Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2026-09-08 City Council Agenda
Richfield City Council Agenda September 8, 2026 -- 7:00 PM Richfield Municipal Center Council Chambers 6700 Portland Avenue South 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approval of the Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. Minutes of the August 14, 2026 City Council Special Meeting. b. Minutes of the August 25, 2026 City Council Work Session. c. Minutes of the August 25, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting. 5. 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 6. Proclamations and Presentations 7. Consent Calendar 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. Approve Disbursements/Claims b. Consider approval of the first amendment to the 2025 Public Health Preparedness Services agreement with Bloomington Public Health. c. Consider the approval of a resolution approving a cooperative construction agreement between Three Rivers Park District, City of Edina and the City of Richfield for the design and construction of a connecting trail from the Southdale Library through Adams Hill Park to the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail, and authorizing staff to execute the agreement and proceed with the project. d. Consideration of updates to the City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund Priorities. e. Consideration of a resolution approving the Affordable Housing Trust Fund 2026 Revised Budget and 2027 Budget. f. Consider the second reading and summary publication of an ordinance approving changes to subsection 400.21 and the addition of subsection 400.22 to the city code pertaining to fire prevention. 8. Consideration of Items, if Any Removed From Consent Calendar 9. Public Hearings 10. Proposed Ordinances a. Consideration of the approval of a first reading of an ordinance amending Section 617 of the Richfield City Code related to mobile food units (food trucks). 11. Resolutions a. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Approval for a multifamily residential development of 290 units in two buildings at 6501 Portland Avenue. 12. Other Business a. Consider the Charter Commission's recommendations for amendments to the current City Charter by ordinance and publish a notice of public hearing on the proposed City Charter Amendments. 13. City Manager’s Report 14. Council Discussion Page 1 of 249 a. Hats off to Hometown Hits b. Council Liaison Reports 15. 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. Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the Council Chambers Agenda Packet book located by the entrance. The complete Council Agenda Packet is available electronically on the City of Richfield website. Page 2 of 249 1. Call to Order Richfield City Council Special Meeting Minutes August 14, 2026 Richfield Municipal Center Council Chambers 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 The special meeting was called to order by Mayor Supple at 9:04 a.m. Council Present: Mary Supple, Mayor; Sharon Christensen; and Rori Coleman-Woods Council Excused: Walter Burk; and Sean Hayford Oleary Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; and Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Supple led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Approval of the Agenda MOTION: made by Mayor Supple, seconded by Council Member Coleman-Woods to approve the agenda as presented. Voting aye: Mayor Supple, Council Member Christensen, and Council Member Coleman-Woods. Motion carried: 3:0 4. Consent Calendar City Manager Rodriguez presented the consent calendar. a. Consider the adoption of a resolution determining the results of the City Primary Election for the Council Member At Large seat held on Tuesday, August 11, 2026. RESOLUTION 12444 DETERMINING RESULTS OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HELD ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2026. MOTION: made by Council Member Coleman-Woods, seconded by Council Member Christensen to adopt the Consent Calendar item as presented and approve the resolution determining the results of the Primary Election held on August 11, 2026. Voting aye: Mayor Supple, Council Member Christensen, and Council Member Coleman-Woods. Motion carried: 3:0 City Clerk Friedrich reported that the August 11, 2026, Primary Election included three candidates: Sharon Christensen, Emily M. Antin, and Aaron McKain. The two candidates receiving the most votes, Sharon Christensen and Emily M. Antin, will advance to the General Election on November 3, 2026. 5. Adjournment MOTION : made by Council Member Christensen, seconded by Council Member Coleman-Woods to adjourn the meeting at 9:09 a.m. Voting Aye: Mayor Supple, Council Member Christensen, and Council Member Coleman-Woods. Page 3 of 249 Motion carried: 3:0 Date Approved: September 8, 2026 Mary Supple Mayor Michelle Friedrich City Clerk Katie Rodriguez City Manager Page 4 of 249 Page 1 of 5 August 25, 2026 1. Call to Order Mayor Supple called the Council Work Session to order at 4:30 pm, on August 25, 2026, in the Bartholomew Room. Council Present: Mary Supple, Mayor; Walter Burk, Sean Hayford Oleary, and Sharon Christensen. Excused: Rori Coleman-Woods. Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Steve McDaniel, Cash Debt and Budget Manager; Sack Thongvanh, Assistant City Manager; Andrew Spear, IT Manager; Chris Fierst, Liquor Operations Manager; Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director; Mary Bogie, Finance Director; Rodger Coppa, Interim Fire Chief; Kate Croteau, Human Resources Director; Courtney DesCamps, Senior Analyst; Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety; Jennifer Anderson, Support Services Manager; Kristin Asher, Public Works Director; Karl Huemiller, Recreation Services Director; and Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk. 2. Item Discussion a. Presentation of the 2026 Revised/2027 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy. Mayor Supple noted the purpose of the work session was for staff to present the 2026 revised and 2027 proposed budget and tax levy to Council. City Manager Rodriguez thanked department directors, staff, and the Finance Department for their work preparing the recommended budget. She noted the ongoing challenge of maintaining high-quality services while operating within a modest tax base and thanked Budget, Cash and Debt Manager Steve McDaniel for coordinating the budget process. Budget, Cash and Debt Manager McDaniel presented an overview of the 2026 revised and 2027 proposed budgets and tax levy. Staff reviewed the budget development timeline, including the proposed September 22 preliminary tax levy, December 1 Truth in Taxation meeting, and December 8 budget and Capital Improvement Program adoption. The proposed 2027 levy increase is 4.55%, with the HRA levy remaining flat at $742,000, resulting in a combined City and HRA levy increase of approximately 4.45%. Staff noted that the average home value is projected to increase 3.49%, resulting in an estimated $130 increase in taxes on the average home. Budget, Cash and Debt Manager McDaniel reviewed General Fund revenues and expenditures, internal service fund chargebacks, equipment and fleet levy increases, fund balance, debt financing, and planned capital projects. Budget, Cash and Debt Manager McDaniel added the 2027 proposed General Fund expenditures are approximately 2.81% higher than the 2026 revised budget and emphasized the use of fiscal constraint in developing the proposed budget and noted that the General Fund is projected to meet the 40% fund balance target. Council discussed the treatment and presentation of fiscal revenue disparity. Staff explained that fiscal disparities are included with property tax revenue because it is part of the property tax system and noted that it could be shown separately in future budget presentations for greater clarity. Assistant City Manager Thongvanh reviewed the administrative service department's proposed budget, staffing, internal service fund allocations, and 2027 priorities. Discussion included City Clerk and Deputy Richfield Council Work Session Minutes August 25, 2026 Richfield Municipal Center Bartholomew Conference Room 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Page 5 of 249 Page 2 of 5 August 25, 2026 Registrar operations, records and data management, human resources, information technology, cybersecurity, building services, communications, and technology and facility investments. IT Manager Spear highlighted priorities including staff support and training, data management, network infrastructure, cybersecurity, endpoint protection, network monitoring, and technology replacement. Council discussed cybersecurity protections for the City’s information technology and operational technology networks, with improvements prioritized based on risk. Assistant City Manager Thongvanh noted the Building Services priorities include implementation of facility assessment recommendations, capital reserve funding, equipment needs, and opportunities to share or centralize services. Assistant City Manager Thongvanh reviewed the Communications/Cable TV revenue fund, including anticipated expenditure increases, platform and technology updates, long-term planning, and identification of sustainable funding sources. Liquor Operations Manager Fierst presented projected revenues and expenditures for the City’s four liquor locations. Council discussed sales trends, capital needs, and potential changes in federal law. Staff reported that inventory is being reduced while the regulatory environment remains uncertain. Council raised additional questions regarding potential 2027 election-related costs and passport services. Staff indicated that the election budget had been reviewed for potential special-election impacts and would be reviewed again, and that procedures for collecting credit card information for passport appointments would be developed as implementation approaches. Community Development Director Poehlman presented the proposed 2027 Community Development budget. Community Development Director Poehlman noted the department has 21 employees, with approximately half of its operations funded through the HRA and EDA. Community Development Director Poehlman reviewed the City General Fund portion of the budget is proposed to increase by less than 3%, with modest revenue growth anticipated, although development activity and revenues remain below prior years. Community Development Director Poehlman highlighted the department’s 2026 reorganization, recent achievement of full staffing, succession planning, inspector retention and recruitment, and continued employee development and training. She noted the 2027 budget priorities include completion of the Comprehensive Plan update, which will require annual funding in 2027 and 2028, continued staff development, and addressing operational and funding needs. Community Development Director Poehlman also noted that IT cost reallocations reduced the General Fund impact by shifting certain costs to the HRA and EDA. Community Development Director Poehlman added credit card processing fees were identified as a significant expense, particularly for building inspections. Staff noted the 2027 budget assumes implementation of a mechanism to recover a portion of those costs, with approximately $30,000 in related revenue anticipated. Budget, Cash and Debt Manager McDaniel presented the proposed 2027 Finance Department budget. The department includes a contracted Finance Director and 6.5 FTE, with additional finance staff assigned to the utility funds within Public Works. The 2027 proposed Finance Department budget reflects a 0.49% increase. Staff noted that audit costs were previously distributed among the liquor and enterprise funds and have been shifted to the Finance budget. Internal service fund chargeback adjustments, including a reduction in Finance’s building rental allocation contributed to the limited increase. Staff highlighted priorities for 2027, including continued staff development and stabilization, implementation of vendor payment and accounts payable technology, completion of the Tungsten rollout, and implementation of the Financial Management Plan in the 2027 budget process. Finance will also continue reviewing financial practices and internal controls and improving budgeting and reporting for capital projects. Staff noted that Page 6 of 249 Page 3 of 5 August 25, 2026 the Capital Improvement and Capital Budget document now includes historical and actual project costs to provide a more complete picture of total project expenditures. Interim Fire Chief Coppa presented the proposed 2027 Fire Department budget, highlighting staffing stabilization, training, operational continuity, and fleet and equipment needs. Interim Fire Chief Coppa noted the 2027 budget assumes restoration of full command staffing, including the Fire Chief and Deputy Chief positions. Staff noted that approximately 85% of the department’s budget is personnel-related and that staffing shortages, military deployments, and other absences have increased reliance on overtime. Interim Fire Chief Coppa reported that plan review and inspection services are currently contracted, with the goal of transitioning these functions back to internal staff during 2027 as staffing and training allow. Interim Fire Chief Coppa noted additional priorities include professional training, data and performance tracking, fleet replacement planning, and replacement of obsolete radio equipment. Staff also noted rising fire apparatus costs and extended delivery times and indicated that a more sustainable fleet replacement schedule is being developed. Council discussed the Deputy Chief position, which has been vacant since June 2025, and whether funding could instead support additional firefighters. Interim Fire Chief Coppa stated that the Deputy Chief position is critical to department operations, including command, prevention, and training, while acknowledging the ongoing need to evaluate additional shift staffing and reduce reliance on overtime. Council also discussed contracted prevention services and the department’s efforts to strengthen internal capacity and address historical gaps in the prevention function. Human Resources Director Croteau presented the proposed 2027 Human Resources budget. Human Resources Director Croteau noted the department is funded through the General Fund and supports the City’s workforce through recruitment, onboarding, retention, collective bargaining, compensation, benefits, workers’ compensation, safety and compliance, training, equity initiatives, performance management, and workforce planning. Human Resources Director Croteau added the department has four full-time and one intermittent employee and is now established as a separate department, with the Equity Coordinator position transferred to Human Resources. Key 2027 priorities include staff professional development, compensation structure review, paid family and medical leave administration, employee benefits, workplace and safety training, supervisory development, tuition reimbursement, a proposed language incentive program, and continued implementation of employee recruitment and training technology. Senior Analyst DesCamps presented the proposed 2027 Legislative and Executive budgets, which include 2.5 FTE and four budget divisions: Mayor and City Council, Other Agencies, City Manager, and Legal. Senior Analyst DesCamps noted the City Council budget is proposed to increase 0.69%, due to personnel costs and Minnesota Paid Family and Medical Leave, with one-time 2026 costs for an essential services study and executive search removed and funding added for the 2027 strategic plan. Senior Analyst DesCamps added the Other Agencies budget is proposed to increase 3.21%, due to service contract and personnel costs. Senior Analyst DesCamps noted the City Manager's budget is proposed to decrease 16.79%, due to the transfer of the Equity Coordinator position and related projects to Human Resources. Senior Analyst DesCamps noted the Legal budget is proposed to increase 2.91%, due to adjustments to prosecution and general legal service costs. Council asked about the Minnesota Paid Family and Medical Leave allocation. Staff clarified that the cost is included in departmental budgets as applicable to eligible employees and does not apply to elected officials. Director of Public Safety Henthorne presented the proposed 2027 Public Safety budget, noting a projected 4.8% increase primarily due to personnel costs, insurance, paid family and medical leave, pensions, aging radio replacement, increased IT costs, professional development, and a policy and procedure management platform. Staff highlighted priorities including technology and cybersecurity upgrades, radio replacement, training and succession planning, emergency notification and siren maintenance, and Page 7 of 249 Page 4 of 5 August 25, 2026 implementation of a short-term rental licensing and compliance platform. Director of Public Safety Henthorne also reported anticipated increases in grant, fine and forfeiture, licensing, and short-term rental compliance revenues. Emergency Services expenditures are projected to increase 2.77%, while Support Services expenditures are expected to increase by approximately $80,000. Council discussed code enforcement capacity and performance measures. Staff reported a 95–97% compliance rate and noted that three cadets have increased proactive enforcement capacity. Support Services Manager Anderson noted routine violations are generally resolved quickly, while more complex cases require additional staff time. Staff added that each cadet receives approximately six weeks of training. Mayor Supple recessed the meeting at 6:05 pm. Mayor Supple reconvened the meeting at 6:10 pm. Public Works Director Asher presented the proposed 2027 Public Works budget. The department includes four General Fund divisions, three enterprise divisions, and the Central Garage internal service fund, with 54 full-time employees and approximately 67 employees during the seasonal months. Public Works Director Asher reviewed budget changes within Public Works Administration, Engineering, Streets, Water, Sewer, Stormwater, and Central Garage. Key items include office renovations, completion of a federal forestry grant, major water capital projects, increased water treatment and maintenance costs, an increase in the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services fee, Norby’s Pond reconstruction, and additional funding for storm sewer inspection and cleaning. Staff noted that changes in utility budgets are largely attributable to capital projects and associated bond proceeds and grants. Public Works Director Asher noted the Central Garage budget reflects continued challenges with vehicle availability, delivery times, and increasing equipment and maintenance costs. Public Works Director Asher reviewed the proposed fleet portion of the equipment levy. Staff also reported progress toward hiring a GIS Asset Manager and improving the City’s asset management program. Public Works Director Asher highlighted 2027 priorities including capital project planning, comprehensive planning efforts, surface water and water supply planning, transportation and non-motorized planning, and reconstruction of Norby’s Pond. Public Works Director Asher also discussed pursuing a joint feasibility study with Bloomington for the Wilson Pond area to address flood mitigation and downstream capacity concerns. Recreation Services Director Huemiller presented the proposed 2027 Parks and Recreation budget and noted the department has 21 full-time employees and more than 125 seasonal and part-time employees supporting the pool, ice arena, community center, and Wood Lake Nature Center. Recreation Services Director Huemiller added the department includes General Fund operations and special revenue funds for the pool, ice arena, Veterans Park, and sustainability programs. Recreation Services Director Huemiller highlighted increased Wood Lake expenditure and revenues associated with two new full-time positions and the new facility. Recreation Services Director Huemiller added the Event Coordinator position will be split between Wood Lake and the ice arena, with anticipated rental and program revenues expected to offset the position’s costs. Staff also anticipate increased facility-rental and arena revenues and will continue efforts to eliminate the ice arena’s negative fund balance. Recreation Services Director Huemiller noted the 2027 priorities include hiring a Natural Resources Coordinator to begin implementing the Natural Resources Management Plan, coordinating grants and volunteers, and advancing natural resource and tree canopy initiatives. Recreation Services Director Huemiller added capital projects include Veterans Park improvements, ice arena renovations, community center planning, park building and lighting improvements, locker room renovations, and playground replacement. Recreation Services Director Huemiller also highlighted efforts to increase facility rentals and youth programming, expand community center weekend rentals, and implement a new Garden-to-Kitchen program funded through a Department of Agriculture grant. Council discussed the potential impact of Veterans Park construction on the Farmers Market; staff indicated the market is expected to continue, with relocation within the park if necessary. Page 8 of 249 Page 5 of 5 August 25, 2026 City Manager Rodriguez noted that the Council packet includes a summary of department highlights and accomplishments from the past year, along with action steps outlining updates on 2026 projects and priorities for 2027. 3. Adjournment Mayor Supple adjourned the work session meeting at 6:47 pm. Date Approved: September 8, 2026 Mary Supple Mayor Michelle Friedrich City Clerk Katie Rodriguez City Manager Page 9 of 249 ITEM #1 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Supple at 7:00 p.m. on August 25, 2026, in the Council Chambers. Council Present: Council Excused: Mary Supple, Mayor; Walter Burk, Sean Hayford Oleary, and Sharon Christensen. Rori A. Coleman-Woods. Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; and Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk. ITEM #2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Supple led the Pledge of Allegiance. ITEM #3 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA MOTION: made by Council Member Hayford Oleary, seconded by Council Member Burk to approve the agenda as presented. Voting Aye: Mayor Supple, Council Member Burk, Council Member Hayford Oleary, and Council Member Christensen. Motion carried: 4-0 ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: made by Council Member Hayford Oleary, seconded by Council Member Burk to approve the minutes of the (4a) City Council Work Session from July 28, 2026, (4b) City Council Regular Meeting from July 28, 2026, and (4c) City Council Work Session from August 12, 2026. Voting Aye: Mayor Supple, Council Member Burk, Council Member Hayford Oleary, and Council Member Christensen. Motion carried: 4-0 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Council Regular Meeting August 25, 2026 Page 10 of 249 City Council Meeting Minutes -2- August 25, 2026 ITEM #5 OPEN FORUM Mayor Supple noted the process for individuals wishing to speak during Open Forum and reviewed the three-minute time limit for public comments and explained the use of time warning cards to alert the speaker when their time is almost expired. Instructions were given for speakers to state their name and city of residence before speaking. Mayor Supple requested speakers adhere to the established timeline so that everyone has an opportunity to speak. Mayor Supple noted Council will listen to the speakers but will not engage in debate at this time. If there are questions, staff will provide responses by email or at the next Council meeting. Mayor Supple noted extending the amount of time normally scheduled for Open Forum to 45 minutes. MOTION: made by Mayor Supple, seconded by Council Member Christensen, to extend the Open Forum time to 45 minutes. Voting Aye: Mayor Supple, Council Member Burk, Council Member Hayford Oleary, and Council Member Christensen. Motion carries: 4:0 Twelve residents spoke during Open Forum. Jody Johnson, Richfield resident, expressed concerns about Flock cameras, citing potential issues with accuracy, privacy, data sharing, and misuse of information. Ms. Johnson also raised concerns about the impact of the technology on domestic violence survivors, reproductive healthcare access, and immigration enforcement, as well as the lack of public awareness or input regarding the cameras' installation. Angie Reiger, Richfield resident, spoke on behalf of petition signers requesting that the City pause and ultimately end its Flock contract, citing concerns about privacy, accuracy, public awareness, and accountability. Ms. Reiger requested a written response to the petition, requested to hold a public forum to seek resident input on future surveillance proposals. Birgit Johnson, Richfield resident, spoke about preserving green space in Richfield parks and limiting additional development of park areas. Ms. Johnson cited the environmental and community benefits of natural areas, including habitat preservation, stormwater management, reduced heat impacts, and opportunities for recreation and access to nature. Adriana Martinez, a representative of the Twin Cities chapter of the National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals introduced the organization and highlighted the economic and homeownership contributions of the Latino community in Richfield and Minnesota. Ms. Martinez expressed interest in partnering with the City on future housing, zoning, redevelopment, affordability, and neighborhood investment discussions. Information document is a supplemental open forum document 1. Linda Petersen, Richfield resident, expressed concerns about Flock cameras, including privacy and surveillance capabilities, and requested that the City cancel its contract and provide information on other measures being taken to ensure community safety. Jessica Lyons, Richfield resident, expressed concerns about Flock cameras, including privacy, data use, and the cost of the contract. Ms. Lyons also discussed community mutual-aid efforts and questioned whether City resources could be directed toward supporting residents with food and housing needs. Sica Dawn, South Minneapolis resident, and a member of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, expressed concerns about Flock cameras, citing privacy, transparency, data-sharing, and potential Page 11 of 249 City Council Meeting Minutes -3- August 25, 2026 misuse of surveillance technology. Ms. Dawn requested greater transparency regarding the use of Flock data and asked the City to consider canceling its contracts. Mathew Berg, Richfield resident, expressed concerns about the placement and use of Flock cameras, including privacy and potential overreach. Mr. Berg questioned the lack of community input and urged the Council to discontinue use of the cameras. Aaron McKain, Richfield resident, expressed concerns about the legal, privacy, and national security implications of Flock cameras and encouraged the Council to review a memorandum regarding potential liability and risk. The memorandum is a supplemental open forum document 2. Mr. McKain also encouraged the City to seek input from local experts when considering complex issues involving technology, privacy, and civil liberties. Nikhil Naidv, Richfield resident, expressed concerns about Flock cameras, citing data security, privacy, data collection, and transparency issues. Mr. Naidv referenced reported security vulnerabilities and concerns about the use and sharing of camera data and requested that the City consider canceling its contract and seek public input regarding future use of the technology. Steve McKeown, Richfield resident, spoke in opposition to Flock cameras and expressed concerns about privacy, data collection, and the effectiveness of the technology. Mr. McKeown also commented on the proposed Legion development, stating he supports development but would prefer the project be reduced in scale due to potential traffic impacts on Portland Avenue. Tammy Kronarek, Richfield resident, expressed concerns regarding Flock cameras, citing the volume of images collected, data retention and access, and whether the cameras have improved public safety. Ms. Kronarek also questioned enforcement practices involving vehicles without license plates and requested greater consideration of privacy and community concerns. Mayor Supple thanked residents for their comments and noted that the Public Safety Department is preparing a Frequently Asked Questions document addressing questions regarding the Flock cameras. The document is expected to be posted on the City website in the coming days and will incorporate questions raised during the meeting. ITEM #6 PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS None. ITEM #7 CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager Rodriguez presented the consent calendar. a. Approve Disbursements/Claims U.S. BANK A/P Checks/ETF’s: (07-18-2026 through 08-14-2026) $2,987,383.78 Payroll (07-31-2026) Includes health insurance premiums for August 2026. $1,506,158.55 Payroll (08-14-2026) $1,179,328.35 TOTAL $5,672,870.68 Page 12 of 249 City Council Meeting Minutes -4- August 25, 2026 b. Consider approval of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension's (BCA's) Master Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with Richfield Department of Public Safety/Police for access to the Criminal Justice Data Communications Network (CJDN) and the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment to CJDN Subscriber Agreement. RESOLUTION 12445 APPROVING STATE OF MINNESOTA JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ON BEHALF OF ITS POLICE DEPARTMENT c. Consider approval of an agreement for Prosecution Services with the City of Richfield and H/J Law. d. Approve a work order in the amount of $189,050 with HDR Engineering, Inc. for a water treatment plant feasibility study. MOTION: made by Council Member Hayford Oleary, seconded by Council Member Christensen, to approve Consent Calendar items 7a-d as presented. Mayor Supple highlighted the ongoing engineering study regarding water treatment feasibility and encouraged public engagement and feedback. Mayor Supple noted the age of the existing treatment plant and emphasized the importance of proactive planning before a crisis occurs. Voting Aye: Mayor Supple, Council Member Burk, Council Member Hayford Oleary, and Council Member Christensen. Motion carries: 4:0 ITEM #8 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR None. ITEM #9 PUBLIC HEARINGS None. ITEM #10 PROPOSED ORDINANCES a. Consider the first reading of an ordinance approving changes to subsection 400.21 and the addition of subsection 400.22 to the city code pertaining to fire prevention. Council Member Christensen presented staff report 10a, to consider the first reading of an ordinance approving changes to subsection 400.21 and the addition of subsection 400.22 to the city code pertaining to fire prevention. The proposed amendments would correct references to the adopted state fire code and authorize the Fire Department to conduct plan reviews and inspections delegated by the State Fire Marshal. MOTION: made by Council Member Christensen, seconded by Council Member Hayford Oleary, to approve the first reading of an ordinance for an amendment to subsection 400.21 and the addition of subsection 400.22 to the city code pertaining to fire prevention and approving the second reading at the September 10 Council meeting. Voting Aye: Mayor Supple, Council Member Burk, Council Member Hayford Oleary, and Council Member Christensen. Motion carries: 4:0 Page 13 of 249 City Council Meeting Minutes -5- August 25, 2026 ITEM #11 RESOLUTIONS None. ITEM #12 OTHER BUSINESS None. ITEM #13 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT City Manager Rodriguez noted there were no reports. ITEM #14 COUNCIL DISCUSSION a. Hats off to Hometown Hits. Council Member Christensen noted that school begins August 31 for grades 6–12 and September 1 for younger grades and encouraged residents to be mindful of school buses and increased vehicle traffic in neighborhoods. Council Member Burk encouraged residents to enjoy local amenities, including Richfield Golf Course, the pool, and the farmers market, before the end of summer. Council Member Burk gave a brief report as the Human Rights Commission liaison and noted law enforcement representatives attended a recent commission meeting to discuss Flock cameras. Council Member Burk also noted concerns regarding the potential loss of investigative benefits if the cameras were discontinued and stated he is open to further information and discussion. Mayor Supple thanked volunteers for their work with Unity in the Community, which distributed more than 850 backpacks, and recognized organizers and volunteers of the first annual Disability Pride Festival. Mayor Supple also thanked those who spoke during the meeting and encouraged continued community dialogue on the issues discussed. b. Council Liaison Reports Council Member Burk reviewed the Human Rights Commission liaison report during Hats off to Hometown Hits. ITEM #15 ADJOURNMENT MOTION: made by Council Member Coleman-Woods, seconded by Council Member Christensen to adjourn the meeting at 7:52 p.m. Voting Aye: Supple, Hayford Oleary, Christensen, and Coleman-Woods. Motion carries: 4:0 Date Approved: September 8, 2026 Page 14 of 249 City Council Meeting Minutes -6- August 25, 2026 Mary Supple Mayor Michelle Friedrich Katie Rodriguez City Clerk City Manager Page 15 of 249 City Council Meeting 9/8/2026 Agenda Section: Consent Calendar Agenda Item: 7.b. Report Prepared By: Jennifer Anderson, Support Services Manager Department Director: Jay Henthorne, Police Chief Item for Consideration: Consider approval of the first amendment to the 2025 Public Health Preparedness Services agreement with Bloomington Public Health. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Richfield has had a public health emergency preparedness contract with the City of Bloomington to provide public health emergency preparedness services on Richfield's behalf for twenty years. This is the first amendment to the agreement signed in 2025. The amendment addresses services provided, mandated by the funder, time for completion of grant activities and fee considerations. Richfield will receive $54,920 for the grant cycle that runs from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027. The contract with the City of Bloomington for this same period of time for public health emergency preparedness work is the same amount. RECOMMENDED ACTION By Motion: Approve the first amendment to the 2025 public health preparedness services agreement with the City of Bloomington. This agreement and amendment outlines the use of public health emergency preparedness grant funds distributed by a federal grant from the Centers for Disease Control, to provide services in the area of public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism and the ongoing development and testing of a response system. HISTORICAL CONTEXT See Executive Summary. EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Public health work in Bloomington, Edina and Richfield addresses equity and inclusion, whether its required or not by the funding source. POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.) The City of Richfield became a Local Public Health Agency in 1977, which makes the City eligible to receive these grant funds to use for the ongoing development of a public health emergency response system specific to Richfield and its needs. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES These funds are part of a nationwide effort by the federal government to respond to Page 16 of 249 serious public health emergencies, including threats of bioterrorism. FINANCIAL IMPACT Funds being used are those given to Richfield as a Local Public Health agency, from the federal government, to develop a system for responding to public health emergency preparedness and bioterrorism threats. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS The City Attorney has reviewed the contract and has approved its contents. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) The City Council could decide not to approve the first amendment of the public health preparedness services agreement with the City of Bloomington. This would mean the City would have to hire a staff person to assume some of the grant responsibilities which cannot be met with current staffing levels and would result in a significant budget increase. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2026-0998 - City of Richfield - First Amendment DS template (1) Page 17 of 249 Agreement ID: 2026-0998 1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH PREPAREDNESS SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD DateCitySigns THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made on ____________________ by and between CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 1800 West Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (“Bloomington”), and CITY OF RICHFIELD, a a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (“Richfield”). Bloomington and Richfield are herein referred to collectively as the “Parties.” WHEREAS, City and Contractor are parties to an Agreement dated September 26, 2025, (Agreement ID - 2025-1037) pursuant to which Bloomington is responsible for providing the residents of Richfield with Public Health Emergency Services and CRI Services (“Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the term of the Agreement ended June 30, 2026. Prior to the expiration of the Agreement, the Parties agreed to extend the Agreement, uninterrupted, pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth herein, until June 30, 2027; and WHEREAS, Bloomington and Richfield desire to amend the Agreement to include additional services as detailed in Exhibits C and D; and WHEREAS, Bloomington and Richfield desire to amend the Agreement to increase the total amount of work authorized, including reimbursable expenses, by $54,920.00 for a total contract not-to-exceed of $107,456.00; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions expressed in this First Amendment, City and Contractor agree as follows: 1. Paragraph 1 of the Agreement shall be amended to read: “Services to be Provided: Bloomington agrees to provide the residents of Richfield Public Health Emergency Preparedness Services and CRI Services as described in the Scope of Services attached to this Agreement as Exhibits A and C or any supplemental letter agreements, or both entered into between City and Contractor (“Services”). The Services referenced in the attached Exhibits A and C or any supplemental letter agreements shall be incorporated into this Agreement by reference. All Services shall be provided in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by public health entities currently providing similar services.” 2. Paragraph 2 of the Agreement shall be amended to read: “Time for Completion. This Agreement shall remain in force and effect commencing from July 1, 2025 and continuing until the earlier of June 30, 2027 or completion of the Services unless terminated by either party or amended pursuant to the Agreement.” Page 18 of 249 Agreement ID: 2026-0998 2 3. Paragraph 3 of the Agreement shall be amended to read: “Consideration: The consideration, which Richfield shall pay to Bloomington shall not exceed $107,456.00, as set forth in Exhibits B and D and incorporated into this Agreement by reference. 4. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement not modified by this First Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to the Agreement have caused this First Amendment to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA CitySign DATED: DateCitySigns BY: ________________________________ Its: City Manager CitySignTitle Reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney’s Office CityAttySign ____________________________________ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ContractorSigner DATED: Contractordate BY: ________________________________ Its: Mayor of Richfield Contractortitle DATED: Contractordate BY: ________________________________ Its: City Manager Co Page 19 of 249 Agreement ID: 2026-0998 3 EXHIBIT C TO AMENDMENT TO SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD Page 20 of 249 1 Cities Readiness Initiative (CRI) Grant Duties CRI Jurisdictions BUDGET PERIOD 3 (BP3) JULY 1, 2026 – JUNE 30, 2027 Core CRI Requirements (all CRI jurisdictions complete these duties) C.1 Develop and maintain a CRI workplan. C.2 All CRI jurisdictions must participate in a chemical incident discussion-based exercise led by MDH during Q2. C.3 Conduct a biological operations-based pill dispensing exercise to increase readiness for the full-scale exercise (infectious disease scenario). This exercise will include staff notification, assembly of core POD management at the activated POD location, and activation of an open POD dispensing site. C.4 Participate in the MDH/FEMA training and exercise for a nuclear detonation device (NDD). C.5 Participate in or conduct other discussion-based exercises, as required. C.6 Update jurisdictional critical contacts list by December 31, 2026, to participate in an MDH verification drill and confirm contact accuracy. C.7 Verify dates of MOUs for POD locations, and update when expiration date is within one year; review MOUs with no expiration date based on jurisdictionally defined schedule. C.8 Train POD staff on pill dispensing plans. C.9 Conduct a discussion-based exercise on pill dispensing plans. C.10 Participate in a drill to track MCM inventory and share inventory information with MDH. C.11 CRI counties bordering Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in Wisconsin and North Dakota (Clay, Dakota, and Washington) will maintain communication with CRI leads in those states as needed to ensure mutual understanding and cross-border preparedness. Tiered Duties for Highest Funded CRI Jurisdictions (Anoka, Bloomington/Edina/Richfield, Dakota, Hennepin, Minneapolis, St. Paul/Ramsey, Scott, Washington) C-T.1 This duty could be an expansion of CRI Duty C.3 or could be a separate exercise. Conduct a biological operations-based exercise to support the ability of CRI jurisdictions to stand up an open or closed POD and dispense pills or administer vaccines. C-T.2 Train or provide a refresher training for POD staff on vaccine administration plans. C-T.3 Conduct a discussion-based exercise on vaccine administration plans. C-T.4 Update Access & Functional Needs (AFN) sections of the POD Database. Minnesota Department of Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Division 625 Robert Street North PO Box 64975 St. Paul, MN 55164-0975 651-201-5700 health.epr@state.mn.us www.health.state.mn.us To obtain this information in a different format, call: 651-201-5700 Page 21 of 249 1 Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Grant Duties Community Health Boards (CHBs) BUDGET PERIOD 3 (BP3) JULY 1, 2026 – JUNE 30, 2027 Duties all CHBs complete Administrative and Recurring Duties A.1 Develop and maintain a PHEP workplan. A.2 Provide progress reports on PHEP funded activities. A.3 Maintain accounts on applicable platforms. A.4 Respond to Health Alert Network (HAN) messages. A.5 Complete After Action and Improvement Plan Reports (AAR-IP) following exercises and responses. A.6 Participate in the regional Healthcare Coalition. A.7 Update Point of Distribution (POD) information twice during the budget period. A.8 Provide updates on public health emergency preparedness staffing vacancies. A.9 Conduct an annual volunteer call-down drill. A.10 Review and update Multi-Year Integrated Preparedness Plan (MYIPP). A.11 Complete a health-focused risk assessment once every five years and review and update annually. Base Duties Plans B.1 Integrate recovery activities into appropriate plans based on the BP2 assessment. Training B.2 Train the appropriate jurisdictional staff on the jurisdiction’s Administrative and Budget Preparedness Plan. B.3 Attend two virtual trainings provided by MDH on access and functional needs in emergency preparedness and response. B.4 Attend one, two-hour virtual training to learn about the MDH Public Health Laboratory Chemical and Infectious Disease Labs’ critical disaster preparedness and response roles and responsibilities, including learning about their work with laboratories across the state. Exercises B.5 Conduct an administrative and budget preparedness discussion-based exercise. B.6 Incorporate access and functional needs using the CMIST (Communication, Maintaining health, Independence, Support and Safety, and Transportation) framework into a discussion-based exercise. B.7 Participate in a virtual, discussion-based measles exercise with MDH Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR) and Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Prevention and Control (IDEPC) divisions to discuss roles, responsibilities, and what to expect when cases are identified. Elective Duties (based on funding level) X=2 (2 additional duties from 2 different areas), Y=4 (4 additional duties, one from each area), Z=8 (8 additional duties, 2 from each area) Planning Electives P.1 Update or revise Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP). P.2 Update Medical Countermeasure (MCM) Plans or Procedures. P.3 Conduct physical site surveys and update floor plans for active PODs. Page 22 of 249 PHEP B3 CHB GRANT DUTIES 2 P.4 Develop or update Just-in-Time Training (JIT) or Job Action Sheet (JAS) resources for staff filling ICS response or recovery roles. P.5 POETE Element of Choice – Planning P.6 POETE Element of Choice – Organizing Training Electives T.1 Provide JIT Training on jurisdiction identified priority, e.g., PODs, Job Action Sheets. T.2 Conduct at least one volunteer management training for volunteers. T.3 Build public health emergency preparedness staff’s skills and abilities to conduct community engagement activities by increasing their knowledge, skills, and awareness of community engagement methods and best practices. T.4 Conduct or participate in joint training with the regional Healthcare Coalitions. T.5 POETE Element of Choice – Training Exercise Electives E.1 Include at least one exercise objective that addresses the needs of people with access and functional needs. E.2 Conduct a communication exercise, which can be either a discussion-based or operation-based exercise. E.3 Conduct a discussion-based exercise on jurisdictional Recovery Plans. E.4 Conduct an operations-based exercise focused on MCM functions. E.5 Conduct a discussion-based exercise with an objective involving a data need, request, or application. E.6 Conduct or participate in a joint exercise with regional Healthcare Coalitions. E.7 POETE Element of Choice – Exercising Relationship Electives R.1 Expand health and medical volunteers using a Whole Community focus, including people living with access and functional needs. R.2 CHBs will communicate quarterly with registered volunteers (MN Responds) to support retention and increase volunteer engagement. R.3 Develop a list of partners the CHB has established relationships with, e.g., Community-Based Organizations (CBOs), healthcare/medical organizations, and/or first responder agencies, to include entity name, contact information, populations served, services provided, roles in public health response and recovery, and potential support to CHBs during response and recovery. R.4 Identify partners by A) emergency functions and B) group them by what they could provide during public health emergency response and recovery. Consider using the top threats identified in the jurisdictional risk assessment to guide this work. R.5 Assess strength of relationships with partners / community organizations. Minnesota Department of Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Division 625 Robert Street North PO Box 64975 St. Paul, MN 55164-0975 651-201-5700 health.epr@state.mn.us www.health.state.mn.us To obtain this information in a different format, call: 651-201-5700 Page 23 of 249 Agreement ID: 2026-0998 4 EXHIBIT D TO AMENDMENT TO SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD Page 24 of 249 EXHIBIT D TO SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD TERMS OF PAYMENT A. Richfield shall pay Bloomington the total not-to-exceed amount of $107,456.00 during the term of this Agreement for services outlined below: 1. $74,456 for PH Emergency Preparedness Services; and 2. $33,000 for CRI Services B. The amounts above will be paid according to the following terms: 1. Bloomington shall invoice Richfield for Services identified on Exhibits A and C, as follows: Invoice Date: Amount: Upon Contract Execution $13,134 December 1, 2025 $13,134 March 1, 2026 $13,134 June 1, 2026 $13,134 Upon Amendment Execution $13,730 December 1, 2026 $13,730 March 1, 2027 $13,730 June 1, 2027 $13,730 Payment shall be made within 30 days of receipt by Richfield of Bloomington’s invoice. Page 25 of 249 City Council Meeting 9/8/2026 Agenda Section: Consent Calendar Agenda Item: 7.c. Report Prepared By: John Evans, Analyst Department Director: Karl Huemiller, Recreation Director Item for Consideration: Consider the approval of a resolution approving a cooperative construction agreement between Three Rivers Park District, City of Edina and the City of Richfield for the design and construction of a connecting trail from the Southdale Library through Adams Hill Park to the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail, and authorizing staff to execute the agreement and proceed with the project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recreation Services Staff has been working with Three Rivers Park District planners on a trail connection from the new Southdale Library complex on York Avenue to the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. The trail connection would pass through a portion of Adams Hill Park in Richfield. It would include reconstructing the current trail through the park, which has a grade of more than 8%, creating dangerous interactions between bikers and pedestrians. Three Rivers Park District is the primary funding source for the trail reconstruction for Adams Hill Park. Additional funding will come from a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Local Trail Connections Program Grant that was awarded to the City of Richfield and an Active Transportation grant that Three Rivers Park District has applied for. Construction is contingent on being awarded the Active Transportation Grant. The cooperative construction agreement requires the approval of Council and authorization of staff to process the agreement and administer the project. RECOMMENDED ACTION By Motion: Approve the resolution authorizing staff to enter into a cooperative construction agreement between Three Rivers Park District, City of Edina and the City of Richfield for the design and construction of a connecting trail from the Southdale Library through Adams Hill Park to the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail, and authorizing staff to execute the agreement and proceed with the project. HISTORICAL CONTEXT Richfield's Adams Hill Park is located on the western edge of Richfield, bordering on Edina and the property on which the Southdale Library complex is located. The Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail (described west to east) would pass through the library property going east, turn south and pass through a portion of the western edge of Adams Hill Park, then continue to the east along 75th Street. Page 26 of 249 Adams Hill Park has about 0.6 miles of pedestrian path already and this trail connection would incorporate parts of this path, requiring some modification and realignment. EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Making these local trail connections along the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail provides infrastructure that encourages biking and other forms of pedestrian travel, consistent with the Recreation Services Department's mission to serve all of its residents equitably, provide accessible facilities, and demonstrate stewardship of the natural environment. POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.) Approval of the joint construction agreement is standard procedure. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES In order to submit the application by the deadline defined by the Department of Natural Resources, approval of the resolution is required at this meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT Three Rivers Park District is covering the cost of the trail connection through their CIB and an Active Transportation Grant, including the reconstruction of the Adams Hill Park portion of the trail, with some additional project costs covered by a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources grant awarded to the City of Richfield. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and will be available to answer questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) None ATTACHMENTS 1. 2026-09-08 Resolution 12XXX Approving Cooperative Agreement for Three Rivers Trail (1) 2. 4G. 20260818_CooperativeAgreement_TNM_LibraryConnection_PR Page 27 of 249 2026-3-24 Trail Connection DNR Grant City of Richfield September 8, 2026 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX Motion by: Seconded by: RESOLUTION APPROVING A COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT, CITY OF EDINA AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A CONNECTING TRAIL FROM THE SOUTHDALE LIBRARY THROUGH ADAMS HILL PARK TO THE NINE MILE CREEK REGIONAL TRAIL, AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT. WHEREAS, the City of Richfield supports the partnership with Three Rivers Park District and the City of Edina to construct connecting trails to the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail; and WHEREAS, the trail connection is located on parkland owned by the cities of Richfield and Edina, including a portion in Adams Hill Park in Richfield; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield was awarded a grant by the Minnesota Department of Natural resources for the above-referenced project and has stated, in the executed and Council- approved grant agreement, its intent to work cooperatively with Three Rives and Edina on the project and will comply with all applicable laws, environmental requirements and regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Richfield City Council approves the cooperative construction agreement between Three Rivers Park District, City of Edina and the City of Richfield for the design and construction of a connecting trail from the Southdale Library through Adams Hill Park to the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail, and authorizes staff to execute the agreement and proceed with the project. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of September, 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 Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk Page 28 of 249 Page 29 of 249 Page 30 of 249 Page 31 of 249 Page 32 of 249 Page 33 of 249 Page 34 of 249 City Council Meeting 9/8/2026 Agenda Section: Consent Calendar Agenda Item: 7.d. Report Prepared By: Julie Urban, Assistant Community Development Director Department Director: Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director Item for Consideration: Consideration of updates to the City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund Priorities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2020, the City established an Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Trust Fund) to preserve and create affordable housing opportunities for households with the lowest incomes and directed the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to administer the Trust Fund. Funds from the Trust Fund have been allocated to various HRA programs such as the First-time Homebuyer and New Home Programs through the budget process. Funds can also be made available to developers to assist in the construction, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing. The City and HRA adopted Priorities and Procedures in 2022 to guide the use of the Trust Fund when reviewing requests from developers. In June, the City adopted a 4d (1) tax classification policy (4d Policy) following several work sessions where affordable housing priorities were considered. In light of those discussions and the resulting 4d Policy, staff undertook a review of the Trust Fund Priorities and Procedures and are proposing to establish two priority levels for the funds: • First level: preservation and rehabilitation of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH), housing with larger bedrooms, accessible housing, and housing where current rental subsidy households live. • Second level: housing affordable at 30% Area Median Income, housing with supportive services, and highly energy-efficient projects. The proposed updates also add language specific to the consideration of 4d (1) tax classification as it relates to a financial award from the Trust Fund. The current 4d Policy requires a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants be filed against any property receiving Trust Fund assistance. Any Declaration that restricts both income and rents, however, will automatically qualify the property for the 4d (1) tax classification. The proposed updates clarify that any request for funds will involve a review of the impact of any 4d (1) tax classification and that any restrictions that trigger the 4d (1) tax classification will be reviewed in light of the 4d Policy and be subject to Council approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION By Motion: Approve updates to the City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund Priorities and Procedures. Page 35 of 249 HISTORICAL CONTEXT • The Affordable Housing Trust Fund was created in 2020. • In June 2026, the City Council approved a 4d Policy. The 4d Policy was ratified by the HRA in July 2026. • On August 17, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the Trust Fund administrator) approved the updated Priorities and Procedures. EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS The Trust Fund and its priorities further the Strategic Plan outcome to maintain Richfield as an affordable place to live. They also further equity and inclusion by encouraging the creation, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing. POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.) • Minnesota State Statutes 462C.16 governs the establishment and use of local Affordable Housing Trust Funds. • While not a formal policy, the Trust Fund Priorities and Procedures provide staff and the HRA with guidance for responding to requests for financial assistance from the Trust Fund. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES It is appropriate to have updated policies and procedures available to share with developers who may be interested in applying for financial assistance. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is approximately $90,000 of uncommitted funds in the Trust Fund. Before the end of the year, the HRA will consider the potential transfer of additional funding from the Spending Plan into the Trust Fund. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS • The City has broad discretion in establishing Priorities and Procedures governing the granting and lending of funds from the Trust Fund as long as the requirements of State Statute are met. • The Priorities and Procedures are consistent with the City's Trust Fund ordinance. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) 1. Request additional information and defer consideration to a future meeting. 2. Update the Trust Fund Priorities and Procedures with changes. 3. Decide not to update the Priorities and Procedures and direct the HRA to continue using the existing version. ATTACHMENTS 1. Richfield Affordable Housing Trust Fund Priorities and Procedures REVISIONS Page 36 of 249 2026 2. 05-26 Bill No. 2020-6 Page 37 of 249 Adopted: 12/13/22; Revised 9/8/26 Richfield Affordable Housing Trust Fund Priorities and Procedures The City of Richfield established an Affordable Housing Trust Fund in 2020 to preserve and create affordable housing opportunities for households with the lowest incomes. Funds are available through the City’s Trust Fund on a rolling basis to assist developers in the construction, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing. Priorities A. Multi-family projects that address the following city priorities will be considered for funding: Preservation and rehabilitation of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) Housing with three- and four- bedroom units Housing with accessible units Housing with resident rental subsidieswith current residents who hold rental subsidies administered by the Richfield HRA B. Multi-family projects that address these additional city priorities may also be considered for funding (with priority given to those in Group A): Housing with units affordable at 30% of the Area Median Income Housing with accessible units Housing with supportive services Projects that improve energy-efficiency Housing with resident rental subsidies Preservation and rehabilitation of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) Projects that also improve energy-efficiency and/or use Trust Fund money to leverage other funding will be strongly considered. Trust Fund awards are made only to projects that exceed the minimum requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy and the statutory requirements for a Housing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District, if applicable. Forms of Assistance and Eligible Activities Funding may be provided in the form of grants, loans, and/or loan guarantees for the development, rehabilitation or financing of housing and/or to serve as a match for other funds from federal, state, or private resources. Funds are not available for rental assistance. Process Page 38 of 249 Adopted: 12/13/22; Revised 9/8/26 Projects seeking a Trust Fund award must submit an Application for Financial Assistance, or if also seeking TIF, complete the Trust Fund section on the TIF Application. A $500 application fee is required at the time of the application submittal. The Trust Fund is administered by the City’s Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). HRA staff, along with the City’s financial consultants, will review the application for consistency with the City’s priorities, viability of the project, demonstrated need for funding, and reasonableness of the request. There is no minimum or maximum award amount; however, the amount may be limited by the amount of funds available. Projects will be required to cover the costs of the city’s financial and legal consultants, as well as up to $2,000 in staff costs. Affordability Term Projects receiving an award from the Trust Fund must agree to a minimum of 25 years of affordability. Compliance A Declaration of Restrictive Covenants will may be filed against the property to ensure ongoing compliance. Applicants will may be required to demonstrate that they have the capacity to conduct income compliance and collect and maintain appropriate documentation and/or to provide a rent roll indicating compliance with any rent limits. Funding recipients may be required to submit Aa certificate of compliance must be submitted on an annual basis. Property managers who are unfamiliar with income compliance will be required to take appropriate training. 4d (1) Tax Classification Local government restrictions that allow a project to qualify for the 4d (1) tax classification under Minnesota Statutes, section 273.13, subd. 25 will not be automatically approved with a Trust Fund award. The impact of the reduced tax rate will be analyzed by the HRA’s financial consultant and reviewed by HRA staff for consistency with the City’s 4d (1) Tax Classification Policy. Section 8 During the period of affordability, Trust Fund award recipients shall not adopt any policies specifically prohibiting or excluding the renting of units to tenants holding rental vouchers or similar forms of rental assistance. This policy is intended to set forth the general priorities and guidelines regarding the use of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The City Council and HRA may modify the terms at any time. Page 39 of 249 Adopted: 12/13/22; Revised 9/8/26 Questions: Contact Julie Urban, Assistant Community Development Director, at 612-861-9777 or jurban@richfieldmn.gov. Page 40 of 249 BILL NO. 2020-6 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 19.14 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Preamble. 1.01. In order to provide the City of Richfield (the "City") with additional tools to support the rehabilitation and preservation of existing affordable housing within the City, promote the development of additional affordable housing within the City, and assist individuals with rental and down payment assistance, the City has determined to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Section 2. Definitions. 2.01. Persons of very low income means families and individuals whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of area median income, as median income was most recently determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban development for the Minneapolis -St. Paul- Bloomington, Minnesota Metropolitan Statistical Area, as adjusted for smaller and larger families. 2.02. Persons of low income means families and individuals whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the area median income, as median income was most recently determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban development for the Minneapolis -St. Paul- Bloomington, Minnesota Metropolitan Statistical Area, as adjusted for smaller and larger families. 2.03. Persons of moderate income means families and individuals whose incomes exceed 80 percent, but do not exceed 120 percent, of area median income, as median income was most recently determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban development for the Minneapolis -St. Paul -Bloomington, Minnesota Metropolitan Statistical Area, as adjusted for smaller and larger families. Section 3. Establishing Affordable Housing Trust Fund. 3.01. Pursuant to the authority granted to the City under Minnesota Statutes Section 462C.16, an affordable housing trust fund is established for the following purposes: provide loans and grants to for -profit and non-profit housing developers for the acquisition and capital and soft costs necessary for the creation of new affordable rental and owner - occupied housing, for the rehabilitation and preservation of existing multi -family residential rental housing including naturally occurring affordable housing and rental assistance and homeownership assistance to persons of very low, low, and moderate income. Bill No. 2020-6 Page 41 of 249 Section 4. Funding Sources. 4.01. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund shall be funded by an annual budgeted allocation of funds from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (HRA) levy and funds from the Richfield Economic Development Authority (EDA) levy, as approved by the City Council. Other sources of funding may include, but are not limited to: a) Private cash donations from individuals and corporations designated for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. b) Payments in lieu of participation in current or future affordable housing programs. c) Matching funds from a federal or state affordable housing trust fund; or a state program designated to fund an affordable housing trust fund. d) Principal and interest from Affordable Housing Trust Fund loan repayments and all other income from Affordable Housing Trust Fund activities. e) The sale of real and personal property. f) Local government appropriations, development fees and other funds as designated from time to time by the City Council. g) Tax Increment Finance (TIF) pooled funds. Section 5. Purpose of Affordable Housing Trust Fund. 5.01. The City may use money from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to assist proposed projects or programs to develop or preserve affordable housing for persons of very low, low, and moderate income to include: a) Making loans at interest rates below or at market rates in order to strengthen the financial feasibility of proposed projects; b) Guaranteeing of loans; c) Providing gap financing for affordable housing developments; d) Financing the acquisition, demolition, and disposition of property for affordable housing projects; e) Financing construction of public improvements and utilities to aid proposed affordable residential developments; 2 Bill No. 2020-6 Page 42 of 249 f) Financing the rehabilitation, remodeling, or new construction of affordable housing; g) Tenant and project based rental assistance; h) Funding for acquisition and rehabilitation in conjunction with or related to affordable housing projects; i) Funding to facilitate affordable homeownership opportunities including down payment assistance, second mortgages, closing costs, etc.; j) Administrative costs associated with affordable housing programs that do not exceed ten percent of the balance fund; k) Interim financing of public costs for affordable housing projects in anticipation of a permanent financing source (i.e. construction financing, bond sale, etc.); and 1) Other uses as permitted by law and approved by the City Council. Section 6. Administration of Affordable Housing Trust Fund. 6.01. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "Authority") shall administer the Affordable Housing Trust Fund on behalf of the City. 6.02 The Authority shall determine the terms and conditions of repayment of loans and grants from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund including the appropriate security and interest, if any, should repayment be required. Interest on loans and grants shall be as established by the Authority from time to time or at the time of approval of a specific project or program. 6.03. The Authority shall report annually to the City on the use of the funds in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, including the number of loans and grants made, the number and types of residential units assisted, and the number of households for which rental assistance or down payment assistance were provided. The City shall post the annual report on its Website. 6.04. The expenditures of funds from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to provide assistance for persons of moderate income must be approved by a supermajority of the City Council. Section 7. Council Action. 3 Bill No. 2020-6 Page 43 of 249 7.01. The City Council of the City of Richfield hereby ordains the implementation of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. 7.02. This Ordinance shall be effective on the 30t" day following the publication of a summary of this ordinance approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield in the official newspaper of the City of Richfield. 7.03. The summary of this Ordinance was reviewed and approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield and the City Council finds that the summary of this Ordinance clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of this Ordinance. Section 8. This Ordinance will be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota on this 26t" day of May, 2020. K"c RPM j_AV Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk 4 Bill No. 2020-6 Page 44 of 249 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF RICHFIELD SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO.2020-6 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 19.14 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. This ordinance establishes an affordable housing trust fund in order to provide additional tools to support the rehabilitation and preservation of affordable housing, promote the development of addi- tional affordable housing and assist individuals with rental and down payment assistance. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office during nor- mal business hours or upon re- quest by calling the Department of Community Development at (612) 861 -9760. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of May, 2020. Published in the Sun Cunent June 4,2020 1049828 SS Diane Erickson being duly sworn on an oath, states or alfirms that he/she is the Publisher's Designated Agent of the newspaper(s) known as: SC Bloomington Richheld with the known oflice of issue being located in the county oi HENNEPIN with additional circulation in the counties of: HENNEPIN and has full knowledge of the facts stated below: A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualifica- tion as a qualified newspaper as provided by Minn. Stat. $331,{.02. B) This Public Notice was printed and pub- lished in said newspaper(s) once each week, for I successive week(s); the hrst insertion being on 0610412020 and the last insertion being on 0610412020. MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE NOTICES Pursuant to Minnesota Stat. $580.033 relatiug to the publication of mortgage foreclosure notices: The newspaper complies with the conditions described iD 9580.033, subd. l, clause (l) or (2). If the newspaper's known ollice of issue is located in a county adjoining the county where the mortgaged premises or some part of the mortgaged premises described in the notice are located, a substantial portion of the newspaperrs circulation is in the latter county. Desipated Agent Subscribed and sworu to or allirmed before me oa 0610412020 by Diane Erickson. Notary Public Rate Information: 1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: 34.45 per column inch By: l{olary Public ll in nesota CmEm E4rcs Jamtary 31, 2024 DARLENE MARIE Ad rD 1049828 Page 45 of 249 City Council Meeting 9/8/2026 Agenda Section: Consent Calendar Agenda Item: 7.e. Report Prepared By: Julie Urban, Assistant Community Development Director Department Director: Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director Item for Consideration: Consideration of a resolution approving the Affordable Housing Trust Fund 2026 Revised Budget and 2027 Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Council established an Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Trust Fund) in 2020 to support the preservation and creation of affordable housing in the community. Through its Trust Fund, the City can support the rehabilitation and preservation of existing affordable housing, promote the development of additional affordable housing, and assist individuals with rental and down payment assistance. The City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) administers the Trust Fund on behalf of the City. The 2026 Revised Budget provides funding for the following affordable housing programs: • $70,000 for down payment assistance through the HRA's First-Time Homebuyer Program, which serves households earning up to 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). • $160,000 for the HRA's New Home Program to acquire and rehabilitate homes and resell them to income-qualified buyers (80% AMI) through the land trust model. Funding for the 2026 Revised Budget is provided by pooled tax increment and a grant from Minnesota Housing. The 2027 Proposed Budget for the Trust Fund provides funding for the following affordable housing efforts: • $240,000 for the HRA's New Home Program. Funding for the 2027 Budget is provided by pooled tax increment. The Budgets were approved by the HRA on August 17, 2026. The state requires that the City Council also approve them. RECOMMENDED ACTION By Motion: Adopt a resolution approving the Affordable Housing Trust Fund 2026 Page 46 of 249 Revised Budget and 2027 Budget. HISTORICAL CONTEXT • In 2017, the State Legislature approved legislation that allows cities to establish housing trust funds in order to facilitate affordable housing efforts in the State. • On May 25, 2020, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing the Trust Fund. EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS • The Trust Fund's mission is to preserve and create affordable housing, which helps to achieve the desired Strategic Plan outcome to maintain Richfield as an affordable place to live. • The HRA's housing programs support housing stability and choices for low- income households and reduce racial inequities and barriers for communities traditionally denied access to housing opportunities. POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.) • Minnesota Statutes 462C.16 provides the authority for cities to create local housing trust funds. • The City's Comprehensive Plan supports the preservation, maintenance and diversification of the City's housing stock and the provision of housing that meets the diverse needs of all its residents. The HRA's housing programs and the funding from the Trust Fund help to implement the Comprehensive Plan. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES The Trust Fund budget should be approved before January 1, 2027. FINANCIAL IMPACT • In the 2026 Revised Budget and 2027 Budget, the HRA will provide funding for the Trust Fund through pooled tax increment and a grant from Minnesota Housing. • A small amount of funding is budgeted for administrative costs ($1,000 per year). The HRA levy covers the remainder of the administrative costs. • The Trust Fund accounts for just a small portion of the HRA's work in affordable housing. Additional affordable housing work is carried out using the City's allocation of Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA), loan repayments, the Housing & Redevelopment Fund, federal and state rental assistance grants, and HRA and EDA levies. Beginning in 2027, the focus of the Trust Fund will primarily be capital projects. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS • State Statute and the City ordinance require that the budget be approved by the Page 47 of 249 City Council. • The Trust Fund is administered by the HRA. • The Trust Fund can support affordable housing to persons of very low, low, and moderate incomes. All the proposed programs meet this definition. Homeownership programs for moderate income households (up to 120% AMI) must be approved by a super majority of the City Council. None of the proposed uses require this level of approval. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Decide not to approve the Trust Fund budget. ATTACHMENTS 1. 090826 Resolution Affordable Housing Trust Fund Page 48 of 249 City of Richfield September 8, 2026 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX 1 of 1 Motion by: Seconded by: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 2026 REVISED AND 2027 WHEREAS, authorized by Minnesota State Statutes 462C.16,the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (“Council”) approved by ordinance the creation of an Affordable Housing Trust Fund (“Trust Fund”) on May 26, 2020; WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (“HRA”) is the designated administrator of the Trust Fund and approved its 2026 Revised Budget and 2027 Budget including funding and expenditures for the Trust Fund on August 17, 2026; WHEREAS, the ordinance requires the Council to provide final approval to the annual budget for the Trust Fund, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that: 1. The 2026 Revised Budget for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund is hereby approved and adopted with the appropriations as follows: • $70,000 for down payment assistance through the HRA’s First-Time Homebuyer Program • $160,000 for the HRA’s New Home Program 2. The 2027 Budget for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund is hereby approved and adopted with the appropriations as follows: • $240,000 for the HRA’s New Home Program Adopted by the of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of September, 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 Page 49 of 249 City Council Meeting 9/8/2026 Agenda Section: Consent Calendar Agenda Item: 7.f. Report Prepared By: Rodger Coppa, Fire Chief Department Director: Rodger Coppa, Fire Chief Item for Consideration: Consider the second reading and summary publication of an ordinance approving changes to subsection 400.21 and the addition of subsection 400.22 to the city code pertaining to fire prevention. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fire Department is requesting changes in the city code that correct references to the adopted state code and adds language that allows the fire department to take on delegated plan review and inspections from the State Fire Marshal. RECOMMENDED ACTION By Motion: Approve the second reading and summary publication of the ordinance to adopt changes to subsection 400.21 and the addition of subsection 400.22 to the city code pertaining to fire prevention. HISTORICAL CONTEXT Upon review of the fire prevention section of the city code, it was determined that the references to the Minnesota State Fire Code need to be updated. The current version of the Minnesota State Fire Code was adopted in 2020 and appendix lettering changed from the previously adopted version. As a result, the city adopted appendices no longer align with the intended state code content. This is commonly overlooked when codes are adopted by reference and there are format changes between code cycles. The previous appendix "K" is now "O" and the previous appendix "L" is now "P". This update does not adopt any new appendices, only correctly references to those that were previously approved. With this code update, the fire department is also asking for the addition of language that the Minnesota State Fire Marshal has asked cities to adopt. This language clarifies the expected structure and performance of fire department plan review and permit inspections so that the city can receive delegated authority to perform those functions. Adding this language is crucial, as the city of Richfield wants to retain this delegation for the benefit of our community and the contractors that do fire sprinkler and fire alarm work in the city. EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Updating the city code supports Operational Excellence by ensuring Richfield firefighters have equitable access to compliant, reliable, and safe processes, enabling them to deliver consistent, high-quality essential services to all members of the Page 50 of 249 community. POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.) This will amend subsection 400.21 and add subsection 400.22 to the city code. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES The requested changes are past due and will allow the fire department to effectively enforce the fire code and receive the delegated authority of the State Fire Marshal. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) None. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2026-08-25 Resolution XXXXX Summary Pub 2026-XX 2. 2026-08-25 Bill No 20XX-XX Amending Chapter IV Page 51 of 249 City of Richfield August 25, 2026 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER IV OF THE RICHFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO FIRE PREVENTION WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above-referenced Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the Ordinance is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified; and WHEREAS, the following summary clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the Ordinance. 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. 2026-XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER IV OF THE RICHFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO FIRE PREVENTION On August 25 2026, the Richfield City Council amended an Ordinance, designated as Bill No 2026-XX, the title of which is stated above amending subsection 400.21 and adding subsection 400.22 of the Richfield City Code. This summary of the Ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The purpose of the Ordinance is to amend Chapter IV of the Richfield code of ordinances pertaining to fire prevention. Copies of the Ordinance are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office during normal business hours or upon request by calling 612-861-9739. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota on this 25th day of August, 2026. May B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk Page 52 of 249 Page 1 of 2 City of Richfield August 25, 2026 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2026-XX Motion by: Seconded by: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER IV OF THE RICHFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO FIRE PREVENTION THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter IV, Subsection 400.21 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: 400.21. Fire prevention code: adoption of fire prevention code. The Minnesota State Fire Code, as adopted by the State commissioner of public safety, is hereby adopted by reference as though fully set out in this Subsection, with the following amendments: (a) (Repealed, Bill No. 2007-15) (b) (Repealed, Bill No. 2016-19) (c) (Repealed, Bill No. 2007-15) (d) Appendices, B, C, D, K O and L P of the International Minnesota State Fire Code are adopted by reference as though fully set out in this Subsection. (Amended, Bill No. 2016-19) Subsections 400.21 to 400.37 are the fire prevention code of the City. (Amended, Bill No. 1997-7; Bill No. 1999-9; Bill No. 2003-18) This ordinance will be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. (Amended, Bill No. 2016-19) Sec. 2. Chapter IV, Section 400 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended by adding a new Subsection 400.22 as follows: 400.22. - Fire Protection Permit Program. Subdivision. 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Rule 7512.2800, a permit is required to perform fire protection-related work within the City. Subd. 2. A person trained in fire protection system plan review shall provide a competent plan review and inspection for all permits granted under this section. Subd. 3. A report indicating all permits issued for fire protection systems, to include the name, address, type of fire protection system installed, contractor license number, and occupancy type of the structure for which the permit was issued, shall be submitted annually to the commissioner of public safety. Page 53 of 249 Page 2 of 2 City of Richfield August 25, 2026 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2026-XX Subd. 4. Sprinkler Plan Review and Inspection Program. (i) No person shall engage in any sprinkler installation, modification, changing and/or removal of sprinkler protection systems within the City without obtaining a permit from the building official. (ii) Fire sprinkler systems shall be maintained in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code. Sec. 3. This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield on this 25th day of August, 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 ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk Mary B. Supple, Mayor Page 54 of 249 City Council Meeting 9/8/2026 Agenda Section: Proposed Ordinances Agenda Item: 10.a. Report Prepared By: Jennifer Anderson, Support Services Manager Department Director: Jay Henthorne, Police Chief Item for Consideration: Consideration of the approval of a first reading of an ordinance amending Section 617 of the Richfield City Code related to mobile food units (food trucks). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mobile food units, or food trucks as they are more popularly known, have been an ordinance consideration at times over the last 12 years in Richfield. After ongoing staff discussion, societal changes, increased demand and lessons learned, staff have developed ordinance language for consideration. Highlights of the draft ordinance include a definition of a mobile food unit, written consent from a property owner, locations approved for operation, performance standards for all locations and suggested license fees. RECOMMENDED ACTION By Motion: Approve the first reading of an ordinance amending Section 617 of the Richfield City Code related to the operation and use of mobile food trucks in Richfield. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The popularity of mobile food units was on the rise in the late 2000s and cities were scrambling to develop ordinances to effectively address them. With the boom of tap houses and breweries in 2011 and later, and cities looking for ways to attract more people to downtown areas, food trucks were a logical partner, providing an array of different foods in an outdoor casual environment. During this time, MDH began allowing municipalities to issue temporary food licenses to cover a mobile food unit, which is how Richfield has operated over the years. In most cases, the city licenses for operation at the Farmers Market throughout the summer, July 4th weekend, Penn Fest, and Unity in the Community. The temporary food license allows operations in a limited fashion for a designated number of days (no more than 21 days in a year). The adoption of the mobile food unit ordinance allows an applicant to apply for an annual license to operate across the city at more than just the events listed above. To keep inspections and enforcement consistent, the draft language largely mirrors the City of Bloomington’s mobile food unit language. Bloomington Environmental Health will remain the inspections arm, as they are for current mobile food units, food, pools and lodging establishments in Richfield. Page 55 of 249 EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Food trucks impact equity by lowering financial barriers for minority and immigrant entrepreneurs, and filling food access gaps in underserved neighborhoods. They also require lower startup costs and offer vibrant commerce in public spaces. POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.) With the development of any mobile food unit ordinance, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) requires a review of language before a municipality can consider the ordinance. A draft was submitted on March 10, 2026, and was received back on April 7, 2026. MDH required no changes to the draft but had three recommendations regarding variance requirements, mobile food units operating on private property, and adding fees in Appendix D, which were all added into the draft. Within 30 days of promulgation, the city must send MDH a copy of the approved ordinance or a link to the public posting. To keep inspections and enforcement consistent, the draft language largely mirrors the City of Bloomington’s mobile food unit language. Bloomington Environmental Health will remain the inspections arm, as they are for current mobile food units, food, pools and lodging establishments in Richfield. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES There are no critical timing issues. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS The City Attorney has reviewed the draft ordinance and approves of its contents. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) The City Council could decide not to approve the first reading of the ordinance and direct staff on how to proceed. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2026-09-XX Bill 2026-XX DRAFT Food_Unit_Ordinance DOCOPEN-#1073797 2. 2026-09-XX Resolution 2026-XXXXX Mobile Food Unit Fees Page 56 of 249 City of Richfield Month XX, 20XX County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2026-XX 1 of 8 DOCSOPEN\RC160\3\1073797.v16-7/23/26 Motion by: Seconded by: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 617 OF THE RICHFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATED TO MOBILE FOOD UNITS (FOOD TRUCKS) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 617.03 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended to add a new definition as follows: 617.03. - Definitions. Subd. 7. "Mobile food unit" means: (a) A self-contained food service operation, located in a readily movable motorized wheeled or towed vehicle that is readily movable without disassembling and that is used to store, prepare, display or serve food intended for individual portion service; or (b) A mobile food unit as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 157.15, subd. 9, as it may be amended from time to time. Section 2. Subsection 617.07 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: 617.07. – License required and posted. Subdivision 1. Annual license required. No person shall operate a food establishment or a mobile food unit within the City of Richfield or engage in any enterprises described in this Code, without first obtaining and having a valid license as provided herein. The application for such license shall be made on forms furnished by the City of Richfield and shall describe the general nature of the business, its location, and any other information deemed necessary by the City. The application must be in the name of the owner of the real property on which the licensed premises are situated and bear the signature of the owner or that of the owner’s authorized agent. The license must be posted in a location conspicuous to customers. Subd. 2. Food establishments. Food establishment applications must include the signature of the owner, or the owner’s authorized agent, of the real property on which the licensed premises are situated. Page 57 of 249 City of Richfield Month XX, 20XX County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2026-XX 2 of 8 DOCSOPEN\RC160\3\1073797.v16-7/23/26 Subd. 3. Mobile food units. A license application for a mobile food unit must include written consent from the property owner to operate the mobile food unit on their property. Subd. 4. Exemptions. The following are exempt from the license requirement under this subsection, but must comply with all performance standards in subsection 617.17: (a) Food establishments that operate mobile food units as an extension of their retail food license under M.S. § 28A.06, as may be amended from time to time. (b) A current retail mobile food handler licensed by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. (c) Mobile food units operating on private residential property that meet the performance standards under subsection 617.17, subd. 3. Section 3. Subsection 617.13 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: 617.13. - Persons and locations ineligible for license. Subdivision 1. Persons ineligible. No license shall be granted if the applicant: (a) Is not a citizen of the United States or a resident alien, or d Does not have the legal authority to work within the United States; (b) Is not of good moral character and repute; (c b) Is not 18 years of age or older on the date the application is submitted to the Issuing Authority; (d c) Has been convicted of a crime that directly relates to the occupation herein licensed, as defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 364.03, subdivision 2, as amended, and has not shown competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties of the occupation to which this license applies as defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 364.03, subdivision 3, as amended; (e d) Has had a license similar to this section's license revoked by any other government body within three (3) years before the application date; (f e) Has been denied a license by the City because of circumstances, which occurred within three (3) years before the application date; (g f) Has violated any provision of this section within three (3) years before the application date, or has violated any provision of this section during the application period pending the issuance of the license; (h g) Has falsified any information or omitted material information required by this section; or (I h) Owes taxes or assessments to the State, County, School District, or City that are due and delinquent. Page 58 of 249 City of Richfield Month XX, 20XX County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2026-XX 3 of 8 DOCSOPEN\RC160\3\1073797.v16-7/23/26 Section 4. Subsection 617.15 (Food establishment licensing categories and restrictions) of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended to add a new subdivision 8 as follows: Subd. 8. Mobile food units are categorized as: (a) Complex menu mobile food unit having similar food handling operations specified uniter Type I, or II establishment: or (b) Simple menu mobile food unit having similar food handling operations specified under Type III, IV, or V establishment. Section 5. Section 617 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended to add a new subsection 617.17 as follows: 617.17. – Mobile food units. Subdivision. 1. Locations. A mobile food unit may only operate in the locations set forth in this subdivision. A mobile food unit may operate on private non-residential property (including property in commercial, industrial, or mixed-use zoning districts) and on private residential property, subject to all licensing and performance standard requirements. A mobile food unit may operate on local, collector or arterial streets designated as local or as approved by the Issuing Authority.. A mobile food unit may only operate in a city park or on city property with the prior written approval of the City; additional permits may be required for such operations. Subd. 2. Performance standards – all locations. Mobile food units located in both residential and non-residential areas are subject to the following performance standards; (a) No mobile food unit may park or operate in the public right-of-way unless approved by the Issuing Authority. (b) Mobile food units may be parked within required parking areas, but must be parked on asphalt, concrete, or other surfaces approved by the Issuing Authority. Grass is not an approved surface. (c) Mobile food units, including service areas and accessory outdoor seating, may not block sidewalks or fire lanes, impede pedestrian or vehicular circulation, or interfere with public safety. (d) Mobile food units must be located at least ten (10) feet away from building entrances, hydrants, and other mobile food units. (e) No mobile food unit may be located within a parking structure. Page 59 of 249 City of Richfield Month XX, 20XX County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2026-XX 4 of 8 DOCSOPEN\RC160\3\1073797.v16-7/23/26 (f) Mobile food units must depart from the site when not in operation, unless they are operating at the same site as their affiliated licensed commercial kitchen or commissary. (g) The owner or operator of the mobile food unit must provide trash and recycling receptacles for customer use and keep the site free from litter, refuse, debris, junk or other waste. (h) No mobile food unit waste liquids, garbage, litter or refuse may be dumped or drained into sidewalks, streets, gutters, drains, public trash receptacles, or any other place except at the licensed commercial kitchen or commissary associated with the mobile food unit. (i) All mobile food unit signs must be affixed to the vehicle or trailer and in compliance with Appendix B, Section 549, the sign code. (j) No sound amplification, noisemakers, or flashing lights are permitted. Subd. 3. Performance standards – residential areas. Mobile food units located in residential areas are subject to the following performance standards; (a) Mobile food unit service is limited to private guests of the property owner for catering purposes only (such as a private graduation party or wedding) and not open for sales to the general public. (b) No more than one mobile food unit may operate at one time on a site. (c) Mobile food units may operate only between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. (d) No mobile food unit may be stored overnight or maintained on residential property, including on public rights-of-way abutting residential properties. (e) A site may not host a mobile food unit more than three days per year. Subd. 4. Performance standards – non-residential areas. Mobile food units located in non-residential areas are subject to the following performance standards; (a) No more than three mobile food units may operate at one time on a site unless affiliated with an approved special event. (b) Mobile food units must be located at least 100 feet from an exterior entrance to a restaurant or building occupied by a restaurant unless approved in writing by the owner or operator of the subject restaurant. Page 60 of 249 City of Richfield Month XX, 20XX County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2026-XX 5 of 8 DOCSOPEN\RC160\3\1073797.v16-7/23/26 (c) Mobile food units located in non-residential areas may operate only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Subd. 5. Performance standards – collector and arterial streets. Mobile food units located on a collector or arterial street are subject to the following additional performance standards: (a) The customer ordering and pickup areas must be facing a street with a sidewalk; and (b) The MFU must be parked entirely within a striped parking lane, or if unstriped, on a side of the street that allows parking. (c) An applicant not able to comply with (b) of this subdivision may temporarily park the MFU in an alternate location if the applicant applies for and obtains approval from the City for a right-of-way obstruction permit. Section 6. Subsection 617.21 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: Subdivision 1. Administrative variance request. Relief from the strict compliance with the requirements of section 617.19 and those parts of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4626 hereof may be granted in the form of a variance. Variance requests shall not be considered from those specifically listed in Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626.1690, subpart A (1) through (4). The variance application must be from the party to whom the requirement applies and must be in writing and submitted to the Health Authority, including, at a minimum, the following information: (a) The full name, address, daytime and evening telephone numbers of the party requesting a variance; (b) The address of the licensed premises; (c) The relationship of the party requesting a variance to the licensed premises; (d) The specific language in the City Code or State Rule or Rules from which the variance is requested and the reasons why the requirements of City Code or State Rule cannot be met; (e) A description of alternative measures that will be taken to ensure a comparable degree of protection to the health or the environment if a variance is granted; (f) The length of time for which the variance is requested; (g) A statement that the person applying for the variance will comply with the terms of the variance and maintain a copy, if granted; (h) A HACCP plan, if required under part 4626.1730, that includes the information in part 4626.1735 that is relevant to the variance requested; and Page 61 of 249 City of Richfield Month XX, 20XX County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2026-XX 6 of 8 DOCSOPEN\RC160\3\1073797.v16-7/23/26 (i) Other relevant information the City determines necessary to properly evaluate the request for a variance. Section 7. Subsection 617.23 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: Subdivision 1. Temporary suspension. The Health Authority, with the approval of the City Manager, shall immediately suspend the license of any food establishment or mobile food unit for the violation of any terms of this section if such violations constitute an imminent public health hazard. Upon notification by the Health Authority of a temporary suspension of license, by posting of the report as set forth at the time of the inspection, the licensee shall forthwith cease operation. The licensee may appeal the temporary suspension in writing to the City Council. Upon notification in writing by the licensee to the Health Authority that all violations for which the temporary suspension was invoked have been corrected, the Health Authority shall reinspect the food establishment within two (2) City business days or other reasonable agreed upon length of time. If all violations constituting the grounds for the temporary suspension have been corrected, the Health Authority shall forthwith terminate the suspension. The Health Authority shall not suspend a license if the violation or violations constituting an imminent public hazard can be eliminated or removed immediately. Section 8. Subsection 617.27 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: Subdivision 1. The Health Authority shall inspect each food establishment and mobile food unit prior to issuing a license and as deemed necessary by the Health Authority. The Health Authority shall not issue a license until the food establishment or mobile food unit complies with the standards of this section as demonstrated by a satisfactory inspection. Subd. 2. The Health Authority, after proper identification, shall have the right to enter and have access to the food establishment or mobile food unit at any time during the conduct of business. Subd. 3. The Health Authority shall inspect each food establishment and mobile food unit as frequently as necessary during construction, and prior to opening for service to the public, to ensure that construction and operations are in conformance with this section. Subd. 4. The Health Authority shall inspect each food establishment and mobile food unit at a frequency no less often than State law requires. Subd. 5. The licensee, owner, or operator of a food establishment or mobile food unit upon receipt of a health inspection report giving notice of violations of this section shall correct or remove each violation in the length of time determined by the Health Authority. Priority 1 and priority 2 food code violations shall be complied with immediately or within 24 hours if not Page 62 of 249 City of Richfield Month XX, 20XX County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2026-XX 7 of 8 DOCSOPEN\RC160\3\1073797.v16-7/23/26 otherwise specified by the Health Authority. Failure to remove or correct each violation within the specified time period shall constitute a separate violation of this section. The Health Authority may issue orders to halt construction or remodeling, or to take corrective measures to ensure compliance with this section. Subd. 6. The person in charge of the food establishment or mobile food unit shall make available and allow copying of any and all relevant records necessary to ascertain compliance with this section within a reasonable time period. Section 9. Subsection 617.29 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: 617.29. – Grounds for emergency closure. If any of the following conditions exist, the operator or person in charge may be ordered to discontinue all operations of the food establishment or mobile food unit until such time as the Health Authority confirms the correction of the violation: Subdivision 1. Failure to possess a license as required by section 617.07, as amended; Subd. 2. Evidence of a sewage backup in a food preparation, food storage, or utensil washing area; Subd. 3. Lack of potable, plumbed, hot or cold water to the extent that hand washing, food preparation, or toilet facilities are not operational; Subd. 4. Lack of electricity or gas service to the extent that hand washing, utensil washing, food preparation, ventilation, lighting, or toilet facilities are not operational; Subd. 5. Evidence of an ongoing illness associated with the operation of the food establishment or mobile food unit; Subd. 6. Significant damage to the food establishment or mobile food unit due to tornado, fire, flood, or other disaster; Subd. 7. Evidence of an extensive infestation of rodents or other vermin; Subd. 8. Evidence of cross contamination, filthy conditions, or poor personal hygiene to the extent of posing an imminent health risk; Subd. 9. Lack of an effective means of sanitizing dishes or utensils; Subd. 10. Misuse of poisons or toxic materials; or Page 63 of 249 City of Richfield Month XX, 20XX County of Hennepin State of Minnesota BILL NO. 2026-XX 8 of 8 DOCSOPEN\RC160\3\1073797.v16-7/23/26 Subd. 11. The existence of any public health nuisance, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 145A.02, subdivision 17, as amended, or section 925 of this Code. Section 10. This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield on this ____ day of ___________, 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 Page 64 of 249 City of Richfield Month XX, 20XX County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: 12XXX Motion by: Seconded by: A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MOBILE FOOD UNIT 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. C. The fees established by this Resolution shall become effective on January 1, 2027, consistent with the effective date of the ordinance amending Appendix D of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield. SECTION 2. FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS Annual Complex Menu Mobile Food Unit Type I or II $385.00 Annual Simple Menu Mobile Food Unit Type III, IV, or V $244.00 (5) Temporary Food Multi-Vendor $955.00 (H) Farmer’s Market Stand (stands not exempted from licensing in Minnesota Statue Chapter 28A) $228.00 BOLD represents added/amended fee Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this ___________ day of ______, 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 Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk Page 65 of 249 City Council Meeting 9/8/2026 Agenda Section: Resolutions Agenda Item: 11.a. Report Prepared By: Sam Crosby, City Planner Department Director: Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director Item for Consideration: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Approval for a multifamily residential development of 290 units in two buildings at 6501 Portland Avenue. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pope Architects (Applicant) has submitted an application on behalf MSP-Lupe Richfield LLC for land use approvals to construct a 5-story, 290-unit housing development at the former American Legion site at 6501 Portland Avenue. The project is to be constructed in two phases. The first phase would be 130 units of workforce/family housing in the eastern building. The second phase would be 160 units of senior housing in the western building. Both buildings feature courtyard amenities, underground parking, and a green roof that covers approximately 30 percent of the rooftop. The project has a modern design with lots of windows and wood paneling that befits the natural surroundings of the adjacent Veterans Park. See the Applicant’s project description in the bottom corner of the plan set cover page. The subject property is zoned MR-3, “High Density Residential” and lies within the Veteran’s Park Overlay District, which prescribes specific conditions of approval for properties near the Park. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for all projects over 100 units in size. A CUP allows the City to place reasonable conditions upon a project in order to implement the intent of the code or protect adjacent properties. The following are areas where the plan does not meet Code requirements: • Future connection to 66th Street; • Signage Plan; • Parking setback from the east property line; • The details for rooftop screening have not been provided; The draft resolution of approval includes conditions to bring the (above) items into compliance. There are also areas where the Council has discretion: • Bird Collision Reduction Plan; • Electric Vehicle chargers; • Tree Preservation Planting requirements (mulch alone not permitted); • Other Landscape Requirements: (internal parking lot landscaping islands, tree Page 66 of 249 diversity; number of trees); • Parking stall count; • Parking lot screening (when adjacent to the park); • Greenspace within the setback areas; • Housing Variety. Conditions addressing these items are also included in the draft resolution. The allowable discretion and details of the conditions proposed by staff are discussed in the Policies section below. At the time of the Planning Commission meeting on August 24th, the Applicant objected to five conditions of approval: the requirement to cooperate regarding a future connection to 66th Street and the first four discretionary items. Taking those objections into consideration, staff worked with the City Attorney to modify two of the recommendations (the connection to 66th Street and the Bird Collision Reduction Plan). At the Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant’s Attorney distributed to the Commission proposed revisions to the conditions of approval (attached) and explained the reasoning for the requested changes. During the public hearing, eight members of the public spoke, raising questions and concerns around the Bird Collision Reduction Plan, surrounding home values, noise impacts, tax implications, traffic and turning movements from the site, payment for the future road construction, purchase of the site by the City, a preference for previous plans for the site, the height of the proposed buildings, impacts on the park/pool/Veterans Memorial and their users, utility impacts, and lack on on-site greenspace. Ultimately, the Commission recommended approval with all conditions as presented by staff. The Commission also asked staff to emphasize their concerns regarding left- turning movements from the site and bird impacts to the City Council. On September 1, the City received the attached letter from the Applicant's attorney, Jake Steen of Larkin Hoffman, regarding the 66th Street connection and the Bird Collision Reduction Plan. Staff and the City Attorney have revised the conditions to clarify the requirements related to potential future connection to 66th Street and that requirements related to the Bird Collision Reduction Plan do not require alterations to building materials or other components of the building that are regulated by the State Building Code. A Council member raised concerns about maintaining minimum accessible sidewalk widths when a vehicle is parked in a stall perpendicular to the sidewalk. If a condition regarding this is desired, the Council should modify the resolution to include it. Staff recommends the following language: "Pedestrian routes through the property must maintain minimum ADA clearance on sidewalks that abut parking stalls at a perpendicular angle." If the condition is not met, the City can work with the owner to determine potential solutions. One example might be wheel stops, but the condition leaves open the possibility for other potential solutions. Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution, which includes stipulations requiring the project to meet the requirements of the Code. Page 67 of 249 RECOMMENDED ACTION By Motion: Approval of a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit and Siie Plan for the multifamily residential development of 290 units in two buildings at 6501 Portland Avenue subject to the conditions recommended by staff. HISTORICAL CONTEXT • The American Legion site has been guided “High Density Residential” since at least 1997. Recognizing the value of the site to the community as a whole, in early 2021, the City commissioned the Portland and 66th Sub-Area Study for the Legion site and other properties located in and around Vets Park. • In late 2021, the Council approved the Portland Avenue and 66th Street Study and adopted the ordinance creating the Veteran’s Park Area (VPA) Overlay Zoning District. The VPA Overlay District modifies the underlying zoning regulations by increasing setbacks, decreasing allowable building height, requiring building step-backs above the third floor, and planning for future access to 66th Street. • In 2024, MSP Commercial purchased the property and partnered with Lupe Development. • A joint Council/Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) work session was held in June of 2025. Another joint Council/HRA work session was held in January of 2026. • In March of 2026, the Applicant went through Sketch Plan Review, an administrative review of the concept development plans. • On May 21st of this year, the development team hosted an open house neighborhood meeting at Veteran’s Park Shelter. The meeting was attended by approximately 40 residents. • On August 20th, Lupe hosted an open house at their Edina housing project, 4040 Flats. Neighbors within 500 feet of the subject site were invited to tour the building. City staff did not attend. EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Equity: The project is designed to serve low-income households, half of which are families. The family building includes some larger units. The proposed buildings will comply with ADA guidelines. Bicycle parking will be provided in the parking garage and near the building entrances. Strategic Plan: This project aligns most with the Community Development priority. The project will contribute affordable units to the community, thereby helping to maintain Richfield as an affordable place to live. The addition of 290 units also helps to increase the amount of housing in general reducing local housing shortages. POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.) Comprehensive Plan The property is guided “High Density Residential” by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which provides for a density range from 35 to 100 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is 70 units per acre. