The URL can be used to link to this page

2025-03-11 City Council AgendaREGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MARCH 11, 2025 7:00 PM INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Pledge of Allegiance Open forum Participants can share their comments in person, by voicemail, or email, and may also request to participate virtually. For more information on submitting comments, refer to the Council Agenda and Minutes page on richfieldmn.gov/citycouncil Approval of the Minutes of the (1) City Council Work Session Meeting from February 25, 2025, and (2) City Council Regular Meeting from February 25, 2025. PRESENTATIONS 1.Community Members Commendation AGENDA APPROVAL 2.Approval of the Agenda 3.Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action on these items is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A.Consider: Approval of Part 1 of the West Metro Multi-Community Wellhead Protection Plan; and Adoption of a resolution authorizing participation in the development of Part 2 of the West Metro Multi-Community Wellhead Protection Plan. Staff Report No. 32 B.Consider approval of a Temporary On Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Richfield Foundation's A Toast To Richfield event to take place on Thursday, May 1, 2025, in the atrium area of Woodlake Center, located at 6601 Lyndale Ave South. Staff Report No. 33 C.Consider the approval of an agreement allowing Richfield Department of Public Safety to accept grant monies from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program. Staff Report No. 34 4.Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.Public Hearing and consider the ratification of previously approved ordinance amendments to City Code section 550: Floodplain Management Regulations previously adopted by the City Council on January 14, 2025. Staff Report No. 35 PROPOSED ORDINANCES 6.Consider the approval of the second reading of an ordinance updating requirements for maintenance of fowl, authorize a resolution to add the permit application fee to the existing fee schedule, and authorize a summary ordinance publication via resolution. Staff Report No. 36 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT 7.City Manager's Report CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 8.Claims and Payroll COUNCIL DISCUSSION 9.Hats Off to Hometown Hits CLOSED SESSION 10.A closed session meeting pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 13D.05, Subd. 3(b) for an attorney-client privileged meeting to discuss pending litigation; Michael P. Klabunde vs. City of Richfield, et al., U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. Council will move to the Executive Conference Room for the closed session portion of the meeting. Staff Report No. 37 11.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 Work Session February 25, 2025 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Supple called the work session to order at 6:15 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room. Council Present: Mary Supple, Mayor; Sharon Christensen; Walter Burk, Sean Hayford Oleary, Rori A. Coleman-Woods Staff Present: Guests: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Joe Powers, City Engineer; Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk; and Courtney Miller, Senior Analyst. Abby Shea, MN Department of Health. ITEM #1 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (MDH) SOURCE WATER PROTECTION DIVISION STAFF WILL PROVIDE A PRESENTATION AND RESPOND TO QUESTIONS REGARDING THE WEST METRO MULTI-COMMUNITY WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN PROJECT. City Engineer Powers provided a summary of the agenda and turned the first item over to Abby Shea, who works with the Minnesota Department of Health. Abby Shea summarized the project and listed the cities that are participating, noting Richfield has become a leading City in the project. Ms. Shea described the goals for this project and provided a project background and a brief timeline. There are benefits of this project being a multi-community project. Ms. Shea also listed some challenges they have faced. A before and after photo was displayed. She explained the criteria for determining if a well is up to code and vulnerable or not. Ms. Shea explained that all of Richfield’s wells are up to code, but some are considered vulnerable. Ms. Shea listed the reasons why each well is considered vulnerable and described some of the differences in this new system from the past. City Engineer Powers stated that staff are looking forward to being able to partner with more cities on issues like this. Ms. Shea provided an overview of the next steps in the project. Councilmember Hayford Oleary asked about physical aspect impacts of the City. Ms. Shea noted there are some implications for agriculture areas and it would affect stormwater management. City Council Work Session Minutes -2- February 25, 2025 Mayor Supple asked for an update on the emergency interconnect with Minneapolis. Engineer Powers noted staff are in the design development phase, and added design would be completed by the end of the year. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Supple adjourned the work session at 6:55 pm. Date Approved: March 11, 2025 Mary B. Supple Mayor Michelle Friedrich Katie Rodriguez City Clerk City Manager CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Supple at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Council Present: Mary Supple, Mayor; Sharon Christensen; Walter Burk; Sean Hayford Oleary; and Rori A. Coleman-Woods. Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; Melissa Pohlman, Community Development Director, Kristin Asher, Public Works Director; and Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk. Others Present: Madeline Vukson, Human Rights Commissioner. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Supple led the Pledge of Allegiance. OPEN FORUM Mayor Supple reviewed the participation options for residents at the Council meeting including in- person comments, comments by voicemail or email, and an option to request to participate virtually with advance notice. Mayor Supple noted more information on submitting comments can be reviewed at www.richfieldmn.gov/citycouncil. Kathleen Balaban addressed some issues she had concerning the items on the Consent Calendar and the large sum of money being spent on these items. She asked if they could look at the code and readjust what goes on the Consent Calendar. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: made by Councilmember Hayford Oleary, seconded by Councilmember Christensen to approve the minutes of the: (1) City Council Work Session Meeting from February 11, 2025, and (2) City Council Regular Meeting from February 11, 2025. Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Council Meeting February 25, 2025 City Council Meeting Minutes -2- February 25, 2025 PROCLAMATION CELEBRATING WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH Mayor Supple invited Human Rights Commissioner Madeline Vukson to accept the proclamation and then read aloud the proclamation. Commissioner Vukson thanked Mayor Supple and the Council. ITEM #2 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA MOTION: made by Councilmember Christensen, seconded by Councilmember Hayford Oleary to approve the Agenda as presented. Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #3 CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager Rodriguez presented the consent calendar. A. Consider authorizing the City Manager and Mayor to enter into a Right of Entry Agreement with the owner of real property located at 7221 Lyndale Ave South for the removal of a privately- owned dead Oak tree by a City contractor. (Staff Report No. 28) B. Consider the approval of the 2024-2025 Law Enforcement and Fire Department Therapy Dog Grant Program. (Staff Report No. 29) MOTION: made by Councilmember Coleman-Woods, seconded by Councilmember Burk to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #4 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR None. ITEM #5 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION SPECIFYING THE USE OF FUNDS FROM THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ALLOCATION FOR 2025 AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY REQUIRED THIRD-PARTY AGREEMENTS. (STAFF REPORT NO. 30) Councilmember Burk presented Staff Report 30 and opened the public hearing. MOTION: made by Councilmember Burk, seconded by Councilmember Hayford Oleary to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 5-0 City Council Meeting Minutes -3- February 25, 2025 MOTION: made by Councilmember Burk, seconded by Councilmember Hayford Oleary to adopt a resolution approving proposed use of 2025 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program funds and authorizing execution of a Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any required third-party agreements. RESOLUTION NO. 12304 RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED USE OF 2025 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY REQUIRED THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #6 CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS WITH NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE SOCIAL SERVICES TO THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS WITH THOSE AGENCIES. (STAFF REPORT NO. 31) Councilmember Coleman-Woods presented Staff Report 31. Councilmember Burk noted he is glad to see the city show support for many of these social services. Mayor Supple thanked the representatives and anyone involved in these services for the work they do in the City. MOTION: made by Councilmember Coleman-Woods, seconded by Councilmember Hayford Oleary to approve the agreements with non-profit organizations to provide social services to the City of Richfield and authorize the city manager to execute agreements with those agencies. Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #7 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT City Manager Rodriguez noted she has nothing to report. ITEM #8 CLAIMS AND PAYROLL MOTION: made by Councilmember Hayford Oleary, seconded by Councilmember Coleman-Woods to approve the following claims and payrolls: U.S. BANK 2/14/2025 Payroll: 194592-194912; 44128-44130 manual checks $1,023,616.96 US. BANK 2/21/2025 A/P Checks: 334569-334833 $1,187,828.31 TOTAL $2,211,445.27 City Council Meeting Minutes -4- February 25, 2025 TOTAL $2,211,445.27 Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #9 HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS Councilmember Hayford Oleary noted he had submitted the City of Richfield for a potential award of recognition from Strong Towns. Councilmember Hayford Oleary thanked staff for their help with the application. Councilmember Burk expressed appreciation to Public Works for the quick and thorough tree removal from Ward 1. Councilmember Coleman-Woods highlighted her life-long neighbor’s centennial birthday. Councilmember Coleman-Woods noted she will present Joanne St. Pierre with a proclamation celebrating her 100th birthday in the City of Richfield on February 28, 2025. Councilmember Christensen thanked the League of Minnesota Cities for hosting the Elected Leaders Conference. Mayor Supple expressed appreciation to Patricia Eibon for her help in organizing a visit from the Mujeres Latinas Unidas MN at the police department. Mayor Supple also thanked the VEAP Food Shelf organization for providing scheduled service hours on Mondays and Wednesdays from 10:00 am to 1:00 pm, at Richfield City Hall to help residents with needs they may have. ITEM #10 ADJOURNMENT MOTION: made by Councilmember Coleman-Woods, seconded by Councilmember Christensen to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried: 5-0 Date Approved: March 11, 2025 Mary Supple Mayor Michelle Friedrich Katie Rodriguez City Clerk City Manager 6700 Portland Avenue South • Richfield • MN • 55423 • Phone (612)861-9800 • Fax (612)866-0297 March 11, 2025 Aubrey Drew Chase Simpson On behalf of the Richfield Police Department, I want to extend my deepest appreciation and heartfelt gratitude to you for your swift and compassionate action in calling 911 to report a man lying in the street during the recent extreme cold weather. Your decision to promptly alert authorities made all the difference in a life-or-death