2025-05-13 WS City Council Agenda W ORK SESSION
RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, BARTHOLOMEW ROOM
MAY 13, 2025
5:45 PM
Call to order
1.Discuss further potential changes to the MR-2 and MR-3 zoning districts.
Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96
hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9739.
AGENDA SECTION:Work Session Items
AGENDA ITEM #1.
STAFF REPORT NO. 15
WORK SESSION
5/13/2025
REPORT PREPARED BY: Sam Crosby, Planner II, and Lance Bernard, Director of Planning, TC2
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director
5/6/2025
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
5/13/2025
ITEM FOR WORK SESSION:
Discuss further potential changes to the MR-2 and MR-3 zoning districts.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The current development parameters of the MR-2 “Multifamily Residential” and MR-3 “High Density
Residential” zoning districts are outdated and impractical. The City is modernizing these districts to:
facilitate infill development of small-sized multifamily housing,
better align with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan goals see Attachment A and,
accommodate the density ranges prescribed by the medium and high density residential land use
categories (35 units per acre, and 100 units per acre, respectively).
The goal is to appropriately regulate new multifamily housing, while maintaining context sensitivity, and
promoting both an attractive street frontage and pedestrian friendly design. It is important to note that this
effort does not involve rezoning any properties at this time see Attachment B.
A three-tiered approach has been used to break the project down into manageable parts see Attachment
C. Tier I, presented in February, tackled high level design elements, which pertain to building size and
placement. Staff are now addressing Tier II, which concentrates on the building structure, and Tier III, which
covers remaining design elements, such as lighting and screening. Design standards are being emphasized
to enhance confidence in project outcomes, allowing for a more efficient review and approval process for
smaller projects.
During the work session, staff will briefly summarize the Tier II and Tier III recommended standards, and
outline the next steps.
DIRECTION NEEDED:
Staff is seeking direction on the proposed Tier II, Mid-Level Recommended Standards, Attachment D,
and Tier III Ground Level Recommended Standards, Attachment E. Staff requests Council feedback to
confirm whether the current approach is aligned with Council's direction and to identify any specific
standards that should be reconsidered prior to proceeding.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
First Work Session
The first work session on this topic was held on February 24, and focused on Tier I review, High-Level
Recommended Standards. Based on the feedback received, adjustments were made to the Tier 1 standards.
See Attachment F as summarized below:
Expand the 0.5 stalls per unit reduction to the entire length of the high frequency transit lines (Portland
and Nicollet).
See Attachment G: Revised Potential Residential Parking Reductions Map.
Reduce the minimum width required for the on-street parking credit from 36 feet to 32 feet.
Staff will continue internal discussions on this topic; however, lack of consensus should not delay
the progress of this code update.
Evaluate the City’s sidewalk policies to ensure the City is maximizing opportunities to expand the
network and make connections.
See Attachment E - Tier III Recommendations.
Require courtesy notices for neighbors of projects where the public hearing has been removed from the
review and approval process (i.e., projects approved through administrative review only).
See Attachment H – Draft Neighbor Notification Policy.
Expand the parking reduction to all residential parcels in the downtown area, not just MR-2 and MR-3.
In order to encourage smaller infill projects along the transit lines, and larger projects in the
downtown. Staff adjusted the application of the half (0.5) stall per unit parking reduction based on
context. See Attachment F: Updated Tier I Recommendations.
Refine the open space requirements.
See Attachment F: Updated Tier I Recommendations.
Requested information regarding existing all-studio housing.
See Attachment I: Studio/Efficiencies Study.
Outreach and Engagement
After the first work session, staff began public outreach and engagement:
Launched the project website the first week of April (click here).
Between April 11 and May 2, 18 views per day on average, skewed by number below.
Highest number of views was on April 29 (107).
6 people have signed up for updates.
6 comments have been received, see Attachment J.
Mailed out post cards to all owners of properties either zoned multifamily or guided multifamily. The post
cards were received by Monday, April 14.
Met with the Minneapolis Association of Realtors on April 15 .
Posted in the Richfield Recap April 24.
Posted to social media and the newspaper the week of April 28.
Staff to attend the Chamber of Commerce Board meeting on May 6.
B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS
Affordability
The changes being considered support more than one of the Council’s strategic outcomes. First and foremost,
it will help maintain Richfield as an affordable place to live.
Sustainability
It will also promote climate resiliency, as facilitating the construction of infill housing helps mitigate sprawl and
dependence on private automobiles. Smaller dwellings have a lower per capita energy use. According to the
American Council for Energy Efficiency and Economics, shared walls and HVAC systems utilize far fewer
resources than detached dwellings.
Efficiency
The proposed increase in administrative project approvals will further the Community Development strategic
initiative to update development review processes and procedures.
Equity
Finally, the changes would also help to reduce racial inequities and barriers for traditionally excluded groups.
Middle housing has historically given working-class families, which tend to have a greater population of people
of color, access to more affordable homes. Facilitating the development of missing middle housing near jobs,
amenities, services and transit will make strides toward undoing past discriminatory practices by providing
more units that are attainable to communities of color. Regardless of race or income, housing should be
available for everyone; arguments to the contrary are exclusionary.
C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
The 2040 Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 2018) is the foundation for this work. Attachment A is a list of
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies that support the code analysis and reform.
In short, the goal of the project is to make it feasible to build missing middle housing in Richfield. This will
increase housing options, support housing affordability, optimize land use, support a walkable community, and
support goals and initiatives within the Comprehensive Plan.
Next Steps
June – July 2025: Additional public outreach prior to drafting the formal ordinance language.
August: Draft a formal ordinance for public hearing before the Planning Commission.
September: First and second reading before the City Council.
D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
Metropolitan Council grant funds need to be used by the end of June 30, 2026.
Staff aims to complete the zoning code updates by the fall of 2025, to coincide with the next
comprehensive plan update which will start in 2026.