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan calls for a full range of housing choices that meets residents' needs at every stage of their lives and ensures a healthy balance of housing Page 68 of 249 types that meet the needs of a diverse population with diverse needs. Further, the Comprehensive Plan encourages improvements to the housing stock to better serve families with children and seniors. Of the units in the family building, 35% are three or four bedroom units, and 55% of the units overall are senior housing. Conditional Use Permit / Site Plan Approval The site layout has been modified since the sketch plan review and neighborhood meeting as follows: ▪ The two buildings are further apart, for a more useable space between them, and slightly staggered for a more organic design. ▪ The east/family building has been re-oriented so that the courtyard faces south. This helped to: o reduce shadows on the pool; o reduce the number of windows with views of the pool; o increased sunlight to the courtyard; o facilitated emergency vehicle access to the courtyard; ▪ Upper story step back has been added to the south side of the east/family building to further reduce the impacts upon the pool (views and shadowing). ▪ As a substitute for the 30% requirement for ground floor windows, art is interspersed along the east and north walls of the east/family building to increase the visual interest at the ground level. Staff finds that the proposed substitution not only meets the intent of the code but is superior to it given that windows in this area would look into the underground parking area. The ground floor window requirements on the south side of the west building were not met by the plan submittal, but the letter from Larkin Hoffman offers either glass block or art to comply. The existing sanitary sewer system does not support a project of this size and the Public Works Department is working on a design solution. The Conditional Use Permit can be approved without the sanitary details being finalized as any underground changes are not likely to impact the above-ground improvements. Future access to 66th The VPA Overlay District requires that “sites north of 66th Street shall plan internal traffic circulation to accommodate the potential for a north-south road (an approximate extension of Oakland Avenue) that would connect the sites to 66th Street.” The intent of the requirement is to serve (mainly outbound) traffic from the subject site. Therefore, staff envisions the design being a one-way southbound private drive rather than a two-way public road. However, the traffic study shows that the two access points onto Portland are sufficient to handle the outbound pressure and a third egress is not needed at this time. While not currently needed, the possibility of a future connection to 66th Street should be retained. Therefore, staff has included a relevant condition of approval if such a connection is ever deemed necessary by the City. Discretion In considering an application for a CUP, the City’s discretion is limited. The City must approve requests that meet the standards outlined in the City code; however, the City may attach reasonable conditions in order to implement the intent of the code or protect adjacent properties. The proposed project is requesting flexibility from code requirements in a number of areas, and the City has discretion in granting this. Page 69 of 249 Flexibility requested is as follows and staff recommendations have been included in the attached draft resolution: Bird Collision Reduction Plan: The VPA Overlay District requires the submittal of a Bird Collision Reduction Plan addressing the impacts of the building's glass, lighting, and site design on birds as part of their development application. At this time, the proposed plan addresses only lighting and landscaping. The plan does not address the building’s glass outside of monitoring bird crashes for one year post construction. In order to meet the intent of the requirement, staff recommends that the plan meet the requirements of the B3 Guidelines; however, the applicant may choose to reduce anticipated bird collisions in another way. It is explicitly stated in the resolution that other alternatives would be acceptable. One example is post-construction adhesives such as what is required by the City of Minneapolis for skyways. EV Charger reduction: The proposal provides the number of EV chargers required (32), but does not include the number of EV-ready stalls required (63 Level 2 [240 volt] outlets and 111 Level 1 [standard] outlets). The code contains a clause that “these numbers may be reduced by the Community Development Director if proof can be provided that such spaces will not be used.” The Applicant has provided news articles related to the rapidly changing technology around EV charges and has stated that in other affordable properties they own, they have not seen a need for EV chargers. The Applicant also expressed safety concerns, but the chargers need not be located inside the building. The proposed buildings will exist for decades. Staff believe that it is reasonable and desirable to plan for future charging needs and neither the Community Development nor the Recreation Services Director (Sustainability) support this request. Tree Preservation: The VPA Overlay District requires that “existing trees shall be protected and preserved to the greatest degree possible." The tree preservation plan indicates that 13 of the 21 mature conifers along the north property line are being protected (62%), but the grading plan does not comply with the preservation plan and the preservation plan does not meet the standards of the code. The Applicant cites the water supply loop requirements in the northeast corner of the site as the obstacle to tree preservation. There are construction methods such as trench boxes that can be employed to minimize the impacts to the trees while extending the waterline around the building. Staff has included a condition of approval that both the grading plan and tree preservation plan be revised to comply with the preservation requirements of the code for the 13 trees. Landscape Requirements: The code states that the Community Development Director may decide the adequacy of each landscaping and screening design based on whether it meets the intent of the ordinance. Therefore, the following ways in which the landscaping plan falls short of code could be deemed sufficient: ▪ Planting requirements (mulch alone not permitted); ▪ Internal parking lot landscaping islands (only 2.1% provided versus 5% required); ▪ Tree diversity (not more than 25% can be of one species); ▪ Number of trees (135 provided when 145 required). The Applicant specifically objects to the first item because the plantings would be on top of the building roof (the parking garage) rather than at ground level. Staff and the Page 70 of 249 Community Development Director recommend that the plans comply fully with the landscape requirements of the code. Parking reduction: The code requires 1.25 stalls per unit minus 10% for being on a transit line. For 290 units, that would be 327 stalls. The Council may reduce the parking requirement for senior housing complexes or other similarly low-driving populations, including, but not limited to, households earning below 60 percent Area Median Income. The developer is asking the Council to apply that discretion to this project and is proposing 317 stalls – a deficit of 10 stalls. In reviewing of this project, the City required a traffic and parking analysis prepared by a traffic engineer. The study represented that registration for surface parking would be provided at no cost and that parking overlap between buildings would be allowed. The study looked at both industry standards and similar affordable housing developments and found that the proposed parking capacity is adequate. The City hired an independent traffic consultant to review the traffic and parking study. The consultant agreed that the requested parking reduction is appropriate. Staff has included a condition that the management of surface stalls be maintained as represented. Parking lot screening: The new MR-3 zoning district regulations require “All 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 … unless the adjacent property owner provides a written waiver.” As the adjacent property owner, the City may waive this requirement if desired. Because the change in grade between the two properties negates the need for the screening, and because shadows on the parking area increase the need for salt in the winter, staff recommends waving the requirement. Prioritizing Greenspace: “When adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park, the required rear and side yard setbacks shall prioritize greenspace and landscaping as a transition/buffer to the Park.” The rear setback is 84% greenspace, the north side setback is 69% greenspace, but the south side setback is only 18% greenspace. When averaged, the three sides provide 57% greenspace. Housing Variety: The VPA Overly District requires that “Residential development shall include a minimum of two (2) types of residential land uses that expand the variety of lifecycle housing options in the study area.” The proposed project includes senior apartments and family apartments. It is the Council’s discretion whether a single unit type that serves two different populations meets the two-types-of-residential requirement. Traffic: The property will still have two access points, but they will be changed from one way to two way. Most of the turning movements will be in and out of the southern access point. The City required a traffic and parking analysis prepared by a traffic engineer. The traffic analysis assessed the potential impact of the project on roadways, intersections, and on-site circulation. The study predicts the development will create 853 daily trips, which is well within the capacity of Portland Avenue and no level of service grade changes are anticipated for the adjacent intersections. The study concluded that the proposed access points to Portland will operate acceptably with critical movements operating at Level of Service (LOS) D or better. (It is very common for side-street stop movements on busy roads to operate at LOS D or E.) The impact to the southbound left turn lane queuing on Portland Ave S is minimal and the westbound left/right turn lane queues are short and do not create on-site safety concerns. There were no recommended development-related mitigation measures to improve proposed Page 71 of 249 conditions. The City hired an independent traffic consultant to review the traffic and parking study. The consultant’s analysis confirmed that the assumptions, methods, analysis, and findings were all reasonable. The peer review recommended that the north parking lot be signed as overflow parking to help direct visitors during peak demand periods and support efficient circulation within the development. The review also recommended that the City retain the requirement for a possible future connection to 66th Street, discussed in the “Conditional Use Permit/Site Plan Approval” section above. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES The 60-day clock started when a complete application was received on August 14, 2026. Therefore, the 60-day clock ends on October 13, 2026. A decision is required by this date, or the City must notify the Applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision. FINANCIAL IMPACT None: Required application fees have been paid. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ▪ Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper on August 13, 2026, and was mailed to properties within 350 feet of the subject site. ▪ The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Monday, August 24th. The commission voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend approval as presented by staff. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ▪ Approve the request with additional and/or modified stipulations. ▪ Deny the request based on the areas of discretion with a finding that the proposal does not meet City requirements. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2026-09-08 - 6501 Portland Proposed Amendments 2. 090826 - LupeLegion - 6501 Portland Ave - Draft CUP Reso 3. 082426 - LupeLegion - 6501 Portland Ave - Required Findings 4. 2026-07-27 Am Legion - Arch,Civil,Landscape Plan Set_combined 5. 2026-07-27 Am Legion Bird Collision Reduction Plan 6. 2026-07-27 Am Legion Photometric Plan 7. ARC Report Legion CUP 08-10-26 (includes traffic study analysis) 8. Final_6501 Portland Ave Development Traffic and Parking Study_20260515 9. 6501 Portland Ave - Location & Zoning Map 10. Dan Jensen Ltr 8-13-26 11. Paige Kahle Email 8-21-26, Legion 12. Meghan Howard Email 8-24-26, Legion Page 72 of 249 13. Hoffman Larkin Letter & Response to ARC Report 08.18.2026 14. 6501 Portland Avenue South - Proposed Alternative Conditions of Approval - 8.24.2026 15. MSP-Lupe Richfield LLC - Letter to Richfield City Council 9-1-26 Page 73 of 249 Proposed amendments by CM Sean Hayford Oleary re: 6501 Portland Avenue 8 September 2026 General explanation for both amendments The applicant is operating under the assumption that the residential population here is more likely than the average Richfield apartment resident to walk/roll, bike, or take mass transit, and thus the building requires less vehicle parking. The project benefits from this assumption in being allowed to construct 45 fewer stalls than otherwise required (transit reduction + senior/affordable reduction). These conditions are intended to ensure that the walking routes and the bicycle parking are usable under typical conditions, including when adjacent vehicle parking is in use. Amendment A Proposed : Add the following language to the conditions of approval: “Pedestrian routes through the property must maintain minimum ADA clearance on sidewalks that abut parking stalls at a perpendicular angle, including when vehicles are parked in these stalls.” Amendment B Additional explanation : The zoning code requires that “The bicycle facilities shall be installed per the manufacturer's specifications, and allow enough space around parked bicycles for user access and clearance ” (emphasis added). 544.17, subd. 4. I believe staff erred in not considering the presence of a parked vehicle in a vehicle parking stall in enforcing this requirement. A parked vehicle in front of a wall-hung bicycle rack makes it inaccessible to the user without moving a vehicle. In the same spirit as Amendment A, the proposed condition clarifies that this requirement must be met under all typical conditions. See reference picture on the reverse for context. Proposed : Add the following language to the conditions of approval: “The bicycle parking minimum for both buildings shall be met in a manner that allows enough space around parked bicycles for user access and clearance. Because an occupied parking spot could not reliably ensure this, bicycle parking installed within a vehicle parking stall may not be used toward the minimum bicycle parking requirement.” Page 74 of 249 Reference images to show bicycle parking proposed by applicant Typical wall-hung bike parking placed above parking stalls, as proposed. Does not allow enough space around parked bicycles for user access and clearance if adjacent parking is used as intended (not compliant). Dero duplex bike parking and floor-mounted bike parking. When installed to manufacturer’s specifications, it allows enough space around parked bicycles for user access and clearance (compliant). Page 75 of 249 City of Richfield September 9, 2026 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX 1 of 5 Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO PHASES OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING - ONE AGE RESTRICTED, AND BOTH INCOME RESTRICTED - AT 6501 PORTLAND AVENUE WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Pope Design Group on behalf of MSP-Lupe Richfield LLC with the City of Richfield which requests a Conditional Use Permit for two phases of multifamily housing – a 130 unit family building, and a 160 unit senior building - in order to construct two five-story income restricted apartment buildings at 6501 Portland Avenue South, property legally described in Exhibit A, attached; and WHEREAS, the request meets the requirements necessary for approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Approval as specified in Richfield’s Zoning Code, Subsection 547.09 and 547.13, Subd.8, as listed in the Required Finding Statement and as detailed in City Council Agenda Item No.____; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was mailed to properties within 350 feet of the subject property and published in the Sun Current newspaper on August 13, 2026; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield held a public hearing at its August 24, 2026 meeting and recommended approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council has fully considered the request for Conditional Use Permit; 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 & Site Plan Approval is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: a. That this Resolution is recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subd. 1, and the City’s Zoning Code Section 547.09, Page 76 of 249 City of Richfield September 9, 2026 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX 2 of 5 Subd.8. A recorded copy of the approved resolution must be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. b. All site perimeter sidewalks providing connections to public streets and public park property must remain permanently open and accessible to the public. c. The owner shall plan internal traffic circulation to accommodate construction of a future access connection from the southern parking lot on the subject site to a potential north-south road connecting to 66th Street, as required by the City’s Overlay District and the traffic study conducted for the property. If the City determines that the access connection becomes necessary due to further development on or impacts from the subject site or a change in use on the subject site, the owner will be responsible for construction of the portion only located within the boundary line of the subject site. The City must review and approve the owner’s design plans for the connection. Owner will cooperate with the properties to the south and the City regarding timing of construction. d. The applicant’s traffic and parking study expressly states that surface parking registration will be provided at no cost. Therefore, the properties shall be managed such that cross parking between buildings is allowed with common enforcement and, to reduce the potential for resident parking at adjacent city facilities and carry out the applicant’s finding related to parking, surface parking will be provided at no cost to residents for the life of the age and income restrictions. e. All required parking spaces shall remain available year-round and shall not be used for snow storage. Public property may not be used for snow storage. f. All common area ground floor windows on the west side of the Phase 2/Senior building shall remain transparent and may not be permanently covered. g. The amount of windows, balconies, and art shall not be reduced in size or number from these approved plans. h. The property owner is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of all exterior improvements, including landscaping, in accordance with approved plans. i. The applicant will continue to work with the City and County to resolve the sanitary capacity issue. Final sanitary design must be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. j. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits, and compliance with all other City, County and State regulations. Page 77 of 249 City of Richfield September 9, 2026 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX 3 of 5 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall revise the plans as follows, subject to staff review and approval: k. Comply with the number and location of EV chargers and EV ready parking required by zoning code Section 544.13, Subd.7. l. Grading and construction plans to comply with the tree preservation plan, including the preservation of the 13 mature evergreens along the north property line in compliance with 544.03, Subd.4.i. m. Comply with all setback and landscaping requirements. n. Comply with all requirements detailed in the City’s ARC Report dated August 10, 2026, with the caveat that item k should reference the west building, not the east building and the Bird Collision Reduction Plan Comments are replaced with the following: o. Provide a Bird Collision Reduction Plan that provides either a Whole Building Threat Factor of 45 or less using the B3 Guidelines Bird-Safe Design Calculator, or otherwise quantitively reduces anticipated bird collisions by a similar amount, using methods that do not involve changes to building materials or other components regulated by the state building code. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall also: a. Provide a SAC determination from the Met Council. b. Call for a tree protection inspection. c. Provide proof of having recorded a copy of this resolution of approval. d. Enter into a construction and maintenance agreement with the City. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall: e. Enter into an escrow agreement for outstanding items and provide a surety equal to 125% of the value of any improvements not yet complete. The escrow agreement shall include a stipulation that if a building permit for Phase 2 is not received within 6 months of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 1, interim landscaping on Phase 2 will be provided. f. All easements shall be executed and recorded. Page 78 of 249 City of Richfield September 9, 2026 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX 4 of 5 g. Provide proof of having recorded the construction and maintenance agreement. Prior to the release of the surety: h. All exterior improvements shall be installed. i. All requirements of the escrow agreement shall be met. 4. The Conditional Use Permit shall expire one year 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. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this ___th day of September, 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 Page 79 of 249 City of Richfield September 9, 2026 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX 5 of 5 Page 80 of 249 Required Findings – Lupe Development / 6501 Portland Ave Conditional Use Permit / Site Plan Approval 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. a. The proposed use of the property as two apartment buildings with a total of 290 units is consistent with the guiding “High Density Residential”, which requires between 35 and 100 dwelling units per acre. The current proposal has 70 units per acre. b. The project advances the following goals of the Comprehensive Plan: » Uses quality, durable building and landscaping materials to maintain a high- quality standard in residential development. » Provides architectural characteristics that provide appropriate transitions between lower and higher intensity uses (the step-backs). » Focuses development along major transportation thoroughfares. » Provides pedestrian friendly building and site design 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. a. 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. With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposal is consistent. b. The purpose of the high-density residential district is “…to provide for multifamily development that is diverse and attractive, and to facilitate context-sensitive infill and redevelopment by allowing a variety of buildings with multiple units. Characteristics of such buildings include primary entrances and windows facing onto the street…human scaled architectural elements, and green space that allows for tree canopy, water filtration, and relaxation…” With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposal is consistent. 3. The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. The Vet’s Park Overlay district contains design regulations that adhere to the guiding principles of the Portland and 66th Sub Area Study. Requirements such as lower building heights, larger building setbacks, and upper story step-backs have been met. The requirements for a future connection to 66th Street, pedestrian access through the site, and a Bird Collision Reduction Plan have been met by way detailed conditions of approval. Areas of discretion include: housing variety, prioritization of greenspace within the side and rear setbacks, and tree preservation. The Council will determine whether or not the areas of discretion are sufficient. Page 81 of 249 There are no other 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. There are a few areas where the City has discretion in relation to the performance standards: ▪ Ground floor windows – A superior alternative has been presented. Staff recommends approval of the proposed art as a substitute for windows at the parking garage level. ▪ EV chargers – Staff recommends compliance – a condition for such has been included in the approval. ▪ Parking –Based on both the parking study and independent analysis, staff recommends approval of the requested reduction. ▪ Parking lot screening – Can be waived by the neighboring property owner, which is the City. Staff recommends waiving this requirement. 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 capacity of the sanitary sewer must be increased to meet the project demand. The Engineering Department is designing the improvements needed to address the issue, and the property owner has offered to pay for their construction. Otherwise, the City’s Public Works and Engineering Departments do not anticipate any other issues. 6. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare. The two proposed 5-story tall apartment buildings 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. The current need for both market rate and affordable housing is generally well known. The developer also commissioned a limited scope market study for a 328-unit, all-affordable, workforce and senior apartment project. The study confirms a strong market with high occupancy and unmet demand. Comparable properties reported a vacancy rate of 0.0 to 2.0 percent with an average vacancy rate of 0.3 percent. The study concludes that there is adequate demand for the proposed project. 8. The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. While “Multifamily dwellings and multi-building developments with more than 100 units” is a conditional use in the MR-3 zoning district, there are not specific conditions listed in the code. The principles of design listed in the Vet’s Park Overlay District are discussed in item 3, above. Page 82 of 249 Part 2 – Site Plan Approval: In evaluating a site plan, the Planning Commission and Council shall consider its compliance with the following (547.13, Subd.8): a) Consistency with the various elements and objectives of the City’s long-range plans including, but not limited to, the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is consistent with long-range plans and the Comprehensive Plan. See item 1 in Part 1, above. b) Consistency with the purposes of the Zoning Code. Once the conditions of approval have been met, the proposed use will be consistent with the Zoning Code and is allowed in the High Density Residential (MR-3) zoning district and Vet’s Park Overlay (VPO) district. No variances have been requested. c) Preservation of the site in its natural state, insofar as practicable, by minimizing tree and soil removal, and designing any grade changes so as to be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed or developing areas. The land was originally developed in 1956, and most natural features were lost at that time. The only feature worth preserving is a row of 21 mature evergreens along the north property line. Currently, 13 are labeled as to be preserved but the plans do not meet the preservation requirements of the zoning code and therefore they are considered lost. A condition of approval has been included that the plan be revised to meet the tree preservation requirements for these 13 trees. d) Creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces with the terrain and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the proposed development. The proposed site layout is harmonious in that: ▪ the western building “faces” Portland and the eastern building “faces” the south ▪ the ground floor of the east and north elevations of the eastern/family building avoid blank walls facing the park by featuring art installations ▪ the buildings preserve a sight line to Veteran’s memorial between them ▪ the project will preserve pedestrian connections through the property to the park ▪ the open space exceeds minimum requirements due to the generous setbacks required by the VPO district ▪ the green roof will help the buildings blend with their surroundings when viewed from above e) Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features including: i. Creation of an internal sense of order for the various functions and buildings on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community; Page 83 of 249 • The site layout is logical and provides a desirable environment in the context of the area. ii. Appropriateness of the amount and arrangement of open space and landscaping to the design and function of the development; • The layout of the site is well done; with good design and function of open space. With functional courtyards and generous setbacks, each U- shaped building both wraps around, and is surrounded by, open space. Memorialized by the resolution of approval as public routes, the perimeter sidewalks will provide pedestrian access – both east/west to the park from Portland (and visa-versa), and north/south. The sidewalk along the east side of the site (abutting the ice arena’s drive aisle) is lined with trees along both sides and will connect to the park paths on either end. iii. Appropriateness of the materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept of the project and the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and neighboring structures and functions; • The building utilizes a mix of high-quality exterior materials, such as brick, fiber cement and metal panels that mimic wood. The buildings have a generally equal façade treatment to all sides (except the inside of the courtyards). The light and natural colors of the exterior materials are compatible with the surrounding park area and the many windows and balconies will allow the residents to enjoy views of the park. iv. Adequacy of vehicular, cycling and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking, in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian, cycling and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking so as to be safe, convenient and, insofar as practicable, compatible with the design of proposed buildings, structures and neighboring properties. • Walkways – The plan includes ample sidewalks that circumnavigate both buildings and the entire site. • Drive aisles & access points – It was originally envisioned that a connection to 66th Street would be needed to adequately serve out- bound traffic of the subject site. However, the traffic study shows that the two access points onto Portland are sufficient to handle the out- bound pressure and a third egress is not needed at this time. While not currently needed, the possibility of a future connection to 66th Street should be retained. • Parking – While the parking does not provide the code required 1.25 stalls per unit, the Council has the authority to decrease the requirement based on the lower-driving population. • Bike Parking – When conditions of approval are met, ample bike parking will be provided. • EV Charging – A condition of approval is that the code requirements be met. • ADA Parking - Required ADA stalls are located in the underground garage to ensure the safety of residents in need of them, and in the Page 84 of 249 above-ground lot to serve guests and visitors. The arrangement of parking is safe, convenient and compatible with surrounding properties. f) Creation of an energy-conserving design through design location, orientation and elevation of structures, the use and location of glass in structures, and the use of landscape materials and site grading. The development is of standard building and site design and does not contain any unique energy-conserving features outside of traditional standard practices. The proposal does label a “green roof” as being located on the rooftop of both buildings, but no design details have been provided. Therefore, what, if any, energy, stormwater or environmental benefits this feature may provide is unclear. g) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for such matters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air, and those aspects of design, not adequately covered by other regulations, which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. ▪ Surface water drainage meets the City’s minimum requirements ▪ The concern regarding residents overlooking the pool has been alleviated by a larger building setback, upper story (4th and 5th floor) step-backs, and orienting the building, so that the courtyard faces south, rather than north. ▪ Because of the large setback requirements in the VPO district, the buildings do not unreasonably block light or air to adjacent properties. Page 85 of 249 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Along the perimeter of Veteran’s Memorial Park, the proposed Apartment Buildings carry the urban landscape of the park throughout the site. The building is nestled into the grade which inclines up to Portland Avenue and the trails link to the existing Richfield Ice Arena, City Pool, and Veteran’s Memorial Park. As part of a two-phased project, the Phase 1 East building forms a U with its courtyard acting as arms opening to the Southern side while the Phase 2 West building forms a U facing Portland Avenue. The pedestrian experience is enhanced with tree-lined trail connections, internal plazas and courtyards, as well as art installations along the base. Residents and guests will enter the West building off Portland Avenue with a dedicated parking lot while the East building lobby is in the Southwest corner of the Phase 1 East building. The building elevations are comprised of 5 stories of wood construction with a step-back of 15 feet at Levels 4-5 on the sides along the park and Portland Avenue. Both buildings will have one level of underground parking. At each floor level, a thin band of white metal panel becomes a sculptural element that wraps the exterior surface of both buildings. A pattern of vertical wood-look siding connected by a combination of white horizontal and panelized fiber cement creates movement across the façade. Phase 1 East will be a 130 unit Apartment Building for Families with mostly larger 2-3 bedrooms units. Phase 2 West, to be constructed in sequence following Phase 1, will have 160 Senior Apartments with majority 1-2 bedroom units. The required parking is based on a 1.25 spaces/unit and a 10% transit reduction. A parking demand study shows that an additional 5% reduction for Senior & Family units at 60% AMI meets the parking demand for the site with 317 underground and surface stalls. The project incorporates 1 bike parking stall per unit, with 25% of the stalls at grade and 90% minimum enclosed at each building. The proposed project integrates into the surrounding neighborhood context with its stepped massing and orientation towards Portland and the park. A shadow study is included to show that the building will not have an impact on the pool to the South. The site layout also accommodates a proposed future road that would come from 66th Street and intersect at the South edge of the site, aligning with the interactive path between the two buildings. In the attached Civil plans, fire truck access, stormwater and construction phasing are included to show the accommodation within the site for utilities throughout each phase of the project. PROJECT TEAM MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD, LLC 1801 COUNTY ROAD B-WEST, SUITE 201 ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 CONTACT: AARON DIEDERICH, PRESIDENT & COO AARON.DIEDERICH@LUPEDEVELOPMENT.COM (612) 843-4070 ARCHITECT POPE ARCHITECTS 767 N. EUSTIS AVE., SUITE 190 ST. PAUL, MN 55114 CONTACT: GRETA NORRIS, PROJECT ARCHITECT GNORRIS@POPEDESIGN.COM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DAMON FARBER 310 4TH AVE. S., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 CONTACT: JESSE SYMYNKYWICZ, ASLA JSYMYNKYWICZ@DAMONFARBER.COM CIVIL BKBM ENGINEERS 6120 EARLE BROWN DRIVE, SUITE 700 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55430 CONTACT: KEITH MATTE KMATTE@BKBM.COM (MOBILE) 612-716-2397 (DESK) 763-843-0446 PROJECT RECAP ZONING RECAP CURRENT PRIMARY ZONING: MR-3 CURRENT OVERLAY ZONING: VETERANS PARK AREA PROPOSED ZONING: MR-3 BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWED: 5 STORIES, 55'-0" PROPOSED: PH1 BUILDING: 5 STORIES, 49'-6" PH2 BUILDING: 5 STORIES, 49'-6" PARKING REQUIRED: 312 STALLS PROVIDED: 317 STALLS BIKE PARKING REQUIRED: 290 SPACES PROVIDED: 290 SPACES SITE TOTAL SITE AREA: 192,750 SF BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 58,610 SF IMPERVIOUS AREA: 111,306 SF D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | COVER PAGE RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 CUP SHEET INDEX SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME ARCHITECTURAL A-000 COVER PAGE A-001 SITE CONTEXT A-001.1 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT A-001.2 SITE AERIALS A-001.3 EXISTING PHOTOS A-002 GROUND FLOOR A-002.1 OAKLAND EXTENSION EXHIBIT A-003 SITE ANALYSIS - PLANS A-004 SITE ANALYSIS - PLANS A-005 SITE ANALYSIS - PLANS A-006 SITE ANALYSIS - PARKING A-007 MATERIAL DIAGRAMS A-007.1 ELEVATIONS A-007.2 ELEVATIONS A-007.3 INTERACTIVE ART DETAILS A-008 OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM A-009 AVERAGE GRADE A-010 SITE ANALYSIS - SHADOW STUDY A-011 RENDERING A-012 SENIOR BUILDING RENDERINGS A-013 FAMILY BUILDING RENDERINGS A-014 RENDERING POOL PERSPECTIVE A-015 RENDERING INTERACTIVE ART A-016 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT A-018.1 ELEVATIONS THREAT FACTOR A-018.2 ELEVATIONS THREAT FACTOR A-018.3 SCHEDULES THREAT FACTOR CIVIL C100 DEMOLITION AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN C200 GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN C201 EROSION CONTROL, GRADING AND CITY OF RICHFIELD NOTES C300 UTILITY PLAN C301 UTILITY PLAN C400 PAVING AND GEOMETRIC PLAN C401 PAVING AND GEOMETRIC PLAN C402 FIRE TRUCK ACCESS PLAN C403 CONSTRUCTION STAGING PLAN C500 CIVIL DETAILS C501 CIVIL DETAILS C502 CIVIL DETAILS C503 CIVIL DETAILS C504 CIVIL DETAILS C505 CIVIL DETAILS C600 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN - EXISTING CONDITIONS C601 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN - EXISTING CONDITIONS C700 EASEMENT PLAN LANDSCAPE L000 EXISTING TREE PLAN L010 LANDSCAPE NOTES L011 LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE L012 SITE MATERIALS SCHEDULE L100 LANDSCAPE PLAN L101 LANDSCAPE PLAN - NORTHWEST L102 LANDSCAPE PLAN - SOUTHWEST L103 LANDSCAPE PLAN - NORTHEAST L104 LANDSCAPE PLAN - SOUTHEAST L105 LANDSCAPE PLAN - SOUTH L200 BIRD FORAGING TREES PLAN L500 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L501 LANDSCAPE DETAILS LIGHTING LS-001 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN LS-002 MURAL PLAN AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD - CUP Page 86 of 249 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | SITE CONTEXT RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 Page 87 of 249 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 Page 88 of 249 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | SITE AERIALS RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 AERIAL VIEW LOOKING NORTHEAST -PROPOSED BUILDINGS AERIAL VIEW LOOKING NORTHWEST -PROPOSED BUILDINGS AERIAL VIEW LOOKING SOUTHWEST -PROPOSED BUILDINGS AERIAL VIEW LOOKING SOUTH -PROPOSED BUILDINGS Page 89 of 249 VIEW FROM EAST VIEW FROM SOUTH VIEW FROM WEST VIEW FROM NORTH D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | EXISTING PHOTOS RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 EXISTING AERIAL VIEW OF SITE EXISTING VIEW FROM EAST EXISTING VIEW FROM NORTH EXISTING VIEW FROM SOUTHEXISTING VIEW FROM WEST Page 90 of 249 3 BED UNIT 2 BED UNIT 1 BED UNIT STUDIO UNIT AMENITY CIRCULATION OUTDOOR AMENITY 4 BED UNIT LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) REQUIREMENT: MIN LOT SIZE: 6,000 SF MIN LOT WIDTH: 50' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT: 5 STORY MAX LOT COVERAGE (STRUCTURE): 55% MIN USEABLE OPEN SPACE: 15% (OF GROSS PARCEL AREA) MIN SETBACK FRONT: 15' SIDE: 15' REAR: 20' MAX IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 75% VETERANS PARK AREA OVERLAY REQUIREMENT: MAX BUILDING HEIGHT: MIN 20' - MAX 55' STEPPED BACK ABOVE 3 FLOOR: MIN 15' (FROM PUBLIC STREETS AND PUBLIC LAND) MAX BUILDING COVERAGE: 40% MIN SETBACK FRONT: (MIN 15' - 25' MAX) SIDE: (MIN = HEIGHT OF BUILDING OR 30', WHICHEVER IS GREATER) REAR: (MIN = HEIGHT OF BUILDING OR 35', WHICHEVER IS GREATER) MAX IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 75% LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) + OVERLAY PROVIDED: TOTAL LOT AREA: 192,750 SF TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 181,200 SF PRIMARY STRUCTURE: 58,610 SF BUILDING COVERAGE: 32% ZONING CODE DATA EV CHARGING REQUIREMENT: L2 CHARGER FOR 10% OF 317 = 32 SPACES L3 READY FOR 20% OF 317 = 63 SPACES L1 READY FOR 50% OF 222 (REMAINING SPACES) = 111 SPACES AT LEAST ONE ADA SPACES (SHOWN IN GARAGE) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: PARKING PROVIDED: 317 COMPACT DESIGNATION @ 20% = 55 SPACES MAX COMPACT PROVIDED = 46 SPACES LANDSCAPED PARKING AREA: PARKING LOT AREA: 34,937 SF LANDSCAPED ISLAND AREA REQUIRED @ 5%: 1,747 SF LANDSCAPED ISLAND AREA PROVIDED: 2123 SF / 6% LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) + OVERLAY PROVIDED (CONTINUED): USEABLE OPEN SPACE: 15% MIN @ TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 27,180 SF USEABLE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: 67,300 SF IMPERVIOUS SPACE: MAX 75% @ TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 135,900 SF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SPACE PROVIDED: 112,105 SF / 61% 2640 AMENITY 635 1 BED 611 1 BED 651 1 BED 651 1 BED 635 1 BED 635 1 BED 611 1 BED 651 1 BED 651 1 BED 831 2 BED 613 1 BED 653 1 BED 613 1 BED 653 1 BED 653 1 BED 653 1 BED 653 1 BED 853 2 BED 653 1 BED 613 1 BED 681 1 BED 652 1 BED 653 1 BED 435 STUDIO 828 2 BED 828 2 BED 652 1 BED 652 1 BED 826 2 BED 681 1 BED 760 ELEV 817 CIRCULATION / BOH 421 STUDIO 421 STUDIO 3093 AMENITY 148 TRASH 682 ELEV 1369 4 BED 1074 3 BED 1114 3 BED 1040 3 BED 1100 3 BED 1136 3 BED 1343 4 BED 811 2 BED 771 2 BED 771 2 BED 749 2 BED 771 2 BED 771 2 BED 799 2 BED 786 2 BED 743 2 BED 648 1 BED 698 1 BED 648 1 BED 648 1 BED 710 1 BED 612 1 BED 449 STUDIO 486 STUDIO 1154 3 BED 1318 4 BED 486 MEP STAIR ASTAIR BSTAIR A STAIR B 15'-0" PHASE 1 BUILDING STEPBACK AT LEVELS 4 & 5 PHASE 2 (4) BIKE PARKING SPACES (4) BIKE PARKING SPACES FENCE BUILDING STEPBACK AT LEVELS 4& 5 CONNECTION TO VETERAN'S PARK BUILDING STEPBACK AT LEVELS 4 & 5 CONNECTION TO VETERAN'S PARK 15'-0"15'-0"BUILDING HEIGHT = SETBACK15'-0"55'-0"70'-0"15'-6 13/16"DOG RUN PARK W/ BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE FIRE AND EMT ACCESS GATE15'-0"200'-0"33' ROW15' MIN SETBACK25' MAX SETBACK30' STEPBACK55'-0"195'-0"200'-0"15'-0"55'-0"20'-0" 11 12 13 149 10 1715 163 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 31 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 6 7 81 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 14 15 TRANSFORMER WITH LANDSCAPE SCREENING PER 544.05 TRANSFORMER WITH FENCE SCREENING 109 1 ENTRY CANOPY ENTRY CANOPY PHASE 2 TEMP SIDEWALK 6'-0"6'-6"6'-0"PARKING WIDTH60'-0"22'-0"22'-0"22'-0"5 10'-0"16 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20'-0" 20'-0" FAMILY BUILDING MONUMENT SIGN, 1'-8" X 10' X 5'6" HIGH TYPE A @ FIRST LEVEL TYPE A @ FIRST LEVEL 11'-4" 9'-11"5'-9"SENIOR BUILDING MONUMENT SIGN, 1'-8" X 10' X 5'6" HIGH FAMILY SENIOR OVERALL PARKING MIN. 312 PH 1 - FAMILY: 164 PH 2 - SENIOR: 153 TOTAL: 317 BIKE PARKING: 160 UNITS = 160 SPACES REQUIRED GARAGE - 48 WALL HUNG RACKS BY STALLS - 96 DERO DUPLEX (24 ON GRADE) - 12 ON GRADE HOOPS OUTSIDE - 4 ON GRADE HOOPS TOTAL: 120 LIFT SPACES 40 NO-LIFT SPACES (4 EXTERIOR) 164 SPACES BIKE PARKING: 130 UNITS = 130 SPACES REQUIRED GARAGE - 52 WALL HUNG RACKS BY STALLS - 56 DERO DUPLEX (14 ON GRADE) - 22 ON GRADE HOOPS OUTSIDE - 4 ON GRADE HOOPS TOTAL: 94 LIFT SPACES 36 NO LIFT SPACES (4 EXTERIOR) 134 SPACES TYPE A 7 2.4% TYPE A 3 2.3% TYPE A 4 2.5% OVERALL PARKING ADA TOTAL: 8 UNDERGROUND: 207 SURFACE: 110 TOTAL: 317 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | GROUND FLOOR RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 PLAN KEY NORTH1" = 30'-0" GROUND LEVEL PARKING PH1 - FAMILY Parking Type Count PH1 UNDERGROUND 72 PH1 UNDERGROUND ADA 2 PH1 UNDERGROUND COMPACT 36 110 PH1 SURFACE 50 PH1 SURFACE ADA 2 PH1 SURFACE COMPACT 2 54 164 UNIT ANALYSIS - EAST Unit Type Quantity Percentage 1 BED 30 23.1% 2 BED 45 34.6% 3 BED 34 26.2% 4 BED 11 8.5% Studio 10 7.7% 130 100.0% UNIT ANALYSIS - WEST Unit Type Quantity Percentage 1 BED 110 68.8% 2 BED 35 21.9% Studio 15 9.4% 160 100.0% OVERALL - UNIT ANALYSIS Unit Type Quantity Area Percentage 1 BED 140 90,072 SF 48.3% 2 BED 80 64,310 SF 27.6% 3 BED 34 36,657 SF 11.7% 4 BED 11 14,504 SF 3.8% Studio 25 11,056 SF 8.6% 290 216,597 SF 100.0% PARKING PH2 - SENIOR Parking Type Count PH2 UNDERGROUND 94 PH2 UNDERGROUND ADA 2 PH2 UNDERGROUND COMPACT 1 97 PH2 SURFACE 49 PH2 SURFACE ADA 2 PH2 SURFACE COMPACT 5 56 153 Page 91 of 249 PHASE 1 2640 AMENITY 635 1 BED 611 1 BED651 1 BED 651 1 BED 635 1 BED635 1 BED 611 1 BED 651 1 BED 651 1 BED 831 2 BED 613 1 BED 653 1 BED 613 1 BED 653 1 BED 653 1 BED 653 1 BED 653 1 BED 853 2 BED 653 1 BED 613 1 BED 681 1 BED 652 1 BED 653 1 BED 435 STUDIO 828 2 BED 828 2 BED 652 1 BED 652 1 BED 826 2 BED 681 1 BED 760 ELEV 817 CIRCULATION / BOH 421 STUDIO 421 STUDIO 3093 AMENITY 148 TRASH 682 ELEV 1369 4 BED 1074 3 BED 1114 3 BED 1040 3 BED 1100 3 BED 1136 3 BED1343 4 BED 811 2 BED 771 2 BED 771 2 BED 749 2 BED 771 2 BED 771 2 BED 799 2 BED786 2 BED 743 2 BED 648 1 BED 698 1 BED 648 1 BED 648 1 BED710 1 BED 612 1 BED 449 STUDIO 486 STUDIO 1154 3 BED1318 4 BED 486 MEP STAIR ASTAIR BSTAIR ASTAIR B 15'-0" PHASE 1 BUILDING STEPBACK AT LEVELS 4 & 5 PHASE 2 (4) BIKE PARKING SPACES (4) BIKE PARKING SPACES FENCE OAKLAND EXTENSION HYPOTHETICAL PLAN NOTE: FUTURE NORTH–SOUTH ROADWAY CONNECTION (APPROXIMATE EXTENSION OF OAKLAND AVENUE) IS SHOWN FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY TO ILLUSTRATE POTENTIAL CONNECTIVITY. NO DEDICATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF THIS ROADWAY IS REQUIRED OR ANTICIPATED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. ANY FUTURE ROADWAY EXTENSION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE CITY’S ACQUISITION OF NECESSARY RIGHT‑OF‑WAY OR FEE TITLE, AND TO CITY DESIGN OF ALIGNMENT, GRADING, AND CONSTRUCTION. (CITY CODE SEC. 541.25, SUBD. 5.B.). 