83'132
Front Setback ~15'7.5-11.5 18.6'Varies: 7- to 0'
Side Setbacks 9.5 11' & 12'Varies: 12' to 0'
Rear Setback ~15'15.7'2'
Amt. of Parking None 32 13 stalls - all enclosed 53
Parking Setbacks NA N/A: enclosed in building NA NA - all enclosed
Bldg. Coverage ~60%67.5%56%87%
Impervious ~67%75%65%92%
Year Built 2024 2021 2022 2020
Comments Alley access Alley access
Market-rate apts, meets city's
inclusionary housing policy for
affordable units, alley access.
Apartments and Condos. 1st floor
(fronting Marshall) 3,400 sq. ft.
commercial. Alley access.
Address 633 Van Buren Str NE, Mpls.4222 Nicollet, Mpls 1000 Main Street NE, Mpls 1301 Marshall St NE, Mpls
Elevation
Aerial
Higher Density
I N F I L L P R O J E C T E X A M P L E S
Front Lot LineSidewalk
Street
Front Lot Line
Building
126’
50’
42’
8’
26’
15’ Setback
5’ Setback 5’ Setback
20’ Setback
Scenario 1: MR-2 | Single Lot with 3-4 Units | 6,300 SF | 0.14 Acres
Garage20’
12’
Accessory Building Setback (5’)
1st Level Front Porch + 2nd Level Balcony
2nd Level Balcony
Lower LevelEgress Window
Front Lot LineSidewalk
Street
Stairs
Lower LevelEgress Windows
Driveway Setback 1’From Property Line
Lot Coverage: 1,905 SF (30%)
Impervious Surface: 3,965 SF (63%)
Usable Open Space: 1,130 SF (18%)
0
SCALE: 1" = 16'-0"
32'16'8'
Front Lot LineSidewalk
Street
Front Lot Line
Building
126’
50’
42’
8’
26’
15’ Setback
5’ Setback 5’ Setback
20’ Setback
Garage20’
12’
Accessory Building Setback (5’)
1st Level Front Porch + 2nd Level Balcony
2nd Level Balcony
Lower LevelEgress Window
Front Lot LineSidewalk
Street
Stairs
Lower LevelEgress Windows
Lot Coverage
Impervious Surface
Usable Open Space
Lot Coverage: 1,905 SF (30%)
Impervious Surface: 3,965 SF (63%)
Usable Open Space: 1,130 SF (18%)
Includes:•1st Floor Front Porch (208 SF)•2nd Floor Front Balcony (208 SF)•Lower Level Back Grass Area (245 SF)•2nd Level Back Balcony (80 SF)•Grassy Area Near Garage (90 SF)•Grassy Area to Right of Building (300 SF)
26
00
SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"
20'10'5'
20’ Setback
8’ Setback 8’ Setback
180’
126’
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
89
10
11
12
131415
19
18
17
16
20
21
22
23
24
25
Community Area / Fitness
Active Street Use
Scenario 4 Mid-Block Apartments: MR-3 | Upper Levels/Living Units - 24 Units | 3 Story Building Height | 22,680 SF | 0.5 Acres
8’ Setback 8’ Setback
1
2
34
56
78
9
10 11 12 Elevator
Hallway
Stairs
Lot Coverage: 14,200 SF (63%) | 48 DU/Acre
Impervious Surface: 15,285 SF (67%)
Outdoor Open Space: 1,845 SF (8%)
00
SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"
20'10'5'
20’ Setback
8’ Setback 8’ Setback
180’
126’
Building - Parking Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
89
10
11
12
131415
19
18
17
16
20
21
22
23
24
25
Community Area / Fitness
Active Street Use
Scenario 4 Mid-Block Apartments: MR-3 | Base Level/Parking Area - 26 Stalls | 3 Story Building Height | 22,680 SF | 0.5 Acres
StairsElevator
26
Lot Coverage: 14,200 SF (63%) | 48 DU/Acre
Impervious Surface: 15,285 SF (67%)
Outdoor Open Space: 1,845 SF (8%)
26
26
Scenario 4 Mid-Block Apartments: MR-3 | 3 Story Building Height | 22,680 SF | 0.5 Acres
00
SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"
20'10'5'
20’ Setback
8’ Setback 8’ Setback
180’
126’
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
89
10
11
12
131415
19
18
17
16
20
21
22
23
24
25
Community Area / Fitness
Active Street Use
8’ Setback 8’ Setback
1
2
34
56
78
9
10 11 12 Elevator
Hallway
Stairs
Lot Coverage
Impervious Surface
Usable Open Space
Includes:•1st Floor Courtyard (725 SF)•2nd Floor Balconies (560 SF)•3rd Floor Balconies (560 SF)
Lot Coverage: 14,200 SF (63%) | 48 DU/Acre
Impervious Surface: 15,285 SF (67%)
Usable Open Space: 1,845 SF (8%)