E.FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
ALTERNATIVE(S):
Offer modifications or further suggestions.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
A. Related Comp Plan Goals and Policies Backup Material
B. Existing & Future Multifamily Parcels Map Backup Material
C. Three Tiers Overview Backup Material
D. Tier II, Mid Level Recommended Standards Backup Material
E. Tier III, Ground Level Recommended Standards Backup Material
F. Tier I, Revised High Level Recommended Standards Backup Material
G. Revised, Proposed Parking Reduction Areas Backup Material
H. Draft Neighbor Notice Requirements Backup Material
I. Studio/Efficiencies Study Backup Material
J. Comments Received Backup Material
Related Comp Plan Goals and Policies
CP Goals:
Provide a full range of housing choices that meet residents’ needs at every stage of their lives,
and ensure a healthy balance of housing types that meet the needs of a diverse population with
diverse needs.
Maintain and enhance Richfield’s commitment to housing … redevelopment, resulting in an
attractive, desirable and prosperous community.
CP Policies:
Strongly encourage pedestrian-friendly and transit-friendly building and site design through
measures such as higher density development and growth, which is located along major
transportation routes.
Regularly review land use and zoning ordinances to ensure maximum opportunities for
strengthening housing choices.
Promote the development of a balanced housing stock that is available to a range of income
levels.
Establish a land use pattern and supporting infrastructure that preserves and enhances the
ability of residents to make personal connections in their neighborhoods.
Provide a full range of housing choices that contribute to vital and desirable neighborhoods that
welcome diversity of age, race, and physical ability; while maintaining a comfortable small town
atmosphere.
Require site design and architectural characteristics that provide appropriate transitions
between lower and higher intensity uses.
Develop residential standards (scale, density, etc.) for redevelopment areas that create
neighborhood character.
Focus commercial and higher density residential development along major thoroughfares.
Ensure that redevelopment and infill projects maintain the integrity of existing neighborhoods.
Give priority to projects that meet the following criteria when considering proposals for market-
rate, multifamily housing:
» Located in transitional areas between single-family neighborhoods and commercial areas.
» Offers a complementary size and style to the community.
» Includes a mix of unit sizes and amenities.
» Includes amenities to build community and encourage active lifestyles.
» Offers a mix of residential and complementary commercial uses that embody and preserve the
feel of the “Urban Hometown” in their design.
» Offers flexibility in their design to accommodate market changes.
THE THREE TIERS OVERVIEW
(MR-2 & MR-3 Ordinance Revision Steps)
In order to manage the scope of updating two zoning districts at the
same time, building regulations for multifamily housing have been
broken-down into three tiers:
Site Area (lot size)
Building (aka lot) Coverage
Impervious Area
Lot Width
Building Height
Setbacks
Parking
Unit Sizes
Open Space
Number of Units by Bedrooms
Approval Process
Massing Limits (4th floor
setbacks, wall plane changes)
Minimum Window Requirements
Blank Wall Limits
Principal/Front Entry Emphasis
Interaction with Street
Parking Location, Setbacks
Shared Access
Use of alley required when
present
Roof Overhangs
Contextual Considerations
Exterior Materials
Lighting
Sidewalks
Trash Enclosures
Other Screening Requirements
Purpose Section
TIER I, HIGH LEVEL: SIZING AND PLACING THE BOX
TIER II, MID LEVEL: SHAPING THE BOX
TIER III, GROUND LEVEL: DETAILS AROUND THE BOX
Richfield City Council/Planning Commission Work Session (May 13, 2025)
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 1
Tier 2, Mid Level Recommended Standards
1. Parking Location & Setbacks
Purpose: To locate parking predominantly behind the building to prioritize an active, pedestrian-
oriented street frontage.
Medium & High Density Standard
a) Existing:
i. Setbacks (Section 544.13, Subd. 5): Parking lots must be setback 8 feet from the
right-of-way; 5 feet from adjacent commercial, multifamily and mixed-use property;
and 15 feet from single and two-family property with appropriate screening as
required by Section 544.03, Subd. 5
ii. Location: None
iii. Screening: Section 544.03, Subd 5, generally requires that “Residential sites shall
be landscaped to improve the livability, beauty and value of housing; to screen and
mitigate views of large parking areas; to reduce the effect of traffic noise; to provide
shade; and to help protect water quality.”
b) Proposed:
i. Setbacks: Parking stalls must be setback a minimum of 5 feet from the side and
rear property lines.
ii. Location:
Front yard and street side yards: not allowed
Rear yard or underground: allowed
Interior side yard: allowed, provided it is not more than the width of the
building, or 60 feet, whichever is less.
iii. Screening: Screening requirements only apply to parking lots. Parking lots adjacent
to Low-Density Residential, (R) and Single-Family Residential (R-1), Districts must
be screened along the side and rear property lines with a 4 foot-tall privacy fence,
solid evergreen hedge, architecturally compatible opaque wall, or a combination of
these, unless:
1. An alley is present, or
2. The adjacent property owner provides a written waiver.
The perimeter planting requirements of 544.03, Subd. 6 shall apply to parking stalls
located in interior side yards, adjacent to all other zoning districts.
c) Reasoning: Reduced setbacks are mitigated by screening standards that minimize visual
impacts on neighboring properties. Locating parking at the rear or underground supports
the goal of maintaining active street frontages.
Richfield City Council/Planning Commission Work Session (May 13, 2025)
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 2
2. Access
Purpose: To ensure orderly and efficient entry and exit for vehicles, to minimize curb cuts, and
enhance pedestrian safety.
Medium & High Density Standard
a) Existing: None.
b) Proposed:
i. If a parking lot is adjacent to an alley, access shall be off the alley.
ii. If a lot is not adjacent to an alley but is a corner lot or a through lot, then driveway
access shall be off the side street with the lower functional class as defined by the
comprehensive plan. If both roadways are the same functional class, access may
be off of either, subject to approval of the jurisdictional agency.
iii. If a lot is not adjacent to an alley nor a corner lot, driveway access can be from the
street.
iv. A driveway existing as of [insert date] that does not meet the above lot access
standards can continue in the same location until the property is redeveloped. Such
driveway may be expanded if it is in conformance with the City Code.
v. Shared access is highly encouraged but requires a written agreement with the
neighboring property owner.
c) Reasoning: The proposed changes are intended to reduce the number of access points
along the streets by encouraging access from the side or rear of the property when
possible. This approach supports the creation of uninterrupted sidewalks and reduces
potential conflict points between pedestrians and vehicles.