situation. Thanks to your call, our officers were able to respond quickly and provide immediate assistance to the individual, ultimately saving his life. The conditions that night were dangerously cold, and without your quick thinking, there is no doubt that the outcome could have been far worse. Your actions exemplify the kind of community spirit that we deeply value in our citizens. It is people like you who make our neighborhoods safer and stronger, and we are incredibly grateful for your willingness to get involved when it mattered most. You not only demonstrated exceptional awareness of a potential emergency, but you also showed great compassion by taking the time to ensure that help was on the way. Please know that your efforts have made a lasting impact. You have helped save a life, and we will always be thankful for your dedication to the well-being of others. Once again, thank you for your quick thinking and kindness. You are a true hero in our community. Sincerely, Jay Henthorne Chief of Police AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #3.A. STAFF REPORT NO. 32 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3/11/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Mattias Oddsson, Water Resources Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 3/3/2025 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 3/5/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider: Approval of Part 1 of the West Metro Multi-Community Wellhead Protection Plan; and Adoption of a resolution authorizing participation in the development of Part 2 of the West Metro Multi-Community Wellhead Protection Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The West Metro Multi-Community Wellhead Protection Plan (the "Plan") is being developed in collaboration with the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) to replace individual Wellhead Protection Plans (WHPPs) in Bloomington, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka, Richfield, and St. Louis Park. Creating one unified approach to protect groundwater is intended to improve efficiency, provide clarity on groundwater vulnerability, and facilitate WHPP implementation. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve Part 1 of the West Metro Multi-Community Wellhead Protection Plan; and Adopt the resolution authorizing participation in the development of Part 2 of the West Metro Multi-Community Wellhead Protection Plan. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT Historically, each public water supplier has been required to develop their own WHPP and Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA). In the Twin Cities metro area, this has resulted in DWSMAs that overlap, provide conflicting information, and cross jurisdictional boundaries, creating confusion and challenges in WHPP implementation. Since 2021, MDH and the Metropolitan Council have been working with municipal partners in the development of a West Metro Multi-Community WHPP. Recently, the unified DWSMA and Part 1 of the new Plan have been completed and approved by the participating Cities and regulatory agencies. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Development of a new WHPP in coordination with state and local partners supports the strategic plan objectives of operational excellence and sustainable infrastructure. Wellhead protection is a critical component of Richfield's efforts to ensure a safe, sustainable supply of drinking water for all residents. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The procedures specified in Minnesota Administrative Rules parts 4720.5300 to 4720.5360 must be used by a public water supplier to develop and review a WHPP. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Council approval of Part 1 the Plan and approval to participate in Part 2 is needed by the end of March to ensure the project remains on schedule. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact is anticipated beyond City staff time. The Metropolitan Council and MDH are paying for direct costs associated with the project including hiring consultants. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: None ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Resolution Resolution Letter Part 1 Executive Summary Exhibit Richfield Updated Multi-Community DWSMA Exhibit RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING WEST METRO MULTI-COMMUNITY WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN (PART 1) AND AUTHORIZING CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE PLAN (PART 2) WHEREAS, the City recognizes the importance of its groundwater supply as a natural resource used for drinking water; and WHEREAS, the City also recognizes the importance of protecting groundwater and drinking water on a sub-regional scale, especially in areas like the west Twin Cities metropolitan area where many communities utilize the same water supply aquifer and have drinking water supply management areas previously approved by the Minnesota Department of Health that overlap one another; and WHEREAS, it is within the responsibility of the City, as a public water supplier, to consider the health, safety, and welfare of its customers; and WHEREAS, the City has been presented the locations of the wellhead protection areas and drinking water supply management area, as well as the vulnerability assessments for the City’s wells, neighboring Cities’ wells, and the sub-regional water supply aquifer; and WHEREAS, this information encompasses Part 1 of the West Metro Multi- Community Wellhead Protection Plan. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that: 1. The City of Richfield does hereby agree to take action to protect their wells and the area within their jurisdiction of the drinking water supply management area that has been approved by the Minnesota Department of Health. 2. The City of Richfield does hereby approve the wellhead protection area, drinking water supply management area, and vulnerability assessments for the City’s wells and water supply aquifer. 3. The City of Richfield does hereby agree to continue the wellhead protection planning process by completing and implementing a multi-community Part 2 plan with the other communities that participated in the Part 1 plan. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 11th day of March, 2025. Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk 1 West Metro Multi-Community Wellhead Protection Plan, Part 1 EXE CUTIVE SUMMARY The communities of Bloomington, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka, Richfield, and Saint Louis Park partnered with the Minnesota Department of Health and the Metropolitan Council to pilot a multi-community approach to wellhead protection planning. The pilot project analyzed time of travel to 88 existing community supply wells and one planned supply well (Table 1). The wellhead protection area (WHPA) represents the area around the wells that contributes water to the community supply wells within a 10-year time period. The drinking water supply management area (DWSMA) fully envelops the WHPA and is defined by features on the surface such as roads, property lines, public land survey system (PLSS) area boundaries, etc. A new sub-regional groundwater flow model was developed from the existing Metro Model 3 regional groundwater model for the purposes of delineating the WHPA and DWSMA. This new model incorporated the most up-to-date geology and pumping information and was built using MODFLOW6, the most recent version of MODFLOW supported by the United States Geological Survey. The DWSMA area was determined through a combination of the sub-regional groundwater model, fracture flow calculations, and overland flow. Then the vulnerability was determined using a combination of the 40-acre PLSS quarter-quarter sections, water chemistry data, soils data, and geology. Much of the DWSMA is of low or moderate vulnerability with a few areas of high vulnerability (Figure 1). DWSMA vulnerability represents the sensitivity of the aquifer to impacts from land use and water management within the area. 2 Table 1. Municipal Water Supply Well Details City Unique Number Local Well Name Use/ Status1 Casing Depth (feet) Well Depth (feet) Date Constructed/ Reconstructed Well Vulnerability* Aquifer St. Louis Park 200542 St. Louis Park #4 A/Primary 410 503 1946 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone St. Louis Park 203678 St. Louis Park #8 A/Primary 314 507 1955 Not Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone St. Louis Park 206442 St. Louis Park #10 A/Primary 316 500 1955 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone St. Louis Park 206439 St. Louis Park #11 A/Primary 880 1093 1960 Not Vulnerable Mt. Simon Sandstone St. Louis Park 206456 St. Louis Park #12 A/Primary 900 1095 1965 Not Vulnerable Mt. Simon Sandstone St. Louis Park 206424 St. Louis Park #13 A/Primary 891 1045 1964 Not Vulnerable Mt. Simon Sandstone St. Louis Park 227965 St. Louis Park #14 A/Primary 389 485 1965 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone St. Louis Park 215447 St. Louis Park #15 A/Primary 402 503 1969 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone – St. Lawerence St. Louis Park 203187 St. Louis Park #16 A/Primary 425 500 1973 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone Minnetonka 204140 Minnetonka #10 A/Primary 305 505 1969 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Minnetonka 150356 Minnetonka #10a A/Primary 302 486 1981 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Minnetonka 208014 Minnetonka #11 A/Primary 282 498 1970 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Minnetonka 439797 Minnetonka #11a A/Primary 291 492 1988 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Minnetonka 203717 Minnetonka #12 A/Primary 332 535 1971 Not Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Minnetonka 191939 Minnetonka #12a A/Primary 340 506 1985 Not Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Minnetonka 205165 Minnetonka #13 A/Primary 292 475 1972 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Minnetonka 132263 Minnetonka #13a A/Primary 274 464 1978 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Minnetonka 204537 Minnetonka #14 A/Primary 367 555 1972 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Minnetonka 160021 Minnetonka #14a A/Primary 395 575 1978 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Minnetonka 208016 Minnetonka #15 A/Primary 235 450 1974 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Minnetonka 150351 Minnetonka #15a A/Primary 238 444 1978 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone WEST METRO MULTI-COMMUNITY WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN PART 1 SUMMARY 3 City Unique Number Local Well Name Use/ Status1 Casing Depth (feet) Well Depth (feet) Date Constructed/ Reconstructed Well Vulnerability* Aquifer Minnetonka 661401 Minnetonka #16a A/Primary 322 530 2001 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Minnetonka 661402 Minnetonka #16b A/Primary 303 519 2002 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Minnetonka 204470 Minnetonka #3 A/Primary 393 465 1963 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone Minnetonka 171021 Minnetonka #3a A/Primary 254 468 1981 Not Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Minnetonka 204054 Minnetonka #6 A/Primary 394 488 1967 Not Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone Minnetonka 208012 Minnetonka #6a A/Primary 397 486 1967 Not Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone Chanhassen 737048 Chanhassen #10 A/Primary 375 482 2006 Not Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Chanhassen 760936 Chanhassen #12 A/Primary 270 441 2008 Not Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Chanhassen 760937 Chanhassen #13 A/Primary 290 460 2008 Not Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Chanhassen 775541 Chanhassen #14 A/Primary 280 472 2010 Not Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Chanhassen 810696 Chanhassen #15 A/Primary 428 530 2015 Not Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone- Chanhassen 220976 Chanhassen #2 A/Primary 246 471 1969 Not Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Chanhassen 200195 Chanhassen #3 A/Primary 317 500 1973 Not Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Chanhassen 180913 