24'-0" 11121314910171516345678 6 7 8 12345678910 12312345678910111213 6781234 1234567891011121314151617 1415 TRANSFORMER WITH FENCE SCREENING TRANSFORMER WITH FENCE SCREENING ENTRY CANOPY ENTRY CANOPY PHASE 2 TEMP SIDEWALK 1234567891011 6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"FENCE BUILDING STEPBACK AT LEVELS 4& 5 CONNECTION TO VETERAN'S PARK BUILDING STEPBACK AT LEVELS 4 & 5 CONNECTION TO VETERAN'S PARK 15'-0"15'-0"BUILDING HEIGHT = SETBACK15'-0"55'-0"70'-0"15'-6 13/16"FIRE AND EMT ACCESS GATE15'-0"200'-0"33' ROW15' MIN SETBACK25' MAX SETBACK30' STEPBACK55'-0"195'-0"200'-0"15'-0"55'-0"20'-0"6'-0"PARKING WIDTH60'-0"6'-6"10'-0"22'-0"22'-0"5 123 4 5 123456789101112 13 14 15 16 17 1216 LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) REQUIREMENT: MIN LOT SIZE: 6,000 SF MIN LOT WIDTH: 50' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT:5 STORY MAX LOT COVERAGE (STRUCTURE):55% MIN USEABLE OPEN SPACE:15% (OF GROSS PARCEL AREA) MIN SETBACK FRONT:15' SIDE:15' REAR:20' MAX IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:75% VETERANS PARK AREA OVERLAY REQUIREMENT: MAX BUILDING HEIGHT:MIN 20' - MAX 55' STEPPED BACK ABOVE 3 FLOOR:MIN 15' (FROM PUBLIC STREETS AND PUBLIC LAND) MAX BUILDING COVERAGE:40% MIN SETBACK FRONT: (MIN 15' - 25' MAX) SIDE: (MIN = HEIGHT OF BUILDING OR 30', WHICHEVER IS GREATER) REAR: (MIN = HEIGHT OF BUILDING OR 35', WHICHEVER IS GREATER) MAX IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:75% LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) + OVERLAY PROVIDED: TOTAL LOT AREA: 192,750 SF TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 181,200 SF PRIMARY STRUCTURE: 58,610 SF BUILDING COVERAGE: 32% ZONING CODE DATA EV CHARGING REQUIREMENT: L2 CHARGER FOR 10% OF 317 = 32 SPACES L3 READY FOR 20% OF 317 = 63 SPACES L1 READY FOR 50% OF 222 (REMAINING SPACES) = 111 SPACES AT LEAST ONE ADA SPACES (SHOWN IN GARAGE) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: PARKING PROVIDED: 317 COMPACT DESIGNATION @ 20% = 55 SPACES MAX COMPACT PROVIDED = 46 SPACES LANDSCAPED PARKING AREA: PARKING LOT AREA: 34,937 SF LANDSCAPED ISLAND AREA REQUIRED @ 5%: 1,747 SF LANDSCAPED ISLAND AREA PROVIDED: 2123 SF / 6% LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) + OVERLAY PROVIDED (CONTINUED): USEABLE OPEN SPACE: 15% MIN @ TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW:27,180 SF USEABLE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED:67,300 SF IMPERVIOUS SPACE: MAX 75% @ TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW:135,900 SF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SPACE PROVIDED:112,105 SF / 61% FAMILY SENIOR OVERALL PARKING MIN. 312 PH 1 - FAMILY: 164 PH 2 - SENIOR: 153 TOTAL: 317 BIKE PARKING: 160 UNITS = 160 SPACES REQUIRED GARAGE - 48 WALL HUNG RACKS BY STALLS - 96 DERO DUPLEX (24 ON GRADE) - 12 ON GRADE HOOPS OUTSIDE - 4 ON GRADE HOOPS TOTAL: 120 LIFT SPACES 40 NO-LIFT SPACES (4 EXTERIOR) 164 SPACES BIKE PARKING: 130 UNITS = 130 SPACES REQUIRED GARAGE - 52 WALL HUNG RACKS BY STALLS - 56 DERO DUPLEX (14 ON GRADE) - 22 ON GRADE HOOPS OUTSIDE - 4 ON GRADE HOOPS TOTAL: 94 LIFT SPACES 36 NO LIFT SPACES (4 EXTERIOR) 134 SPACES TYPE A 7 2.4% TYPE A 3 2.3% TYPE A 4 2.5% OVERALL PARKING ADA TOTAL: 8 UNDERGROUND: 207 SURFACE: 110 TOTAL: 317 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | OAKLAND EXTENSION EXHIBIT RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 NORTH 1" = 30'-0" GROUND LEVEL - EXHIBIT PARKING PH1 - FAMILY Parking Type Count PH1 UNDERGROUND 72 PH1 UNDERGROUND ADA 2 PH1 UNDERGROUND COMPACT 36 110 PH1 SURFACE 50 PH1 SURFACE ADA 2 PH1 SURFACE COMPACT 2 54 164 UNIT ANALYSIS - EAST Unit Type Quantity Percentage 1 BED 30 23.1% 2 BED 45 34.6% 3 BED 34 26.2% 4 BED 11 8.5% Studio 10 7.7% 130 100.0% UNIT ANALYSIS - WEST Unit Type Quantity Percentage 1 BED 110 68.8% 2 BED 35 21.9% Studio 15 9.4% 160 100.0% OVERALL - UNIT ANALYSIS Unit Type Quantity Area Percentage 1 BED 140 90,072 SF 48.3% 2 BED 80 64,310 SF 27.6% 3 BED 34 36,657 SF 11.7% 4 BED 11 14,504 SF 3.8% Studio 25 11,056 SF 8.6% 290 216,597 SF 100.0% PARKING PH2 - SENIOR Parking Type Count PH2 UNDERGROUND 94 PH2 UNDERGROUND ADA 2 PH2 UNDERGROUND COMPACT 1 97 PH2 SURFACE 49 PH2 SURFACE ADA 2 PH2 SURFACE COMPACT 5 56 153 47 54 15153 163 2 314 163 151 314 5 Page 92 of 249 15'-0" PHASE 1 BUILDING STEPBACK AT LEVELS 4 & 5 PHASE 2 815 2 BED 825 2 BED 450 STUDIO 405 STUDIO 611 1 BED 635 1 BED 651 1 BED 635 1 BED 651 1 BED 635 1 BED 611 1 BED 651 1 BED 831 2 BED 421 STUDIO 760 ELEV 613 1 BED 653 1 BED 653 1 BED 653 1 BED 613 1 BED 421 STUDIO653 1 BED 613 1 BED 853 2 BED 653 1 BED 613 1 BED 681 1 BED 652 1 BED 652 1 BED 435 STUDIO 830 2 BED 830 2 BED 652 1 BED 652 1 BED 826 2 BED 671 1 BED 1232 3 BED 1232 3 BED 612 1 BED 450 STUDIO 1076 3 BED 652 1 BED 1116 3 BED 797 2 BED 786 2 BED 711 1 BED 1369 4 BED 771 2 BED 771 2 BED 1153 3 BED 1317 4 BED 648 1 BED 743 2 BED 648 1 BED 648 1 BED 1039 3 BED 749 2 BED 771 2 BED 771 2 BED 811 2 BED 1100 3 BED486 STUDIO 1343 4 BED 1136 3 BED 682 ELEV 486 MEP 148 TRASH 697 STUDIO 611 1 BED15'-0"187'-1"200'-0"200'-0"33' ROW15' MIN SETBACK25' MAX SETBACK30' STEPBACKTYPE A @ THIRD LEVEL TYPE A @ SECOND LEVEL 3 BED UNIT 2 BED UNIT 1 BED UNIT STUDIO UNIT AMENITY CIRCULATION OUTDOOR AMENITY 4 BED UNIT LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) REQUIREMENT: MIN LOT SIZE: 6,000 SF MIN LOT WIDTH: 50' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT: 5 STORY MAX LOT COVERAGE (STRUCTURE): 55% MIN USEABLE OPEN SPACE: 15% (OF GROSS PARCEL AREA) MIN SETBACK FRONT: 15' SIDE: 15' REAR: 20' MAX IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 75% VETERANS PARK AREA OVERLAY REQUIREMENT: MAX BUILDING HEIGHT: MIN 20' - MAX 55' STEPPED BACK ABOVE 3 FLOOR: MIN 15' (FROM PUBLIC STREETS AND PUBLIC LAND) MAX BUILDING COVERAGE: 40% MIN SETBACK FRONT: (MIN 15' - 25' MAX) SIDE: (MIN = HEIGHT OF BUILDING OR 30', WHICHEVER IS GREATER) REAR: (MIN = HEIGHT OF BUILDING OR 35', WHICHEVER IS GREATER) MAX IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 75% LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) + OVERLAY PROVIDED: TOTAL LOT AREA: 192,750 SF TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 181,200 SF PRIMARY STRUCTURE: 58,610 SF BUILDING COVERAGE: 32% ZONING CODE DATA EV CHARGING REQUIREMENT: L2 CHARGER FOR 10% OF 317 = 32 SPACES L3 READY FOR 20% OF 317 = 63 SPACES L1 READY FOR 50% OF 222 (REMAINING SPACES) = 111 SPACES AT LEAST ONE ADA SPACES (SHOWN IN GARAGE) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: PARKING PROVIDED: 317 COMPACT DESIGNATION @ 20% = 55 SPACES MAX COMPACT PROVIDED = 46 SPACES LANDSCAPED PARKING AREA: PARKING LOT AREA: 34,937 SF LANDSCAPED ISLAND AREA REQUIRED @ 5%: 1,747 SF LANDSCAPED ISLAND AREA PROVIDED: 2123 SF / 6% LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) + OVERLAY PROVIDED (CONTINUED): USEABLE OPEN SPACE: 15% MIN @ TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 27,180 SF USEABLE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: 67,300 SF IMPERVIOUS SPACE: MAX 75% @ TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 135,900 SF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SPACE PROVIDED: 112,105 SF / 61% FAMILY SENIOR OVERALL PARKING MIN. 312 PH 1 - FAMILY: 164 PH 2 - SENIOR: 153 TOTAL: 317 BIKE PARKING: 160 UNITS = 160 SPACES REQUIRED GARAGE - 48 WALL HUNG RACKS BY STALLS - 96 DERO DUPLEX (24 ON GRADE) - 12 ON GRADE HOOPS OUTSIDE - 4 ON GRADE HOOPS TOTAL: 120 LIFT SPACES 40 NO-LIFT SPACES (4 EXTERIOR) 164 SPACES BIKE PARKING: 130 UNITS = 130 SPACES REQUIRED GARAGE - 52 WALL HUNG RACKS BY STALLS - 56 DERO DUPLEX (14 ON GRADE) - 22 ON GRADE HOOPS OUTSIDE - 4 ON GRADE HOOPS TOTAL: 94 LIFT SPACES 36 NO LIFT SPACES (4 EXTERIOR) 134 SPACES TYPE A 7 2.4% TYPE A 3 2.3% TYPE A 4 2.5% OVERALL PARKING ADA TOTAL: 8 UNDERGROUND: 207 SURFACE: 110 TOTAL: 317 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | SITE ANALYSIS - PLANS RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 1" = 30'-0" SECOND - THIRD LEVEL NORTH PLAN KEY PARKING PH1 - FAMILY Parking Type Count PH1 UNDERGROUND 72 PH1 UNDERGROUND ADA 2 PH1 UNDERGROUND COMPACT 36 110 PH1 SURFACE 50 PH1 SURFACE ADA 2 PH1 SURFACE COMPACT 2 54 164 UNIT ANALYSIS - EAST Unit Type Quantity Percentage 1 BED 30 23.1% 2 BED 45 34.6% 3 BED 34 26.2% 4 BED 11 8.5% Studio 10 7.7% 130 100.0% UNIT ANALYSIS - WEST Unit Type Quantity Percentage 1 BED 110 68.8% 2 BED 35 21.9% Studio 15 9.4% 160 100.0% OVERALL - UNIT ANALYSIS Unit Type Quantity Area Percentage 1 BED 140 90,072 SF 48.3% 2 BED 80 64,310 SF 27.6% 3 BED 34 36,657 SF 11.7% 4 BED 11 14,504 SF 3.8% Studio 25 11,056 SF 8.6% 290 216,597 SF 100.0% PARKING PH2 - SENIOR Parking Type Count PH2 UNDERGROUND 94 PH2 UNDERGROUND ADA 2 PH2 UNDERGROUND COMPACT 1 97 PH2 SURFACE 49 PH2 SURFACE ADA 2 PH2 SURFACE COMPACT 5 56 153 Page 93 of 249 15'-0" PHASE 1 BUILDING STEPBACK AT LEVELS 4 & 5 PHASE 2 681 ELEV 492 MEP 143 TRASH 1207 4 BED 652 1 BED 766 2 BED 766 2 BED 612 1 BED 450 STUDIO 1116 3 BED 797 2 BED 662 1 BED 729 2 BED 648 1 BED 821 2 BED 821 2 BED 946 3 BED 930 3 BED 486 STUDIO 1039 3 BED 648 1 BED 1076 3 BED 821 3 BED 821 2 BED 821 2 BED 786 2 BED 853 2 BED 635 1 BED 616 1 BED 635 1 BED 616 1 BED 802 2 BED 613 1 BED 653 1 BED 613 1 BED 653 1 BED 653 1 BED 653 1 BED 613 1 BED 853 2 BED 653 1 BED 613 1 BED 681 1 BED 652 1 BED 652 1 BED 822 2 BED 865 2 BED 826 2 BED 826 2 BED 681 1 BED 760 ELEV 817 CIRCULATION / BOH 768 2 BED 421 STUDIO 609 1 BED 635 1 BED15'-0"15'-0"55'-0"55'-0"33' ROW15' MIN SETBACK25' MAX SETBACK30' STEPBACK187'-1" 15'-0" 15'-0" TYPE A @ FOURTH LEVEL TYPE A @ FOURTH LEVEL TYPE A @ FOURTH LEVEL 3 BED UNIT 2 BED UNIT 1 BED UNIT STUDIO UNIT AMENITY CIRCULATION OUTDOOR AMENITY 4 BED UNIT LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) REQUIREMENT: MIN LOT SIZE: 6,000 SF MIN LOT WIDTH: 50' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT: 5 STORY MAX LOT COVERAGE (STRUCTURE): 55% MIN USEABLE OPEN SPACE: 15% (OF GROSS PARCEL AREA) MIN SETBACK FRONT: 15' SIDE: 15' REAR: 20' MAX IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 75% VETERANS PARK AREA OVERLAY REQUIREMENT: MAX BUILDING HEIGHT: MIN 20' - MAX 55' STEPPED BACK ABOVE 3 FLOOR: MIN 15' (FROM PUBLIC STREETS AND PUBLIC LAND) MAX BUILDING COVERAGE: 40% MIN SETBACK FRONT: (MIN 15' - 25' MAX) SIDE: (MIN = HEIGHT OF BUILDING OR 30', WHICHEVER IS GREATER) REAR: (MIN = HEIGHT OF BUILDING OR 35', WHICHEVER IS GREATER) MAX IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 75% LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) + OVERLAY PROVIDED: TOTAL LOT AREA: 192,750 SF TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 181,200 SF PRIMARY STRUCTURE: 58,610 SF BUILDING COVERAGE: 32% ZONING CODE DATA EV CHARGING REQUIREMENT: L2 CHARGER FOR 10% OF 317 = 32 SPACES L3 READY FOR 20% OF 317 = 63 SPACES L1 READY FOR 50% OF 222 (REMAINING SPACES) = 111 SPACES AT LEAST ONE ADA SPACES (SHOWN IN GARAGE) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: PARKING PROVIDED: 317 COMPACT DESIGNATION @ 20% = 55 SPACES MAX COMPACT PROVIDED = 46 SPACES LANDSCAPED PARKING AREA: PARKING LOT AREA: 34,937 SF LANDSCAPED ISLAND AREA REQUIRED @ 5%: 1,747 SF LANDSCAPED ISLAND AREA PROVIDED: 2123 SF / 6% LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) + OVERLAY PROVIDED (CONTINUED): USEABLE OPEN SPACE: 15% MIN @ TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 27,180 SF USEABLE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: 67,300 SF IMPERVIOUS SPACE: MAX 75% @ TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 135,900 SF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SPACE PROVIDED: 112,105 SF / 61% FAMILY SENIOR OVERALL PARKING MIN. 312 PH 1 - FAMILY: 164 PH 2 - SENIOR: 153 TOTAL: 317 BIKE PARKING: 160 UNITS = 160 SPACES REQUIRED GARAGE - 48 WALL HUNG RACKS BY STALLS - 96 DERO DUPLEX (24 ON GRADE) - 12 ON GRADE HOOPS OUTSIDE - 4 ON GRADE HOOPS TOTAL: 120 LIFT SPACES 40 NO-LIFT SPACES (4 EXTERIOR) 164 SPACES BIKE PARKING: 130 UNITS = 130 SPACES REQUIRED GARAGE - 52 WALL HUNG RACKS BY STALLS - 56 DERO DUPLEX (14 ON GRADE) - 22 ON GRADE HOOPS OUTSIDE - 4 ON GRADE HOOPS TOTAL: 94 LIFT SPACES 36 NO LIFT SPACES (4 EXTERIOR) 134 SPACES TYPE A 7 2.4% TYPE A 3 2.3% TYPE A 4 2.5% OVERALL PARKING ADA TOTAL: 8 UNDERGROUND: 207 SURFACE: 110 TOTAL: 317 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | SITE ANALYSIS - PLANS RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 NORTH1" = 30'-0" FOURTH - FIFTH LEVEL PLAN KEY PARKING PH1 - FAMILY Parking Type Count PH1 UNDERGROUND 72 PH1 UNDERGROUND ADA 2 PH1 UNDERGROUND COMPACT 36 110 PH1 SURFACE 50 PH1 SURFACE ADA 2 PH1 SURFACE COMPACT 2 54 164 UNIT ANALYSIS - EAST Unit Type Quantity Percentage 1 BED 30 23.1% 2 BED 45 34.6% 3 BED 34 26.2% 4 BED 11 8.5% Studio 10 7.7% 130 100.0% UNIT ANALYSIS - WEST Unit Type Quantity Percentage 1 BED 110 68.8% 2 BED 35 21.9% Studio 15 9.4% 160 100.0% OVERALL - UNIT ANALYSIS Unit Type Quantity Area Percentage 1 BED 140 90,072 SF 48.3% 2 BED 80 64,310 SF 27.6% 3 BED 34 36,657 SF 11.7% 4 BED 11 14,504 SF 3.8% Studio 25 11,056 SF 8.6% 290 216,597 SF 100.0% PARKING PH2 - SENIOR Parking Type Count PH2 UNDERGROUND 94 PH2 UNDERGROUND ADA 2 PH2 UNDERGROUND COMPACT 1 97 PH2 SURFACE 49 PH2 SURFACE ADA 2 PH2 SURFACE COMPACT 5 56 153 Page 94 of 249 15'-0" PHASE 1 BUILDING STEPBACK AT LEVELS 4 & 5 PHASE 215'-0"15'-0"55'-0"55'-0"187'-1"33' ROW15' MIN SETBACK25' MAX SETBACK30' STEPBACKMECH EQUIPMENT ON ROOF TO HAVE SELF-CLIPPING SCREENING (BY MANUFACTURER) MECH EQUIPMENT ON ROOF TO HAVE SELF-CLIPPING SCREENING (BY MANUFACTURER) 3 BED UNIT 2 BED UNIT 1 BED UNIT STUDIO UNIT AMENITY CIRCULATION OUTDOOR AMENITY 4 BED UNIT LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) REQUIREMENT: MIN LOT SIZE: 6,000 SF MIN LOT WIDTH: 50' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT: 5 STORY MAX LOT COVERAGE (STRUCTURE): 55% MIN USEABLE OPEN SPACE: 15% (OF GROSS PARCEL AREA) MIN SETBACK FRONT: 15' SIDE: 15' REAR: 20' MAX IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 75% VETERANS PARK AREA OVERLAY REQUIREMENT: MAX BUILDING HEIGHT: MIN 20' - MAX 55' STEPPED BACK ABOVE 3 FLOOR: MIN 15' (FROM PUBLIC STREETS AND PUBLIC LAND) MAX BUILDING COVERAGE: 40% MIN SETBACK FRONT: (MIN 15' - 25' MAX) SIDE: (MIN = HEIGHT OF BUILDING OR 30', WHICHEVER IS GREATER) REAR: (MIN = HEIGHT OF BUILDING OR 35', WHICHEVER IS GREATER) MAX IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 75% LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) + OVERLAY PROVIDED: TOTAL LOT AREA: 192,750 SF TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 181,200 SF PRIMARY STRUCTURE: 58,610 SF BUILDING COVERAGE: 32% ZONING CODE DATA EV CHARGING REQUIREMENT: L2 CHARGER FOR 10% OF 317 = 32 SPACES L3 READY FOR 20% OF 317 = 63 SPACES L1 READY FOR 50% OF 222 (REMAINING SPACES) = 111 SPACES AT LEAST ONE ADA SPACES (SHOWN IN GARAGE) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: PARKING PROVIDED: 317 COMPACT DESIGNATION @ 20% = 55 SPACES MAX COMPACT PROVIDED = 46 SPACES LANDSCAPED PARKING AREA: PARKING LOT AREA: 34,937 SF LANDSCAPED ISLAND AREA REQUIRED @ 5%: 1,747 SF LANDSCAPED ISLAND AREA PROVIDED: 2123 SF / 6% LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) + OVERLAY PROVIDED (CONTINUED): USEABLE OPEN SPACE: 15% MIN @ TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 27,180 SF USEABLE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: 67,300 SF IMPERVIOUS SPACE: MAX 75% @ TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 135,900 SF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SPACE PROVIDED: 112,105 SF / 61% FAMILY SENIOR OVERALL PARKING MIN. 312 PH 1 - FAMILY: 164 PH 2 - SENIOR: 153 TOTAL: 317 BIKE PARKING: 160 UNITS = 160 SPACES REQUIRED GARAGE - 48 WALL HUNG RACKS BY STALLS - 96 DERO DUPLEX (24 ON GRADE) - 12 ON GRADE HOOPS OUTSIDE - 4 ON GRADE HOOPS TOTAL: 120 LIFT SPACES 40 NO-LIFT SPACES (4 EXTERIOR) 164 SPACES BIKE PARKING: 130 UNITS = 130 SPACES REQUIRED GARAGE - 52 WALL HUNG RACKS BY STALLS - 56 DERO DUPLEX (14 ON GRADE) - 22 ON GRADE HOOPS OUTSIDE - 4 ON GRADE HOOPS TOTAL: 94 LIFT SPACES 36 NO LIFT SPACES (4 EXTERIOR) 134 SPACES TYPE A 7 2.4% TYPE A 3 2.3% TYPE A 4 2.5% OVERALL PARKING ADA TOTAL: 8 UNDERGROUND: 207 SURFACE: 110 TOTAL: 317 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | SITE ANALYSIS - PLANS RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 NORTH1" = 30'-0" ROOF LEVELS PLAN KEY PARKING PH1 - FAMILY Parking Type Count PH1 UNDERGROUND 72 PH1 UNDERGROUND ADA 2 PH1 UNDERGROUND COMPACT 36 110 PH1 SURFACE 50 PH1 SURFACE ADA 2 PH1 SURFACE COMPACT 2 54 164 UNIT ANALYSIS - EAST Unit Type Quantity Percentage 1 BED 30 23.1% 2 BED 45 34.6% 3 BED 34 26.2% 4 BED 11 8.5% Studio 10 7.7% 130 100.0% UNIT ANALYSIS - WEST Unit Type Quantity Percentage 1 BED 110 68.8% 2 BED 35 21.9% Studio 15 9.4% 160 100.0% OVERALL - UNIT ANALYSIS Unit Type Quantity Area Percentage 1 BED 140 90,072 SF 48.3% 2 BED 80 64,310 SF 27.6% 3 BED 34 36,657 SF 11.7% 4 BED 11 14,504 SF 3.8% Studio 25 11,056 SF 8.6% 290 216,597 SF 100.0% PARKING PH2 - SENIOR Parking Type Count PH2 UNDERGROUND 94 PH2 UNDERGROUND ADA 2 PH2 UNDERGROUND COMPACT 1 97 PH2 SURFACE 49 PH2 SURFACE ADA 2 PH2 SURFACE COMPACT 5 56 153 Page 95 of 249 24'-0"56 DERO DUPLEX BIKE PARKING 34919 PARKING 38604 PARKING 340 ELEV 487 TRASH 568 MEP 24'-0"22 FLOOR BIKE PARKING 52 WALL HUNG BIKE PARKING 569 MEP 388 ELEV 817 BIKE STORAGE 96 DERO DUPLEX BIKE PARKING 42 WALL HUNG BIKE PARKING 8 ON-GRADE HOOPS 8 BIKE PARKING STAIR ASTAIR BSTAIR A 22'-0"19'-0"6 7 8 9 10 11 124 11 12 13 149 10 1715 16 13 14108 9 311 26 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 53 4 15 16 17 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 31 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 6 7 8 51 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 14 60'-0"9'-0" 15 4 ON-GRADE HOOPS FENCE BUILDING STEPBACK AT LEVELS 4& 5 CONNECTION TO VETERAN'S PARK BUILDING STEPBACK AT LEVELS 4 & 5 CONNECTION TO VETERAN'S PARK 15'-0"15'-0"BUILDING HEIGHT = SETBACK15'-0"55'-0"70'-0"15'-6 13/16"DOG RUN PARK W/ BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE FIRE AND EMT ACCESS GATE15'-0"200'-0"33' ROW15' MIN SETBACK25' MAX SETBACK30' STEPBACK55'-0"195'-0"200'-0"15'-0"55'-0"20'-0"6'-0"PARKING WIDTH60'-0"22'-0"22'-0"10'-0"3'-11 1/4"5'-6" 20'-0"L2 EV CHARGERSL2 EV CHARGER L2 EV CHARGERSEV Charging Plan Note: Depicted EV charging infrastructure reflects a feasible buildout sized to anticipated demand. The applicant seeks a reduction from otherwise applicable requirements based on actual usage expectations and demand projections. 16 1 2 11095 112 1 2 3 4 5 3 BED UNIT 2 BED UNIT 1 BED UNIT STUDIO UNIT AMENITY CIRCULATION OUTDOOR AMENITY 4 BED UNIT LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) REQUIREMENT: MIN LOT SIZE: 6,000 SF MIN LOT WIDTH: 50' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT: 5 STORY MAX LOT COVERAGE (STRUCTURE): 55% MIN USEABLE OPEN SPACE: 15% (OF GROSS PARCEL AREA) MIN SETBACK FRONT: 15' SIDE: 15' REAR: 20' MAX IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 75% VETERANS PARK AREA OVERLAY REQUIREMENT: MAX BUILDING HEIGHT: MIN 20' - MAX 55' STEPPED BACK ABOVE 3 FLOOR: MIN 15' (FROM PUBLIC STREETS AND PUBLIC LAND) MAX BUILDING COVERAGE: 40% MIN SETBACK FRONT: (MIN 15' - 25' MAX) SIDE: (MIN = HEIGHT OF BUILDING OR 30', WHICHEVER IS GREATER) REAR: (MIN = HEIGHT OF BUILDING OR 35', WHICHEVER IS GREATER) MAX IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 75% LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) + OVERLAY PROVIDED: TOTAL LOT AREA: 192,750 SF TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 181,200 SF PRIMARY STRUCTURE: 58,610 SF BUILDING COVERAGE: 32% ZONING CODE DATA EV CHARGING REQUIREMENT: L2 CHARGER FOR 10% OF 317 = 32 SPACES L3 READY FOR 20% OF 317 = 63 SPACES L1 READY FOR 50% OF 222 (REMAINING SPACES) = 111 SPACES AT LEAST ONE ADA SPACES (SHOWN IN GARAGE) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: PARKING PROVIDED: 317 COMPACT DESIGNATION @ 20% = 55 SPACES MAX COMPACT PROVIDED = 46 SPACES LANDSCAPED PARKING AREA: PARKING LOT AREA: 34,937 SF LANDSCAPED ISLAND AREA REQUIRED @ 5%: 1,747 SF LANDSCAPED ISLAND AREA PROVIDED: 2123 SF / 6% LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) + OVERLAY PROVIDED (CONTINUED): USEABLE OPEN SPACE: 15% MIN @ TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 27,180 SF USEABLE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: 67,300 SF IMPERVIOUS SPACE: MAX 75% @ TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 135,900 SF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SPACE PROVIDED: 112,105 SF / 61% FAMILY SENIOR OVERALL PARKING MIN. 312 PH 1 - FAMILY: 164 PH 2 - SENIOR: 153 TOTAL: 317 BIKE PARKING: 160 UNITS = 160 SPACES REQUIRED GARAGE - 48 WALL HUNG RACKS BY STALLS - 96 DERO DUPLEX (24 ON GRADE) - 12 ON GRADE HOOPS OUTSIDE - 4 ON GRADE HOOPS TOTAL: 120 LIFT SPACES 40 NO-LIFT SPACES (4 EXTERIOR) 164 SPACES BIKE PARKING: 130 UNITS = 130 SPACES REQUIRED GARAGE - 52 WALL HUNG RACKS BY STALLS - 56 DERO DUPLEX (14 ON GRADE) - 22 ON GRADE HOOPS OUTSIDE - 4 ON GRADE HOOPS TOTAL: 94 LIFT SPACES 36 NO LIFT SPACES (4 EXTERIOR) 134 SPACES TYPE A 7 2.4% TYPE A 3 2.3% TYPE A 4 2.5% OVERALL PARKING ADA TOTAL: 8 UNDERGROUND: 207 SURFACE: 110 TOTAL: 317 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | SITE ANALYSIS - PARKING RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 1" = 30'-0" PARKING NORTH PLAN KEY PARKING PH1 - FAMILY Parking Type Count PH1 UNDERGROUND 72 PH1 UNDERGROUND ADA 2 PH1 UNDERGROUND COMPACT 36 110 PH1 SURFACE 50 PH1 SURFACE ADA 2 PH1 SURFACE COMPACT 2 54 164 UNIT ANALYSIS - EAST Unit Type Quantity Percentage 1 BED 30 23.1% 2 BED 45 34.6% 3 BED 34 26.2% 4 BED 11 8.5% Studio 10 7.7% 130 100.0% UNIT ANALYSIS - WEST Unit Type Quantity Percentage 1 BED 110 68.8% 2 BED 35 21.9% Studio 15 9.4% 160 100.0% OVERALL - UNIT ANALYSIS Unit Type Quantity Area Percentage 1 BED 140 90,072 SF 48.3% 2 BED 80 64,310 SF 27.6% 3 BED 34 36,657 SF 11.7% 4 BED 11 14,504 SF 3.8% Studio 25 11,056 SF 8.6% 290 216,597 SF 100.0% PARKING PH2 - SENIOR Parking Type Count PH2 UNDERGROUND 94 PH2 UNDERGROUND ADA 2 PH2 UNDERGROUND COMPACT 1 97 PH2 SURFACE 49 PH2 SURFACE ADA 2 PH2 SURFACE COMPACT 5 56 153 Page 96 of 249 EXTERIOR MATERIAL FINISH SCHEDULE MATERIAL ID MATERIAL COLOR SAMPLE MP - 1 MP - 2 METAL PANEL : METAL PANEL: WOOD LOOK VERTICAL BRICK-1 FACE BRICK: LIGHT BEIGE NOTE: THE "BASIS OF DESIGN" MATERIALS FOR THE PROJECT ARE LISTED ON THE SCHEDULE ABOVE. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL MATERIAL INFORMATION AND OTHER APPROVE D SUBSTITUTIONS. STONE WHITE HEMLOCK FC - 1 FIBER CEMENT: REVEAL PANEL SYSTEM - LIGHT PREFINIHSED ARTIC WHITE FC - 2 FIBER CEMENT: LAP SIDING LIGHT FC - 3 FIBER CEMENT: TO MATCH METAL PANEL WOODLOOK WOOD LOOK LOCATION GARAGE LEVEL SECOND THROUGH FIFTH LEVEL SECOND THROUGH FIFTH LEVEL FIRST THROUGH FIFTH LEVEL BANDING FIRST THROUGH FIFTH LEVEL FIRST LEVEL EXTERIOR MATERIAL REQUIRED: WOOD BRICK STONE CEMENTITIOUS PLANKS GLASS ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE TEXTURED SURFACES HIGH QUALITY TO BE APPROVED BY DIRECTOR FINISHED METALS ONLY ABOVE GROUND FLOOR @ 40% OR LESS PER WALL WINDOW TREATMENT REQUIRED: WALL FACES @ PUBLIC STREET, PUBLIC SIDEWALK, PUBLIC PATHWAY = 30% GLAZING OR LESS ON FIRST FLOOR 20% GLAZING OR LESS ON EACH FLOOR ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR OTHER FACES = NO LESS THAN 15% BLANK WALL REQUIRED: NO MORE THAN 25' IN LENGTH PER FLOOR BUILDING ELEMENTS D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | MATERIAL DIAGRAMS RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 Page 97 of 249 BRICK-1 FC-1 MP-2 MP-1 FC-2 MP-2 FC-3 GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL APARTMENTS BUILDING SIGNAGE SECOND LEVEL 101'-6" FIRST LEVEL 91'-0" THIRD LEVEL 111'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 120'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 130'-0" ROOF LEVEL 140'-6" MP-1 MP-2 FC-3 FC-2 FC-3 MP-2 SECOND LEVEL 101'-6" FIRST LEVEL 91'-0" THIRD LEVEL 111'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 120'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 130'-0" ROOF LEVEL 140'-6" MP-1 MP-2 FC-2 FC-3 MP-1 FC-2 MP-2 FC-1 FC-3 FC-1 SECOND LEVEL 101'-6" PARKING LEVEL 80'-0" FIRST LEVEL 91'-0" THIRD LEVEL 111'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 120'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 130'-0" ROOF LEVEL 140'-6" MP-2MP-1 FC-1 FC-2 FC-3BRICK-1FC-3 MP-2 ARTINTERACTIVE ART INSTALLATION (SEE 5/A-007.3) TYP ART6'-0"9'-0" MP-2MP-1 FC-1 FC-2 MP -2 FC-3FC-3 BRICK-1MP-1 FC-2 FC-1 INTERACTIVE ART PANEL (SEE 5/A-007.3) TYP6'-0"6'-0" 9'-0"6'-0"15'-6"3'-0"10'-0"3'-0"GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL 10'-0"5'-6"STONE CAP BRICK-1 1'-0"CONC. WALL 2'-0" D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | ELEVATIONS RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 1/16" = 1'-0"A-007.1 1 PH1 - SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION PH1 - SOUTH ELEVATION - LEVEL 1-5 MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage Fiber Cement Lap - Light 1659 19% Fiber Cement Panel - Light 424 5% MP - Light 1465 17% Window/ Glazing 3309 38% Wood Look 1847 21% 8704 100% 1/16" = 1'-0"A-007.1 2 PH1 - WEST BUILDING ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A-007.1 4 PH1 - EAST COURTYARD BUILDING ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A-007.1 5 PH1 - WEST COURTYARD BUILDING ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A-007.1 6 PH1 - EAST BUILDING ELEVATION PH1 - EAST ELEVATION - LEVEL 1-5 MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage Fiber Cement Lap - Light 988 9% Fiber Cement Panel - Light 755 7% MP - Light 2595 23% Window/ Glazing 4312 38% Wood Look 2601 23% 11251 100% PH1 - NORTH ELEVATION - LEVEL 1-5 MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage Fiber Cement Lap - Light 1255 14% Fiber Cement Panel - Light 740 8% Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 314 4% MP - Light 1465 16% Window/ Glazing 3308 37% Wood Look 1810 20% 8892 100% PH1 - WEST ELEVATION MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage PH1 West Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 3731 19% Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 1434 7% MP - Light 3326 17% Window/ Glazing 6419 34% Wood Look 4239 22% 19149 100% PH1 - EAST COURTYARD ELEVATION MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage PH1 Courtyard East Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 1581 23% Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 252 4% MP - Light 1304 19% Window/ Glazing 2327 35% Wood Look 1279 19% 6743 100% 1/16" = 1'-0"A-007.1 3 PH1 - NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION PH1 - WEST COURTYARD ELEVATION MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage PH1 Courtyard West Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 4686 33% Fiber Cement Panel - Light 173 1% Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 1246 9% MP - Light 2283 16% Window/ Glazing 4127 29% Wood Look 1483 11% 13998 100% PH1 - NORTH ELEVATION - LEVEL P1-L1 MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage Brick - Light 1798 44% Fiber Cement Lap - Light 170 4% Fiber Cement Panel - Light 90 2% Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 464 11% Interactive Art Panel 702 17% MP - Light 182 4% Window/ Glazing 708 17% 4114 100% (FACING PUBLIC PATHWAY) (FACING PUBLIC PATHWAY) PH1 - EAST ELEVATION - PARKING LEVEL MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage Brick - Light 2622 67% Interactive Art Panel 864 22% Window/ Glazing 450 11% 3936 100% PH1 - SOUTH ELEVATION LEVEL P1-1 MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage Brick - Light 926 57% Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 204 13% MP - Light 101 6% Window/ Glazing 394 24% 1625 100% 1/4" = 1'-0" Monument Sign Page 98 of 249 SECOND LEVEL 110'-6" PARKING LEVEL 89'-0" FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" THIRD LEVEL 120'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 129'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 139'-0" ROOF LEVEL 149'-6" MP-1 FC-1 MP-2 FC-2 MP-2 MP-1 FC-3FC-2BRICK-1 MP-1INTERACTIVE ART PANELS (SEE 1/A-007.3) TYP MP-1 MP-2FC-1 FC-3 FC-2 FC-3 FC-1 MP-2 SECOND LEVEL 110'-6" PARKING LEVEL 89'-0" FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" THIRD LEVEL 120'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 129'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 139'-0" ROOF LEVEL 149'-6" BUILDING SIGNAGE MP-1MP-2 FC-1 FC-2 FC-3BRICK-1MP-1 SECOND LEVEL 110'-6" PARKING LEVEL 89'-0" FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" THIRD LEVEL 120'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 129'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 139'-0" ROOF LEVEL 149'-6" ART GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL SECOND LEVEL 110'-6" PARKING LEVEL 89'-0" FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" THIRD LEVEL 120'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 129'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 139'-0" ROOF LEVEL 149'-6" MP-1 MP-2 FC-1 FC-3 FC-2 FC-1 MP-2 MP-1BRICK-1 GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL SECOND LEVEL 110'-6" FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" THIRD LEVEL 120'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 129'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 139'-0" ROOF LEVEL 149'-6" MP-1 FC-2 FC-1 MP-2 FC-3 SECOND LEVEL 110'-6" FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" THIRD LEVEL 120'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 129'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 139'-0" ROOF LEVEL 149'-6" MP-1 MP-2 FC-1 FC-2 FC-3 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | ELEVATIONS RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 PH2 - SOUTH COURTYARD ELEVATION MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage Fiber Cement Lap - Light 3487 28% Fiber Cement Panel - Light 331 3% Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 1098 9% MP - Light 2106 17% Window/ Glazing 3865 31% Wood Look 1757 14% 12644 100% 1/16" = 1'-0"A-007.2 1 PH2 - EAST BUILDING ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A-007.2 3 PH2 - WEST BUILDING ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A-007.2 2 PH2 - NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A-007.2 4 PH2 - SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A-007.2 5 PH2 - NORTH COURTYARD BUILDING ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A-007.2 6 PH2 - SOUTH COURTYARD BUILDING ELEVATION PH2 - NORTH COURTYARD ELEVATION MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage Fiber Cement Lap - Light 4145 36% Fiber Cement Panel - Light 94 1% Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 185 2% MP - Light 2380 21% Window/ Glazing 4283 37% Wood Look 504 4% 11591 100% PH2 - NORTH ELEVATION - LEVEL 2-5 MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage Fiber Cement Lap - Light 1323 5% Fiber Cement Panel - Light 1824 7% Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 185 1% MP - Light 3258 13% Window/ Glazing 10457 43% Wood Look 7347 30% 24394 100% PH2 - WEST ELEVATION - LEVEL 2-5 MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage Fiber Cement Lap - Light 2553 17% Fiber Cement Panel - Light 742 5% MP - Light 2813 19% Window/ Glazing 5600 37% Wood Look 3399 22% 15107 100% PH2 - NORTH ELEVATION - LEVEL 1 MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage Fiber Cement Lap - Light 639 9% Fiber Cement Panel - Light 525 8% Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 1728 25% MP - Light 1248 18% Window/ Glazing 2748 40% 6888 100% PH2 - WEST ELEVATION - LEVEL 1 MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage Fiber Cement Lap - Light 738 18% Fiber Cement Panel - Light 136 3% Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 940 23% MP - Light 598 15% Window/ Glazing 1666 41% 4078 100% (FACING PUBLIC STREET)(FACING PUBLIC PATHWAY) PH2 - NORTH ELEVATION - PARKING... MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage Brick - Light 1941 69% Interactive Art Panel 567 20% Window/ Glazing 300 11% 2808 100% PH2 - SOUTH ELEVATION - 1-P1 MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage Brick - Light 1118 69% Fiber Cement Panel - Light 89 5% Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 202 12% Window/ Glazing 30 2% Window/ Glazing 188 12% 1627 100% PH2 - SOUTH ELEVATION - LEVEL 2-5 MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage Fiber Cement Lap - Light 3089 17% Fiber Cement Panel - Light 2129 12% Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 282 2% Metal Panel - White 1459 8% Metal Panel - Wood Look 1551 9% MP - Light 1982 11% Window/ Glazing 5738 32% Wood Look 1552 9% 17782 100% PH2 - EAST ELEVATION - LEVEL 1 MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage Brick - Light 2590 55% Interactive Art Panel 963 21% MP - Light 766 16% Window/ Glazing 360 8% 4679 100% PH2 - EAST ELEVATION - LEVEL 2-5 MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) Percentage Brick - Light 4971 15% Fiber Cement Lap - Light 5634 17% Fiber Cement Panel - Light 1989 6% MP - Light 4731 14% Window/ Glazing 10700 32% Wood Look 5737 17% 33762 100% Page 99 of 249 WIND DRIVEN KINETIC WALL W/ EDUCATIONAL ART BY SELECTED LOCAL ARTIST A-007.3 5 INFORMATIVE PEDESTAL (SEE 4/A-007.3) HISTORIC LENTICULAR RELIEF ART (BY SELECTED LOCAL ARTIST)A-007.3 2 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | INTERACTIVE ART DETAILS RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 KINETIC WIND PANELS - ENLARGED ELEVATION LENTICULAR RELIEF ART - ENLARGED ELEVATIONS EXAMPLE LENTICULAR RELIEF ART EXAMPLE INFO PEDESTAL EXAMPLE KINETIC WIND PANEL ART Page 100 of 249 USEABLE OPEN SPACE AREA LANDSCAPE ISLAND PRIMARY STRUCTURE SETBACK PARKING AREA PRIMARY STRUCTURE GREEN ROOF LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) REQUIREMENT: MIN LOT SIZE: 6,000 SF MIN LOT WIDTH: 50' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT: 5 STORY MAX LOT COVERAGE (STRUCTURE): 55% MIN USEABLE OPEN SPACE: 15% (OF GROSS PARCEL AREA) MIN SETBACK FRONT: 15' SIDE: 15' REAR: 20' MAX IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 75% VETERANS PARK AREA OVERLAY REQUIREMENT: MAX BUILDING HEIGHT: MIN 20' - MAX 55' STEPPED BACK ABOVE 3 FLOOR: MIN 15' (FROM PUBLIC STREETS AND PUBLIC LAND) MAX BUILDING COVERAGE: 40% MIN SETBACK FRONT: (MIN 15' - 25' MAX) SIDE: (MIN = HEIGHT OF BUILDING OR 30', WHICHEVER IS GREATER) REAR: (MIN = HEIGHT OF BUILDING OR 35', WHICHEVER IS GREATER) MAX IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 75% LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) + OVERLAY PROVIDED: TOTAL LOT AREA: 192,750 SF TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 181,200 SF PRIMARY STRUCTURE: 58,610 SF BUILDING COVERAGE: 32% ZONING CODE DATA EV CHARGING REQUIREMENT: L2 CHARGER FOR 10% OF 317 = 32 SPACES L3 READY FOR 20% OF 317 = 63 SPACES L1 READY FOR 50% OF 222 (REMAINING SPACES) = 111 SPACES AT LEAST ONE ADA SPACES (SHOWN IN GARAGE) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: PARKING PROVIDED: 317 COMPACT DESIGNATION @ 20% = 55 SPACES MAX COMPACT PROVIDED = 46 SPACES LANDSCAPED PARKING AREA: PARKING LOT AREA: 34,937 SF LANDSCAPED ISLAND AREA REQUIRED @ 5%: 1,747 SF LANDSCAPED ISLAND AREA PROVIDED: 2123 SF / 6% LOT COVERAGE (MR-3) + OVERLAY PROVIDED (CONTINUED): USEABLE OPEN SPACE: 15% MIN @ TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 27,180 SF