3. Building Mass
Purpose: To prevent long, continuous unbroken building facades, and to use design elements
to create a vertical rather than horizontal building expression.
Medium & High Density Standard
a) Existing: None
b) Proposed:
i. No front building wall may be greater in width than it is in height.
ii. Street side building walls over 60 feet in length shall recess, for the full height of the
building, at least 4 feet in depth and 6 feet in width to simulate the appearance of two
separate buildings.
iii. For all other building walls, deviations are required where the unbroken building wall
length to wall height ratio meets or exceeds 2:1. The minimum depth of each building
wall deviation at the 2:1 ratio shall be 2 feet. The unbroken wall length to wall height
ratio may be increased to 3:1 if the depth of the building wall deviations is increased
to 3 feet. The unbroken wall length to wall height ratio may be increased to 4:1 if the
depth of the building wall deviations is increased to 4 feet. The building wall
deviations must extend from the grade to the roof, or top of the parapet.
Richfield City Council/Planning Commission Work Session (May 13, 2025)
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 3
iv. No building wall shall exceed 200 feet in length.
c) Reasoning: The proposed standards are intended to divide a building’s mass into
increments that create an inviting, pedestrian-oriented streetscape.
4. Minimum Window Requirements
Propose: To humanize the appearance of a building, allow access to light and air.
Medium & High Density Standard
a) Existing: Standards for window treatments are prescribed in Section 544.07, Subd 5 and
require that “Windows or simulated windows shall at a minimum be used on the ground
level of any wall parallel to or nearly parallel to a street. The use of bars, chains or similar
security devices that are visible from a public street or sidewalk shall be prohibited.”
b) Proposed: Retain existing, and add:
i. No less than thirty (30) percent of the walls on the first floor, and no less than twenty
(20) percent of the walls on each floor above the first that face a public street, public
sidewalk, or public pathway contain windows.
ii. No less than ten (15) percent of the walls on each floor facing all other directions.
iii. Window requirements are not intended to require custom window sizes, or to
increase building setbacks to comply with building code.
c) Reasoning: To push for design standards that exceed the minimum building code, within
reason.
5. Blank Wall Limits
Purpose: Promotes visual interest and variety in the building expression, making the building
more appealing - an added element to ensure attractive design enhancing confidence in
project outcomes.
Medium & High Density Standard
a) Existing Standards: There are no explicit requirements. However, window treatment
requirements under Section 544.07, Subd 5 (cited above) are typically applied.
b) Proposed:
i. Along a street frontage or side street, the bottom 25 feet of a building shall include
elements that relate to the human scale. These should include doors and windows,
projections, awnings and canopies, or decorative ornamentation. This requirement
may also be addressed through art installation or landscaping subject to approval
by the Director.
ii. A blank wall (to be defined as an uninterrupted wall that does not include entries,
windows, recesses, projections, or other architectural elements, and exceeds 25
feet in length) would be prohibited. Would be calculated per floor.
Richfield City Council/Planning Commission Work Session (May 13, 2025)
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 4
c) Reasoning: To ensure buildings are visually appealing, especially when the placement of
windows and balconies is limited by building code for various reasons. This regulation
would ensure building articulation in areas where other preferred elements are precluded.
6. Principal/Front Entry Emphasis
Purpose: A well-designed entrance has long been a defining feature of architectural character.
It plays a vital role in wayfinding, creates a welcoming atmosphere, and provides shelter from
the elements.
Medium & High Density Standard
a) Existing: Architectural standards under Section 544.07, Subd. 1, require buildings to be
oriented so that at least one principal entrance faces the public street.
b) Proposed:
a) Building entrances shall
face the front of the lot;
be architecturally emphasized, and highly visible from the street; and,
utilize design features that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun, such as
awnings, canopies, or porticos.
c) Reasoning: Refer to the purpose statement above. These proposed requirements, which
are similar to the mixed-use district standards, are also appropriate for multifamily
residential
7.Other Contextual Considerations:
Section 547 – Administration
Purpose: To provide administration approval for minor deviations that would trigger a variance.
a) Existing: None
b) Proposed: Five percent administrative approval of deviations.
c) Reasoning: This would remove the variance process for situations that require very minor
flexibility. This provision is intended for unique situations where the full requirement cannot
be met, but the difference would not be noticeable without measurement. For example, a
5% deviation from the 5 foot side yard setback in MR-2 is 3 inches. Staff would have the
ability to deny the deviation, and require the variance process if staff finds the deviation
warrants a greater review. As proposed, the provision would apply to all site plan approvals
and not just multi-family zoning districts.
Richfield City Council/Planning Commission Work Session (May 13, 2025)
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 5
Section 509.11. - Not encroachments.
Purpose: To update provisions to clarify balcony encroachments.
a) Existing: In required front yards, principal building balconies that extend a distance of 4 feet
or less, provided they are 7feet or more above grade at the front building line.
b) Proposed: Retain existing and add in required side yards that are not adjacent to property
guided low density residential, principal building balconies that extend a distance of 3 feet
or less, provided they are 7 feet or more above grade at the side building line.
c) Reasoning: To facilitate balconies where appropriate. In the MR-2 district, the side setback
is 5 feet, so a balcony could be 2 feet from the property line. In the MR-3 district, the side
setback is 8 feet, so a balcony could be 5 feet from the property line.
Section 509.13. - Central air conditioning units.
Purpose: To update provisions regarding the location and screening of central air conditioning
units.
a) Existing: Central air conditioning units shall not be located forward of the front building line
and shall not be located closer to any side lot line than the minimum side setback
requirement for the principal building.
b) Proposed: Central air conditioning units shall not be located forward of the front building
line, unless appropriately screened from view as determined by the director, and shall not
be located closer to any side lot line than the minimum side setback requirement for the
principal building, minus 2 feet.
c) Reasoning: The front yard location requirement was an issue in both the Rya and Penn
Place Townhome projects. Allowing a 2 foot encroachment enables placement of the A/C
unit within the side yard without requiring the entire building to be set further back. As
proposed, this provision would apply to all projects and not just those in multifamily
residential zoning districts. This regulation has posed challenges, particularly when
retrofitting A/C units for existing homes. The change would primarily impact residential
properties and is unlikely to affect larger commercial projects, as their units typically exceed
2 feet in size.
