Loading...
2026-01-27 Resolution 12405STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss ) CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I, Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 12405. And that the same is on file and on record in my office. Given under my hand and seal This 2nd day of February, 2026. ______________________________ Michelle Friedrich City Clerk City of Richfield Hennepin County, Minnesota City of Richfield January 27, 2026 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 12405 1 of 5 Motion by: Hayford Oleary Seconded by: Burk RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR MINNESOTA INDEPENDENCE COLLEGE AND COMMUNITY AT 2000, 2006, 2018 - 76th STREET WEST AND 7532 MORGAN AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Minnesota Independence College and Community (MICC), with the City of Richfield which requests a Conditional Use Permit for a learning institution, a 15-stall parking variance, a variance to increase the maximum amount of lot covered by a building from 30% to 37%, and three setback variances, all in order to construct a two-story, approximately 28,000 square foot, learning institution on the north side of 76th Street between Morgan Avenue and Newton Avenue, property legally described in Exhibit A, attached; and WHEREAS, the requested Conditional Use Permit meets the requirements necessary for issuing a Conditional Use Permit as specified in Richfield’s Zoning Code, Subsection 547.09 and 525.07, Subd.4, as detailed in City Council Staff Report No. 2026- 32; and WHEREAS, the same Zoning Code Section 525.15, Subd.1, requires that the principal building be set back: •a minimum of 30 feet from the front/west property line •a minimum of 30 feet from the street side/south property line and •a minimum of 25 feet from the rear/east property line ; and the proposed layout places the building: •Eight feet from the front/west property line •Six and a half feet from the street side/south property line (on the second floor) and •Ten feet from the rear/east property line; and WHEREAS, MICC has demonstrated that their students are a largely non-driving population, the proposed building coverage reserves land for future development, and the proposed setbacks serve to maximize the distance between the building and the properties to the north; and WHEREAS, the requested variances meet the requirements necessary for issuing a variance, as specified in Richfield’s Zoning Code Subsection 547.11, Subd.1.a, and as detailed in City Council Staff Report No 2026-32; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was mailed to properties within 500 feet of the subject property and published in the Sun Current newspaper on November 27, 2025; and, City of Richfield January 27, 2026 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota 2 of 5 RESOLUTION NO. 12405 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield held a public hearing at its December 8, 2025 meeting and recommended approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit and variances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has fully considered the request for Conditional Use Permit and variances; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1.The City Council adopts as its Findings of Fact the WHEREAS clauses set forth above. 2.The City Council further adopts as its Findings of Fact the findings listed in the Required Findings Statement. 3.The requested Conditional Use Permit and variances are hereby approved subject to the following conditions: a.That the applicant records this Resolution with the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subd. 1, and the City’s Zoning Code Section 547.09, Subd.8. A recorded copy of the approved resolution must be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. b.The applicant (or other future operator) agrees to expand its work -from-home policy, modify class hours, enact transportation demand management policies, formalize shared parking agreements, or implement alternative mitigation techniques - as agreed to by the City - should the parking demand exceed the parking provided to the point of creating safety or operational issues in the immediate neighborhood. c.Separate sign permits are required for any sign greater than six square feet in size. d.All required parking spaces shall remain available year-round and shall not be used for snow storage. e.All windows on the west, south and east sides shall remain transparent, and may not be permanently covered. f.The property owner is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of all exterior improvements, including landscaping, in accordance with approved plans. g.The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits, and compliance with all other City, County and State regulations. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall: City of Richfield January 27, 2026 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 12405 3 of 5 h.Update the construction plans to comply with all requirements detailed in the City’s ARC letter dated November 21, 2025. i.Provide a SAC determination from the Met Council. j.Provide proof of having recorded a copy of this resolution of approval. k.Enter into a construction and maintenance agreement with the City. l.The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits, and compliance with all other City, County and State regulations. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall: m.Enter into an escrow agreement for outstanding items and provide a surety equal to 125% of the value of any improvements not yet complete. n.Provide proof of having recorded the construction and maintenance agreement. o.The final plat shall be submitted for City review and approval, be recorded, and mylar copies provided to the City. Prior to the release of the surety: p.All exterior improvements shall be installed. q.The final design for the transit-supportive plaza shall be reviewed and approved by the City, constructed according to the approved plan, and final inspection passed. The shelter shall be heated. r.All requirements of the escrow agreement shall be met. 4.The Conditional Use Permit shall expire two years after issuance unless 1) the use for which the permit was granted has commenced; or 2) building permits have been issued and substantial work performed; or 3) upon written request of the applicant, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period not to exceed one year. Expiration is governed by the City Zoning Code, Section 547.09, Subd. 9. 5.This Conditional Use Permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the Conditional Use Permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the City’s Zoning Code, Section 547.09, Subd.10. City of Richfield January 27, 2026 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota 4 of 5 RESOLUTION NO. 12405 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of January, 2026. 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 Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk City of Richfield January 27, 2026 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 12405 5 of 5 Exhibit A Existing Legal Description Required Findings – MICC CUP, Variances & Preliminary Plat - 2000 76th Street West Part 1 – Conditional Use Permit: The findings necessary to issue a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are as follows (547.09, Subd. 6): 1. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use of the property as a learning institution similar to a high school is consistent with the guiding “Medium Density Residential” designation. Further, the project advances the following goals of the Comprehensive Plan: » Establish a land use pattern and supporting infrastructure that preserves and enhances the ability of residents to make personal connections in their neighborhoods. » Encourage a mix of uses that serve surrounding local neighborhoods (many of MICC students live in the immediate neighborhood) » Focuses development along major transportation thoroughfares. » Provides pedestrian friendly building and site design » Encourage development of areas where vehicle use is minimized. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The purpose of the Zoning Code in general is to protect and promote the public health, safety, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City. To comply with the medium density residential guiding the property will be rezoned to MR-2 (Multifamily Residential). While not explicitly stated, it is the intent of the MR-2 district to provide space for semi-public facilities and institutions that support and complement urban residential area. With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposal does just that. 3. The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. There are no officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines for this area. 4. The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 544 of this code. Except for the setback, lot cover and parking variances requested, the proposal complies with all other performance standards of the Code. 5. The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. The City’s Public Works and Engineering Departments have reviewed the proposal and do not anticipate any issues. 6. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed two-story classroom/office building and associated parking does not pose any threats to public health, safety and welfare. It is believed that adequate provisions already are, or will be, in place to protect public health, safety and welfare. 7. There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. MICC has been outgrowing their current locations in the immediate area; see applicant’s narrative. 8. The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. Section 525.07, Subd.4, has five requirements that are all being met. Part 2 - Variances The applicant is requesting three setback variances, a lot cover variance, and a parking variance as follows: Per Code Section 525.15, Subd. 1: ▪ A 22 foot variance from the 30 foot setback required long the front/west side (Newton Avenue). ▪ A 23.5 foot variance from the 30 foot setback required along the side abutting a public right-of-way (76th Street). ▪ A 15 foot variance from the 25 foot setback required along the rear/east side (new interior lot line) Also per Code Section 525.15, Subd. 1: ▪ A variance to allow 37% coverage when 30% is the maximum Per Code Section 544.13, Subd.6: ▪ A 15 stall variance from the 52 stall parking requirement for a “high school” in order to provide 38 parking spaces. In evaluating a variance, the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the following (Subsection 547.11): a) There are unusual or unique circumstances that apply to the property which were not created by the applicant and do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity. Setbacks: The property is somewhat unique in that it is situated across the street from the Best Buy campus. The City recently amended the residential portion of the multifamily development regulations to reduce setback requirements. The City may want to consider whether or not it is also appropriate to amend the non - residential portion of the multifamily development regulation s as well, as thirty foot setbacks from all sides are contrary to the