Chanhassen #4 A/Primary 289 478 1981 Not Vulnerable Prairie du Chien – Tunnel City Group Chanhassen 541545 Chanhassen #7 A/Primary 330 490 1996 Not Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Chanhassen 578953 Chanhassen #8 A/Primary 378 489 1999 Not Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Chanhassen 709304 Chanhassen #9 A/Seasonal 373 482 2004 Not Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Bloomington 222910 Bloomington #1 A/Primary 345 440 1973 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone Bloomington 222911 Bloomington #2 A/Primary 315 392 1973 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Bloomington 222912 Bloomington #3 A/Primary 450 950 1974 Vulnerable Tunnel City Group - Mt. Simon Sandstone Bloomington 133389 Bloomington #4 A/Primary 282 376 1978 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Bloomington 603079 Bloomington #5 A/Primary 307 405 2001 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone Bloomington 603080 Bloomington #6 A/Primary 298 399 2001 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone Richfield 206353 Richfield #1 A/Primary 343 437 1961 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone WEST METRO MULTI-COMMUNITY WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN PART 1 SUMMARY 4 City Unique Number Local Well Name Use/ Status1 Casing Depth (feet) Well Depth (feet) Date Constructed/ Reconstructed Well Vulnerability* Aquifer Richfield 206354 Richfield #2 A/Primary 343 435 1961 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone Richfield 206361 Richfield #3 A/Primary 226 425 1962 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Richfield 206276 Richfield #4 A/Primary 208 405 1962 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Richfield 206280 Richfield #5 A/Primary 226 408 1963 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Richfield 206279 Richfield #6 A/Primary 225 422 1963 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Richfield 133362 Richfield #7 A/Primary 631 1066 1977 Not Vulnerable Wonewoc - Mt. Simon Edina 208399 Edina #2 A/Primary 266 448 2007 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Edina 240630 Edina #3 A/Seasonal 265 496 1949 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Edina 200561 Edina #4 A/Primary 266 500 1950 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Edina 206377 Edina #5 A/Seasonal 257 443 2002 Not Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Edina 200564 Edina #6 A/Primary 316 503 1954 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Edina 206474 Edina #7 A/Primary 350 547 1955 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Edina 204884 Edina #8 A/Seasonal 232 472 1953 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Edina 206588 Edina #9 A/Seasonal 1010 1130 1957 Not Vulnerable Mt. Simon Sandstone Edina 206184 Edina #10 A/Primary 881 1001 1963 Not Vulnerable Mt. Simon Sandstone Edina 206183 Edina #11 A/Primary 321 403 1963 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone Edina 203614 Edina #12 A/Primary 955 1080 1964 Vulnerable Mt. Simon Sandstone Edina 203613 Edina #13 A/Primary 429 495 1964 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone Edina 207674 Edina #15 A/Primary 275 475 2002 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Edina 203101 Edina #16 A/Seasonal 265 381 1967 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Edina 200914 Edina #17 A/Seasonal 373 461 1970 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone Edina 200918 Edina #18 A/Seasonal 365 446 1973 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone Edina 505626 Edina #19 A/Seasonal 440 521 1989 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone Edina 686286 Edina #20 A/Seasonal 265 467 2008 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone WEST METRO MULTI-COMMUNITY WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN PART 1 SUMMARY 5 City Unique Number Local Well Name Use/ Status1 Casing Depth (feet) Well Depth (feet) Date Constructed/ Reconstructed Well Vulnerability* Aquifer Hopkins 204068 Hopkins #4 A/Primary 410 548 1954 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Hopkins 204570 Hopkins #5 A/Primary 382 495 1967 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Hopkins 112228 Hopkins #6 A/Primary 354 545 1977 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Eden Prairie 205905 Eden Prairie #2 A/Primary 210 394 1971 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Eden Prairie 112242 Eden Prairie #3 A/Primary 207 392 1978 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Eden Prairie 147454 Eden Prairie #4 A/Primary 207 381 1982 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Eden Prairie 147453 Eden Prairie #5 A/Primary 219 393 1981 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Eden Prairie 147452 Eden Prairie #6 A/Primary 230 388 1981 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Eden Prairie 424924 Eden Prairie #7 A/Primary 306 383 1987 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone Eden Prairie 424925 Eden Prairie #8 A/Primary 316 391 1987 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone Eden Prairie 424926 Eden Prairie #9 A/Primary 319 405 1987 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone Eden Prairie 424927 Eden Prairie #10 A/Primary 308 401 1987 Vulnerable Jordan Sandstone Eden Prairie 541542 Eden Prairie #11 A/Primary 232 408 1994 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Eden Prairie 541541 Eden Prairie #12 A/Primary 215 385 1994 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Eden Prairie 622703 Eden Prairie #13 A/Primary 210 410 1998 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Eden Prairie 603068 Eden Prairie #14 A/Primary 241 418 2000 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Eden Prairie 686256 Eden Prairie #15 A/Primary 243 420 2005 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone Eden Prairie 763769 Eden Prairie #16 A/Primary 278 405 2008 Vulnerable Prairie du Chien - Jordan Sandstone *Well vulnerability was assessed based on a combination of 1) well construction details, especially conformance with standards required by the state well code, 2) the geologic sensitivity of the aquifers, and 3) past monitoring results. WEST METRO MULTI-COMMUNITY WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN PART 1 SUMMARY 6 Figure 1. West Metro Multi-Community Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) WEST METRO MULTI-COMMUNITY WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN PART 1 SUMMARY 7 Figure 2. West Metro Multi-Community Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #3.B. STAFF REPORT NO. 33 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3/11/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Jennifer Anderson, Support Services Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police 2/19/2025 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 3/5/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider approval of a Temporary On Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Richfield Foundation's A Toast To Richfield event to take place on Thursday, May 1, 2025, in the atrium area of Woodlake Center, located at 6601 Lyndale Ave South. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On February 12, 2025, the City received application materials for a Temporary On Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Richfield Foundation's A Toast To Richfield event to take place on Thursday, May 1, 2025. The event will take place from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the atrium area of Woodlake Center, located at 6601 Lyndale Avenue South. This will be an event open to those 21+, verified before entrance. The request is to serve wine, beer and spirits tastings. They will have several wine, beer, and spirits vendors. They will also offer appetizers, desserts, water and coffee. All required information, documents and licensing fees have been provided. The Director of Public Safety has reviewed all required information and documents and has found no basis for denial. The City Council has previously granted this license in conjunction with this event. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the issuance of a Temporary On Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for Richfield Foundation's A Toast To Richfield event, to take place on Thursday, May 1, 2025, in the atrium area of Woodlake Center, located at 6601 Lyndale Avenue South. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for the issuance of this license: The required licensing fees have been received. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been provided showing Evanston Insurance Company affording the coverage. The Richfield Foundation has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure food handling practices are followed. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS The Richfield Police Department is committed to ensuring equity and inclusivity in our work. In some instances, equity considerations may not directly apply; however, staff preparation and review of reports will always consider DEI principles. 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: The Richfield Foundation's A Toast To Richfield event takes place on Thursday, May 1, 2025, so approval by the City Council is needed at the regular meeting on March 11, 2025. 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 the Richfield Foundation. This would mean the applicant would not be able to serve alcohol at their Wine Tasting event; however, Public Safety has not found any basis for denial. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: A representative of the Richfield Foundation will be present. AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #3.C. STAFF REPORT NO. 34 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3/11/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police 3/5/2025 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 3/5/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider the approval of an agreement allowing Richfield Department of Public Safety to accept grant monies from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Richfield Police Department is eligible to receive the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants (JAG) from the Department of Justice and has been awarded a grant for $10,912.65. The grant money will be used by Public Safety to purchase laptops for public safety employees. Grant funding is based on a threshold of reported Group A crimes which are in comparison to the population of the respective community. Several Hennepin County municipalities receive these grants including the cities of Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, and Minneapolis. The JAG Grants are administered through Hennepin County's Office of Administration. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve a resolution allowing Richfield Department of Public Safety to accept grant monies from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, the Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT The grant money will be used by Public Safety to purchase laptops. The Public Safety Department has been informed that additional funds will be made available to the department as part of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG). The grant allows states, tribes and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime based on their own local needs and conditions. Notification was received that the City of Richfield was approved to receive $10,912.65 from the JAG Grant for 2024. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS This grant helps support crime reduction and violence prevention efforts across the country. Purchase of these laptops will allow the Public Safety department to continue to serve the Richfield Community in these efforts. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): Public Safety does not accept financial support unless it is designated for a specific program that will affect the department as a whole. The grant money will be used by Public Safety to purchase laptops. Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires that every acceptance of a grant or devise of real of personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council. The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donations to departments be received by resolution and by more than two-thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The grant money will be used by Public Safety to purchase laptops for public safety employees. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: Five percent (5%) of the total award has been deducted for administrative costs as approved by the administrator of the grant. Richfield Public Safety will receive $10,912.65 . F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: N/A ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): Council could disapprove of the acceptance of the grant monies and the funds would have to be returned. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Resolution Resolution Letter Agreement Contract/Agreement RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE TO ACCEPT THE EDWARDS BYRNE MEMORIAL GRANT (JAG) FOR FROM THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS TO PURCHASE LAPTOPS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, Richfield Police has been approved by U.S. Department of Justice to participate in funds available to several Hennepin County departments through the Edwards Byrne Memorial Grant (JAG); and WHEREAS, Richfield is scheduled to be awarded $10,912.65 to be used as designated by grant agreement which mandates that the funds be used for law enforcement related programs and or equipment; and, WHEREAS, Richfield has agreed that Hennepin County will serve as the fiscal agent on behalf of the Cities of Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Minneapolis, and Richfield; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the agreement, five percent (5%) ($545.63) of the total amount ($11,458.28) has been set aside for the costs associated with administering the JAG funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield, Public Safety Department will accept funds designated for police programs and equipment in accordance to and as listed above. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of March, 2024. ________________________ Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Michelle Freidrich, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM #5. STAFF REPORT NO. 35 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3/11/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Scott Kulzer, Senior Analyst DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 3/4/2025 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 3/5/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public Hearing and consider the ratification of previously approved ordinance amendments to City Code section 550: Floodplain Management Regulations previously adopted by the City Council on January 14, 2025. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Public Hearing and Ratification Background On January 14, 2025, the Richfield City Council conducted the second reading and approved amendments to City Code section 550: Floodplain Management Regulations. Unbeknownst to staff at the time, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources desired that a public hearing be held prior to adoption of the revised ordinance. After consulting the City Attorney, staff has determined the best course of action is for City Council to hold the public hearing, consider any objections or concerns to the previously approved ordinance amendments, and then vote to ratify the previously approved ordinance amendments. The City Council may also choose not to ratify the previously approved ordinance amendments and direct staff to repeal or further revise the ordinance based upon comments heard at the public hearing. Ordinance Amendments Background In April of 2024, the MCWD adopted new rules applicable to Floodplain Management. The previously approved revisions align City ordinances with new District requirements while maintaining established requirements concerning the FEMA-designated floodplain. The previously approved amendments also clarify administration of the ordinance by designating the Water Resources Engineer as the official responsible for administering the ordinance. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Open, conduct, and close the public hearing; and Move to vote and ratify the previously approved ordinance amendments to City Code section 550: Floodplain Management Regulations previously adopted by the City Council on January 14, 2025. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT A 2009 memorandum of understanding between the City of Richfield and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), grants exclusive regulatory authority to the City in matters of erosion control, stormwater management, wetland protection, and floodplain management, provided that the City adopt standards at least as protective as MCWD rules. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Ensuring compliance with all relevant federal, state, and local floodplain management regulations helps preserve Richfield's natural resources, supporting climate resilience and sustainable management of stormwater infrastructure. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The City Charter requires a first and second reading of ordinances. City Code subsection 550.15 requires approval of proposed ordinance changes by the DNR prior to adoption. This process has been initiated by City staff, who have been in regular correspondence with DNR staff regarding the proposed changes. The public hearing was noticed in the February 27, 2025 Bloomington-Richfield Sun Current newspaper. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Conducting a public hearing and ratifying the previously approved ordinance amendments at this meeting will ensure the revised floodplain ordinance is in effect for the spring wet season. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: No initial financial impact is expected, as existing staff resources are sufficient to implement the revised ordinance. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The method of public hearing and ratification of the previously approved and adopted ordinance has been vetted by the City Attorney. The City Attorney also assisted with the drafting of the underlying ordinance amendments and will be available to answer questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): City Council may choose not to ratify the previously approved ordinance amendments and direct staff to repeal or further revise the ordinance based upon comments heard at the public hearing. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: none ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Approved Floodplain Ordinance Ordinance City of Richfield January 14, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2024-16 1 Motion by: Hayford Oleary Seconded by: Coleman-Woods AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER V OF THE RICHFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter V, Section 550 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: 550.01. Statutory authorization and purpose. Subdivision 1. Statutory Authorization. The legislature of the State of Minnesota has, in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103F and Chapter 462, delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses. Subd. 2. Purpose. (a) This ordinance regulates development in the flood hazard areas of Richfield. These flood hazard areas are subject to periodic inundation, which may result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base. It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by minimizing these losses and disruptions. (b) National Flood Insurance Program Compliance. This ordinance is adopted to comply with the rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program codified as 44 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 59-78, as amended, so as to maintain the community's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. (c) This ordinance is also intended to preserve the natural characteristics and functions of watercourses and floodplains in order to moderate flood and stormwater impacts, improve water quality, reduce soil erosion, protect aquatic and riparian habitat, provide recreational opportunities, provide aesthetic benefits and enhance community and economic development. 550.03. General provisions. Subdivision 1. Lands to Which Ordinance Applies. This ordinance applies to all lands within the jurisdiction of the City of Richfield shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps adopted in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 2 as being located within the boundaries of the Floodplain District. The Floodplain District is an overlay district that is superimposed on all existing zoning districts. The standards imposed in the overlay districts are in addition to any other requirements in this ordinance. In case of a conflict, the more restrictive standards will apply. For areas within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), the MCWD’s Floodplain Alteration Rule, as may be amended from time to time, and subsection 550.15 shall apply, whichever is most restrictive. City of Richfield January 14, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2024-16 2 Subd. 2. Adoption of Flood Insurance Study and Maps. The following maps together with all attached material are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of the Official Zoning Map and this ordinance. The attached material includes the Flood Insurance Study for Hennepin County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas, dated November 4, 2016 and the Flood Insurance Rate Map panels enumerated below, dated November 4, 2016, all prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These materials are on file in the Public Works Maintenance Facility at 1901 E 66th St, Richfield, MN 55423. Effective Flood Insurance Rate Map panels: 27053C0364F 27053C0368F 27053C0369F 27053C0388F 27053C0452F 27053C0456F 27053C0457F 27053C0476F Subd. 3. Interpretation. The boundaries of the Floodplain District are determined by scaling distances on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. (a) Where a conflict exists between the floodplain limits illustrated on the official zoning map and actual field conditions, the flood elevations must be the governing factor. The Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer must interpret the boundary location based on the ground elevations that existed on the site on the date of the first National Flood Insurance Program map showing the area within the regulatory floodplain, and other available technical data. (b) Persons contesting the location of the district boundaries will be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the Planning Commission and to submit technical evidence. Subd. 4. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. It is not intended by this ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this ordinance prevail. All other ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. Subd. 5. Warning and Disclaimer of Liability. This ordinance does not imply that areas outside the floodplain districts or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance does not create liability on the part of the City of Richfield or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. City of Richfield January 14, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2024-16 3 Subd. 6. Severability. If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of law, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected and shall remain in full force. Subd. 7. Definitions. Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this ordinance must be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage and so as to give this ordinance its most reasonable application. (a) Base Flood - The flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. (b) Base Flood Elevation - The elevation of the "regional flood," as defined. The term "base flood elevation" is used in the flood insurance survey. (c) Development - Any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate including, but not limited to, buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures, recreational vehicles, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, drilling operations, or storage of materials or equipment. (d) Farm Fence - A fence as defined by Minn. Statute § 344.02 Subd. 1(a)—(d). An open type fence of posts and wire is not considered to be a structure under this ordinance. Fences that have the potential to obstruct flood flows, such as chain link fences and rigid walls, are not permitted in the Floodplain District. (e) Flood Fringe - The portion of the floodplain located outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term "floodway fringe" used in the Flood Insurance Study, Hennepin County, Minnesota and Incorporated Areas. (f) Flood Insurance Rate Map - An official map on which the Federal Insurance Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. A FIRM that has been made available digitally is called a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). (g) Floodplain - The areas adjoining a watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. (h) Floodway - The bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining floodplain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge. (i) Manufactured Home - A structure, transportable in one (1) or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include the term "recreational vehicle." (j) Obstruction - Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence (with the exception of farm fences), stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulatory floodplain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water. City of Richfield January 14, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2024-16 4 (k) Recreational Vehicle - A vehicle that is built on a single chassis, is 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection, is designed to be self- propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck, and is designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. For the purposes of this ordinance, the term recreational vehicle is synonymous with the term "travel trailer/travel vehicle." (l) Regional Flood - A flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the one (1) percent chance/100-year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance Study. (m) Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation - An elevation no lower than one (1) foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain that result from designation of a floodway. (n) Structure - Anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground, including, but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds, detached garages, cabins, manufactured homes, and other similar items. (o) Substantial Damage - Damage of any origin sustained by a structure where the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. (p) Substantial Improvement - Within any consecutive 365-day period, any reconstruction, rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and repair), repair after damage, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures that have incurred "substantial damage," regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: (i) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions. (ii) Any alteration of a "historic structure," provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a "historic structure." For the purpose of this ordinance, "historic structure" is as defined in 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 59.1. 550.05. Establishment of floodplain district. Subdivision 1. Areas Included. The Floodplain District for the City of Richfield includes those areas designated as Zone AE on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps adopted in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 2. The Floodplain District is an overlay district to all existing land use districts. The requirements of this ordinance apply in addition to other legally established regulations of the community. Where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this ordinance apply. City of Richfield January 14, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2024-16 5 Subd. 2. Compliance. No new structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure shall be constructed, located, extended, converted, or structurally altered without full compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable regulations. Within the Floodplain District, all uses not listed as permitted uses in Subsection 550.07 are prohibited. 550.07. Permitted uses and standards in the floodplain district. Subdivision 1. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted within the Floodplain District without a permit provided that they are allowed in any underlying zoning district and not prohibited by any other ordinance; and provided that they do not require structures, fill, obstructions, excavations, drilling operations, storage of materials or equipment or any other form of development as defined in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 7 of this ordinance. If the use does require fill, obstruction, excavation, storage of materials or any other form of development as defined in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 7 of this ordinance, a permit and compliance with Subsection 550.07, Subdivision 2 of this ordinance is required. The permit requirement may be waived if there is an application for a public waters work permit from the Department of Natural Resources. (a) Agricultural uses such as general farming, pasture, grazing, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting. Farm fences that do not obstruct flood flows are permitted. (b) Outdoor plant nurseries and horticulture. (c) Private and public recreational uses such as golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, swimming areas, parks, wildlife and nature preserves, game farms, shooting preserves, target ranges, hunting and fishing areas, and single or multiple purpose recreational trails. (d) Lawns, gardens, parking areas, and play areas. (e) Railroads, roads, bridges, utility transmission lines, pipelines and other public utilities, provided that the Department of Natural Resources is notified at least ten (10) days prior to issuance of any permit. Subd. 2. Standards for Permitted Uses. (a) The use must have low flood damage potential. (b) The use must not cause any increase in the stage of the one (1) percent chance or regional flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected. This provision applies to structures (temporary or permanent), fill (including fill for roads and levees), deposits, obstructions, storage of materials or equipment, and all other uses. (c) Floodplain developments must not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining floodplain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system. (d) Public utilities, roads, railroad tracks and bridges to be located within the floodplain must be designed in accordance with Subsection 550.07, Subdivision 2, Clauses (b) and (c) above, or must obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision meeting the requirements of 44 CFR 603(d). City of Richfield January 14, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2024-16 6 (i) When failure or interruption of these public facilities would result in danger to the public health or safety or where such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area, such facilities must be elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation. (ii) Where failure or interruption of service would not endanger public health or safety, minor or auxiliary roads, railroads or utilities may be constructed at a lower elevation. (e) New or replacement water supply systems and sanitary sewage systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters. 550.09. Administration. Subdivision 1. Zoning Administrator. A Zoning Administrator The Water Resources Engineer or other official designated by the City Council must administer and enforce this ordinance. Subd. 2. Development Approvals. Any construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, improvement, moving or demolition of any building or structure must comply with the requirements of this ordinance. No mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, obstruction, drilling operation or other form of development as defined in Subsection 550.03 of this ordinance are allowed, other than the uses permitted in Subsection 550.07, Subdivision 1 and the activities allowed under Subsection 550.11. Subd. 3. Permit Required. A permit must be obtained from the Zoning Administrator Department of Public Works prior to conducting the following activities: (i) Expansion, change, enlargement, or alteration of a nonconforming use as specified in Subsection 550.11 of this ordinance. Normal maintenance and repair also requires a permit if such work, separately or in conjunction with other planned work, constitutes a substantial improvement as defined in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 7 of this ordinance. (ii) Any use that requires fill, obstruction, excavation, storage of materials, or any other form of development as defined in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 7 of this ordinance. (a) Permit applications must be submitted to the Department of Public Works Zoning Administrator on forms provided for that purpose and shall include the following where applicable: plans drawn to scale, showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the lot; existing or proposed structures, fill, or storage of materials; and the location of the foregoing in relation to the stream channel. (b) Prior to granting a permit, the Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer must verify that the applicant has obtained all necessary state and federal permits. Subd. 4. Variances. An application for a variance to the provisions of this ordinance will be processed and reviewed in accordance with applicable state statutes. A variance to the standards outlined in this Section may be requested under City zoning code Section City of Richfield January 14, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2024-16 7 547.11. (a) A variance must not allow a use that is not allowed in that district, permit a lower degree of flood protection than the regulatory flood protection elevation for the particular area, or permit standards lower than those required by state law. (b) The following additional variance criteria of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must be met: (i) Variances must not be issued by a community within any designated regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. (ii) Variances may only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of good and sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. (iii) Variances may only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. (c) The City Council must submit hearing notices for proposed variances to the Department of Natural Resources sufficiently in advance to provide at least ten (10) days' notice of the hearing. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. (d) A copy of all decisions granting variances must be forwarded to the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. (e) The Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer must notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25.00 for $100.00 of insurance coverage and 2) Such construction below the base or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. (f) The Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer must maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and must report such variances in an annual or biennial report to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, when requested by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Subd. 5. Notifications for Watercourse Alterations. Before authorizing any alteration or relocation of a river or stream, the Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer must notify adjacent communities. If the applicant has applied for a permit to work in public waters pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 103G.245, this will suffice as adequate notice. A copy of the notification must also be submitted to the Chicago Regional Office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). City of Richfield January 14, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2024-16 8 Subd. 6. Notification to FEMA When Physical Changes Increase or Decrease Base Flood Elevations. As soon as is practicable, but not later than six (6) months after the date such supporting information becomes available, the Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer must notify the Chicago Regional Office of FEMA of the changes by submitting a copy of the relevant technical or scientific data. 550.11. Nonconformities. Subdivision 1. Continuance of Nonconformities. A use, structure, or occupancy of land which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this ordinance but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance may be continued subject to the following conditions. Historic structures, as defined in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 7, Clause (o)(2) of this ordinance, are subject to the provisions of Subsection 550.11, Subdivision 1, Clauses (a)—(d) of this ordinance. (a) A nonconforming use, structure, or occupancy must not be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way that increases its nonconformity. There shall be no expansion to the outside dimensions of any portion of a nonconforming structure located within the Floodplain District. (b) The cost of all structural alterations or additions to any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure may not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure unless the conditions of this Subsection are satisfied. The cost of all structural alterations and additions must include all costs such as construction materials and a reasonable cost placed on all manpower or labor. If the cost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure, then the structure must meet the standards of Subsection 550.11, Subdivision 2 of this ordinance. (c) If any nonconforming use, or any use of a nonconforming structure, is discontinued for more than one (1) year, any future use of the premises must conform to this ordinance. The Assessor must notify the Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer in writing of instances of nonconformities that have been discontinued for a period of more than one (1) year. (d) If any nonconformity is substantially damaged, as defined in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 7 of this ordinance, it may not be reconstructed unless it is located in the flood fringe portion of the floodplain and it is reconstructed in accordance with the standards of Subsection 550.11, Subdivision 2 of this ordinance. (e) Any substantial improvement, as defined in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 7 of this ordinance, to a nonconforming structure, then the existing nonconforming structure must be located in the flood fringe portion of the floodplain and meet the requirements of Subsection 550.11, Subdivision 2 of this ordinance. Subd. 2. Standards for Reconstruction of Nonconforming Structures. The following standards and procedures apply to nonconforming structures in the flood fringe portion of the floodplain, as allowed under Subsection 550.11, Subdivision 1. (a) All structures, including manufactured homes, must be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor including basement floor is at or above the regulatory flood protection City of Richfield January 14, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2024-16 9 elevation. The finished fill elevation for structures shall be no lower than one (1) foot below the regulatory flood protection elevation and the fill shall extend at such elevation at least 15 feet beyond the outside limits of the structure. (b) Fill must be properly compacted and the slopes must be properly protected by the use of riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable method. (c) Floodplain developments must not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining floodplain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system. (d) All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. (e) On-site Sewage Treatment and Water Supply Systems. Where public utilities are not provided: 1) On-site water supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems; and 2) New or replacement on-site sewage treatment systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters and they shall not be subject to impairment or contamination during times of flooding. Any sewage treatment system designed in accordance with the State's current statewide standards for on-site sewage treatment systems shall be determined to be in compliance with this Subsection. (f) Certification. The applicant is required to submit certification by a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. Floodproofing measures must be certified by a registered professional engineer or registered architect. (g) Record of First Floor Elevation. The Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer must maintain a record of the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new structures and alterations to existing structures in the floodplain. The Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer must also maintain a record of the elevation to which structures and alterations or additions to structures are floodproofed. 550.13. Penalties and Enforcement. Subdivision 1. Violation Constitutes a Misdemeanor. Violation of the provisions of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances) constitutes a misdemeanor and is punishable as defined by law. Subd. 2. Other Lawful Action. Nothing in this ordinance restricts the City of Richfield from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer within the specified period of time, each additional day that lapses will constitute an additional violation of this ordinance and will be prosecuted accordingly. City of Richfield January 14, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2024-16 10 Subd. 3. Enforcement. In responding to a suspected ordinance violation, the Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer and City Council may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including, but not limited to, prosecution and fines, injunctions, after-the-fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance availability to the guilty party. The City must act in good faith to enforce these official controls and to correct ordinance violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. 550.15. Floodplain alteration within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Subdivision 1. Applicability. This sub-section shall apply to those areas within the MCWD. The MCWD’s Floodplain Alteration Rule and all its definitions are hereby incorporated by reference. For the purposes of this sub-section only, within the MCWD, for areas outside the Floodplain District depicted by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps adopted in section 550.03 Subd. 3, the floodplain is defined as area adjoining a watercourse or water basin that is covered by the regional flood (i.e., 100 year flood). In determining the applicability of this section and the location of the floodplain, the Water Resources Engineer shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to City hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, Watershed District modeling, mapped floodplain areas, and adopted water management plans. Subd. 2. Permit Required. Within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, a permit is required to fill, excavate or grade within the floodplain of a waterbody. For all work requiring a permit, a structure intended for residential, commercial, industrial or institutional occupancy must be constructed so that door and window openings are at least two feet above the 100-year high water elevation of the waterbody. Subd. 3. Exception. A permit is not required for soil cultivation, soil amendment, or topsoil or sod addition for ordinary landscaping purposes. Subd. 4. Criteria. Fill, excavation or grading must conform to the following standards: (a) Any floodplain fill must be offset so there is no loss in flood storage between the ordinary high water and 100-year high water elevations. There may not be net positive fill at any time during the work, unless applicant has demonstrated it is impractical and has obtained District approval of a sequencing plan for which applicant’s registered professional engineer has demonstrated that the No-Rise Standard is met. (b) Offset for fill in a waterbody other than a watercourse is not required if the applicant demonstrates that fill on all riparian properties to the extent proposed by the applicant would meet the No-Rise Standard and not restrict flood flows. (c) Fill in a watercourse must meet the following criteria: (i) No impervious surface may be placed within the 10-year floodplain or within 25 feet of the watercourse centerline, whichever greater, unless the surface is: (1) City of Richfield January 14, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2024-16 11 no more than 10% of the site 10-year floodplain area; or (2) a linear component of a public roadway or trail. (ii) Applicant must meet the No-Rise Standard. (d) Ice ridge grading within a waterbasin must conform to the pre-existing basin cross- section. Soil material may be neither imported into nor removed from the floodplain. Subd. 5. Submittals. The following submittals must accompany the permit application: (a) Site plan showing property lines, delineation of the work area, existing elevation contours of the work area, and ordinary high water (OHW) and 100-year high water elevations. All elevations must be reduced to NGVD (1929 datum). (b) Grading plan with proposed elevation changes. (c) Preliminary plat, if applicable. (d) Professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota’s determination of the 100- year high water elevation before and after the project and, if paragraph 4(c) applies, of the edge of the 10-year watercourse floodplain. A DNR No-Rise Certificate may be submitted to document conformance with the No-Rise Standard, where applicable. (e) Computation by a professional engineer, architect, land surveyor or landscape architect of volumes of floodplain fill and excavation and, if paragraph 4.c applies, of impervious surface area adjacent to a watercourse. (f) If not otherwise subject to the MCWD erosion control rule or City Code section 428, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations, an erosion control plan conforming to the requirements of subsection 428.11. (g) If more than 50 cubic yards of fill have been placed, on project completion applicant must submit an as-built survey prepared by a professional engineer, architect, land surveyor or landscape architect documenting locations of floodplain disturbance and the volumes of fill and created flood storage. 550.157. Amendments. Subdivision 1.Floodplain Designation—Restrictions on Removal. The floodplain designation on the Official Zoning Map shall not be removed from floodplain areas unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been filled to or above the elevation of the regulatory flood protection elevation and is contiguous to lands outside the floodplain. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources if the Commissioner determines that, through other measures, lands are adequately protected for the intended use. Subd. 2.Amendments Require DNR and FEMA Approval. All amendments to this ordinance must be submitted to and approved by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to adoption. The Commissioner of the DNR must approve the amendment prior to community approval. City of Richfield January 14, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2024-16 12 Subd. 3.Map Amendments Require Ordinance Amendments. The floodplain district regulations must be amended to incorporate any revisions by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the floodplain maps adopted in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 2 of this ordinance. Section 2. This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Supple, Mary Supple, Mary Burk, Walter Burk, Walter Christensen, Sharon Christensen, Sharon Coleman-Woods, Rori Coleman-Woods, Rori Hayford Oleary, Sean Hayford Oleary, Sean Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield on this 14th day of January, 2025. Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED ORDINANCES AGENDA ITEM #6. STAFF REPORT NO. 36 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3/11/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Rachel Lindholm, Sustainability Coordinator DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Karl Huemiller, Recreation Services Director OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:Jennifer Anderson, Support Services Manager - Public Safety CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez 3/5/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider the approval of the second reading of an ordinance updating requirements for maintenance of fowl, authorize a resolution to add the permit application fee to the existing fee schedule, and authorize a summary ordinance publication via resolution. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Section 905.37 of Richfield City Code pertains to regulations around owning fowl (chickens, ducks, etc.). Sustainability Commissioners and residents wanted to increase the number of fowl allowed to be kept to be more in line with average flock sizes and what neighboring cities allow. These proposed revisions also include detailed requirements for coop space and other reasonable conditions, nuisance language, and requiring a permit application and fee to be submitted. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the second reading of the ordinance updating requirements for maintenance of fowl, and authorize a resolution to add the permit application fee to the existing fee schedule, and authorize a summary ordinance publication via resolution. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT Richfield City Code has allowed ownership of 3 fowl since the original ordinance was passed in 1955. The Sustainability Commission proposed revising existing code when it was identified that the current code did not meet the realities of owning a small flock. Commission members identified updates needed to improve bird quality of life and enable residents with flocks to more easily introduce new birds to the flock. Commissioners researched code examples from other nearby cities and proposed recommendations to staff on changes to Richfield city code. The City's Sustainability Coordinator, Support Services Manager, and Code Compliance Officer collaborated to revise code language to include community requests as well as permit application language that public safety staff wanted. The City Attorney's office reviewed and revised the proposed draft before approving it. The Sustainability Commission approved the proposed code at their meeting on 11/21/24. The first reading of this code amendment was read at the January 14, 2025 City Council meeting. Staff worked to revise the permit fee and length of time a permit is required, resulting in a $50 annual fee and a 3 year requirement, after which, a permit is not required if the applicant has not had any nuisance complaints. There were other minor language and formatting revisions made as well. The Sustainability Commission voted to send the revised version to City Council during the 2/27/25 meeting. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Strategic: Updating the Fowl Ordinance is one aspect of updating and improving processes related to permitting of flocks and enforcement of city code relating to fowl. Equity: An annual fee of $50, required for 3 years, is in line with other cities one-time fees of ~$125-150. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): This will repeal and replace existing city code section "905.37. - Maintenance of fowl and birds." The City Charter requires a first and second reading of ordinances. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: None. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: There will be an annual permit fee of $50 which will cover staff time for application processing and coop inspection. This fee/permit will be required for three years, at which point permitees will not need to re-apply, unless there has been a nuisance citation. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney has reviewed and helped revise the proposed code. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Appendix D Fee Amendment Resolution Letter Fowl Code Ordinance Ordinance Summary Resolution of Bill 2025-01 Resolution Letter 1 1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FOWL AND BIRD REGISTRATION AND INSPECTION FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: SECTION 1. ESTABLISHING FEES A. License, permit and miscellaneous fees required under the ordinances of the City of Richfield shall be as stated in the sections of this Resolution. B. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require the City to issue or renew any license for which the fee has not been paid in a timely manner. SECTION 2. ANIMAL LICENSES AND PERMITS (1) Animals 905.01— 905.29 (j) Impounding (each animal) 1st time $77.00 2nd Time $138.00 3rd time (each impound after) $207.00 (k) Dangerous dog registration fee State Statute 347.51) $500.00 906.13 (I) Beekeeping Registration fee $31.00 905.37 (m) Fowl and Bird Registration and Inspection fee $50.00 BOLD represents added/amended fee Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this ___________ day of ______, 2025. Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk 2 BILL NO. 2025-__ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER IX OF THE RICHFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO MAINTENANCE OF FOWL; SUBSECTION 905.37 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter IX, Section 905.37 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is repealed in its entirety and replaced as follows: 905.37. - Maintenance of fowl. Subdivision 1. Prohibitions. a. No person shall own or keep any chickens, ducks, geese, pigeons or other fowl without obtaining a permit from the City. b. No person owning or keeping chickens, ducks, geese, pigeons or other fowl may abandon such fowl or permit the same to run at large or enter upon the premises of another without permission, nor may any such fowl be kept, raised or permitted to run at large on any street, park, lake or public ponding area. c. No person shall slaughter any chickens, ducks, geese, pigeons or other fowl within the City of Richfield. d. No person shall sell or breed any chickens, ducks, geese, pigeons or other fowl within the City of Richfield. Subd. 2. Limitation on number. No more than six (6) fowl may be kept or raised on any residential property in the City. This limitation does not apply to the keeping of pigeons pursuant to a license under the provisions of this section. Subd. 3. Injury or annoyance to others. For public nuisances related to fowl, the City shall follow the notice and abatement procedure in Section 925. The following standards shall apply to all fowl kept or raised on residential property in the City, and violations of such standards shall be considered a public nuisance: a. No such fowl may be kept or raised in a manner as to cause injury or annoyance to persons on other property in the vicinity by reason of noise, odor or filth. b. Fecal waste or litter shall be removed at such reasonable times to prevent odors from emitting over property lines. Subd. 4. Impounding of fowl. A fowl at large in violation of subdivision 1 may be impounded by the City, and, after being impounded for three (3) days or more without being reclaimed by the owner, may be destroyed or sold. A person reclaiming any impounded fowl shall pay the cost of impounding and keeping the same. Subd. 5. Permit requirements and process. a. The application shall be on a form developed by the City. The application form shall be made available at City Hall. The fees for such permits shall be payable upon submission of application and are as described in Appendix D. b. The City may inspect the premises annually or as deemed necessary. c. Approval of application is subject to reasonable conditions listed below. The City may impose any other reasonable conditions. Failure to adhere to permit conditions shall constitute cause for adverse action against the permit and shall be a violation of this RC160\3\977267.v8 section. A site plan demonstrating adherence to the following reasonable conditions must be submitted as part of the permit application to Business Licensing. Reasonable conditions include: i. Coops must contain four (4) square feet per fowl; ii. Runs must contain ten (10) square feet per fowl; iii. Coops must contain one (1) foot of roosting space per fowl; iv. Coops must contain one (1) nesting box per every three (3) hens; v. Coops must provide adequate ventilation, including a window or opening for air flow; vi. Coops must provide adequate predator proofing with hardware cloth, not chicken wire, which should extend at least twelve (12) inches underground and twelve (12) inches out from the coop; vii. Coops must not exceed one hundred and seventy five (175) total square feet; and viii. Coops must be setback at least three (3’) feet from each property line. d. A permit may be granted pursuant to this section only after the applicant has met any educational requirements as established by the City’s code compliance officer or their designee, including completing an approved backyard fowl course from an approved vendor as referenced on the application form. e. If the applicant is a renter, the applicant must provide evidence of written approval of the property owner in conjunction with the permit application. f. All permits are valid for one year unless otherwise revoked by reason of any violation of this subsection or by violation of any condition of their permit. Before revoking a fowl license, the permittee shall be given notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meeting before a hearing officer designated by the City Manager at which such revocation will be considered. Written notice shall either be delivered personally or mailed to the address of the permittee as set forth in the license application at least five (5) days before the meeting. At the meeting, the permittee must be given an opportunity to be heard. Following the meeting, the hearing officer shall issue a written decision regarding the revocation within ten (10) days of the hearing date. If the revocation is upheld by the hearing officer, the City’s actual expenses for holding the hearing, up to a maximum of $1,000.00, must be paid by the permittee. g. Applicants must apply for annual permits for each of the first three (3) years of owning and keeping fowl. If the permittee has no violations of this subsection or any condition of their permit during the initial three-year permit period, then the permittee shall no longer be required to apply for subsequent annual permits. Following the initial permit period, the permittee must still comply with all provisions of this subsection and all conditions of their permits and the City may still revoke permits for violations of this subsection and such conditions. h. The requirements of this section shall not prohibit the adoption of fowl to the public by any releasing agency, private shelter, rescue group, or public sheltering agency provided the adoption contract specifies that the animal cannot be sold, transferred, or otherwise disposed of for a period of six (6) months following the adoption without written consent of the releasing agency, except for euthanization by a licensed veterinarian to prevent pain and suffering or disease transmission. (Amended 03-11-2025, Bill No. 1996-10) RC160\3\977267.v8 Section 2. This ordinance will be effective in accordance with Sections 3.09 and 3.10 of the City Charter. Adopted by the City of Richfield on this 11th day of March, 2025. Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING SECTION 905.37 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO MAINTENANCE OF FOWL 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. 2025-01 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING SECTION 905.37 OF THE CITY CODE This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. This ordinance, which repeals and replaces City Code Section 905.37 Maintenance of Fowl, does the following: increases the number of fowl allowed to be kept in the City and outlines the new permitting process and site plan requirements. 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 City Clerk at 612- 861-9739. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of March, 2025. Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:CLOSED SESSION AGENDA ITEM #10. STAFF REPORT NO. 37 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3/11/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 3/5/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: A closed session meeting pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 13D.05, Subd. 3(b) for an attorney- client privileged meeting to discuss pending litigation; Michael P. Klabunde vs. City of Richfield, et al., U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. Council will move to the Executive Conference Room for the closed session portion of the meeting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The closed session meeting will be convened as permitted by Minnesota Statute 13D.05, Subd. 3(b) to review pending litigation with legal counsel. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to recess the regular meeting and hold a closed session meeting with legal counsel to review pending litigation, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13D.05, Subd. 3(b). BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: 1.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to local government; limiting the zoning authority of municipalities related 1.3 to certain multifamily and mixed-use developments; proposing coding for new 1.4 law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 462. 1.5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 1.6 Section 1. [462.3572] MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS. 1.7 Subdivision 1.Definitions.(a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have 1.8 the meanings given. 1.9 (b) "Affordable housing development" means a multifamily development in which the 1.10 residential units are: 1.11 (1) owner-occupied units that are income restricted to households that, at the time of 1.12 initial occupancy, have an income at or below 115 percent of state or area median income, 1.13 whichever is greater, as determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban 1.14 Development; or 1.15 (2) leased units that satisfy the definition of a qualified low-income housing project 1.16 under section 42(g) of the Internal Revenue Code, with a deed or declaration for the leased 1.17 residential units containing a restrictive covenant requiring the property to remain affordable 1.18 housing for 30 years. 1.19 (c) "Applicant" has the meaning provided in section 15.99. 1.20 (d) "Minimum parking mandate" means a law, rule, or ordinance that specifies a minimum 1.21 number of motor vehicle parking spaces, including on-street or off-street within a garage 1.22 or other enclosed area. 1Section 1. S2286-1 1st EngrossmentSF2286 REVISOR MS SENATE STATE OF MINNESOTA S.F. No. 2286NINETY-FOURTH SESSION (SENATE AUTHORS: CLARK, Draheim and Pha) OFFICIAL STATUSD-PGDATE Introduction and first reading67203/06/2025 Referred to Housing and Homelessness Prevention Comm report: To pass as amended and re-refer to State and Local Government738a03/13/2025 Author added Pha776 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 2.1 (e) "Multifamily residential development" means a single residential building with at 2.2 least 13 units or a mixed-use building with commercial use on the ground floor, and at least 2.3 half of the usable square footage is for residential use. 2.4 (f) "Request" has the meaning provided in section 15.99, except that for the purposes 2.5 of this section, it also includes a written application for a building permit or a proposed 2.6 subdivision related to a multifamily residential development. 2.7 (g) "Residential unit" means a building or part of a building intended to be used as a 2.8 dwelling by a single owner or tenant. 2.9 Subd. 2.Multifamily and mixed-use development permitted.(a) A multifamily 2.10 residential development shall be a permitted use in any zoning district in a municipality that 2.11 authorizes commercial uses, except if such zoning district also authorizes heavy industrial 2.12 uses as a permitted use. 2.13 (b) A municipality must approve a multifamily residential development authorized under 2.14 paragraph (a), pursuant to the process and limitations established in subdivisions 3 and 4. 2.15 (c) Subject to the limitations in subdivisions 3, 4, and 6, a development authorized under 2.16 paragraph (a) must comply with any standards, performance conditions, or requirements, 2.17 including the adequacy of existing public infrastructure, imposed by a municipality to protect 2.18 public health, safety, and general welfare. 2.19 (d) Nothing in this section authorizes a multifamily residential development that is 2.20 prohibited by state or federal law or rule, or is prohibited under an ordinance adopted 2.21 pursuant to such a state or federal law or rule, to protect floodplains, areas of critical or 2.22 historic concern, wild and scenic rivers, or shore land, or that otherwise restricts residential 2.23 units to protect and preserve public health, the environment, or scenic areas. 2.24 (e) A city may establish local controls or ordinances to require that multifamily residential 2.25 developments constructed under this section that replace existing commercial or industrial 2.26 structures be mixed use, with commercial use on the ground floor and at least of half of the 2.27 usable square footage dedicated to residential use. This provision does not apply to an 2.28 affordable housing development. 2.29 (f) For purposes of this section, public health, safety, and general welfare does not include 2.30 traffic, noise, or nuisance concerns for developments with less than 300 units. 2.31 Subd. 3.Required standards.(a) The following limitations and required standards 2.32 apply to a multifamily residential development permitted under subdivision 2. 2Section 1. S2286-1 1st EngrossmentSF2286 REVISOR MS 3.1 (b) Any standards, performance conditions, or requirements imposed by a municipality 3.2 must directly relate to protecting health or safety. 3.3 (c) A municipality must allow a floor area ratio of 2.5 or greater. 3.4 (d) The following municipalities must not impose a height limitation that is less than 75 3.5 feet above grade: 3.6 (1) cities of the first class; 3.7 (2) the city of St. Cloud; and 3.8 (3) municipalities in the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, 3.9 and Washington. 3.10 (e) A municipality other than those listed in paragraph (d) must not impose a height 3.11 limitation that is less than the higher of: 3.12 (1) the tallest commercial or multifamily building that zoning standards authorize in the 3.13 same zoning district; or 3.14 (2) the tallest existing commercial or multifamily building within one-quarter mile within 3.15 the municipality, excluding nonconforming buildings built before January 1, 1975. 3.16 (f) A municipality must allow setback and lot coverage requirements equal to those 3.17 allowed for a commercial building in the same zoning district. 3.18 (g) A municipality must not impose more restrictive standards, performance conditions, 3.19 or requirements than those that would apply to a commercial building. 3.20 (h) A municipality must not impose requirements related to construction materials or 3.21 methods, including architectural elements, building egress, durability, energy efficiency, 3.22 or light access requirements, except as required by the State Building Code, as defined by 3.23 section 326B.121 or other state or federal law or rule. 3.24 (i) A municipality must not impose minimum parking mandates on a multifamily 3.25 residential development or the residential portion of a mixed-use development, except that 3.26 a municipality may pass and enforce an ordinance under section 169.346, subdivision 4, 3.27 related to disability parking spaces or any provision of the Minnesota Accessibility Code, 3.28 Minnesota Rules, chapter 1341. 3.29 (j) A municipality must not impose standards, performance conditions, or requirements 3.30 on an affordable housing development that are more restrictive than those imposed on a 3.31 market rate multifamily residential development. 3Section 1. S2286-1 1st EngrossmentSF2286 REVISOR MS 4.1 (k) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b) to (i), a municipality may use official controls that 4.2 result in increased density, including by imposing performance conditions, standards, or 4.3 other requirements. 4.4 Subd. 4.Administrative approval process.(a) A municipality must establish and follow 4.5 an administrative process to review requests related to a development permitted under 4.6 subdivision 2 in accordance with the process outlined in section 15.99. Notwithstanding 4.7 language to the contrary in section 15.99, subdivision 2, the time limit in section 15.99 shall 4.8 apply to a request for a building permit or a proposed subdivision for the purposes of this 4.9 section. Failure of a municipality to deny a request within the time limit provided under 4.10 section 15.99 is approval of the request. 4.11 (b) An applicant may provide written authorization to a municipality to toll the review 4.12 time limit provided by section 15.99. The applicant may also direct in writing that the 4.13 municipality resume the 60-day time limit for a request that was previously tolled by 4.14 authorization of the applicant. A municipality must not charge a fee to the applicant for a 4.15 request under this paragraph. 4.16 (c) A municipality must specify in writing, including on any application form provided 4.17 by the municipality, all requirements that a request must fulfill for a request to be deemed 4.18 complete and for the time limit in section 15.99, subdivision 2, to begin. Such requirements 4.19 may not include a requirement that an applicant waive any rights, forgo the process 4.20 established in this subdivision, or consent to exactions, dedications, or fees, except that a 4.21 municipality may charge a standard application fee for the request. 4.22 (d) A municipality engaging in the process established in paragraph (a) must: 4.23 (1) approve or deny a request for a building permit or proposed subdivision based on 4.24 the alignment of the request with the municipality's comprehensive plan, applicable zoning 4.25 requirements, and subdivision regulations; 4.26 (2) not require a conditional use permit or planned unit development agreement, except 4.27 that a municipality may require a conditional use permit or planned unit development 4.28 agreement to address an identified and documented risk to health or safety; 4.29 (3) not require more than one community meeting prior to approval of a request, except 4.30 if more are required by state or federal law, or the project involves or affects a lot located 4.31 in a historic district under section 138.73; and 4.32 (4) provide any development agreement to the applicant no less than three days in advance 4.33 of final plat approval or before final approval of a request if a plat is not required. 4Section 1. S2286-1 1st EngrossmentSF2286 REVISOR MS 5.1 Subd. 5.Affordable housing density bonus.A municipality must permit an affordable 5.2 housing development to exceed one or more maximum dimensional standards imposed by 5.3 official zoning controls as a zoning density bonus, including: 5.4 (1) a building height increase of at least 35 feet or 30 percent, whichever is greater; 5.5 (2) an increase of at least 30 percent in allowed floor area ratio, units per acre, total 5.6 number of units, or maximum lot coverage; or 5.7 (3) increases in other dimensional standards that increase building size by at least 30 5.8 percent more than what is allowed for market rate multifamily developments in the 5.9 jurisdiction. 5.10 Subd. 6.Official controls; limitations.A municipality must not use official controls 5.11 to prohibit the application of this section, including by imposing performance conditions, 5.12 standards, requirements, ordinances, fees, exactions, and dedications on a multifamily 5.13 residential development that are more restrictive than those in this section or other municipal 5.14 law or rule. 5.15 Subd. 7.Interim ordinance.No municipality shall enact an interim ordinance as provided 5.16 under section 462.355, subdivision 4, related to the policies specified in this section. 5.17 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective January 1, 2026. 5Section 1. S2286-1 1st EngrossmentSF2286 REVISOR MS