Richfield City Council/Planning Commission Work Session (May 13, 2025)
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 1
Tier 3, Ground Level Recommended Standards
1. Exterior Materials & Color
Purpose: To guide the durability and residential character of a structure, maintain a high quality
appearance over time, and to fit within Richfield’s urban and suburban context.
Medium & High Density Standard
a) Existing:
i. Materials: Standards for exterior materials are prescribed in Section 544.07 Subd. 3
and require “the main exterior wall surface of all buildings shall be constructed of
wood, brick, stone, cementitious planks (e.g. Hardiplank ®), glass, architectural
concrete textured surface or other materials of high quality as approved by the
Director. Unadorned pre-stressed concrete panels, standard concrete block and
unfinished metal, except for naturally weathering metals such as copper, shall not be
permitted. All buildings shall be constructed so that each exterior wall and roof surface
is finished with materials of consistent quality as those of the front wall and front roof.”
ii. Color: None
b) Proposed:
i. Materials: Modify the existing standard by removing the ability to use architectural
concrete textured surfaces and limit finished metals to above the ground floor and not
more than 20% of the wall area with the caveat that they must be matte finished. This
would apply to multifamily residential only.
ii. Color: No building may display more than ten percent of any elevation surface in
bright, high intensity or pure tone primary or secondary colors. No fluorescent or neon
colors shall be used on any exterior elevation surface.
c) Reasoning: Finished metal is prone to denting and does not hold up well to the wear and tear
typically experienced at the ground level. Additionally, non-matte finishes can create reflective
glare from the setting sun, which can be a nuisance. Metal finishes and exposed concrete,
even when textured, are not traditionally used as exterior materials for housing and are
generally considered incompatible with residential settings. Similarly, building colors that are
overly bright, harsh, or otherwise out of character with the traditional neighborhood aesthetic
should be prohibited to maintain the area's cohesive appearance.
2. Exterior Lighting
Purpose: To promote environmentally sensitive lighting, to limit glare onto abutting parcels and
right-of-way, while allowing sufficient nighttime illumination at levels appropriate for a residential
area.
Medium & High Density Standard
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 2
a) Existing: Standards for exterior lighting are prescribed in Section 544.09, Subd. 1 and require
“lighting to be designed and arranged to restrict direct illumination and glare onto abutting
parcels.” Section 544.09, Subd 2 – 13 provide additional lighting requirements. Standards to
note that pertain to this update include:
i. Direct off-site views of the light source are not permitted except for ornamental
style fixtures if it can be demonstrated that off-site view of the light source are
mitigated by the fixture design and/or location.
ii. Wall packs are not allowed.
iii. Lighting shall not exceed 1.0 foot candle as measured from the centerline of a
public street or residential property line.
iv. Minimum parking lot illumination of 0.2 foot candles and a maximum of 4.0 foot
candles.
v. Primary building entrances to multifamily residential at a minimum of 5.0 foot
candles and no maximum.
b) Proposed: Modify the existing standard to include the following requirements for exterior
lighting:
i. Maximum illumination of 8.0 foot-candles at building entrances.
ii. Fixtures must have a Backlight, Up light, and Glare (BUG) rating of 0-0-0.
iii. Light color temperature (Kelvin) must not exceed 4,000K.
iv. All fixtures must be dark sky compliant.
v. Maximum pole or mounting height must not exceed 12 feet.
c) Reasoning: To incorporate industry standards that mitigate exterior lighting impacts to
adjacent uses. For example, the BUG rating system was developed by the Illuminating
Engineering Society (IES) and the International Dark-Sky Association to measure how much a
light fixture contributes to light pollution.
Backlight (B): Light directed behind the fixture, often spilling onto neighboring
properties.
Uplight (U): Light emitted above the horizontal plane, contributing to skyglow.
Glare (G): Light that shines directly into people's eyes, causing visual discomfort
or reducing visibility.
A BUG rating of 0-0-0 means the fixture emits no backlight, no uplight, and no glare, which is
ideal for minimizing light pollution and protecting dark skies.
Kelvin measures the color temperature of a light source, indicating whether it appears warm
(yellowish) or cool (bluish). 4,000 Kelvin is what the City uses for public street lighting, so it
would create a consistent tone. Bluer tones tend to disrupt wildlife and have also been shown
to have a negative impact on humans.
3. Sidewalks
Purpose: A dedicated pedestrian pathway, separating foot traffic from vehicular traffic and
promoting safe and accessible mobility for all.
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 3
Medium & High Density Standard
a) Existing: The subdivision regulations require a minimum 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk within
the City right-of-way adjacent to the subject parcel, if the property is being platted. Section
544 (General Building and Performance Standards) requires pedestrian paths at all pedestrian
arrival points to the property. Finally, the current 10% parking credit for being within one-fourth
mile of a frequently operating transit line requires that pedestrian ways connect the parcel to
the transit stop. This is an incentive for those who want the credit to construct missing
connections.
b) Proposed: Modify the existing standard to include a 6 foot wide sidewalk along all sides of the
lot that abut a public street, with any new construction.
c) Reasoning: Zoning regulations cannot impose requirements that extend beyond the
boundaries of a property unless there is a clear and direct nexus demonstrating how the off-
site requirement is necessary to address an impact caused by the development.
4. Screening for Refuse
Purpose: To screen the placement of refuse, recycling, and organic containers to minimize
adverse impacts on neighboring properties, including noise, odor, visual appearance, and litter.
Medium & High Density Standard
a) Existing: Standards for the screening of refuse collection are prescribed in Section 554.05. In
general, these requirements specify that all trash, garbage, waste materials, and recycling
containers must be designed to be stored within the interior space of the building.
b) Proposed: Up to 4 units are exempt from the internal storage requirements. For larger units,
no change.
c) Reasoning: To minimize potential adverse impacts of larger buildings and facilitate smaller
buildings.