desired urban massing and form, particularly along higher volume arterial roadways. The desire for reduced setbacks was expressed by both the City and the applicant during work session discussions. Pushing the building towards the southwest corner of the site both increases the setback to the residential properties to the north, and creates a better streetscape along 76th Street West. Also, at least two of the three setback variances would not be needed if the second parcel were not being reserved for future development. Lot Cover: The City’s lot cover requirement is set rather low for a non-residential use and could maybe be studied in the future. Regardless, it has long been a desire of both the City and the applicant to incorporate housing into this project. While not a viable component at this time, a separate parcel is being platted with the intention of future development. This is relevant because the proposal could be designed to meet the lot cover limit if it did not reserve space for potential future housing. Parking: The proposal is unique in that MICC’s clientele are a very low-driving population. The code allows Council approved parking reductions for low-driving populations, but only in relation to residential projects; the provision does not apply to non-residential projects. Therefore, a variance is needed. The parking variance would not likely be appropriate for typical post-secondary schools and staff has included a condition of approval related to this unique characteristic. b) There are “practical difficulties” that prevent the property owner from using the property in a reasonable manner. The practical difficulty is the usual circumstance explained in (a) above. c) The variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood or the locality. Setbacks: The setback variances increase the distance between the proposed building and the residential homes to the north, helping to maintain the same light and air that they currently enjoy. Also, it appears that there are portions of the Best Buy building that are closer than 30 feet to the property line. Consequently, the variances are serving to preserve existing character. Lot Cover: The lot cover is similar in proportion to the Busy Buy building directly across the street. Therefore, the variance is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Parking: Whenever possible, minimizing the amount of parking constructed is pedestrian-friendly building and site design, which serves to preserve the walkable, urban hometown character of the community. Negative impacts related to the granting of these variances are not anticipated. d) The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. Setbacks: It would be easier to provide greater setbacks if the project was not carving out space for a future development lot. According to the applicant, the variances are the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. Lot Cover: At 52 feet wide, the proposed Lot 2, reserved for future development (either housing or facility expansion) is just slightly over the code requirement of 50 feet. If the reservation of space for future housing is still a priority for both the City and the applicant then – except for the creation of a flag lot which is highly discouraged - the variance is the minimum necessary. Parking: The applicant has analyzed their existing parking usage and has provided documentation supporting the rationale behind the request. Staff agrees that the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. e) The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development generally follows principles of good site design. The requested variances are not anticipated to adversely impact the aesthetics of the community or its health, safety and welfare, the preservation of which are the principal objectives of the zoning code. In relation to the Comprehensive Plan, see item 1 in part 1, above. Part 3 – Preliminary Plat the City Council, as a basis for their approval, must make the following findings prior to approval of a preliminary plat (500.15, Subd.7): (a) The subdivision is in conformance with this Section and the applicable regulations of the Zoning Ordinance; • Both lots comply with the design standards of Section 500.21 and meet the size and width requirements of the MR-2 zoning district. (b) The subdivision does not conflict with any goals or policies of the Comprehensive Plan or other sub-area plan; the Capital Improvements Program; or any other City policy or regulation. • There are no sub-area plans that apply to the subject site. The plat complies with both the Comp Plan and the CIP. (c) The subdivision can be economically served with public facilities and services. • The lots are already served by public facilities and services and any increase in service can be accommodated. (d) The subdivision design mitigates potential substantial and irreversible negative impacts on the environment, including, but not limited to: topography; steep slopes; trees; vegetation; naturally occurring lakes, ponds, rivers and streams; susceptibility of the site to erosion, sedimentation or flooding; drainage; and storm water storage needs; • There are no steep slopes, naturally occurring lakes, ponds, rivers or streams. The site is pretty flat. There are quite a few mature trees that will be lost with the redevelopment of the site, but the proposal meets the City’s planting requirements, as well as the stormwater retention and filtration requirements. (e) The subdivision will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. • Staff finds that the platting of the property will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.