5. Screening for Utilitarian Items
Purpose: To screen the utilitarian items such as HVAC and utilities to minimize adverse impacts
on neighboring properties, including noise, odor, and visual appearance.
Medium & High Density Standard
a) Existing: Standards for the screening of utilitarian items are prescribed in Section 554.05. In
general, these requirements specify that “all delivery and loading operations, HVAC
equipment, and other utility and service function shall be grouped and arranged away
from the public right-of-way and fully screened from ground level observation at any point
on the property, adjacent property, or from adjacent right-of-way.”
b) Proposed: No change.
c) Reasoning: Staff reviewed the existing standards and determined they are sufficient; no
revisions are necessary.
6. Landscaping
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 4
Purpose: Proper landscaping adds to the health, safety, aesthetic, ecological and economic
values of the community. The intent of these provisions is further listed in Section 544.03 -
Landscaping and screening requirements.
a) Existing: The landscaping and screening requirements under review apply to residential
uses as outlined in Section 544.03, Subd. 5. These standards are intended to improve the
livability, beauty and value of housing; to screen and mitigate views of large parking areas; to
reduce the effect of traffic noise; to provide shade; and to help protect water quality. The
requirements in the table below are in addition to any plantings in the public street right-of-way
whether installed by the land developer or the City.
Type Requirements
Overstory deciduous trees 3 to 6 units: 1 tree per dwelling unit
More than 6 units: 0.5 trees per dwelling unit
Coniferous trees May be substituted on a one-for-one basis for the
overstory deciduous trees
Ornamental deciduous trees Not required
Understory shrubs Foundation plantings are required in all areas
visible areas from the public right-of-way
b) Proposed: Retain and add redlines above.
c) Reasoning: Applies the same foundation planting language as required for single and two
family. Projects that are unable to accommodate tree plantings on-site may either plant trees in
designated public areas, such as parks or rights-of-way, or contribute to a fund that will be used
to plant trees in public spaces on their behalf.
7. Purpose Section
Purpose: To update the MR-2 (Section 525.01) and MR-3 (Section 527.01) purpose
statements to clearly align with the overall intent of the code and the proposed updates. The
purpose statements serve as guiding language when evaluating proposals such as variances
or PUDs, helping determine whether a proposal meets the code’s intent. Therefore, it is
important that the purpose statements explicitly describe the desired types of development and
intended characteristics.
Medium & High Density Standard
a) Existing:
MR-2: The purposes of the MR-2 District regulations are to reserve appropriately located
areas for multifamily dwellings; preserve as many as possible of the desirable
characteristics of the single-family residential district while permitting higher population
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 5
densities; provide opportunities for infill cluster housing development, thereby allowing
greater intensities and a wider variety of housing types; minimize traffic congestion and
avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of buildings of excessive
size (or density) in relation to the surrounding land, buildings, or infrastructure; and to
provide multifamily residential areas that are safe and attractive.
MR-3: The purposes of the MR-3 District regulations are to reserve appropriately located
areas for family living in a variety of types of dwellings at a reasonable range of population
densities; preserve as many as possible of the desirable characteristics of the single-family
district, while permitting higher population densities; provide space for semi-public facilities
needed to complement urban residential areas and space for institutions that require a
residential environment; minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by
preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the surrounding
infrastructure; and to provide multifamily residential areas that are safe and attractive.
b) Proposed:
MR2: The purpose of the MR-2 zoning district is to promote multifamily development that is
diverse and attractive, and to facilitate context-sensitive infill and redevelopment, by
allowing a variety of neighborhood-compatible buildings with multiple units. Characteristics
of such buildings include: primary entrances and windows facing onto the street, with
secondary windows facing to the side and adjoining properties, human scaled architectural
elements, and green space that allows for tree canopy, water filtration, and relaxation.
Examples of such building types include: stacked triplexes and fourplexes, townhomes,
courtyard cottages, courtyard apartments, rowhomes, small (low-rise) multifamily buildings
and cluster developments. The district is not intended to allow more than one full sized
single-family detached unit on a lot (a full-sized home meaning 1,200 square feet or bigger)
or to allow slot homes.
MR-3: Modify the existing purpose statement, except building types would include mid-rise
apartments.
c) Reasoning: The existing purpose statements do not address the desirable aspects of the
district or the desired building form. The language precluding full size single family is to
ensure “multibuilding developments” are not misinterpreted. An example of slot homes is
RF64. Building types could be added to the definitions section if desired/needed.
DRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE 1
Tier I, High Level - Recommended Standards
If a standard conflicts with an existing overlay district provision, the overlay district provision
prevails.
1. Site Area
City Definition: Subd. 68."Lot area." The total horizontal area bounded by the front, side, and
rear lot lines. With respect to planned unit developments only, lot area may include, at the
discretion of the Director, areas of the right-of-way that are improved and integral to the design
of the project. (Amended, Bill No. 2014-4).
Purpose: A minimum lot size dictates how much land is required for different types of
development, ensuring appropriate density and promoting compatible land use.
Medium Density Standard
a) Existing MR-2: 15,000 sf (0.34 acres)
min.
b) Proposed: 6,000 sf (0.13 acres) min.
High Density Standard
a) Existing MR-3: 60,000 sf (1.37 acres) min.
b) Proposed: 6,000 sf (0.13 acres) min.
Reasoning: The proposed standards are the same standard as the R zoning district. The goal
is to permit the smallest allowed use (3 units) on a standard-sized lot. This approach minimizes
the need for land assembly, which has been identified as a key obstacle for middle housing.
2. Lot Coverage
City Definition: Subd. 70. "Lot coverage." The total ground area covered by buildings on a lot,
excluding uncovered swimming pools, uncovered porches, or uncovered ground level landings.
Purpose: Lot Coverage limits help to control the ground cover of a project and the intensity of
development in a zoning district.
Medium Density Standard
a) Existing MR-2: 30% max.
b) Proposed: 45% max.
High Density Standard
a) Existing MR-3: 30% max.
b) Proposed: 55% max.
Reasoning: Lot coverage will naturally be limited by parking and impervious surface.
3. Impervious Surface
City Definition: Subd. 63. "Impervious surface." A surface that has been compacted or
covered with a layer of materials so that it is highly resistant to infiltration by water. It includes
surfaces such as compacted sand, limerock, or clay, as well as most conventionally surfaced
streets, roofs, sidewalks, parking lots, and other similar surfaces. Open uncovered decks or
porches are not included.
Propose: Limiting the amount of impervious surface helps regulate infiltration to reduce runoff
and flooding.
DRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE 2
Medium Density Standard
a) Existing MR-2: N/A
b) Proposed: 70% max.
High Density Standard
a) Existing MR-3: N/A
b) Proposed: 75% max.
Reasoning: The proposed standards work with the minimum parking requirement. Mixed use
districts provide similar standards for impervious surface and open space requirements.
4. Site Width
City Definition: Subd. 76. “Lot line, front." On an interior lot, the lot line abutting a street; or, on
a corner lot, the shorter lot line abutting a street (or as otherwise designated by the Building
Official); or, on a through lot, the lot lines abutting the streets.
Purpose: A minimum lot width helps ensure that lots are wide enough to accommodate
buildings, driveways, and landscaping, promoting functional and accessible site design.
Medium Density Standard High Density Standard
a) Existing MR-2: 75 feet min. a) Existing MR-3: 150 feet min.
b) Proposed: 50 feet min. b) Proposed: 50 feet min.
Reasoning: The proposed standards are based on the prevalence of existing lots; again,
helping to avoid land assembly, which has been identified as a key obstacle.
5. Building Height
City Definition: Subd. 59. "Height of building." The vertical distance to the highest point of the
roof for flat roofs; to the deck line for mansard roofs; and to the average height between the
highest roof ridge and its associated eaves for gable, hip and gambrel roofs, as measured from
the average elevation of the lot adjoining the front building line.
Purpose: Building height limitations help to prevent overshadowing and to ensure compatibility
with surrounding structures.
Medium Density Standard
a) Existing MR-2: 35 feet max.
b) Proposed: 3 stories, 36 feet max.
Reasoning: Twelve feet per story provides sufficient design flexibility to accommodate up to
three story buildings.
High Density Standard
a) Existing MR-3: 50 feet max
b) Proposed: Minimum 3 stories; Maximum 5 stories, 60 feet
Additional building height standards include:
Proximity to Transit Stations: Buildings within one block east or west of a high frequency
transit line or within the expanded Lyndale/66th “Downtown” area (see map) may extend
up to six stories (or 72 feet) to support transit-oriented development.
DRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE 3
When more than four stories: Floors above the third floor shall be stepped back a
minimum of 15 feet when adjacent to public streets and public land. Step backs may be
adjusted depending on specific site conditions and building placements.
Transition Zones: Where a high-density residential zone abuts the south side of a Low
Density Residential District (R or R-1), the height of buildings within 50 feet of the
boundary shall not exceed three stories (or 36 feet) to maintain a gradual transition.
(Simulates an MR-2 height building, for the width of the minimum lot width requirement,
when adjacent to single or two family residential.)
Section 544.23 requires that no building shall be so tall that its shadow is cast across
more than 50% of land used guided for a single-family or two-family building between
the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on any day of the year.
Reasoning: Provides adequate transition between R and MR zoning districts. Minimum height
requirement ensures the efficient use of land and promotes a pedestrian-friendly streetscape.
Maximum height is proportioned between the Medium Density Residential and the Mixed Use
Neighborhood zoning district (which is eight stories max).
6. Setbacks
City Definition: Subd. 116. "Setback." The minimum horizontal distance required between a
building, structure, parking lot or other site improvement and the related front, side or rear lot
lines.
Purpose: Setbacks provide a buffer from property lines, space to accommodate landscaping or
walkways, and to ensure adequate light, ventilation, and privacy for neighboring properties.
Medium Density Standard
Front Setback
a) Existing MR-2: 30 feet min.
b) Proposed: 15 feet min and allow 6 feet of encroachment for front entry features, which are
unenclosed.
Side (Interior) Setback
a) Existing MR-2: 20 feet min. or building height
b) Proposed: 5 feet min.
Side (Corner) Setback
a) Existing MR-2: 30 feet min.
b) Proposed: 15 feet min.
Rear Setback
a) Existing MR-2: 25 feet min. or building height
b) Proposed: 20 feet min.
Reasoning:
Front Setback: Encroachment “allowance” encourages front entry features which are
“see through” (i.e., decks, porches) but nine feet still allows enough space for front yard
trees.
DRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE 4
Side (Interior) Setback: There are two story SFR with five foot side yard setbacks, one
more story is not a significant difference. In many cities, three stories are allowed for
SFR as well.
Side (Corner) Setback: A reduced setback aligns with the proposed front yard setback
while still supporting the maintenance of site triangle and planting areas within the side
yard.
Rear Setback: A reduced setback provides greater flexibility with shallower multifamily
lots and aligns with some existing medium density development.
High Density Standard
Front Setback
a) Existing MR-3: 40 feet min.
b) Proposed: 15 feet min and allow 6 feet of encroachment for front entry features, which are
unenclosed (i.e., porches).
Side (Interior) Setback
a) Existing MR-3: 30 feet min or building height
b) Proposed: 8 feet min.
Side (Corner) Setback
a) Existing MR-3: 40 feet min.
b) Proposed: 15 feet min.
Rear Setback
a) Existing MR-3: 35 feet min.
b) Proposed: 20 feet min.
Reasoning:
Front Setback: Encroachment “allowance” encourages front entry features which are
“see through” (i.e., decks, porches) but nine feet still allows enough space for front yard
trees.
Side (Interior) Setback: Building height adjacent to side lot lines limited based on
context – see height section.
Side (Corner) Setback: A reduced setback aligns with the proposed front yard setback
while still supporting the maintenance of site triangle and planting areas within the side
yard.
Rear Setback: A reduced setback provides greater flexibility with shallower lots.
7. Parking Requirements
City Definition: Subd.93 “Parking lot (area).” An authorized area not within a building where
motor vehicles are stored for the purpose of temporary, daily, or overnight off-street parking.
Purpose: Parking minimums provide adequate space for parking vehicles relative to
anticipated demand.
Medium & High Density Standard
DRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE 5
a) Existing MR-2 and MR-3: 1.1 parking stalls per unit. (Based on 1.25 per unit with a 10%
credit for being within a 1/4-mile radius of a Frequently Operating Transit Line (FOTL), and
a 5% credit for extra bike parking.)
b) Proposed: Maintain existing standards and add the following:
Reduce to 0.5 parking stalls per unit, only for buildings that are 40 units or less, on
parcels located 1 block* along either side of a High Frequency Transit Line (HFTL).** A
building of 41 units or more in size would need to meet existing parking requirements.
Reduce to 0.5 parking stalls per unit for the first 40 units in a building, regardless of
zoning designation, if located within the expanded 66th/Lyndale area.*** The 41st unit in
a building, and above, would need to meet existing parking requirements.
Reduce parking requirements for cluster developments in the MR-2 zoning district to
1.25 parking stalls per unit. (Missed during last year’s parking update.)
If an alley is present, allow direct pull-in parking stalls off the alley.
Allow on-street parking to count towards triplex and fourplex on-street parking
requirements only if:
o the roadway (back of curb to back of curb) is 36 feet wide or greater,
o sufficient driveway space exists such that the full parking requirement could be
parked on-site during a snow event (e.g., tandem stacked in driveway),
o the applicant agrees to provide notification to future residents through lease
and/or sale agreements, so that residents are aware of snow emergency
requirements to move cars off-street, prior to moving in, and
o The City adopts two changes to the municipal code:
Add a clause that explicitly states that all on-street parking is public
parking and may be occupied by any vehicle regardless of vehicle
ownership or property ownership.
Section 1310 regarding residential parking permits, which has never
been used, is deleted.
* One block meaning to the next street east/west, or to where the next street would cross if the street
went through – see attached map.
** To be defined as stops with a 15-minute headway or less.
***To be described as being located on: either side of 66th Street, between Rae Drive to the west and
Stevens Avenue to the east; on either side of Lyndale Avenue, between Highway 62 to the north and
either 67th Street W (along east side) or Lake Shore Drive (along west side) to the south; and on either
side of Nicollet Avenue, between 64th Street to the north and 67th Street East/AHA Way to the south.
Reasoning: The proposed standards facilitate infill development, and support Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) and walkable/bikeable neighborhoods, while providing limited parking for
maintenance calls, deliveries, and shared car programs, etc.
The expanded 66th/Lyndale area is generally understood to be the downtown area, but since it
has not been formally defined, the term cannot yet be used. Once an official downtown area
has been adopted, the designated area can be adjusted accordingly. The off-street parking
allowance caveats are based on feedback from Engineering and Public Works.
8. Unit Sizes
City Definition: N/A
Purpose: A way of indirectly regulating housing density.
Medium & High Density Standard
DRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE 6
a) Existing MR-2 and MR-3:
Eff: 400 sf min.
1 bed: 550 sf min.
2 bed: 750 sf min.
3+: add 150 sf for each bedroom over 2 beds
b) Proposed: Eliminate.
Reasoning: The building code already sets requirements for bedroom sizes, so having
additional regulations would be redundant and confusing. The focus should be on regulating
the overall structure, not its interior layout.
9. Open Space
City Definition: Subd.90 “Outdoor Open Space.” Lawns and other natural areas and open
courtyards. Open space does not include driveways, parking areas or sidewalks.
Purpose: Requiring a minimum amount of open space ensures that residents have readily
accessible areas for passive enjoyment. The City also has a definition for “Useable Open
Space” which is meant to be for more active enjoyment and does not include required
landscape setback areas unless intentionally designed for such.
Medium & High Density Standard
a) Existing MR-2: Min. of 325 sf per unit / MR-3: Min. of 300 sf per unit
b) Proposed: Eliminate the “Outdoor Open Space” definition and instead use the “Useable
Open Space” definition, which is already used in the mixed-use districts. Require 10% of
the lot for MR-2 and 15% of the lot for MR-3, rather than a per unit calculation. Unit-
specific open space, such as balconies and porches may not count for more than 50% of
the overall open space requirement. Impervious improvements, such as rooftop amenities
and patios, may not be more than 25% of the open space requirement. Shared rooftop
amenities that are also a green roof may be exempt from the 25% hard-surface limit,
subject to review and approval by the Stormwater Engineer and Sustainability Coordinator.
Reasoning: Both a single open space definition, and lot-based versus unit-based
requirement, will simplify and streamline the code. Richfield does not have a park dedication
requirement, which is typically 10% of a lot area and sometimes applies in addition to open
space requirements. Limiting the amount of unit-specific open space helps ensure some
shared open space to facilitate community.
10. Number of Units by Bedrooms
City Definition: N/A
Purpose: Limits to the number of efficiency units was likely adopted (circa 1995) to ensure that
a variety of unit sizes were provided, to provide diversity in housing options. Smaller units tend
to be more affordable, while larger units tend to serve families. There is a benefit to having a
variety of unit sizes available, to serve a broad population, but at what proportion depends
upon the demographic of the rental community. Consequently, any one-unit size should not be
severely limited.
Medium & High Density Standard
DRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE 7
a) Existing: Number of efficiencies limited to 20% of the units in MR-2, and 25% of the units
in MR-3.
b) Proposed: Eliminate.
Reasoning: Allow the market to determine the number of units. Similar to the rationale for unit
size standards, regulations should focus on the overall structure rather than its interior layout.
11. Approval Process
Purpose: To ensure proposals meet zoning rules and regulations consistently and in alignment
with the intent of the code.
Background: Currently, all commercial, industrial, multiple-family housing (3 or more units)
and institutional development applications are required to obtain full site plan approval. Full
site plan approval includes a public hearing, which takes - at a minimum - two months, and
increases project costs. The shift to an administrative site plan approval would not include a
public hearing process, can generally be processed in one month, and the application fee is
less expensive.
Historically, Richfield allowed multi-building developments called “group housing development”.
Currently, the code defines group housing as: “A development located on a single lot that
consists of two or more buildings, each of which contains 3 or more dwelling units”. This is
probably a relic from before the PUD code was adopted.
Medium Density Standard
a) Existing MR-2: Up to 8 units = site plan approval, 9 to 25 units = conditional use permit,
over 25 units = not allowed no matter the lot size.
b) Proposed: By administrative site plan approval (no PC or CC) – Up to 16 units. Full site
plan approval (with PC & CC) for between 17 to 40 units. Conditional Use Permit for over
40 units.
Allow cluster homes as a permitted use with the same thresholds.
Reasoning: Will help shorten the application process and avoid the uncertainty of unknown
conditions for smaller projects, a stated obstacle.
High Density Standard
a) Existing MR-3: up to 20 units = site plan approval, more than 20 units = conditional use
permit.
b) Proposed: By administrative site plan approval (no PC or CC) up to 40 units. Full site plan
approval (PC & CC) for between 41 to 100 units. Conditional Use Permit for over 100
units.
Change the name of the term “Group Housing Development” to “Multi-Building
Development” to avoid confusion and add “Multi-Building Development” as a permitted use
in both MR-2 & MR-3 districts, subject to the same thresholds.
For all projects administratively approved (both MR-2 & MR-3), require courtesy notice to
immediate neighbors prior to construction.
DRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE 8
Reasoning: For thresholds, same as for Medium Density. For multi-building development, this
would eliminate the need for a PUD if more than one principal building is desired on one lot. (A
PUD also triggers a rezoning and a conditional use permit.)
05/06/2025
Map of Areas for POTENTIAL Residential Parking Reductions
*To be defined as stops with a 15-min headway or less.
** One block meaning to the next street, or to where the next street would cross if it went through.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80.1 Miles
±\\Ri-fs01\gis$\GIS\Community Development\Staff\Assistant Planner\Ruby\Bus Service & MDR Maps\Bus Service Maps.aprx/One block Bus Service Map | Scale: 1:21,500 | Revision Date: 3/3/2025 | Author: RVillaPMU Planned Mixed Use
PMR Planned Multi-Family
Half a stall per unit for the first 40 units. 1.25 stalls per unit for the 41st unit & above.
MU-R Mixed Use-
Regional
MU-N Mixed Use-
Neighborhood
MU-C Mixed Use-
Community
MR-3 High-Density
Multi-Family
MR-2 Multi-Family
R Low Density
Residential
High Frequency Transit
Stop (HFTS)*
All other highlighted parcels
shown: 1 block along either side of a HFT line = 0.5 stalls/unit,
up to 40 units max.**
Draft Neighbor Notice Requirements
At least 15 calendar days before demolition commences – or before construction commences if the site
is already vacant - the permit holder must provide written notification to all property owners within 300
feet of the perimeter of the site notifying them of the proposed demolition and construction project.
The notice must identify the nature of the project, the permit holder, a contact name and phone
number, and the site address. The notice must also provide a city phone number to call with any
questions, complaints or concerns. The notice should be provided to city staff for review and approval
prior to distribution.
Studios/Efficiency Units
Richfield Apartments:
Total Units # of Studios % of Total
Henly 63 51 81%
Richlyn 22 22 100%
Riley 82 56 68%
Rya 218 50 23%
Chamberlain New 284 138 49%
Chamberlain Old 22x3 0 0%
Aster Commons^ 38 38 100%
101 66th* 80 27 34%
MWF* 55 0 0%
^ Not yet constructed
* Approvals expired
Other City Comparisons:
Bloomington: For affordable housing (at 60% AMI), units must be distributed across all unit sizes
proposed in the development. No minimums or maximums.
Brooklyn Park: no restrictions found.
Hopkins: no restrictions found.
Minneapolis: no restrictions found.
Edina: Efficiencies are permitted only in planned residence districts and not more than 10% of the
units, per building, shall be efficiencies in the PRD3 and PRD4 districts.
Roseville: no restrictions found.
St. Louis Park: Inclusionary housing policy requires some 3 bedroom units, but no limit on smaller
units.
St. Paul: no restrictions found.
CreationDate Comment
04/12/2025 20:06:41.962
This website is extremely frustrating to navigate and is exasperating my irritation with the
city. My property is impacted by the proposed changes and I am extremely concerned
about what this means to me as a property owner. The information provided here has done
nothing to reassure me that Richfield cares about that aspect. How does rezoning affect
property values, neighborhood character, traffic levels, etc.?
4/12/2025, 4:13 am
(via email)
One question: do you really think now is the time to put the worry of losing my home on my
list? Regardless of the statistics of what might happen to demographics, some people love
their home and plan to stay there till the end. And take comfort in knowing that at the end
of the day in this so-called democratic country, there’s a home they love waiting for them in
which to take refuge.
04/13/2025 15:40:14.594
I am curious to know what the occupancy rate is for all of the current apartment building
that have been built in the last 6 years. If these are not all at 100%, why are you planning
on building more and displacing your current tax payers??? Considering the square milage of
the City of Richfield, I feel we have more than our fair share of high-density housing, adding
more will only increase the congestion, it's currently difficult enough to navigate now that
most of the main arteries are single lanes.
04/19/2025 21:25:23.163
I am concerned about plans to allow on-street parking to count towards a building's parking
requirements. Americans want cars even if they don't need them on daily basis. Is there a
requirement for a certain amount of visitor parking? Please consider the negative impacts
of overflow parking on the neighborhood/surrounding areas.
I am also concerned about allowing administrative approval in place of public hearings for
future developments.
Sidewalks should be a requirement for all new developments. How can you build a walkable
community without them?
Please do not under estimate the importance of open space for new developments. Mental
health benefits, increased dog ownership, social/community interaction, environmental
benefits, etc.
04/30/2025 00:39:09.173
I think it's important the city re-think the requirement for parking minimums at all. We have
plentiful parking in our city and developers should not be required to have stalls for this style
of development.
04/30/2025 03:11:16.918
This is so exciting! The decisions seem very well thought out. I will be keeping tabs and
supporting this effort. Let's keep Richfield affordable and accessible!
MR-2 / MR-3 CODE UPDATE COMMENTS RECEIVED AS OF MAY 2, 2025