USEABLE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: 67,300 SF IMPERVIOUS SPACE: MAX 75% @ TOTAL LOT AREA MINUS ROW: 135,900 SF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SPACE PROVIDED: 112,105 SF / 61% 15'-0" PHASE 1 BUILDING STEPBACK AT LEVELS 4 & 5 PHASE 2 FENCE BUILDING STEPBACK AT LEVELS 4& 5 CONNECTION TO VETERAN'S PARK BUILDING STEPBACK AT LEVELS 4 & 5 CONNECTION TO VETERAN'S PARK 15'-0"15'-0"BUILDING HEIGHT = SETBACK15'-0"55'-0"70'-0"15'-6 13/16"DOG RUN PARK W/ BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE FIRE AND EMT ACCESS GATE15'-0"200'-0"33' ROW15' MIN SETBACK25' MAX SETBACK30' STEPBACK55'-0"195'-0"200'-0"15'-0"55'-0"20'-0"6'-0"PARKING WIDTH60'-0"22'-0"22'-0"10'-0"20'-0" FAMILY BUILDING MONUMENT SIGN, 1'-8" X 10' X 5'6" HIGH SENIOR BUILDING MONUMENT SIGN, 1'-8" X 10' X 5'6" HIGH D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 OPEN SPACE PLAN KEY NORTH1" = 30'-0" OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM Page 101 of 249 39.8 55.011.8 8.311.418.221.660.9 61.726.0 81.0 HH FO HH S COCO 8 498488478468448498488478468448438428418398388378368348338328318298 4 6 84 2 841839838837836834833832831829828827826845845840835830845 84083583 0 15'-0" PHASE 1 BUILDING STEPBACK AT LEVELS 4 & 5 PHASE 2 "A" "H"200'-0""G" "F"136'-0""B" 72'-0" "C" "D" 67'-6" "E"187'-2" "I"195'-0""J" "K" 187'-1"64'-3 81/256""L" "P" 123'-1" "M"67'-2 17/128""N" 123'-1"63'-9 111/128""O" - --- - --- EXISTING SURVEY SHOWN FOR REFERENCE 49'-6"(HEIGHT OF BUILDING)1'-5"4'-9"(HEIGHT @ AVERAGE GRADE)10'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"10'-6"11'-0"50'-11"SECOND LEVEL 101'-6" PARKING LEVEL 80'-0" FIRST LEVEL 91'-0" THIRD LEVEL 111'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 120'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 130'-0" ROOF LEVEL 140'-6" (CIVIL EL. 840) (CIVIL EL. 829) PHASE 1 BUILDING AVERAGE GRADE DATUM(HEIGHT @ AVERAGE GRADE)SECOND LEVEL 110'-6" PARKING LEVEL 89'-0" FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" (CIVIL EL. 849) (CIVIL EL. 838) THIRD LEVEL 120'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 129'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 139'-0" ROOF LEVEL 149'-6" PHASE 2 BUILDING AVERAGE GRADE DATUM54'-3"(BUILDING HEIGHT)(PH1 FLOOR ELEVATION)(PH2 FLOOR ELEVATION)TYP. HIGH POINT A (A = -6.80') TYP. LOW POINT B (B = -4.19') SEE SCH'D ELEVATION "A" 64'-2"68'-5 1/128" SEE SCH'D ELEVATION "E" 67'-6 127/128" EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE SEE SCH'D ELEVATION "I" 187'-2" TYP. HIGH POINT A (A = -2.11') TYP. LOW POINT B (B = -5.10')5.104.191.311.422.114.20EXISTING GRADE LINE A B C D E F H 49'-6"TYP. HIGH POINT A (A = 1.42') TYP. LOW POINT B (B = -1.31') 6.80AVERAGE GRADE CALCULATION PHASE 1 BUILDING IN FEET (ARCH FINISH FLOOR 91') ELEVATION: A B C D E F G H HIGH POINT (A): 1.42 1.31 1.31 1.31 -6.8 -4.19 -5.82 2.93 LOW POINT (B): 1.31 1.31 4.2 4.2 -4.19 -4.11 -4.11 1.42 LENGTH OF FACE: 64 136 72 136 67.50 200 200 200 BUILDING AVERAGE GRADE PLANE: PHASE 2 BUILDING IN FEET (ARCH FINISH FLOOR 100') ELEVATION: I J K L M N O P HIGH POINT (A): -2.11 -5.1 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -4 LOW POINT (B): -5.1 -4.51 -4.51 -1.17 -2 -2 -3 -3 LENGTH OF FACE: 187.08 195 187.08 64 123.08 67 123.08 64 BUILDING AVERAGE GRADE PLANE: TOTAL 1075.5 -1.48 OR -1'- 5" TOTAL 1010.32 -4.76 or -4' - 9" AVERAGE: 2.07 1.96 3.41 3.41 -8.89 -6.24 -7.84 3.64 AVERAGE: -4.6 -7.35 -4.25 -2.58 -3 -4 -4.5 -5.5 LENGTH x AVERAGE: 132.8 267.24 245.52 463.76 -600.41 -1249 -1575 728 LENGTH x AVERAGE: -871.29 -1434.22 -796.02 -165.44 -369.24 -268 -553.86 -352 -1587.09 -4810.58 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | AVERAGE GRADE RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 1" = 30'-0"A-009 1 GROUND LEVEL - AVERAGE GRADE 1" = 30'-0"A-009 2 ELEVATION - AVERAGE GRADE NORTH Page 102 of 249 CALENDAR 06 -21 -26 TIME OF DAY 1:00 PM CALENDAR 06 -21 -26 TIME OF DAY 7:51 PM SUNSET 8:57 PM CALENDAR 06 -21 -26 TIME OF DAY 7:30 AM SUNRISE 5:32 AM CALENDAR 09 -21 -26 TIME OF DAY 8:08 AM SUNRISE 7:03 AM CALENDAR 09 -21 -26 TIME OF DAY 1:00 PM CALENDAR 09 -21 -26 TIME OF DAY 6:08 PM SUNSET 7:07 PM CALENDAR 12 -21 -26 TIME OF DAY 1:53 PM CALENDAR 12 -21 -26 TIME OF DAY 8:53 AM SUNRISE 7:53 AM CALENDAR 12 -21 -26 TIME OF DAY 3:53 PM SUNSET 4:34 AM D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | SITE ANALYSIS - SHADOW STUDY RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 SUMMER AFTERNOON SUMMER SUNSET SUMMER SUNRISE EQUINOX SUNRISE EQUINOX AFTERNOON EQUINOX SUNSET WINTER SOLSTICE AFTERNOON WINTER SOLSTICE SUNRISE WINTER SOLSTICE SUNSET Page 103 of 249 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | RENDERING RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 NE CORNER - PHASE 2 ENTRANCE FROM PORTLAND Page 104 of 249 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | SENIOR BUILDING RENDERINGS RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 NW CORNER -ENTRANCE FROM PORTLAND WEST COURTYARD -VIEW FROM PORTLAND PARKING ENTRANCE FROM PORTLAND VIEW FROM SOUTH OF CORRIDOR CONNECTION TO VETERAN'S MEMORIAL PARK Page 105 of 249 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | FAMILY BUILDING RENDERINGS RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 SE CORNER NE CORNER VIEW FROM NORTH OF CORRIDOR CONNECTION NE CORNER Page 106 of 249 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | RENDERING POOL PERSPECTIVE RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 EAST VIEW OF POOL AND FAMILY BUILDING VIEW FROM INTERIOR UNIT ON 5TH FLOOR VIEW OF COURTYARD WITH POOL BEYOND TREES Page 107 of 249 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | RENDERING INTERACTIVE ART RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 EAST PATH BENCH AND ART INTERIOR PATH WITH INTERACTIVE ART Page 108 of 249 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | LANDSCAPE CONCEPT RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 Page 109 of 249 SECOND LEVEL 110'-6" PARKING LEVEL 89'-0" FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" THIRD LEVEL 120'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 129'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 139'-0" ROOF LEVEL 149'-6" MP-1 MP-2 FC-1 FC-3 FC-2 FC-1 MP-2 MP-1BRICK-1 SECOND LEVEL 110'-6" PARKING LEVEL 89'-0" FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" THIRD LEVEL 120'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 129'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 139'-0" ROOF LEVEL 149'-6" MP-1 FC-1 MP-2 FC-2 MP-2 MP-1 FC-3 FC-2BRICK-1 MP-1 MP-1MP-2 FC-1 FC-2 FC-3BRICK-1MP-1 SECOND LEVEL 110'-6" PARKING LEVEL 89'-0" FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" THIRD LEVEL 120'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 129'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 139'-0" ROOF LEVEL 149'-6" ART SECOND LEVEL 110'-6" FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" THIRD LEVEL 120'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 129'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 139'-0" ROOF LEVEL 149'-6" MP-1 FC-2 FC-1 MP-2 FC-3 SECOND LEVEL 110'-6" FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" THIRD LEVEL 120'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 129'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 139'-0" ROOF LEVEL 149'-6" MP-1 MP-2 FC-1 FC-2 FC-3 MP-1 MP-2FC-1 FC-3 FC-2 FC-3 FC-1 MP-2 SECOND LEVEL 110'-6" PARKING LEVEL 89'-0" FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" THIRD LEVEL 120'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 129'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 139'-0" ROOF LEVEL 149'-6" D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | ELEVATIONS THREAT FACTOR RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 PH2TF - SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION BIRD THREAT FACTOR PH2TF - EAST BUILDING ELEVATION THREAT FACTOR PH2TF - NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION BIRD THREAT FACTOR PH2TF - NORTH COURTYARD BUILDING ELEVATION THREAT FACTOR PH2TF - SOUTH COURTYARD BUILDING ELEVATION BIRD THREAT FACTOR PH2TF - WEST BUILDING ELEVATION BIRD THREAT FACTOR Page 110 of 249 BRICK-1 FC-1 MP-2 MP-1 FC-2 MP-2 FC-3 SECOND LEVEL 101'-6" PARKING LEVEL 80'-0" FIRST LEVEL 91'-0" THIRD LEVEL 111'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 120'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 130'-0" ROOF LEVEL 140'-6" MP-2MP-1 FC-1 FC-2 FC-3BRICK-1FC-3 MP-2 ARTINTERACTIVE ART INSTALLATION ART6'-0"9'-0"50'-0"MP-2MP-1 FC-1 FC-2 MP -2 FC-3FC-3 BRICK-1MP-1 FC-2 FC-1ART INTERACTIVE ART PANEL6'-0"6'-0" 9'-0"6'-0"15'-6"3'-0"10'-0"3'-0"SECOND LEVEL 101'-6" PARKING LEVEL 80'-0" FIRST LEVEL 91'-0" THIRD LEVEL 111'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 120'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 130'-0" ROOF LEVEL 140'-6" SECOND LEVEL 101'-6" FIRST LEVEL 91'-0" THIRD LEVEL 111'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 120'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 130'-0" ROOF LEVEL 140'-6" MP-1 MP-2 FC-3 FC-2 FC-3 MP-2 MP-1 FC-2 MP-2 FC-1 FC-3 FC-1 SECOND LEVEL 101'-6" FIRST LEVEL 91'-0" THIRD LEVEL 111'-0" FOURTH LEVEL 120'-6" FIFTH LEVEL 130'-0" ROOF LEVEL 140'-6" MP-1 MP-2 FC-2 FC-3 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | ELEVATIONS THREAT FACTOR RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 PH1TF - SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION THREAT FACTOR PH1TF - EAST BUILDING ELEVATION BIRD THREAT FACTOR PH1TF - NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION THREAT FACTOR PH1TF - WEST BUILDING ELEVATION THREAT FACTOR PH1TF - WEST COURTYARD BUILDING ELEVATION THREAT FACTOR PH1TF - EAST COURTYARD BUILDING ELEVATION BIRD THREAT FACTOR Page 111 of 249 D E S I G N G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt MSP-LUPE RICHFIELD - AMERICAN LEGION SITE - RICHFIELD | SCHEDULES THREAT FACTOR RICHFIELD, MN | 07/27/26 | 47621-25062 BIRD THREAT FACTOR THIRD FLOOR AND BELOW sorted by... MC - Elevation MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) MC - Level Brick - Light PH1 East Elevation Brick - Light 1311 Third and Below PH1 North Elevation Brick - Light 899 Third and Below PH2 East Elevation Brick - Light 1754 Third and Below PH2 North Elevation Brick - Light 647 Third and Below PH1 South Elevation Brick - Light 927 Third and Below PH2 South Elevation Brick - Light 1118 Third and Below 6656 Fiber Cement Lap - Light PH1 East Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 602 Third and Below PH1 East Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 386 Third and Below PH1 North Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 471 Third and Below PH1 North Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 267 Third and Below PH1 West Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 1105 Third and Below PH1 Courtyard West Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 1382 Third and Below PH2 East Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 1451 Third and Below PH2 North Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 441 Third and Below PH2 North Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 213 Third and Below PH2 North Courtyard Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 1243 Third and Below PH2 South Courtyard Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 1033 Third and Below PH2 West Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 606 Third and Below PH2 West Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 369 Third and Below PH1 Courtyard East Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 935 Third and Below PH1 South Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 984 Third and Below PH2 South Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 700 Third and Below PH2 South Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 404 Third and Below 12592 Fiber Cement Panel - Light PH1 East Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 183 Third and Below PH1 North Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 310 Third and Below PH1 North Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 227 Third and Below PH1 Courtyard West Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 68 Third and Below PH2 East Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 403 Third and Below PH2 North Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 264 Third and Below PH2 North Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 175 Third and Below PH2 South Courtyard Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 150 Third and Below PH2 West Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 212 Third and Below PH2 West Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 68 Third and Below PH1 East Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 267 Third and Below PH1 South Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 266 Third and Below PH1 South Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 311 Third and Below PH2 South Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 418 Third and Below PH2 South Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 89 Third and Below PH2 South Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 166 Third and Below 3577 Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look PH1 North Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 547 Third and Below PH1 West Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 717 Third and Below PH1 Courtyard West Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 240 Third and Below PH2 North Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 576 Third and Below PH2 North Courtyard Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 185 Third and Below PH2 West Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 470 Third and Below PH1 Courtyard East Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 252 Third and Below PH1 South Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 204 Third and Below PH2 South Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 202 Third and Below PH2 South Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Wood Look 141 Third and Below 3534 Interactive Art Panel PH1 East Elevation Interactive Art Panel 54 Third and Below PH1 East Elevation Interactive Art Panel 54 Third and Below PH1 East Elevation Interactive Art Panel 54 Third and Below PH1 East Elevation Interactive Art Panel 54 Third and Below PH1 East Elevation Interactive Art Panel 54 Third and Below PH1 East Elevation Interactive Art Panel 54 Third and Below PH1 East Elevation Interactive Art Panel 54 Third and Below PH1 East Elevation Interactive Art Panel 54 Third and Below PH1 North Elevation Interactive Art Panel 54 Third and Below PH1 North Elevation Interactive Art Panel 54 Third and Below PH1 North Elevation Interactive Art Panel 54 Third and Below PH1 North Elevation Interactive Art Panel 47 Third and Below PH1 North Elevation Interactive Art Panel 36 Third and Below PH1 North Elevation Interactive Art Panel 30 Third and Below PH2 North Elevation Interactive Art Panel 54 Third and Below PH2 North Elevation Interactive Art Panel 18 Third and Below PH2 North Elevation Interactive Art Panel 36 Third and Below PH2 North Elevation Interactive Art Panel 27 Third and Below 842 MP - Light PH1 East Elevation MP - Light 903 Third and Below PH1 East Elevation MP - Light 301 Third and Below PH1 North Elevation MP - Light 995 Third and Below PH1 West Elevation MP - Light 909 Third and Below PH1 Courtyard West Elevation MP - Light 612 Third and Below PH2 East Elevation MP - Light 820 Third and Below PH2 East Elevation MP - Light 256 Third and Below PH2 North Elevation MP - Light 563 Third and Below PH2 North Elevation MP - Light 416 Third and Below PH2 North Courtyard Elevation MP - Light 880 Third and Below PH2 South Courtyard Elevation MP - Light 889 Third and Below PH2 West Elevation MP - Light 1133 Third and Below BIRD THREAT FACTOR THIRD FLOOR AND BELOW sorted by... MC - Elevation MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) MC - Level PH2 West Elevation MP - Light 299 Third and Below PH1 Courtyard East Elevation MP - Light 617 Third and Below PH1 South Elevation MP - Light 903 Third and Below PH1 South Elevation MP - Light 102 Third and Below PH2 South Elevation MP - Light 1459 Third and Below 12057 Window/ Glazing PH1 East Elevation Window/ Glazing 769 Third and Below PH1 East Elevation Window/ Glazing 150 Third and Below PH1 North Elevation Window/ Glazing 1512 Third and Below PH1 North Elevation Window/ Glazing 738 Third and Below PH1 North Elevation Window/ Glazing 90 Third and Below PH1 West Elevation Window/ Glazing 2028 Third and Below PH1 Courtyard West Elevation Window/ Glazing 1291 Third and Below PH2 East Elevation Window/ Glazing 2174 Third and Below PH2 East Elevation Window/ Glazing 135 Third and Below PH2 North Elevation Window/ Glazing 1326 Third and Below PH2 North Elevation Window/ Glazing 687 Third and Below PH2 North Elevation Window/ Glazing 75 Third and Below PH2 North Courtyard Elevation Window/ Glazing 1259 Third and Below PH2 North Courtyard Elevation Window/ Glazing 161 Third and Below PH2 South Courtyard Elevation Window/ Glazing 1273 Third and Below PH2 West Elevation Window/ Glazing 1464 Third and Below PH2 West Elevation Window/ Glazing 833 Third and Below PH1 East Elevation Window/ Glazing 1538 Third and Below PH1 Courtyard East Elevation Window/ Glazing 1506 Third and Below PH1 South Elevation Window/ Glazing 1965 Third and Below PH1 South Elevation Window/ Glazing 394 Third and Below PH2 South Elevation Window/ Glazing 1258 Third and Below PH2 South Elevation Window/ Glazing 30 Third and Below PH2 South Elevation Window/ Glazing 188 Third and Below PH2 South Elevation Window/ Glazing 467 Third and Below 23311 Wood Look PH1 East Elevation Wood Look 1258 Third and Below PH1 North Elevation Wood Look 872 Third and Below PH1 West Elevation Wood Look 1170 Third and Below PH1 Courtyard West Elevation Wood Look 452 Third and Below PH2 East Elevation Wood Look 854 Third and Below PH2 North Elevation Wood Look 933 Third and Below PH2 North Courtyard Elevation Wood Look 310 Third and Below PH2 South Courtyard Elevation Wood Look 443 Third and Below PH2 West Elevation Wood Look 814 Third and Below PH1 Courtyard East Elevation Wood Look 670 Third and Below PH1 South Elevation Wood Look 921 Third and Below PH2 South Elevation Wood Look 585 Third and Below 9282 BIRD THREAT FACTOR FOURTH AND ABOVE sorted by... MC - Elevation MC - Material Calculated Area (SF) MC - Level Fiber Cement Lap - Light PH1 Courtyard East Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 646 Fourth and Above PH1 North Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 603 Fourth and Above PH1 South Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 679 Fourth and Above PH1 West Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 761 Fourth and Above PH1 Courtyard West Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 961 Fourth and Above PH2 East Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 427 Fourth and Above PH2 North Courtyard Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 822 Fourth and Above PH2 South Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 441 Fourth and Above PH2 South Courtyard Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 711 Fourth and Above PH2 West Elevation Fiber Cement Lap - Light 671 Fourth and Above 6722 Fiber Cement Panel - Light PH1 East Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 305 Fourth and Above PH1 North Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 249 Fourth and Above PH1 South Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 158 Fourth and Above PH1 Courtyard West Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 37 Fourth and Above PH2 East Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 250 Fourth and Above PH2 North Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 306 Fourth and Above PH2 North Courtyard Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 94 Fourth and Above PH2 South Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 330 Fourth and Above PH2 South Courtyard Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 31 Fourth and Above PH2 West Elevation Fiber Cement Panel - Light 159 Fourth and Above 1919 MP - Light PH1 North Elevation MP - Light 562 Fourth and Above PH1 East Elevation MP - Light 517 Fourth and Above PH1 Courtyard East Elevation MP - Light 367 Fourth and Above PH1 South Elevation MP - Light 562 Fourth and Above PH1 West Elevation MP - Light 517 Fourth and Above PH1 Courtyard West Elevation MP - Light 367 Fourth and Above PH2 East Elevation MP - Light 547 Fourth and Above PH2 North Elevation MP - Light 523 Fourth and Above PH2 North Courtyard Elevation MP - Light 327 Fourth and Above PH2 South Elevation MP - Light 523 Fourth and Above PH2 South Courtyard Elevation MP - Light 328 Fourth and Above PH2 West Elevation MP - Light 547 Fourth and Above 5687 Window/ Glazing PH1 East Elevation Window/ Glazing 1236 Fourth and Above PH1 Courtyard East Elevation Window/ Glazing 827 Fourth and Above PH1 North Elevation Window/ Glazing 1323 Fourth and Above PH1 South Elevation Window/ Glazing 1346 Fourth and Above PH1 West Elevation Window/ Glazing 1182 Fourth and Above PH1 Courtyard West Elevation Window/ Glazing 771 Fourth and Above PH2 East Elevation Window/ Glazing 1304 Fourth and Above PH2 North Elevation Window/ Glazing 1232 Fourth and Above PH2 North Courtyard Elevation Window/ Glazing 719 Fourth and Above PH2 South Elevation Window/ Glazing 1144 Fourth and Above PH2 South Courtyard Elevation Window/ Glazing 660 Fourth and Above PH2 West Elevation Window/ Glazing 1336 Fourth and Above 13080 Wood Look PH1 East Elevation Wood Look 1344 Fourth and Above PH1 North Elevation Wood Look 939 Fourth and Above PH1 Courtyard East Elevation Wood Look 590 Fourth and Above PH1 North Elevation Wood Look 939 Fourth and Above PH1 South Elevation Wood Look 958 Fourth and Above PH1 West Elevation Wood Look 950 Fourth and Above PH1 Courtyard West Elevation Wood Look 290 Fourth and Above PH2 East Elevation Wood Look 1059 Fourth and Above PH2 North Elevation Wood Look 1348 Fourth and Above PH2 North Courtyard Elevation Wood Look 194 Fourth and Above PH2 South Elevation Wood Look 967 Fourth and Above PH2 South Courtyard Elevation Wood Look 436 Fourth and Above PH2 West Elevation Wood Look 886 Fourth and Above 10900 Page 112 of 249 849.54845.55844.52845.09846.93848.91849.54849.26849.18848.90848.79848.78848.69848.61848.59848.39848.68848.68848.48848.32847.82847.46847.42847.25847.05846.96846.32846.24845.32844.51844.52843.94844.11844.11844.81847.51847.33849.72850.31849.04848.88847.98848.89845.97844.78844.93843.92843.90852.36843.14841.39842.06841.91841.96844.26846.48848.24849.64849.54849.37847.52845.87844.29842.20841.74841.39841.34841.33841.33841.34841.32841.10840.82840.97840.75840.68840.12839.78838.89838.23838.23838.22838.31838.38838.85843.43842.68841.28839.95836.63834.57833.23831.05829.94829.53828.57828.24828.42828.41828.35828.08827.79827.40827.18826.97826.64826.47826.12824.31824.31825.31826.16841.68842.36841.60841.05841.00840.94840.88841.01843.43846.26847.22847.76846.75842.91842.73843.36843.33843.21823.81824.25824.82824.40824.81825.14825.48825.36827.09827.26825.74825.79826.40826.23826.42826.46826.56826.55826.70827.12827.24827.24827.06829.24826.64826.78826.88844.67842.79832.88831.50840.72840.90841.31841.15843.05843.07843.06845.04846.94845.83845.66845.64845.59843.57844.38837.08841.04841.15841.17841.95842.64846.61846.32843.25843.37843.34843.33843.35843.41841.72843.13841.83841.54841.53841.56838.88839.54839.94840.43842.06847.82PARCEL 1PARCEL 2PARCEL 3BUILDINGHEIGHT=13 FT.11.418.221.6 60.960.5 15.716.3 10.913.234.334.8 18.616.0105.461.726.057.981.0EXISTING BUILDINGEXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGBUILDINGCANOPYCANOPYOVERHANG TERMINUSUNKNOWNMONUMENTSIGN IN PLANTER11.88.334.1STEPSTEPSMISC. VERTICAL PIPERE=846.24IE 12" CONC=841.24RE=848.68IE N/S 8"CONC=835.88RE=827.24IE N/NW 12" CONC=823.04IE SW 15" CONC=823.64IE SE 18" CONC=822.94RE=829.24IE SW 4" METAL=827.04(FULL OF DEBRIS)TERMINUSUNKNOWNPOWER POLE ATTACHEDTO BUILDINGWALLWALL848.04826.84838.74849.47845.68845.24824.99830.48828.11829.08836.03849 848847846845844849848847846845844843842841840 839838837 836 835 834 833832831830829845846842841840839838837 836835834833832831830829828827826825AUTO-SPRINKLERRE=846.62IE 15" CONC=840.8924-INCH PCCP 8-INCH CIP 24-INCH PCCPDATEPROJECT #PROJECT STATUSDRAWN BYCHECKED BYI hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the state of Minnesota.DateLic. No.NOT FORCONSTRUCTION26176.50CITY REVIEW12345Licensee07/24/2026WHKAMxxxx26176.5© 2026 BKBM EngineersBakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.All rights reserved. This document is an instrumentof service and is the property of BKBM Engineersand may not be used or copied without prior writtenconsent.BKBM Project No.6120 Earle Brown DriveSuite 700 Minneapolis,MN 55430 Phone:763.843.0420bkbm.comDESIGNGROUPAutodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvtRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062SELECTIVE SITE DEMOLITION AND EROSION CONTROL PLANC100Page 113 of 249 CCCCCCC849.54845.55844.52845.09846.93848.91849.54849.26849.18848.90848.79848.78848.69848.61848.59848.39848.68848.68848.48848.32847.82847.46847.42847.25847.05846.96846.32846.24845.32844.51844.52843.94844.11844.11844.81847.51847.33849.72850.31849.04848.88847.98848.89845.97844.78844.93843.92843.90852.36843.14841.39842.06841.91841.96844.26846.48848.24849.64849.54849.37847.52845.87844.29842.20841.74841.39841.34841.33841.33841.34841.32841.10840.82840.97840.75840.68840.12839.78838.89838.23838.23838.22838.31838.38838.85843.43842.68841.28839.95836.63834.57833.23831.05829.94829.53828.57828.24828.42828.41828.35828.08827.79827.40827.18826.97826.64826.47826.12824.31824.31825.31826.16841.68842.36841.60841.05841.00840.94840.88841.01843.43846.26847.22847.76846.75842.91842.73843.36843.33843.21823.81824.25824.82824.40824.81825.14825.48825.36827.09827.26825.74825.79826.40826.23826.42826.46826.56826.55826.70827.12827.24827.24827.06829.24826.64826.78826.88844.67842.79832.88831.50840.72840.90841.31841.15843.05843.07843.06845.04846.94845.83845.66845.64845.59843.57844.38837.08841.04841.15841.17841.95842.64846.61846.32843.25843.37843.34843.33843.35843.41841.72843.13841.83841.54841.53841.56838.88839.54839.94840.43842.06847.82PARCEL 1PARCEL 2PARCEL 3EXISTINGBUILDINGTERMINUSUNKNOWNRE=846.24IE 12" CONC=841.24RE=848.68IE N/S 8"CONC=835.88RE=827.24IE N/NW 12" CONC=823.04IE SW 15" CONC=823.64IE SE 18" CONC=822.94RE=829.24IE SW 4" METAL=827.04(FULL OF DEBRIS)TERMINUSUNKNOWN848.04826.84838.74849.47845.68845.24824.99830.48828.11829.08836.03849 848847846845844849848847846845844843842841840 839838837 836 835 834 833832831830829845846842841840839838837 836835834833832831830829828827826825RE=846.62IE 15" CONC=840.8924-INCH PCCP 8-INCH CIP 24-INCH PCCPDATEPROJECT #PROJECT STATUSDRAWN BYCHECKED BYI hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the state of Minnesota.DateLic. No.NOT FORCONSTRUCTION26176.50CITY REVIEW12345Licensee07/24/2026WHKAMxxxx26176.5© 2026 BKBM EngineersBakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.All rights reserved. This document is an instrumentof service and is the property of BKBM Engineersand may not be used or copied without prior writtenconsent.BKBM Project No.6120 Earle Brown DriveSuite 700 Minneapolis,MN 55430 Phone:763.843.0420bkbm.comDESIGNGROUPAutodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvtRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLANC200Page 114 of 249 DATEPROJECT #PROJECT STATUSDRAWN BYCHECKED BYI hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the state of Minnesota.DateLic. No.NOT FORCONSTRUCTION26176.50CITY REVIEW12345Licensee07/24/2026WHKAMxxxx26176.5© 2026 BKBM EngineersBakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.All rights reserved. This document is an instrumentof service and is the property of BKBM Engineersand may not be used or copied without prior writtenconsent.BKBM Project No.6120 Earle Brown DriveSuite 700 Minneapolis,MN 55430 Phone:763.843.0420bkbm.comDESIGNGROUPAutodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvtRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062EROSION CONTROL, GRADING, AND CITY OF RICHFIELD NOTESC201Page 115 of 249 CCCCCCCEXISTINGBUILDINGTERMINUSUNKNOWNRE=846.24IE 12" CONC=841.24RE=848.68IE N/S 8"CONC=835.88RE=827.24IE N/NW 12" CONC=823.04IE SW 15" CONC=823.64IE SE 18" CONC=822.94RE=829.24IE SW 4" METAL=827.04(FULL OF DEBRIS)TERMINUSUNKNOWNRE=846.62IE 15" CONC=840.8924-INCH PCCP 8-INCH CIP 24-INCH PCCPDATEPROJECT #PROJECT STATUSDRAWN BYCHECKED BYI hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the state of Minnesota.DateLic. No.NOT FORCONSTRUCTION26176.50CITY REVIEW12345Licensee07/24/2026WHKAMxxxx26176.5© 2026 BKBM EngineersBakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.All rights reserved. This document is an instrumentof service and is the property of BKBM Engineersand may not be used or copied without prior writtenconsent.BKBM Project No.6120 Earle Brown DriveSuite 700 Minneapolis,MN 55430 Phone:763.843.0420bkbm.comDESIGNGROUPAutodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvtRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062UTILITY PLANC300Page 116 of 249 EXISTINGBUILDINGIE SW 15" CONC=823.64IE SE 18" CONC=822.94RE=829.24IE SW 4" METAL=827.04(FULL OF DEBRIS)RE=845.84IE W/E 33"RCP=820.84RE=835.22IE W/E 33"RCP=820.43RE=849.20IE S/N 9"VCP=840.2933-INCH RCP9-INCH VCP 9-INCH VCP 9-INCH VCP 4-INCH6- I N C H 8-INCH CIP DATEPROJECT #PROJECT STATUSDRAWN BYCHECKED BYI hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the state of Minnesota.DateLic. No.NOT FORCONSTRUCTION26176.50CITY REVIEW12345Licensee07/24/2026WHKAMxxxx26176.5© 2026 BKBM EngineersBakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.All rights reserved. This document is an instrumentof service and is the property of BKBM Engineersand may not be used or copied without prior writtenconsent.BKBM Project No.6120 Earle Brown DriveSuite 700 Minneapolis,MN 55430 Phone:763.843.0420bkbm.comDESIGNGROUPAutodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvtRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062UTILITY PLANC300Page 117 of 249 CCCCCCCEXISTINGBUILDINGRE=846.62IE 15" CONC=840.89DATEPROJECT #PROJECT STATUSDRAWN BYCHECKED BYI hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the state of Minnesota.DateLic. No.NOT FORCONSTRUCTION26176.50CITY REVIEW12345Licensee07/24/2026WHKAMxxxx26176.5© 2026 BKBM EngineersBakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.All rights reserved. This document is an instrumentof service and is the property of BKBM Engineersand may not be used or copied without prior writtenconsent.BKBM Project No.6120 Earle Brown DriveSuite 700 Minneapolis,MN 55430 Phone:763.843.0420bkbm.comDESIGNGROUPAutodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvtRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062” ’ PAVING AND GEOMETRIC PLANC400Page 118 of 249 EXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGBUILDINGDATEPROJECT #PROJECT STATUSDRAWN BYCHECKED BYI hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the state of Minnesota.DateLic. No.NOT FORCONSTRUCTION26176.50CITY REVIEW12345Licensee07/24/2026WHKAMxxxx26176.5© 2026 BKBM EngineersBakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.All rights reserved. This document is an instrumentof service and is the property of BKBM Engineersand may not be used or copied without prior writtenconsent.BKBM Project No.6120 Earle Brown DriveSuite 700 Minneapolis,MN 55430 Phone:763.843.0420bkbm.comDESIGNGROUPAutodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvtRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062PAVING AND GEOMETRIC PLANC401Page 119 of 249 CCCCCCCEXISTINGBUILDINGRE=846.62IE 15" CONC=840.89DATEPROJECT #PROJECT STATUSDRAWN BYCHECKED BYI hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the state of Minnesota.DateLic. No.NOT FORCONSTRUCTION26176.50CITY REVIEW12345Licensee07/24/2026WHKAMxxxx26176.5© 2026 BKBM EngineersBakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.All rights reserved. This document is an instrumentof service and is the property of BKBM Engineersand may not be used or copied without prior writtenconsent.BKBM Project No.6120 Earle Brown DriveSuite 700 Minneapolis,MN 55430 Phone:763.843.0420bkbm.comDESIGNGROUPAutodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvtRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062FIRE TRUCK ACCESS PLANC402Page 120 of 249 CCCCCCCEXISTINGBUILDINGRE=846.62IE 15" CONC=840.89DATEPROJECT #PROJECT STATUSDRAWN BYCHECKED BYI hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the state of Minnesota.DateLic. No.NOT FORCONSTRUCTION26176.50CITY REVIEW12345Licensee07/24/2026WHKAMxxxx26176.5© 2026 BKBM EngineersBakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.All rights reserved. This document is an instrumentof service and is the property of BKBM Engineersand may not be used or copied without prior writtenconsent.BKBM Project No.6120 Earle Brown DriveSuite 700 Minneapolis,MN 55430 Phone:763.843.0420bkbm.comDESIGNGROUPAutodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvtRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062CONSTRUCTION STAGING PLANC403Page 121 of 249 DATEPROJECT #PROJECT STATUSDRAWN BYCHECKED BYI hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the state of Minnesota.DateLic. No.NOT FORCONSTRUCTION26176.50CITY REVIEW12345Licensee07/24/2026WHKAMxxxx26176.5© 2026 BKBM EngineersBakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.All rights reserved. This document is an instrumentof service and is the property of BKBM Engineersand may not be used or copied without prior writtenconsent.BKBM Project No.6120 Earle Brown DriveSuite 700 Minneapolis,MN 55430 Phone:763.843.0420bkbm.comDESIGNGROUPAutodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvtRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062CIVIL DETAILSC500Page 122 of 249 DATEPROJECT #PROJECT STATUSDRAWN BYCHECKED BYI hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the state of Minnesota.DateLic. No.NOT FORCONSTRUCTION26176.50CITY REVIEW12345Licensee07/24/2026WHKAMxxxx26176.5© 2026 BKBM EngineersBakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.All rights reserved. This document is an instrumentof service and is the property of BKBM Engineersand may not be used or copied without prior writtenconsent.BKBM Project No.6120 Earle Brown DriveSuite 700 Minneapolis,MN 55430 Phone:763.843.0420bkbm.comDESIGNGROUPAutodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvtRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062CIVIL DETAILSC501Page 123 of 249 DATEPROJECT #PROJECT STATUSDRAWN BYCHECKED BYI hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the state of Minnesota.DateLic. No.NOT FORCONSTRUCTION26176.50CITY REVIEW12345Licensee07/24/2026WHKAMxxxx26176.5© 2026 BKBM EngineersBakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.All rights reserved. This document is an instrumentof service and is the property of BKBM Engineersand may not be used or copied without prior writtenconsent.BKBM Project No.6120 Earle Brown DriveSuite 700 Minneapolis,MN 55430 Phone:763.843.0420bkbm.comDESIGNGROUPAutodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvtRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062CIVIL DETAILSC502Page 124 of 249 DATEPROJECT #PROJECT STATUSDRAWN BYCHECKED BYI hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the state of Minnesota.DateLic. No.NOT FORCONSTRUCTION26176.50CITY REVIEW12345Licensee07/24/2026WHKAMxxxx26176.5© 2026 BKBM EngineersBakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.All rights reserved. This document is an instrumentof service and is the property of BKBM Engineersand may not be used or copied without prior writtenconsent.BKBM Project No.6120 Earle Brown DriveSuite 700 Minneapolis,MN 55430 Phone:763.843.0420bkbm.comDESIGNGROUPAutodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvtRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062CIVIL DETAILSC503Page 125 of 249 DATEPROJECT #PROJECT STATUSDRAWN BYCHECKED BYI hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the state of Minnesota.DateLic. No.NOT FORCONSTRUCTION26176.50CITY REVIEW12345Licensee07/24/2026WHKAMxxxx26176.5© 2026 BKBM EngineersBakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.All rights reserved. This document is an instrumentof service and is the property of BKBM Engineersand may not be used or copied without prior writtenconsent.BKBM Project No.6120 Earle Brown DriveSuite 700 Minneapolis,MN 55430 Phone:763.843.0420bkbm.comDESIGNGROUPAutodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvtRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062CIVIL DETAILSC504Page 126 of 249 DATEPROJECT #PROJECT STATUSDRAWN BYCHECKED BYI hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the state of Minnesota.DateLic. No.NOT FORCONSTRUCTION26176.50CITY REVIEW12345Licensee07/24/2026WHKAMxxxx26176.5© 2026 BKBM EngineersBakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.All rights reserved. This document is an instrumentof service and is the property of BKBM Engineersand may not be used or copied without prior writtenconsent.BKBM Project No.6120 Earle Brown DriveSuite 700 Minneapolis,MN 55430 Phone:763.843.0420bkbm.comDESIGNGROUPAutodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvtRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062CIVIL DETAILSC505Page 127 of 249 849.54845.55844.52845.09846.93848.91849.54849.26849.18848.90848.79848.78848.69848.61848.59848.39848.68848.68848.48848.32847.82847.46847.42847.25847.05846.96846.32846.24845.32844.51844.52843.94844.11844.11844.81847.51847.33849.72850.31849.04848.88847.98848.89845.97844.78844.93843.92843.90852.36843.14841.39842.06841.91841.96844.26846.48848.24849.64849.54849.37847.52845.87844.29842.20841.74841.39841.34841.33841.33841.34841.32841.10840.82840.97840.75840.68840.12839.78838.89838.23838.23838.22838.31838.38838.85843.43842.68841.28839.95836.63834.57833.23831.05829.94829.53828.57828.24828.42828.41828.35828.08827.79827.40827.18826.97826.64826.47826.12824.31824.31825.31826.16841.68842.36841.60841.05841.00840.94840.88841.01843.43846.26847.22847.76846.75842.91842.73843.36843.33843.21823.81824.25824.82824.40824.81825.14825.48825.36827.09827.26825.74825.79826.40826.23826.42826.46826.56826.55826.70827.12827.24827.24827.06829.24826.64826.78826.88844.67842.79832.88831.50840.72840.90841.31841.15843.05843.07843.06845.04846.94845.83845.66845.64845.59843.57844.38837.08841.04841.15841.17841.95842.64846.61846.32843.25843.37843.34843.33843.35843.41841.72843.13841.83841.54841.53841.56838.88839.54839.94840.43842.06847.82PARCEL 1PARCEL 2PARCEL 3BUILDINGHEIGHT=13 FT.11.418.221.6 60.960.5 15.716.3 10.913.234.334.8 18.616.0105.461.726.057.981.0EXISTING BUILDINGEXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGBUILDINGCANOPYCANOPYOVERHANG TERMINUSUNKNOWNMONUMENTSIGN IN PLANTER148.239.855.011.88.334.1STEPSTEPSMISC. VERTICAL PIPERE=846.24IE 12" CONC=841.24RE=848.68IE N/S 8"CONC=835.88RE=827.24IE N/NW 12" CONC=823.04IE SW 15" CONC=823.64IE SE 18" CONC=822.94RE=829.24IE SW 4" METAL=827.04(FULL OF DEBRIS)TERMINUSUNKNOWNPOWER POLE ATTACHEDTO BUILDINGWALLWALL848.04826.84838.74849.47845.68845.24824.99830.48828.11829.08836.03849 848847846845844849848847846845844843842841840839838837836835834833 832831830829845846842841840839838837836835834833832831 830829828827826825AUTO-SPRINKLERRE=846.62IE 15" CONC=840.8924-INCH PCCP 8-INCH CIP 24-INCH PCCP21DATEPROJECT #PROJECT STATUSDRAWN BYCHECKED BYI hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the state of Minnesota.DateLic. No.NOT FORCONSTRUCTION26176.50CITY REVIEW12345Licensee07/24/2026WHKAMxxxx26176.5© 2026 BKBM EngineersBakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.All rights reserved. This document is an instrumentof service and is the property of BKBM Engineersand may not be used or copied without prior writtenconsent.BKBM Project No.6120 Earle Brown DriveSuite 700 Minneapolis,MN 55430 Phone:763.843.0420bkbm.comDESIGNGROUPAutodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvtRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062STORM WATER POLLUTIONPREVENTION PLAN - EXISTINGCONDITIONSC600Page 128 of 249 C C C CCCC 849.54 845.55 844.52 845.09 846.93 848.91849.54 849.26 849.18 848.90 848.79 848.78 848.69 848.61 848.59 848.39 848.68 848.68 848.48 848.32 847.82 847.46 847.42 847.25 847.05 846.96 846.32 846.24 845.32 844.51 844.52 843.94 844.11 844.81 847.51 847.33 849.72 850.31 849.04 848.88 847.98 848.89 845.97 844.78 844.93 843.92 843.90 852.36 843.14 841.39 842.06 841.91841.96844.26846.48848.24849.64 849.54 849.37 847.52 845.87 844.29 842.20 841.74 841.39 841.34841.33 841.33841.34841.32 841.10 840.82 840.97840.75 840.68 840.12 839.78 838.89 838.23 838.23 838.22838.31838.38838.85 843.43 842.68 841.28 839.95 836.63 834.57 833.23 831.05 829.94 829.53 828.57828.24 828.42 828.41 828.35 828.08 827.79 827.40 827.18 826.97 826.64 826.47 826.12 824.31824.31 825.31 826.16 841.68 842.36 841.60 841.05841.00840.94 840.88841.01843.43846.26847.22 847.76 846.75 842.91842.73 843.36 843.33 843.21 823.81 824.25 824.82 824.40 824.81 825.14 825.48825.36 827.09 827.26 825.74 825.79 826.40 826.23 826.42826.46 826.56 826.55 826.70 827.12 827.24 827.24 827.06 829.24 826.64 826.78 826.88 844.67 842.79 832.88 831.50 840.72840.90841.31 841.15 843.05843.07 843.06845.04 846.94 845.83845.66 845.64 845.59 843.57 844.38 837.08 841.04 841.15 841.17841.95 842.64 846.61 846.32 843.25 843.37843.34843.33843.35 843.41 841.72843.13 841.83841.54 841.53841.56 838.88839.54839.94840.43 842.06 847.82 PARCEL 1 PARCEL 2 PARCEL 3 EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING TERMINUS UNKNOWN 148.239.8 55.0RE=846.24 IE 12" CONC=841.24 RE=848.68 IE N/S 8" CONC=835.88 RE=827.24 IE N/NW 12" CONC=823.04 IE SW 15" CONC=823.64 IE SE 18" CONC=822.94 RE=829.24 IE SW 4" METAL=827.04 (FULL OF DEBRIS) TERMINUS UNKNOWN 848.04 826.84 838.74 849.47 845.68 845.24 824.99 830.48 828.11 829.08 836.03 849 84 8 847846845 844849848847846845844843842841840839838837836835834833832831830829845 846 842 84184083983 8 837 836 835 83 4 83383283183 0 82982882782682524-INCH PCCP8-INCH CIP24-INCH PCCP 2 3 1 4 5 DATE PROJECT # PROJECT STATUS DRAWN BY CHECKED BY I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Date Lic. No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 26176.50 CITY REVIEW 12345 Licensee 07/24/2026 WH KAM xxxx 26176.5 © 2026 BKBM Engineers Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.comDESIGN G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt RICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN - EXISTING CONDITIONS C600 Page 129 of 249 CCCCCCCPARCEL 1PARCEL 2PARCEL 3EXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGBUILDINGTERMINUSUNKNOWNRE=846.24IE 12" CONC=841.24RE=848.68IE N/S 8"CONC=835.88RE=827.24IE N/NW 12" CONC=823.04IE SW 15" CONC=823.64IE SE 18" CONC=822.94RE=829.24IE SW 4" METAL=827.04(FULL OF DEBRIS)TERMINUSUNKNOWNRE=849.20IE S/N 9"VCP=840.29RE=846.62IE 15" CONC=840.89RE=845.84IE W/E 33"RCP=820.84RE=850.86IE 821.00RCP=840.29 (33")RE=835.22IE W/E 33"RCP=820.43RE=849.20IE S/N 9"VCP=840.29LIFT STATION33-INCH RCP33-INCH RCP33-INCH RCP9-INCH VCP 9-INCH VCP 9-INCH VCP 4-INCH6-I N C H 24-INCH PCCP 8-INCH CIP 24-INCH PCCP6-INCH CIP24-INCH PCCP8-INCH CIP 16-INCH PCCP 24-INCH PCCP 12-INCH PCCPDATEPROJECT #PROJECT STATUSDRAWN BYCHECKED BYI hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the state of Minnesota.DateLic. No.NOT FORCONSTRUCTION26176.50CITY REVIEW12345Licensee07/24/2026WHKAMxxxx26176.5© 2026 BKBM EngineersBakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.All rights reserved. This document is an instrumentof service and is the property of BKBM Engineersand may not be used or copied without prior writtenconsent.BKBM Project No.6120 Earle Brown DriveSuite 700 Minneapolis,MN 55430 Phone:763.843.0420bkbm.comDESIGNGROUPAutodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvtRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062EASEMENT PLANC700Page 130 of 249 W. LINE OF SEC. 26, TWP. 28N, RGE. 24W LINE PARALLEL WITH THE W. LINE OF SEC. 26LINE PARALLEL WITH THE E-W CENTERLINE OF SEC. 26EXISTING TREES TO REMAINPORTLAND AVE. S.REMOVE EXISTING SPRUCE TREES(12-16" CALIPER)EXISTING TREES TO REMAINEXISTING TREES TO REMAINXXXXXXXXXXXXXXREMOVE EXISTING TREESREMOVE EXISTING TREESXXXXXXXEXISTING AMERICAN LEGIONXXREMOVE EXISTING TREESEXISTING SPRUCE TREES TO REMAINXXTREE PROECTIONFENCINGTREE PROECTIONFENCINGTREE PROECTIONFENCINGDESIGNGROUPRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062NORTH0SCALE:1"=25'25'50'75' 1" = 25'-0"TREE PROTECTION PLANTREE PRESERVATION NOTESTREE PROTECTION1.CONTRACTOR SHALL PRESERVE TREES SHOWN IN THE DRAWINGS TO BE PROTECTEDAND PRESERVED. INSTALL TREE PROTECTION MEASURES PER DETAILS.2.TREE PROTECTION MEASURES ARE TO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO DEMOLITION ANDSHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.3.NO WORK SHALL OCCUR IN TREE PROTECTION ZONES EXCEPT WHERE DIRECTED ONPLANS.4.CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE EXTRA PRECAUTIONS TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO TREESWHERE WORK IS DESIGNATED TO OCCUR WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE DRIPLINE OFTREES. REFER TO TREE PROTECTION DETAILS FOR TREE PROTECTION FENCE, TRUNKPROTECTION, AND PRUNING PRACTICES.4.1.EXCAVATION WORK WITHIN DRIPLINE OF TREES SHALL BE LIMITED TO HANDREMOVAL, DIRECTIONAL BORING, AND AIR KNIFE ONLY TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE TOROOT SYSTEMS. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR DIRECTIONAL BORING DEPTHS WITHINDRIPLINE OF TREES.4.2.WHERE WORK IS TO OCCUR WITHIN DRIPLINE OF TREES OR TREE PROTECTIONZONES, PROVIDE ROOT PRUNING AS CLEANLY CUT ROOTS PRIOR TO EXCAVATIONOR TRENCHING ACTIVITIES. ROOT PRUNING TO BE PERFORMED BY ISA CERTIFIEDARBORIST FAMILIAR WITH ROOT PRUNING PRACTICES.4.3.PROTECT TRUNK AND BRANCHES FROM DAMAGE WHERE WORK IS DESIGNATEDTO OCCUR WITHIN THE DRIPLINE OF TREES. PROVIDE TRUNK PROTECTION PERDETAILS.4.4.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT PLACE TEMPORARY STRUCTURES OR STOREMATERIALS IN TREE PROTECTION ZONES OR WITHIN THE DRIPLINE OF TREES.IN AREAS WHERE WORK OCCURS WITHIN DRIPLINE OF TREES AND IDENTIFIED AS ROOTPROTECTION ZONES, CONTRACTOR SHALL USE EXTRA PRECAUTION TO MINIMIZEDISTURBANCE TO ROOTS DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES INCLUDING:PROVIDE PROTECTIVE 4" ORGANIC WOOD MULCH LAYER BENEATH DRIPLINE AND INLOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLAN. PRIOVIDE CLEAN ROOT CUTTING BY ISA CERTIFIEDARBORIST. PROVIDE LOW-IMPACT/ HAND EXCAVATION MEASURES.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT STORE MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, OR PARK VEHICLES IN ROOTPROTECTION ZONES.TEMPORARY ACCESS AND MOVEMENT ACROSS ROOT PROTECTION ZONES AND OVERPROTECTIVE MULCH LAYER TO FACILITATE THE WORK SHALL BE PERMITTED. REPAIR TOPROTECTIVE MULCH LAYER DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES DURING THEDURATION OF THE WORK.Page 131 of 249 DESIGNGROUPRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062LANDSCAPE NOTESSITE AND LANDSCAPE NOTESSITE PREPARATION NOTES1.CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT THE SITE AND BECOME FAMILIARWITH EXISTING CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE NATURE AND SCOPEOF WORK.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLAN LAYOUT AND BRING TO THEATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DISCREPANCIES WHICHMAY COMPROMISE THE DESIGN OR INTENT OF THE LAYOUT.3.CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLECODES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE WORK AND MATERIALSSUPPLIED.4.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING ROADS, CURBS/GUTTERS,TRAILS, TREES, LAWNS AND SITE ELEMENTS DURINGCONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. DAMAGE TO SAME SHALL BEREPAIRED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.5.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALIGNMENT AND LOCATION OFUNDERGROUND AND ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES AND PROVIDE THENECESSARY PROTECTION FOR SAME BEFORE CONSTRUCTIONBEGINS (MINIMUM 10' CLEARANCE).6.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE PHASES OF CONSTRUCTIONAND PLANTING INSTALLATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORSWORKING ON SITE.7.UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE INSTALLED SO THAT TRENCHESDO NOT CUT THROUGH ROOT SYSTEMS OF EXISTING TREES TOREMAIN.8.EXISTING CONTOURS, TRAILS, VEGETATION, CURB/GUTTER ANDOTHER ELEMENTS ARE BASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED TOTHE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY OTHERS. CONTRACTOR SHALLVERIFY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFYLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF SAME.9.HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENT OF PROPOSED WALKS,TRAILS OR ROADWAYS ARE SUBJECT TO FIELD ADJUSTMENTREQUIRED TO CONFORM TO LOCALIZED TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONSAND TO MINIMIZE TREE REMOVAL AND GRADING. CHANGES INALIGNMENT AND GRADES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION.10.CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW THE SITE FOR DEFICIENCIES IN SITECONDITIONS WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANTESTABLISHMENT, SURVIVAL OR WARRANTY. UNDESIRABLE SITECONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.11.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ONGOING MAINTENANCE OFNEWLY INSTALLED MATERIALS UNTIL TIME OF SUBSTANTIALCOMPLETION. REPAIR OF ACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICHMAY OCCUR PRIOR TO SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION SHALL BE THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR.12.EXISTING TREES OR SIGNIFICANT SHRUB MASSINGS FOUND ON SITESHALL BE PROTECTED AND SAVED UNLESS NOTED TO BE REMOVEDOR ARE LOCATED IN AN AREA TO BE GRADED. QUESTIONSREGARDING EXISTING PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THEATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO REMOVAL.13.EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, UPON DIRECTION OF LANDSCAPEARCHITECT, SHALL BE FERTILIZED AND PRUNED TO REMOVE DEADWOOD, DAMAGED AND RUBBING BRANCHES.14.CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE AND SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUESTFOR THE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION INSPECTION OF LANDSCAPEAND SITE IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING FINAL PAYREQUEST.15.CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE AND SUBMIT REPRODUCIBLEAS-BUILT DRAWING(S) OF LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION, IRRIGATIONAND SITE IMPROVEMENTS UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTIONINSTALLATION AND PRIOR TO SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION.16.SYMBOLS ON PLAN DRAWING TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCHEDULESIF DISCREPANCIES IN QUANTITIES EXIST. SPECIFICATIONS ANDDETAILS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES.SOIL TESTING1.CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A SOIL SAMPLE(S) FROM PROJECT SITEAND/OR SALVAGED TOPSOIL STOCKPILE AND SUBMIT TOINDEPENDENT TESTING AGENCY. ANALYSIS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS FOR (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO)MACRONUTRIENTS, MICRONUTRIENTS, COMPOSITION AND SOLUBLESALTS SHALL BE PROVIDED.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TWO SERIES OF TESTS: FIRST, PRIORTO CONSTRUCTION; SECOND, AFTER SOIL IS AMENDED, PRIOR TOPLANTING.3.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ANALYSIS RESULTS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR REVIEWAND APPROVAL PRIOR TO SOIL AMENDMENT AND PRIOR TOPLANTING.GRADING1.ROUGH GRADING AND FINISHED GRADING TO BE DONE BY OTHERSEXCEPT WHERE NOTED.2.GRADING LIMITS ARE DEFINED AS THE JUNCTURE OF PROPOSEDGRADE WITH EXISTING GRADE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.3.GRADING LIMITS AND LIMITS OF WORK SHOWN ON PLAN ARE ONLYAPPROXIMATE AND MAY BE ADJUSTED IN FIELD BY LANDSCAPEARCHITECT. WORK OUTSIDE OF THESE LIMITS WILL BE DONE ATLANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS EXPENSE UNLESS DIRECTED BYLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER IN WRITING.4.FILL/CUT AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A 1% MINIMUM GRADE AWAYFROM BUILDINGS WITHIN LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION.5.SALVAGE TOPSOIL FROM THE EARTHWORK AREAS AS APPROPRIATEOR AS INDICATED ON PLANS AND STOCKPILE FOR REUSE.6.MAINTAIN A UNIFORM GRADE BETWEEN CONTOURS IN AREAS TO BEGRADED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.7.ELEVATIONS, IF SHOWN ARE FINISHED ELEVATIONS. SPOTELEVATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER CONTOURS.8.ADD EROSION CONTROL MEASURES IF GRADES GREATER THAN 3:1OR IF CONDITIONS WARRANT. REFER TO MNDOT SPECIFICATIONSFOR EROSION CONTROL.9.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT PUBLIC UTILITIES FOR LOCATION OFUNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES,VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVEIF DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TOTHE OWNER.10.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PROPER EROSION CONTROLMEASURES AS REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT EROSION IS KEPT TO ANABSOLUTE MINIMUM.11.PROVIDE TEMPORARY COVERING FOR CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES UNTIL FINISHED GRADING IS COMPLETE.12.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE BASINS AS NEEDED.13.PERIMETER SILT FENCE AND ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCESSHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. REFER TO STATESPECIFICATIONS FOR AGGREGATE BASE AND SILT FENCE.14.CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL CATCH BASIN EROSION CONTROLMEASURES PER LOCAL POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ANDSPECIFICATIONS.15.WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF FINISHED SITE GRADING, DISTURBED AREASSHALL BE STABILIZED WITH SEED, SOD, MULCH OR ROCK BASE.16.CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EROSION CONTROL MEASURES,INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF ACCUMULATED SILT IN FRONT OF SILTFENCES AND EXCESS SEDIMENT IN PROPOSED CATCH BASINS, FORTHE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION.17.CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE EROSION CONTROL MEASURESAFTER VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED AND DISPOSE OF OFF SITE.18.CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT SOIL CONDITIONS AND COMPACTION ARE ADEQUATE TO ALLOW FOR PROPER DRAINAGEAROUND THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. UNDESIRABLE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK. IT SHALL BE THELANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE PROPERSURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE IN PLANTING AREAS.19.ALL SOILS SHALL BE DE-COMPACTED PRIOR TO SEEDING ORSODDING.PLANTING1.SPRING PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION IS FROM APRIL 15 TO JUNE15.2.FALL CONIFEROUS PLANTING IS ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 21 TOSEPTEMBER 30.3.FALL DECIDUOUS PLANTING IS ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 15 UNTILNOVEMBER 15.4.ADJUSTMENTS TO PLANTING DATES MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITINGBY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.5.STAKE PROPOSED PLANTING LOCATIONS PER PLAN FOR REVIEWAND APPROVAL BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALL.6.PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT EDITION OFTHE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, ANSI Z60.1.UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, DECIDUOUS SHRUBS SHALL HAVE ATLEAST 5 CANES AT THE SPECIFIED HEIGHT. ORNAMENTAL TREESSHALL HAVE NO 'V' CROTCHES AND SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NOLOWER THAN 3' FEET ABOVE THE ROOT BALL. STREET ANDBOULEVARD TREES SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 6'ABOVE PAVED SURFACE.7.INSTALL PLANT MATERIAL AFTER FINAL GRADING ANDCONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.8.INSTALL PLANT MATERIALS PER PLANTING DETAILS.9.SUBSTITUTION REQUESTS FOR PLANT MATERIAL TYPE & SIZE SHALLBE SUBMITTED TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FORCONSIDERATION PRIOR TO BIDDING. SUBSTITUTIONS AFTERBIDDING MUST BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND ARESUBJECT TO CONTRACT ADJUSTMENTS.10.ADJUSTMENTS IN LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALS MAYBE NEEDED IN FIELD. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST BE NOTIFIEDPRIOR TO ADJUSTMENT OF PLANTS.11.FERTILIZE PLANT MATERIALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOIL TESTRECOMMENDATIONS. FERTILIZE PLANT MATERIAL UPONINSTALLATION WITH DRIED BONE MEAL AND OTHER APPROVEDFERTILIZER MIXED IN WITH THE PLANTING SOIL (PER THEMANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS).12.INSTALL 18" DEPTH OF PLANTING SOIL IN AREAS RECEIVING GROUNDCOVER, PERENNIALS, AND ANNUALS. PLANTING SOIL SHALL COOFMnDOT 3877-B MODIFIED TO CONTAIN A MAXIMUM OF 30% SAND, A PHOF 7.1 MAX, OR AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THE PROJECTSPECIFICATIONS MANUAL.13.DO NOT WRAP TREES.14.APPLY PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE (PREEN OR APPROVED EQUAL) INANNUAL, PERENNIAL, AND SHNSIST RUB BEDS FOLLOWED BYSHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FORADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING USE OF HERBICIDES.MULCHING1.INSTALL 4" DEEP FINELY SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH RINGS ATCONIFEROUS & DECIDUOUS TREES WITH NO MULCH IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK.2.INSTALL 3" DEEP FINELY SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH RINGS ATSHRUB PLANTING AREAS WITH NO MULCH IN DIRECT CONTACT WITHSHRUB STEMS.3.INSTALL 3" DEEP FINELY SHREDDED MULCH IN PERENNIAL PLANTINGBEDS. REMOVE ALL MULCH FROM STEMS OF PERENNIALS; PLANTSTEMS SHOULD NOT BE IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH MULCH.WATERING1.PLANTED MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED BY TEMPORARY MEANSUNTIL PLANTS ARE ESTABLISHED.2.TEMPORARY WATERING MEANS, METHODS, AND SCHEDULING SHALLBE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY. REMOVE TEMPORARYWATERING EQUIPMENT UPON PLANT ESTABLISHMENT.WARRANTY1.WARRANTY NEW PLANT MATERIAL THROUGH ONE CALENDAR YEARFROM THE DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION. NO PARTIALACCEPTANCE WILL BE CONSIDERED.EXISTING CONDITIONS &SITE REMOVAL NOTESSITE REMOVAL NOTES1.EXISTING SITE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY OTHERS. ACTUALFIELD CONDITIONS MAY VARY. FIELD VERIFY UTILITY LOCATIONS ANDELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.2.THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN HAVEBEEN DETERMINED FROM THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE ANDARE GIVEN FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR. THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIRACCURACY. PRIOR TO THE START OF DEMOLITION ACTIVITY, THECONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE UTILITY COMPANIES FOR ONSITELOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIREDTO TAKE DUE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TO PROTECT EXISTINGUTILITIES OR STRUCTURES LOCATED AT THE WORK SITE.3.CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUNDUTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTION BY CALLINGGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL AT 651-454-0002 (METRO) OR1-800-252-1166 (OUT-STATE).4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH RESPECTIVE UTILITYCOMPANIES PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL AND/OR RELOCATION OFUTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE UTILITYCOMPANY CONCERNING PORTIONS OF WORK WHICH MAY BEPERFORMED BY UTILITY COMPANY'S FORCES AND FEES WHICH ARETO BE PAID TO THE UTILITY COMPANY FOR THEIR SERVICES. THECONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING FEES AND CHARGES.5.ALWAYS VERIFY BENCHMARK ELEVATIONS BETWEEN TWOBENCHMARKS.6.REMOVAL ITEMS BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTORUNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLEFOR REMOVING DEBRIS FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSING THE DEBRISIN A LAWFUL MANNER PER LOCAL GOVERNING AGENCIES. THECONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING PERMITS REQUIREDFOR DEMOLITION AND DISPOSAL. FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED SHALLBE UNDERCUT TO SUITABLE MATERIAL AND BROUGHT TO GRADEWITH SUITABLE COMPACTED FILL MATERIAL PER THESPECIFICATIONS.7.PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ARE TO BEINSTALLED WHERE NECESSARY AND OBTAIN AN NPDES STORMWATER PERMIT. REFER TO CIVIL FOR EROSION CONTROL.8.DAMAGE TO REMAINING EXISTING CONDITIONS WILL BE REPLACEDAT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE AND SHALL BE EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDTHE QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO DAMAGE.9.CONCRETE PAVEMENT, SIDEWALKS, CURB AND GUTTER, AND OTHERPOURED CONCRETE ITEMS ARE TO BE REMOVED TO AN EXISTINGEXPANSION OR CONTRACTION JOINT.10.CONTRACTOR SHALL LIMIT SAW-CUT AND PAVEMENT REMOVAL TOONLY THOSE AREAS WHERE IT IS REQUIRED AS SHOWN ON THESECONSTRUCTION PLANS. IF DAMAGE IS INCURRED ON THESURROUNDING PAVEMENT, ETC. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BERESPONSIBLE FOR ITS REMOVAL AND REPAIR AT NO ADDITIONALCOST TO THE OWNER. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT REMOVALS ARE TOBE MADE WITH A VERTICAL SAW CUT OR TO A NEAT MILLED EDGE.11.CONTRACTOR SHALL PRESERVE VEGETATION NOT TO BE REMOVEDBY CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FORRE-SEEDING OR SODDING AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION.12.LOCATION AND ELEVATIONS OF IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MET (ORAVOIDED) SHALL BE CONFIRMED BY THE CONTRACTOR THROUGHFIELD EXPLORATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTORSHALL REPORT TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DISCREPANCIESBETWEEN THEIR MEASUREMENTS AND THESE PLANS. CONTRACTORSHALL ALSO MAKE EXPLORATION EXCAVATIONS AND LOCATEEXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SUFFICIENTLY AHEAD OFCONSTRUCTION TO PERMIT REVISIONS TO PLANS IF REVISIONS ARENECESSARY BECAUSE OF ACTUAL LOCATION OF EXISTINGFACILITIES. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE PRECAUTIONARYMEASURES TO PROTECT THE UTILITY LINES SHOWN AND OTHEREXISTING LINES NOT OF RECORD OR NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS.13.EXISTING UTILITIES TO REMAIN IN PLACE UNLESS SPECIFICALLYMARKED ON THIS SHEET.IRRIGATION NOTES1.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AN IRRIGATION LAYOUT PLAN AND SPECIFICATION THAT MEETS THEREQUIREMENTS OF THE PROVIDED PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONAS PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK. SUBMIT LAYOUT PLAN ANDSPECIFICATIONS FOR APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTPRIOR TO ORDER AND/OR CONSTRUCTION. IT SHALL BE THECONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THATSODDED/SEEDED AND PLANTED AREAS ARE IRRIGATED PROPERLY,INCLUDING THOSE AREAS DIRECTLY AROUND AND ABUTTINGBUILDING FOUNDATION.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY WATER SUPPLY, VOLUME,PRESSURE AND LOCATION FOR SYSTEM TAP PRIOR TO SYSTEMDESIGN.3.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM COMPLETE LIMITS OF IRRIGATIONWITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO SUPPLYING SHOPDRAWINGS.4.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR INSPECTION AND APPROVAL OF AREAS RECEIVING DRIP IRRIGATION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF MULCH.5.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER AND LANDSCAPEARCHITECT WITH AS-BUILT DRAWINGS, DETAILED SYSTEMOPERATION INSTRUCTIONS AND AN IRRIGATION SCHEDULEAPPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND PLANTEDMATERIAL GROWTH REQUIREMENTS.6.IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO INCORPORATE SMART CONTROLLERS ANDRAIN SENSOR AS PART OF THE IRRIGATION DESIGN.TURF NOTES1.SOD AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO GRADING UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE.2.WHERE SOD ABUTS PAVED SURFACES, FINISHED GRADEOF SOD/SEED SHALL BE HELD 1" BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRAIL, SLAB, CURB, ETC.3.SOD SHALL BE LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALLHAVE STAGGERED JOINTS. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 OR INDRAINAGE SWALES, SOD SHALL BE STAKED SECURELY WITHWOODEN STAKES; NO METAL STAKES ARE ALLOWED.4.UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, THE APPROPRIATE DATES FORSPRING SEED & SOD PLACEMENT IS FROM THE TIME GROUNDHAS THAWED TO JUNE 15.5.FALL SODDING IS ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 15 TO NOVEMBER 1. FALL SEEDING IS ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 15 TO SEPTEMBER 15. ADJUSTMENTS TO SOD/SEED PLANTING DATES MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.6.NO SOD NETTING ALLOWED ON SITE.Page 132 of 249 SYMBOLCODEQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZECONT.NOTESREMARKSDECIDUOUS TREESAM8ACER SACCHARUM `PNI 0285` TMGREEN MOUNTAIN SUGAR MAPLE3.5" CALB&BBR4BETULA PAPYRIFERA `RENCI` TMRENAISSANCE REFLECTION PAPER BIRCH8` HT. MULTI-STEMB&BBF10BETULA PLATYPHYLLA 'FARGO'DAKOTA PINNACLE® ASIAN WHITE BIRCH2.5" CAL.BE-P5BETULA POPULIFOLIA `WHITESPIRE`WHITESPIRE BIRCH14` HEIGHTB&BCLUMP FORM, 3 STEM MINIMUMQU-I10QUERCUS BICOLORSWAMP WHITE OAK3.5" CALB&BTRUNK FREE OF BRANCHES 6`-7` FROM BASEQU-W21QUERCUS X WAREI `LONG` TMREGAL PRINCE OAK2.5" CAL.B&BSINGLE LEADER, WELL BRANCHEDTI-B20TILIA AMERICANA `BOULEVARD`BOULEVARD LINDEN4.5" CAL.B&BTRUNK FREE OF BRANCHES 6`-7` FROM BASEEVERGREEN TREESPI-P38PICEA PUNGENS `FAT ALBERT`FAT ALBERT COLORADO SPRUCE10` HEIGHTB&BNATURAL, FULL FORMPI-S5PINUS STROBUSWHITE PINE14` HEIGHTB&BORNAMENTAL TREESAM-G14AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA `AUTUMNBRILLIANCE``AUTUMN BRILLIANCE` SERVICEBERRY14' HT. MULTI-STEMB&BMUTLI-TRUNKCO-A3CORNUS ALTERNIFOLIAPAGODA DOGWOOD2.5" CAL.B&BSINGLE LEADER, WELL BRANCHEDMS4MALUS X `SPRING SNOW`SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE2.5" CAL.B&BPLANT SCHEDULESYMBOLCODEQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZECONT.NOTESSPACINGREMARKSSHRUBSCO-B30CORNUS SERICEA `BAILADELINE`FIREDANCE DOGWOOD#10CONT.SPACE 4`-0" O.C.48" o.c.HY-P36HYDRANGEA PANICULATA `PINKY WINKY`PINKY WINKY HYDRANGEA#7CONTSPACE 4`-0" O.C.48" o.c.HY-P231HYDRANGEA PANICULATA 'JANE' TMLITTLE LIME PANICLE HYDRANGEA#5POTSPACE 4`-0" O.C.48" o.c.JM58JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS 'MINT JULEP'MINT JULEP JUNIPER#5CONTSPACE 4`-0" O.C.48" o.c.PH-O58PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS `DART`S GOLD`DART`S GOLD NINEBARK#5POTSPACE 4`-0" O.C.48" o.c.PH-U23PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS `UMNHARPELL` TMFIRESIDE NINEBARK#5CONTSPACE 4`-0" O.C.48" o.c.RH-A54RHUS AROMATICA `GRO-LOW`GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC#7CONT.SPACE 5`-0" O.C.60" o.c.RI-A167RIBES ALPINUMALPINE CURRANT#5POTSPACE 3`-6" O.C.42" o.c.SA-P40SALIX PURPUREA 'CANYON BLUE'ARCTIC BLUE PURPLE OSIER WILLOW#5POT42" o.c.SO-S270SORBARIA SORBIFOLIA `SEM`SEM ASH LEAF SPIREA#5CONT.SPACE 3`-0" O.C.36" o.c.EVERGREEN SHRUBSTH-O21THUJA OCCIDENTALIS `BAILJOHN` TMTECHNITO ARBORVITAE5` HEIGHT48" o.c.GRASSESCA-A222CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA `KARL FOERSTER`FEATHER REED GRASS#1CONT.SPACE 2`-0" O.C.24" o.c.PA-H33PANICUM VIRGATUM `HEAVY METAL`HEAVY METAL SWITCH GRASS#1CONTSPACE 2`-0" O.C.24" o.c.PA-V104PANICUM VIRGATUM `NORTH WIND`NORTHWIND SWITCH GRASS#1CONT.SPACE 2`-0" O.C.18" o.c.SC-B28SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM `BLUE HEAVEN`BLUE HEAVEN LITTLE BLUESTEM#1CONTSPACE 2`-0" O.C.30" o.c.PERENNIALSAL-T76ALLIUM TANGUTICUM `SUMMER BEAUTY`SUMMER BEAUTY GLOBE LILY#1CONTSPACE 2`-0" O.C.24" o.c.NE-F65NEPETA X FAASSENII `WALKERS LOW`WALKERS LOW CATMINT#1CONT.SPACE 2`-0" O.C.24" o.c.GROUND COVERSTN237,600 SFTURF SEED NO-MOW FESCUENO-MOW FESCUESODTB2,498 SFTURF SOD BLUEGRASSKENTUCKY BLUEGRASSSODDESIGNGROUPRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULEPage 133 of 249 CODEDESCRIPTIONQTYDETAILSPECIALPROVISIONSSPEC #MATERIAL PROFILE / ASSEMBLYMANUFACTURERPRODUCT/MODELCOLOR / FINISHCOMMENTSARTIFICIAL TURFARTIFICIAL TURF5,348 SF6/L501ARTIFICIAL TURF OVER COMPACTEDAGGREGATE OR CONCRETE SUBBASESYNLAWNSYNLAWN 348GREENCODEDESCRIPTIONQTYDETAILSPECIALPROVISIONSSPEC #MATERIAL PROFILE / ASSEMBLYMANUFACTURERPRODUCT / MODELCOLOR / FINISHCOMMENTSEDGINGSTEEL EDGER4,741 LF4/L500STEEL EDGINGRYERSON3/16" THICKNESS X 4"DEEPBLACKFENCE & GUARDRAIL4' ALUMINUM FENCE138 LF7/L5014` HT. ALUMINUM PICKET FENCEAMERISTARMONTAGE PLUSBLACK5' BLACK VINYL CHAINLINK188 LF2/L5015` HT CHAINLINK FENCEVINYL-COATEDCHAINLINK FENCEBLACKGATEBOLLARD AND CHAIN/STEEL BOLLARD WITH SS CHAINMINERAL MULCHROCK MULCH7,950 SFDRESSER ROCK1 1/2" DRESSER TRAPROCKGRAY / NATURALCRUSHED STONE1,634 SF5/L5013/16" MINUS COMPACTEDDRESSER ROCKDRESSER TRAP ROCKINC.GRAY / NATURALPAVINGPLAYGROUND MULCH971 SF3/L501ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER, DEPTH PER ASTMSTND. WITH SUBSURFACE DRAINGE SYSTEMPLAISTED COMPANIESNATURALSITE FURNITUREBIKE RACK81/L501FORMS + SURFACESCAPITOL BIKE RACKARGENTO COLORBENCH44/L501ANOVAEXPOSITION - 5'PEWTERAT-101ED-101FE-101FE-103GA-101MM-101MM-102P-101SF-101SF-102REFERENCE NOTES SCHEDULEDESIGNGROUPRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062SITE MATERIALS SCHEDULEPage 134 of 249 HH FO HH W ST 7509840.2 7 LSHR B7510841.04LSHR E7511841.15LSHR B7512841.17LSHR EWATWATWATWATWATWATSTO ST O STO STOSTOSTOSTO STO STO STOSTOCN T OP O F CU RB ELEV =8 26 . 841 - QU-I9 - PH-U7 - PH-O7 - PH-U7 - PH-O7 - PH-U10 - PH-O3 - BR15 - PH-O2 - QU-W28 - SC-B2 - QU-W16 - RH-A2 - MS12 - PI-P58 - RI-A13 - PI-P1 - QU-I9 - RH-A2 - BF8 - BF3,325 sf - TN210,555 sf - TN233 - PA-HPLAYGROUNDPATIOPATIOPORTLAND AVE24 - SA-P9 - PH-O10 - PH-O6 - AM-G4 - AM-G16 - SA-P149 sf - TB5 - BE-P425 sf - TB8 - RH-A4 - PI-P4 - PI-P36 - SO-S2 - QU-I13 - CO-B10 - HY-P221 - SO-S7 - HY-P28 - AM26 - SO-S6 - HY-P232 - NE-F2 - QU-I22 - SO-S20 - TI-B4 - HY-P233 - NE-F36 - JM6 - QU-W6 - RH-A109 - RI-A9 - RH-A2 - QU-W12 - HY-P24 - CA-A24 - HY-P34 - CA-A3 - QU-W2 - QU-W65 sf - TB+++++++++++++MM-101MM-101MM-101AT-101AT-101P-101MM-101MM-101MM-101MM-10118 - SO-S4 - QU-W36 - SO-SFE-101FE-101TT48 - PA-V46 - CA-A4 - HY-P22 - MS12 - JM16 - CA-A17 - CO-B14 - SO-S24 - CA-AFE-103ED-101ED-101ED-101ED-101ED-1019 - SO-SSF-101SF-1017 - CA-A16 - AL-TSF-1028 - AL-T14 - PA-VSF-1028 - AL-T14 - PA-VSF-102SF-102++++EXISTING CONIFERSTO REMAINEXISTING CONIFERSTO REMAIN1 - BR2 - AM-G3 - PI-S1 - AM-G1 - AM-G2 - PI-P1 - PI-S1 - PI-S2 - PI-P1 - PI-P3 - CO-A35 - CA-A5 - SO-S10 - TH-O28 - PA-V11 - TH-O36 - CA-A22 - AL-T6 - SO-S22 - AL-T12 - SO-S6 - RH-A2,903 sf - TN29,951 sf - TN2621 sf - TN21,790 sf - TB69 sf - TB1,832 sf - TN2825 sf - TN22,780 sf - TN22,777 sf - TN210 - JM5 - SO-S2 - QU-I30 - SO-S2 - QU-I30 - SO-SGA-101NORTH0SCALE:1"=20'20'40'60'DESIGNGROUPRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062 1" = 20'-0"LANDSCAPE PLANPage 135 of 249 13 - PI-P1 - QU-I33 - PA-HPATIOPORTLAND AVE 9 - PH-O10 - PH-O149 sf - TB5 - BE-P6 - RH-A109 - RI-A9 - RH-A2 - QU-W12 - HY-P24 - CA-A24 - HY-P34 - CA-A3 - QU-W65 sf - TB+++++++MM-101AT-101TED-101SF-1018 - AL-T14 - PA-VSF-102SF-102EXISTING CONIFERS1 - AM-G2 - PI-P1 - PI-S3 - CO-A35 - CA-A5 - SO-S10 - TH-O22 - AL-T6 - SO-S2,903 sf - TN29,951 sf - TN2621 sf - TN21,790 sf - TB2,780 sf - TN22 - QU-I30 - SO-SNORTH0SCALE:1"=10'10'20'30'DESIGNGROUPRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062 1" = 10'-0"LANDSCAPE PLANPage 136 of 249 HH FO HH 7509840.2 7 LSHR B7510841.04LSHR E 7511841. 1 5 LSHR B 7512841.1 7 LSHR E1 - QU-I2 - QU-W28 - SC-B2 - QU-W16 - RH-A2 - MS12 - PI-P9 - RH-A2 - BF8 - BFPORTLAND AVE24 - SA-P6 - AM-G149 sf - TB8 - RH-A4 - PI-P4 - PI-P36 - SO-S2 - QU-I13 - CO-B10 - HY-P221 - SO-S7 - HY-P28 - AM26 - SO-S6 - HY-P232 - NE-F2 - QU-I22 - SO-S2 - QU-WMM-101MM-101AT-101FE-10148 - PA-V46 - CA-A4 - HY-P22 - MS12 - JM16 - CA-A17 - CO-B14 - SO-S24 - CA-AED-1019 - SO-SSF-1018 - AL-T14 - PA-VSF-10222 - AL-T12 - SO-S6 - RH-A69 sf - TB1,832 sf - TN22 - QU-I30 - SO-SNORTH0SCALE:1"=10'10'20'30'DESIGNGROUPRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062 1" = 10'-0"LANDSCAPE PLANPage 137 of 249 WATWATWATWATWATWAT9 - PH-U7 - PH-O7 - PH-U7 - PH-O58 - RI-A3,325 sf - TN210,555 sf - TN210 - PH-O5 - BE-P20 - TI-B+++++++++AT-101MM-101ED-101ED-1017 - CA-A16 - AL-TSF-102++++EXISTING CONIFERSTO REMAINEXISTING CONIFERSTO REMAIN1 - BR2 - AM-G3 - PI-S1 - AM-G1 - AM-G2 - PI-P1 - PI-S1 - PI-S2 - PI-P1 - PI-P9,951 sf - TN2NORTH0SCALE:1"=10'10'20'30'DESIGNGROUPRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062 1" = 10'-0"LANDSCAPE PLANPage 138 of 249 W ST 7509840.27LSHR B7510841.04LSHR E7511841.15LSHR B7512841.17LSHR E ST O ST O STOSTOSTOSTO STO STO STOSTOCN T OP O F C UR B ELEV =8 26 . 84 7 - PH-U10 - PH-O3 - BR15 - PH-O2 - QU-W28 - SC-B2 - QU-W16 - RH-A12 - PI-PPLAYGROUNDPATIO4 - AM-G16 - SA-P425 sf - TB8 - AM22 - SO-S4 - HY-P233 - NE-F36 - JM6 - QU-WP-101MM-101MM-101MM-10118 - SO-S4 - QU-W36 - SO-SFE-101TED-101ED-1019 - SO-SSF-10128 - PA-V11 - TH-O36 - CA-A825 sf - TN22,777 sf - TN210 - JM5 - SO-SGA-101NORTH0SCALE:1"=10'10'20'30'DESIGNGROUPRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062 1" = 10'-0"LANDSCAPE PLANPage 139 of 249 3 - BR15 - PH-O2 - QU-W28 - SC-B2 - QU-W16 - RH-A2 - BF8 - BF2,031 sf - TN2DOG RUN(CRUSHED STONE)4 - PI-P4 - PI-P36 - SO-S2 - QU-I13 - CO-B10 - HY-P221 - SO-S7 - HY-P28 - AM26 - SO-S32 - NE-F2 - QU-I22 - SO-SFE-10117 - CO-B14 - SO-SFE-103MM-102ED-101SF-101EXISTING TREESTO REMAINEXISTING TREESTO REMAIN1,832 sf - TN2825 sf - TN22,777 sf - TN22 - QU-I30 - SO-SNORTH0SCALE:1"=10'10'20'30'DESIGNGROUPRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062 1" = 10'-0"LANDSCAPE PLANPage 140 of 249 HH FO HH W ST 7509840.2 7 LSHR B7510841.04LSHR E7511841.15LSHR B7512841.17LSHR EWATWATWATWATWATWATSTO ST O STO STOSTOSTOSTO STO STO STOSTOCN T OP O F CU RB ELEV =8 26 . 84 +++++++++++++++++NORTH0SCALE:1"=20'20'40'60'DESIGNGROUPRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062 1" = 20'-0"LANDSCAPE PLANGrasses & Forbes Provide insectpollinator habitat and food from restored grasslandsExisting Spruce trees and Native Foragingornamental trees (Serviceberry and PagodaDogwood) Provide natural habitat and food.Veterans Park extension of the existing park'snatural habitatBird Habitat Safety Approach: - avoid placing trees near largecontinuous glass facades.- avoid creating a "funnel" effect wherethe reflected trees appear to continueinto the building. - avoid creating areas of active birdhabitat within 30' of building.Page 141 of 249 DESIGNGROUPRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062LANDSCAPE DETAILS1136" RADIUSDIG PLANTING PIT 4" TO 6" DEEPER THAN ROOT BALL UNDISTURBED SUBGRADENOTE:CONTRACTOR TO WRAP TREE TRUNKS ONLY UPON APPROVALBY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. SEE SPECIFICATION SECTIONRELATED TO PLANTS AND SOIL PREPARATION.EACH TREE SHALL BE PLANTED SUCH THAT THE ROOT FLARE ISVISIBLE AT THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL. IF THE ROOT FLARE ISNOT VISIBLE, THE SOIL SHALL BE REMOVED IN A LEVEL MANNERFROM THE ROOT BALL TO WHERE THE FIRST MAIN ORDER ROOT(12" DIA. OR LARGER) EMERGES FROM THE TRUNK. SET MAINORDER ROOT 1" HIGHER THAN ADJACENT GRADE. DO NOTCOVER TOP OF ROOT BALL WITH SOIL.EXPOSE ROOT FLARE AND SET AT GRADE. REMOVE BURLAPAND ROPES FROM TOP 1/3RD OF ROOT BALL, CUT WIRE BASKETDOWN TO SECOND HORIZONTAL WIRE FROM THE BOTTOM, ANDDISPOSE OF OFF-SITE. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FORMAINTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THEMAINTENANCE PERIODPLACE ROOT BALL ON UNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED SOILTAMP SOIL AROUND ROOT BALL BASE FIRMLYWITH FOOT PRESSURE SO THAT ROOT BALL DOESNOT SHIFT4" BUILT-UP EARTH SAUCER BEYOND EDGE OFROOT BALLPLANTING PIT TO BE TWOTO FIVE TIMES THE DIAMETEROF THE ROOT BALL, SLOPEDPREPARED PLANTING SOIL PERSPEC6' DIAMETERMULCH RINGREMOVE BURLAP AND ROPES FROM TOP 1/3RD OF ROOTBALL, CUT WIRE BASKET DOWN TO SECOND HORIZONTALWIRE FROM THE BOTTOM, AND DISPOSE OF OFF-SITEEDGE CONDITION VARIES;REFER TO PLAN4" ORGANIC MULCH; DO NOT PLACE MULCH INCONTACT WITH TREE TRUNKSCARIFY SIDES OF TREE PIT WITHSPADE BY HAND TO BIND WITHPREPARED PLANTING SOILDETAIL - TREE PLANTING3/4" = 1'-0"PROVIDE & INSTALL RODENT PROTECTION.12"HARDWIRE CLOTH MESH CYLINDER, 8" DIA. ORGREATER X 36" HGT; STAKE IN PLACE. PER SPECP-PO-01110' MAX. BETWEENSUPPORTSDETAIL - TREE PROTECTION1 1/2" = 1'-0"NOTES:1.TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLEDPRIOR TO DEMOLITION IN LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLANSAND SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THECONSTRUCTION PERIOD.TREE PROTECTION FENCINGMAY BE RELOCATED AS NECESSARY WITH APPROVALFROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT STORE MATERIALS,EQUIPMENT OR PARK VEHICLES IN TREE PROTECTIONZONES. THE FENCE SHALL PREVENT TRAFFICMOVEMENT AND THE PLACEMENT OF TEMPORARYFACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, STOCKPILES AND SUPPLIESFROM HARMING VEGETATION WITHIN THE LIMITS OFPROTECTION.3.PLACE 4" DEPTH ORGANIC WOOD MULCH WITHIN TREEPROTECTION FENCING FOR MOISTURE PRESERVATION4.PLACE TREE PROTECTION WITHIN DRIPLINE WHEN FULLDRIPLINE PROTECTION IS NOT FEASIBLE DUE TOEXISTING PAVEMENT OR OTHER OBSTACLES.5.WHERE TREE PROTECTION OCCURS WITHIN DRIPLINE OFTREE, WRAP TRUNK W/ 2X4X8 BOARDS SECUREDTIGHTLY AROUND TRUNK WITH STRAP BINDINGS.6.NO PRUNING SHALL BE PERFORMED EXCEPT WHEREAPPROVED BY APPROVED LANSDCAPE ARCHITECT ANDPERFORMED BY ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST.7.WHERE WORK OCCURS WITHIN DRIPLINE OF TREE, ROOTPRUNING TO BE PERFORMED BY ISA CERTIFIEDARBORIST PRIOR TO EXCAVATION OR TRENCHING.6' MININSTALL FENCE 6' MIN. OUTSIDEDRIPLINE OR AS SHOWN ON PLAN.DRIPLINE VARIESTENSIONER: COATED WIRE OR NYLONE ROPE TO KEEPFENCE TAUGHTTREE PROTECTION FENCING: 48" ORANGE SNOW FENCINGOR CONSTRUCTION GRADE CHAIN LINK. FASTEN TO POSTSWITH GALVANIZED WIRE TIESPOSTS: 7' U-CHANNEL 1.12 LBS/FOOT STRENGTH PAINTEDOR GALVANIZEDTREE PROTECTION SIGNAGE SPACED EVERY 50' ALONGFENCE. REFER TO SIGNAGE DETAILPERSPECTIVEPLAN2P-PO-19PREPARE PLANTING SOIL FORTHE ENTIRE BEDAPPLICATION OF PRE-EMERGENTHERBICIDE3" MULCH; DO NOT PLACE INCONTACT WITH SHRUB STEMPREPARE BED A MIN. 4" DEEPER THAN ROOT BALL 12" MIN.SPACINGDETAIL - SHRUB PLANTING1" = 1'-0"EDGE CONDITION VARIES;REFER TO PLANPLANTING SOIL FOR SHRUBSSCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF ENTIREBED WITH SPADE BY HAND TO BINDWITH PLANTING SOILUNDISTURBED SUBGRADECONTAINER GROWN MATERIALSHALL HAVE ROOTS HAND LOOSENEDP-PO-023DETAIL - STEEL EDGER1 1/2" = 1'-0"PLANTING BEDLAWNHOLD FINISHED GRADE 1/2"BELOW EDGER - SEE PLAN FOREDGE CONDITION3/16" METAL EDGER W/ STAKEPLANTING AREA - SEE PLANTINGPLANTURF - SEE PLANTING PLANP-PO-094PREPARE PLANTING SOIL FORTHE ENTIRE BED1'-6"6"MIN.SPACINGUNDISTURBED SUBGRADESCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF ENTIRE BEDWITH SPADE BY HAND TO BIND WITHPLANTING SOILPLANTING SOIL FOR PERENNIALSCONTAINER GROWN MATERIAL SHALLHAVE ROOTSH AND LOOSENEDEDGE CONDITION VARIES; REFER TO PLAN3" MULCH; DO NOT PLACE IN CONTACTWITH PLANT STEMDETAIL - PERENNIAL PLANTING1 1/2" = 1'-0"P-PO-046"2'-6"DETAIL - BOLLARD AND CHAIN1" = 1'-0"6P-PO-15Page 142 of 249 DESIGNGROUPRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062LANDSCAPE DETAILSFORMS+SURFACES CAPITOL BIKE RACK,SURFACE MOUNT PER MANUFACTURER'SDIRECTION, SPACED 3'0" O.C.EPOXY ANCHOR EMBEDDED INTO CONCRETEBIKE RACK - IN GROUND MOUNT1" = 1'-0"INSTALL PLUMBP-PO-1116'-0'' MAX. 0.C.POST CAPTERMINAL POST2" CHAIN LINK,VINYL COATEDWITH PRIVACYSLATSLINE POST 2" MIN.TOP RAILTIE WIRES 24" O.C.2" 5'-0"DETAIL - 5' HEIGHT CHAIN LINK FENCE1/2" = 1'-0"12" DEEP X 24" WIDECONCRETE GRADE BEAM1'-0" MIN DEPTH2 P-PO-34ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER SURFACING(E.W.F.), REFER TO SPECS; E.W.F. MULCHSHALL MEET ASTM F1292-99 FOR IMPACTABSORPTION AND ASTM F1951 FORWHEELCHAIR MANEUVERABILITY,PROVIDE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECOMPACTED SUBGRADEVARIES, SEE PLAN9" MIN. IN FALL ZONESCLASS 5 SUBBASE COMPACTED TO95% PROCTORENGINEERED WOOD FIBER MULCH3" = 1'-0"6"P-PO-0733/4" [19] END FRAMESURFACE MOUNT TABWITH Ø7/16" [11] HOLES FORANCHORING. NON-CORROSIVEMOUNTING HARDWARESUPPLIED BY OTHERS.6'-0"2'-1 3/4"3'-0"Ø1 1/2" [38] STEELTUBE2'-11 9/16"1'-7 15/16"2'-1 5/8"2'-3 3/8"2'-1 5/8"ELEVATION/PLAN - SITE BENCH3/4" = 1'-0"1'-5 3/4"ANOVA - EXPOSITION 6' CONTOUR BENCH4P-PO-283" THK. 3/8" MINUS TRAPROCK4" THK. CLASS 5 BASE-COMPACT TO 98%PROCTOR DENSITYCOMPACTED SUBBASECRUSHED STONE PAVING1" = 1'-0"5P-PO-67SYNTHETIC TURF1" LAYER - FINE STONE BASEFILTER FABRICCLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE, COMPACT TO 95%COMPACTED SUBBASE1"FILTER FABRICSYNTHETIC TURF3" = 1'-0"TRTD 2x4 NAILER BOARDSTEEL EDGING4"PLANTING SOILP-PO-186DETAIL-FENCE3/4" = 1'-0"1734"VariesWithHeightNOTES:1.) Post size depends on fence height and wind loads. See MONTAGE II specifications for post sizing chart and setting dimensions.2.) Third & Forth rail optional.3.) Available in Flush Bottom.8' O.C. Nom.VariesWithHeight2" Nom.Standard Height: 4'8"36" Min.Footing DepthTYPICAL334"1P-PO-277Page 143 of 249 Bird Collision Reduction Plan The American Legion Affordable Housing project’s Bird Collision Reduction Plan addressing the impacts of the building’s glass, lighting, and site design. It focuses on best practices offered by the American Audubon Society and adopted in B3 Guideline S.5 Animal Habitat Support and LEED pilot credit Bird Collison Reduction. These best practices include managing lighting, monitoring for collisions, and, if needed, managing glass threat factor. Project Context • Name of Project: Lupe Development – American Legion Site • Building Type (or Types): Multifamily • Street Address: 6501 Portland Avenue South • City: Richfield • State, Zip: Minnesota, 55423 • Size of building: i.e. number of stories and square footage o The multi-family project is anticipated to be five stories tall with an average height of approximately 54’-9” above the average grade. An overall square footage of 222,150 sf is anticipated. The U-shaped buildings step back after three stories and extensive green roofs are planned on the third level roof to provide a view from the fourth and fifth floor units. • Description of property and adjacent area: o The property is the current home of a closed American Legion located in the urban- suburban city of Richfield near the Minneapolis airport. Ecological Context and Landscape Design The American Legion site is located in Richfield near Veterans Park and Legion Lake, which provide stopover habitat and food sources for birds and other wildlife. As part of the broader urban habitat network, the site will be designed to support a regionally appropriate, ecologically beneficial landscape while reducing unintended hazards. The accompanying diagram identifies the following design strategies: - Avoid locating trees near large, continuous glass façades to reduce the potential “funnel” effect created when reflected vegetation appears to extend into the building. - Avoid placing active bird habitat, such as fruiting trees, food sources, or bird baths, within approximately 30 feet of the building façade. Ecologically, the site functions as part of the urban tree canopy and will be strengthened through thoughtful species selection. A diverse mix of native plants will provide higher-quality habitat for birds, squirrels, insects, and other urban wildlife. The diagram highlights native species and identifies high- value fruiting trees located away from the building, demonstrating the project’s effort to create an ecologically supportive landscape while minimizing unintended hazards. Lighting Management The glow created by nighttime site and up lighting can be disorientating and fatal to migrating birds and other wildlife. With this in mind, the building will follow DarkSky principles and a Lights Out management program. Exterior lighting will follow DarkSky principles. Luminary uplight ratings will be limited to Lighting Zone 2 (LZ2) level of U2. Page 144 of 249 A Lights Out light management program will also be followed. Except for lights required to maintain safety and exiting, lighting at top of building; uplighting; interior lighting; and lobby or atrium lighting will be turned off during times and dates listed below. • Dates: between March 15 and May 31 and between August 15 and October 31 each year. • Times: between midnight and dawn. Exception: Lights that have been documented as necessary for normal use of the building between midnight and dawn may be operated. Page 145 of 249 Glass Management and Collision Monitoring Through B3’s S.5 Animal Habitat Support guideline process, the building’s location, area and type of glass as compared to solid wall, and location of glass were all looked at. Following that process, the buildings have an overall Whole Building Threat Factor of 54.20. The glass surfaces are also considered High Risk Surfaces due to their proximity to trees and shrubs planned as part of the landscaping. Given this understanding, the American Legion site will use a monitoring program to manage and minimize bird collisions at glass, especially near the landscape habitat and food resources being integrated into the design. The monitoring will be done at least twice a week during spring and fall migration of the first year. Monitoring will either be tracked via (http://www.inaturalist.org/) or a spreadsheet with the following information. • Date= the date a monitoring round is performed • Time= the time that monitoring round began • Observer= the person conducting that round of monitoring • Bird (killed)= check this column if a dead bird is found • Bird (stunned or flew off)= check this column if an injured bird is found • Disposition= any action taken – carcass removed, injured bird reported, etc. • Location= name or code assigned to that location for birds found killed or stunned If during the first-year monitoring, glazing is found to have reoccurring collisions, its Threat Factor will be reduced to less than or equal to 30 using post-construction bird deterrent markers Feather Friendly or similar. Page 146 of 249 # Date CommentsRevisionsDate:6/18/202624x36These drawings are for conceptual use only and are notintended for construction. Fixture runs and quantitiesshould be verified prior to order. Values representedare an approximation generated from manufacturersphotometric inhouse or independent lab tests with datasupplied by lamp manufacturers.Richfield American LegionLS952-4414Drawn By: Joe FreySales Agent: Steve HahnScale: 1" = 30'Scale: 1 inch= 30 Ft.09L-3W-ISMH = 12ftMH = 12ft09L-3W-IS09L-3W-ISMH = 12ftMH = 12ft09L-3WMH = 12ft09L-3W09L-3WMH = 12ftMH = 12ft09L-3W09L-3WMH = 12ft09L-3WMH = 12ftMH = 12ft09L-3WMH = 12ft09L-3WMH = 12ft09L-3W09L-3WMH = 12ftBMH = 3.5ftBMH = 3.5ftBMH = 3.5ftMH = 3.5ftBBMH = 3.5ftMH = 3.5ftBBMH = 3.5ftMH = 3.5ftBBMH = 3.5ftMH = 3.5ftBBMH = 3.5ftBMH = 3.5ftMH = 3.5ftBBMH = 3.5ftMH = 3.5ftBMH = 3.5ftBBMH = 3.5ftBMH = 3.5ftBMH = 3.5ftBMH = 3.5ftBMH = 3.5ftBMH = 3.5ftBMH = 3.5ftMH = 3.5ftBMH = 9ftWP9WP9MH = 9ftMH = 3.5ftBMH = 3.5ftBMH = 3.5ftBBMH = 3.5ftMH = 3.5ftBMH = 3.5ftBBMH = 3.5ftBMH = 3.5ftMH = 3.5ftBMH = 12ft09L-3W-ISMH = 12ft09L-3W-ISMH = 12ft09L-3W0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.20.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.20.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.30.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.4 2.1 3.9 4.0 3.6 1.9 1.4 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.71.4 1.9 3.6 3.8 4.0 2.2 1.4 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.7 1.4 1.9 3.6 3.9 4.02.2 1.4 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.9 1.4 2.2 4.0 3.9 3.6 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.6 2.03.6 3.9 3.9 2.1 1.40.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.2 1.7 2.5 1.7 2.6 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.81.3 1.6 2.6 1.8 2.6 1.8 1.3 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.3 1.6 2.6 1.8 2.61.8 1.3 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.6 1.8 2.6 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.72.6 1.7 2.5 1.7 1.20.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.01.3 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.71.5 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.41.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.00.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.71.8 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.61.6 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.51.3 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.50.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.2 1.4 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.72.6 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.12.4 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.21.8 1.3 1.1 0.6 0.30.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.5 1.7 2.5 2.5 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 2.9 3.5 3.43.3 3.5 2.8 3.4 3.4 4.0 3.1 2.7 2.8 2.7 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.2 2.6 3.0 2.63.0 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.6 3.1 2.7 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.2 2.8 2.62.4 1.7 1.4 0.6 0.20.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.0 1.3 2.1 1.9 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.6 1.8 2.5 2.42.4 2.8 2.1 3.6 7.2 8.9 3.3 2.4 3.0 2.5 2.8 2.4 2.3 2.6 1.8 2.7 2.02.0 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.9 2.3 3.7 3.1 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.32.0 1.3 1.9 1.3 0.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10.4 1.2 3.6 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.20.3 0.6 2.1 8.24.70.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 9.6 5.6 0.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.1 1.6 13.8 0.80.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.1 0.2 0.4 0.10.1 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.4 1.2 0.7 0.10.0 0.2 6.1 2.3 0.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.7 7.0 1.6 0.00.0 0.2 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.1 0.6 0.3 0.00.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.5 1.1 0.30.0 0.0 0.9 9.1 0.9 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 1.3 0.4 0.80.0 0.0 0.8 5.9 0.8 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.3 1.0 0.20.0 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.4 1.2 0.20.0 0.3 9.1 3.2 0.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.9 17.7 0.50.0 0.2 1.6 1.2 0.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.5 1.5 0.20.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.1 0.6 0.20.0 0.0 0.5 2.7 0.6 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.6 17.6 1.40.0 0.0 0.9 18.7 1.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.4 2.9 0.70.0 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.1 0.6 0.5 0.10.0 0.3 9.0 3.2 0.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.25.03.0 0.10.0 0.2 1.5 1.1 0.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.2 0.9 0.8 0.10.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.3 0.3 0.00.0 0.0 0.9 19.1 1.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.24.5 4.70.20.0 0.0 0.5 3.0 0.6 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.8 1.21.3 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 2.6 2.5 0.30.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.6 2.0 3.5 3.7 4.0 3.0 3.2 3.0 4.0 3.8 3.7 2.73.1 2.7 3.3 3.3 3.8 2.3 1.7 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 2.00.2 2.5 2.4 0.1 0.0 0.00.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.3 1.5 2.4 1.9 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.8 2.0 2.6 2.22.5 2.2 2.5 2.0 2.5 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.6 15.9 2.5 0.5 2.8 0.8 0.3 6.3 1.8 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 6.0 1.3 0.1 1.8 2.0 0.6 17.0 2.9 0.4 1.7 0.7 3.9 2.6 0.6 0.3 0.00.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.61.6 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.6 7.3 0.8 0.55.01.9 1.1 17.6 1.6 0.6 6.9 1.7 0.2 3.4 7.1 0.3 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.2 1.8 0.3 0.5 7.0 3.2 0.10.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.70.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.3 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.10.1 0.1 0.5 1.4 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.30.0 0.2 2.2 1.5 0.10.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 2.4 3.1 6.4 5.5 0.6 5.5 6.3 0.7 7.04.91.1 12.3 2.1 1.2 15.4 1.8 0.5 6.94.90.8 10.9 2.5 0.4 9.4 5.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 3.64.92.2 1.9 0.3 1.9 2.0 0.4 2.2 1.8 0.7 3.4 1.1 0.6 2.0 0.8 0.3 2.1 1.80.5 3.4 1.2 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0VALS-09L-3W-30K8-IS0.900560154MH = 12ftLuminaire ScheduleSymbolQtyLabelArrangementDescriptionLLFLuminaire LumensLuminaire WattsTag509L-3W-ISSingle1109L-3WSingleVALS-09L-3W-30K80.900677354MH = 12ft2WP9SingleXWS-LED-05L-MTD-30-80CRI0.900507439MH = 9ft33BSingleMRB-LED-30L-ACR-A-300.900201129.1MH = 3.5ftCalculation SummaryLabelCalcTypeUnitsAvgMaxMinAvg/MinMax/MinCalcPts_1IlluminanceFc1.219.10.0N.A.N.A.ParkingIlluminanceFc1.94.00.36.413.3ParkingIlluminance (Fc)Average = 1.9Maximum = 4.0Minimum = 0.3Avg/Min Ratio = 6.4Max/Min Ratio = 13.3Page 147 of 249 Revisions# Date CommentsDate:6/19/202617x22supplied by lamp manufacturers.These drawings are for conceptual use only and are notintended for construction. Fixture runs and quantitiesshould be verified prior to order. Values representedare an approximation generated from manufacturersphotometric inhouse or independent lab tests with dataRichfield American LegionWall Art LightingLS952-4414ArtDrawn By: Joe FreySales Agent: Steve HahnScale: 1" = 2'Luminaire ScheduleSymbolQtyLabelArrangementDescriptionLLFLuminaire LumensLuminaire WattsTotal WattsTagCalculation Summary1LAW2-8-05LLabelCalcTypeUnitsAvgMaxSingleLAW2-8-05L-0L-830-CA-R-UNV0.900376533.51233.512.5 ft Above ArtMinAvg/MinMax/MinMounted OffsetIlluminanceFc23.350.55.54.29.2Scale: 1 inch= 1 Ft.Mounted 1.5ft Away5.5 6.1 6.8 7.4 7.9 8.4 8.7 8.9 9.0 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.4 7.9 7.4 6.8 6.15.56.5 7.4 8.2 9.0 9.7 10.3 10.7 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.0 10.7 10.3 9.7 9.0 8.2 7.4 6.57.8 8.9 10.1 11.1 12.0 12.8 13.3 13.7 13.9 13.9 13.7 13.3 12.8 12.0 11.1 10.1 8.9 7.89.3 10.8 12.3 13.9 15.1 16.1 16.8 17.3 17.5 17.5 17.3 16.8 16.115.1 13.9 12.5 11.0 9.411.3 13.4 15.4 17.3 19.1 20.4 21.2 21.8 22.1 22.1 21.8 21.2 20.4 19.1 17.6 15.7 13.6 11.413.8 16.8 19.6 22.1 24.0 25.5 27.0 27.8 28.0 28.0 27.8 27.0 26.1 24.4 22.4 19.8 16.9 13.916.5 20.7 24.9 28.3 30.8 32.6 33.6 35.0 35.3 35.3 35.0 34.2 33.1 31.1 28.6 25.1 21.1 16.819.6 25.4 30.7 35.1 38.4 40.7 41.6 42.3 43.4 43.4 43.1 42.2 41.1 38.7 35.7 31.1 25.8 19.921.9 29.5 36.2 41.6 44.6 47.5 48.4 49.0 50.0 50.0 49.8 48.9 47.8 45.4 42.1 36.6 29.8 22.121.2 29.8 37.1 43.1 45.9 47.9 49.1 49.8 49.7 50.5 50.3 49.5 48.7 46.4 43.5 37.8 30.3 21.616.1 23.7 29.7 33.9 36.2 37.7 38.4 39.0 38.9 39.4 39.3 38.6 38.2 36.6 34.5 30.1 24.0 16.47.4 11.0 13.9 15.8 16.9 17.5 17.6 18.1 18.0 18.3 18.2 17.9 17.717.0 16.1 14.1 11.2 7.5Mounted 1.5ft Away.5ft Above Art5.5 6.1 6.8 7.4 7.9 8.4 8.7 8.9 9.0 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.4 7.9 7.4 6.8 6.15.56.5 7.4 8.2 9.0 9.7 10.3 10.7 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.0 10.7 10.3 9.7 9.0 8.2 7.4 6.57.8 8.9 10.1 11.1 12.0 12.8 13.3 13.7 13.9 13.9 13.7 13.3 12.8 12.0 11.1 10.1 8.9 7.89.3 10.8 12.3 13.9 15.1 16.1 16.8 17.3 17.5 17.5 17.3 16.8 16.115.1 13.9 12.5 11.0 9.411.3 13.4 15.4 17.3 19.1 20.4 21.2 21.8 22.1 22.1 21.8 21.2 20.4 19.1 17.6 15.7 13.6 11.413.8 16.8 19.6 22.1 24.0 25.5 27.0 27.8 28.0 28.0 27.8 27.0 26.1 24.4 22.4 19.8 16.9 13.916.5 20.7 24.9 28.3 30.8 32.6 33.6 35.0 35.3 35.3 35.0 34.2 33.1 31.1 28.6 25.1 21.1 16.819.6 25.4 30.7 35.1 38.4 40.7 41.6 42.3 43.4 43.4 43.1 42.2 41.1 38.7 35.7 31.1 25.8 19.921.9 29.5 36.2 41.6 44.6 47.5 48.4 49.0 50.0 50.0 49.8 48.9 47.8 45.4 42.1 36.6 29.8 22.121.2 29.8 37.1 43.1 45.9 47.9 49.1 49.8 49.7 50.5 50.3 49.5 48.7 46.4 43.5 37.8 30.3 21.616.1 23.7 29.7 33.9 36.2 37.7 38.4 39.0 38.9 39.4 39.3 38.6 38.2 36.6 34.5 30.1 24.0 16.47.4 11.0 13.9 15.8 16.9 17.5 17.6 18.1 18.0 18.3 18.2 17.9 17.717.0 16.1 14.1 11.2 7.5Page 148 of 249 Community Development Department Planning & Zoning 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423. | PHONE: 612.861.9764 WWW.RICHFIELDMN.GOV | AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MAYOR MARY SUPPLE CITY COUNCIL WALTER BURK SHARON CHRISTENSEN RORI A. COLEMAN- WOODS SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY CITY MANAGER KATIE RODRIGUEZ August 10, 2026 Greta Norris Pope Design Group 767 N Eustis Ave, Suite 190 St. Paul, MN 55114 Via email: gnorris@popedesign.com SUBJECT: Legion/Lupe CUP – 6501 Portland Ave S – ARC REPORT CASE NO: Z25-000010 Below are the comments from the Administrative Review Committee (ARC) regarding the above-noted request. The following items need not be addressed at this time, but will be included as conditions of approval, to be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. Engineering, Public Works, Utilities Joe Powers, Civil Engineer, Ph. 612-861-9789 Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer, Ph. 612-861-9792 Stormwater: Mattias Oddsson, Water Resources Engineer, Ph. 612-861-9797 a. The site area values on the cover page do not match the tabulations in the civil plan. 92,750 SF = 4.42 AC, vs 4.22 AC on C600. 111,306 SF = 2.55 AC, vs 3.63 AC on C600. Please ensure consistency throughout plans. b. Regarding note #2 of the General Notes on Sheet C100, please note that approval of a permit from Hennepin County will also be required. c. Please provide ped ramps where sidewalks cross drive aisles. d. Regarding the Construction Staging Plan, please note that extended closure of the sidewalk will be subject to a sidewalk closure permit for time that is not required for construction of the sidewalk (currently $30/day). e. The erosion control details are out of date and in the process of being deprecated. If desired, use MnDOT standard details for erosion control BMPs. f. Sheet C600, an as built survey of all the stormwater BMPs … shall be submitted to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City of Richfield prior to project closeout. g. The second Sheet C600: o Appears to be mislabeled as existing instead of proposed. o Proposed impervious was 3.63 acres in last submittal - is this change due to the green roof being counted as pervious? o Drainage area 5 is not included in total area. Proposed total area should be 4.22. Page 149 of 249 Legion CUP ARC Report 8-10-26 Page 2 h. The right-of-way easement should be one easement dedicated from the edge of the existing 33-foot easement to the back of the proposed sidewalk. As previously discussed, the alignment of the utility easement will be updated once the city determines the final sanitary design. i. The northern lot shall be signed for overflow parking per the traffic study analysis recommendation. j. See additional comments on Sheet C300, attached. Sustainability Rachel Lindholm, Sustainability Coordinator, Ph. 612-861-9188 Please, no Maples. An acceptable overstory substitute for the Maples along the south property line would be Linden or Honeylocust. Economic Development Jan Youngquist, Economic Development Manager, Ph. 612- 861-9771 The Bird Collision Reduction Plan (Plan) indicates that it focuses on best practices adopted in the B3 Guidelines, S.5 Animal Habitat Support and that those best practices include "....monitoring for collisions and if needed, managing glass threat factor." However, for new construction, in addition to monitoring the building for one year after construction, the B3 Guidelines also require managing the glass threat factor. The applicable requirements include: o No more than 15% of the area of a "High Risk Surface" shall have a threat factor greater than or equal to 75. The Bird Safe Calculator Spreadsheet (Spreadsheet) that was submitted indicates that the windows are a High Risk Surface, with a threat factor of 100. The threat factor for the windows can be reduced by measures such as adding films or patterns to the glass. The Spreadsheet includes a worksheet (App S-9a TF Table) that provides the threat factors for various types of materials that can reduce the threat factor of the windows. o The Whole Building Threat Factor (WBTF) shall be less than or equal to WBTF 45. The Spreadsheet that was submitted indicates that the WBTF is 54.2. Reducing the threat factor for the windows will also result in a reduction of the WBTF. The Spreadsheet indicates that the total vertical surface area for both buildings combined is 110,159 square feet and the windows are 36,391 square feet. However, according to the Elevations Sheets, the total vertical surface for Building 1 is 78,412 sf and Building 2 is 135,360 sf. Additionally, the Elevations Sheets indicate that the window surface for Building 1 is 25,354 sf and Building 2 is 45,935 sf. It appears that there may be an error in the surface area calculations on the both the Spreadsheet and the Elevations Sheets. These calculations should be corrected so the Spreadsheet accurately assesses the WBTF and the High Risk Surface Threat Factor. Both the WBTF and the High Risk Surface Threat Factor should meet the requirements set by the B3 Guidelines, S.5 Animal Habitat Support. Page 150 of 249 Legion CUP ARC Report 8-10-26 Page 3 Planning/Zoning Sam Crosby, City Planner, Ph. 612-861-9776 Parking: a. Placement of bike racks shall not be so close to other site improvements that it hinders ability to lock the frame to the rack. (Phase one exterior racks.) Include the manufacturer’s spacing and placement requirements in the plan details. b. Bike parking count inside the west/senior building – totals are unclear (plan note says 42, table data says 48, I counted 46); final count to comply with code, including not more than 75% lift spaces. c. EV chargers and readiness to comply with code. d. The south side parking lot to comply with the 5 foot setback requirement from the rear property line on the north side. Circulation: e. In lieu of sidewalk easements, staff recommends a condition of approval that all perimeter sidewalks remain permanently open and accessible to the public. f. Currently, city staff envisions that a future connection would be a one-way south-bound private drive, however, the future needs are uncertain. Staff recommends the following condition of approval regarding the possibility of a future connection to 66th Street: The owner agrees to cooperate with the creation of a potential future private access connection to 66th Street. If such a connection is deemed necessary by the City, the owner will be responsible for construction of the portion that is located within the boundary line of the subject site. The City must review and approve the design plans for the connection. The owner agrees to construct the improvement within the same construction season as the adjacent property to the south unless alternative timing is approved in writing by the City. (No plan change needed, this comment is just for informational purposes.) g. Emergency vehicle access to be removeable steel bollards spaced not more than three feet apart (no chain), with surmountable curb on either side of the asphalt. Final design subject to staff review and approval. h. Please provide crosswalks at all locations where they cross a drive aisle, particularly across the middle of the south side parking lot. Screening: i. As depicted on both the landscape plan and the renderings, the ground equipment shall be screened by vegetation, however, the vegetation must be designed to obstruct ground level views from any point on the property or adjacent property (ie: be taller), changes subject to staff review and approval. j. Details for mechanical and rooftop screening to be provided, subject to staff approval. Building Elevations: k. Revise plans to meet the ground floor window requirements on the south side of the east building. Page 151 of 249 Legion CUP ARC Report 8-10-26 Page 4 Landscaping: l. The Grading Plan does not comply with the Tree Preservation Plan, and therefore the mature evergreens along the north property line are not considered preserved according to code. The grading plan must be revised to not impact the dripline of the trees and the Tree Preservation plan must be revised to otherwise meet the requirements of the Section 544.03, Subd.4.i. (depth of mulch, etc.) If any of the mature evergreens to be preserved are lost within the first five years post construction, they are to be replaced with like species at a 14 foot height. m. Landscaping around the perimeter of the lot may not be counted towards internal parking lot island calculations, because it counts towards perimeter planting requirements. Parking stalls may not be counted towards landscaping. In order to count, the island must be completely landscaped (not hardscaped) and meet the minimum size requirement. Revise Sheet A-008 accordingly, subject to staff review and approval. n. Mulch alone is not allowed. To comply with 544.03, Subd.4.f. the areas around the perimeter of the courtyards must include plantings. Please revise accordingly. o. Not more than 25% of the required trees shall be composed of one species (Fat Albert Spruce). Also, evergreens are not recommended along the south property line due to due to shading of the parking lot in the winter. Changing these 8 evergreens to a deciduous overstory will solve both of these issues. (Maybe more Honeylocust? Just a suggestion). p. The landscape plan is 11 trees short of code. Either revise the plan to provide the required number of overstory trees on site, or plant an equivalent amount of boulevard trees along Portland (with County permission), or pay into the public tree planting fund at the equivalent amount per Appendix D (the Fee Schedule), or some combination thereof. q. Any off site trees that are removed must be replaced – tree type and size to be approved by city staff. Other: r. The signage as proposed does not appear to meet size requirements. The signs may not exceed a total of 36 square feet (both together) and must be setback at least 3 feet from the sidewalk. Separate sign permit required for any sign over six square feet in size. Fire Department Rodger Coppa, Interim Fire Chief, Ph. 612-861-0661 I would like to discuss and provide recommendations for the planned location of any electric vehicle charging stations in the parking garages prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, please provide the planned location of the FDC for review and approval to ensure the utility plan accommodates hydrant placement in close proximity to the planned FDC locations of each building. Page 152 of 249 Legion CUP ARC Report 8-10-26 Page 5 Environmental Health Department Dan Devers, Inspector, Ph. 952-563-8975 If the complex will include any food sales or service (coffee shop, micromarket, etc.) that portion of the project will require plan review by either Bloomington Environmental Health or Minnesota Dept. of Agriculture. No other comments were received. If you have further questions on a particular item, please contact the staff person(s) indicated. If you have any other questions regarding the process in general, please call or email me any time. I can be reached at either scrosby@richfieldmn.gov or (612) 861-9776. Sincerely, Sam Crosby City Planner Attachments: TC2 Peer Review of Traffic and Parking Study Engineering mark-up of Sheet C300 Page 153 of 249 | www.transportationcollaborative.com | To: Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer City of Richfield From: Matt Pacyna, PE, Principal Transportation Collaborative & Consultants, LLC Date: August 7, 2026 Subject: 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study – Peer Review INTRODUCTION TC2 conducted a peer review of the 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study, dated May 15, 2026 completed for redevelopment of the former American Legion into a 290-unit multifamily residential complex. The purpose of this review is to confirm the reasonableness of the assumptions, methods, and findings, as well as identify any potential modifications or improvements for additional consideration. Note that the overall study approach, methods, and findings are reasonable. However, the following considerations and / or clarifications are offered for further discussion. 1) Access – Although two access points to Portland Avenue is consistent with the current site, the existing access locations are technically one-way driveways (i.e., the north access is entrance only and the south access is exit only); this represents an increase in access and potential conflicts along Portland Avenue. However, since the proposed north access is anticipated to serve a small proportion of the overall development, no significant issues are expected with the proposed configuration. 2) Crash Analysis – The crash analysis does not indicate if there is a history of any crashes at the existing American Legion access locations along Portland Avenue, nor is there any discussion on pedestrian / bicycle crashes or overall crash severity relative to locations with similar characteristics. This information may help clarify any concerns with the proposed two access configurations. 3) Trip Generation and Distribution – The trip generation, directional distribution, and assignment assumptions are reasonable. 4) Traffic Operations Analysis – The methods, analysis, and findings are reasonable; note that minimal traffic was assumed to utilize the north access and therefore in a single access scenario, the south access would likely operate similar under a one (1) access scenario to what is shown in the report. 5) Parking Demand Review – The parking demand analysis focuses on the average parking demand and does not mention the 85% percentile parking demand, which may provide another level of information / comfort regarding the parking requirements / needs for the site. A cursory review of ITE data indicates the 85% demand for the proposed land uses in a “dense urban environment” range from a total of 295 to 317 spaces. 6) Wayfinding / Overflow Parking – The proposed parking supply appears adequate for typical operating conditions; however, consideration should be given to wayfinding and parking signage throughout the site. In particular, the north parking lot should be signed as overflow parking to help direct visitors during peak demand periods and support efficient circulation within the development. Page 154 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study – Peer Review August 7, 2026 Page 2 7) Future Connectivity Considerations – The proposed access and circulation plan functions adequately under current development conditions. However, Section 541.25, Subd. 5.b(7) of the VPA Overlay District requires sites north of 66th Street to plan internal traffic circulation that accommodates the potential for a future north-south roadway connection (approximately aligned with Oakland Avenue) extending to 66th Street. The 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study does not specifically support preserving or removing this connection. Therefore, the development should accommodate the potential for a future north-south connection consistent with current code requirements. The means of preserving this future connection should be documented and incorporated into the final development approvals. 8) Requested Revisions - In Table 11 (Section 7.2), the label "City Code" appears in two separate rows. The second reference should be revised to "Requested Reductions" to clearly distinguish the applicant's requested parking reductions from the minimum parking requirements established by City Code. Page 155 of 249 CCCCCCCEXISTINGBUILDINGTERMINUSUNKNOWNRE=846.24IE 12" CONC=841.24RE=848.68IE N/S 8"CONC=835.88RE=827.24IE N/NW 12" CONC=823.04IE SW 15" CONC=823.64IE SE 18" CONC=822.94RE=829.24IE SW 4" METAL=827.04(FULL OF DEBRIS)TERMINUSUNKNOWNRE=846.62IE 15" CONC=840.8924-INCH PCCP 8-INCH CIP 24-INCH PCCPDATEPROJECT #PROJECT STATUSDRAWN BYCHECKED BYI hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the state of Minnesota.DateLic. No.NOT FORCONSTRUCTION26176.50CITY REVIEW12345Licensee07/24/2026WHKAMxxxx26176.5© 2026 BKBM EngineersBakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.All rights reserved. This document is an instrumentof service and is the property of BKBM Engineersand may not be used or copied without prior writtenconsent.BKBM Project No.6120 Earle Brown DriveSuite 700 Minneapolis,MN 55430 Phone:763.843.0420bkbm.comDESIGNGROUPAutodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. LegionRichfield_R25.rvtRICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062UTILITY PLANC300Page 156 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Richfield, MN May 15, 2026 Prepared For: MSP-Lupe Richfield LLC Prepared By: SSTS, LLC I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota: Katie A Schmidt, P.E. Date: Lic. No.: 05/15/2026 47147 Page 157 of 249 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Proposed Land Uses ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Proposed Access ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Study Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Study Area ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Intersection Geometry and Control ............................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Multimodal Facilities ...................................................................................................................................... 3 2.5 Crash History .................................................................................................................................................. 3 3 No-Build Traffic Conditions....................................................................................................................... 4 4 Build Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 5 4.1 Site-Generated Traffic .................................................................................................................................... 5 4.2 Access Driveway Geometrics .......................................................................................................................... 5 4.3 Trip Distribution and Assignment ................................................................................................................... 5 4.4 Build Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................................................... 6 5 Traffic Operational Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 6 5.1 Operational Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................................ 6 5.2 Operational Analysis Results .......................................................................................................................... 6 6 Access Safety Review ............................................................................................................................... 8 7 Parking Demand Review .......................................................................................................................... 9 7.1 Parking Demand Calculations ......................................................................................................................... 9 7.2 Parking Demand Summary ........................................................................................................................... 11 8 Summary & Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 11 List of Tables Table 1. Intersection Crash Data ................................................................................................................................4 Table 2. Segment Crash Data .....................................................................................................................................4 Table 3. Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................................5 Table 4. Level of Service Grading Criteria ...................................................................................................................6 Table 5. Traffic Operational Results - AM Peak Hour .................................................................................................7 Table 6. Traffic Operational Results - PM Peak Hour .................................................................................................7 Table 7. Parking Demand - Richfield City Code ..........................................................................................................9 Table 8. PGM Demand for Dense Urban Setting ..................................................................................................... 10 Table 9. PGM Demand for Suburban Setting .......................................................................................................... 10 Table 10. Similar Developments Parking Rates ....................................................................................................... 10 Table 11. Parking Demand Summary ...................................................................................................................... 11 List of Figures Figure 1. Site Location and Layout .............................................................................................................................1 Figure 2. Study Area ...................................................................................................................................................2 Figure 3. Transit Routes and Stops .............................................................................................................................3 Figure A - 1. Existing Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................................... A2 Figure A - 2. 2028 No-Build Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................... A3 Figure A - 3. Trip Distribution and Assignment ....................................................................................................... A4 Figure A - 4. 2028 Build Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................. A5 Page 158 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page 1 of 12 May 15, 2026 1 INTRODUCTION The former American Legion site at 6501 Portland Ave S is proposed for redevelopment into an affordable housing with 290 apartment units divided between two buildings and 321 on-site parking stalls. The eastern building, containing 130 apartment units, is intended for families, while the western building has 160 apartment units designated for seniors. The redevelopment, referred to as the Proposed Project in this study, is located east of Portland Ave S (CSAH 35), south of Veterans Park, north of Richfield Municipal Pool and Morris Nilsen Funeral Home, and west of Richfield Ice Arena. Figure 1 shows the location and layout. 1.1 Proposed Land Uses Below is a summary of the apartment building and parking allocation. • 130 family apartment units in the east building o 110 underground parking stalls o 55 surface parking stalls o 165 total stalls for the family apartments • 160 senior apartment units in the west building o 101 underground parking stalls o 55 surface parking stalls o 156 total stalls for the senior apartments Rent prices for all apartments will be based on the City’s Annual Median Income (AMI). 80% of the overall unit count will be rented at 60% AMI or lower and 20% will be rented at 80% AMI or market rate. 1.2 Proposed Access Two full movement access driveways are proposed on Portland Ave S. The southerly driveway provides access to surface parking and the underground parking garages for both buildings (303 stalls total). The northerly driveway provides access to senior and guest surface parking with a total of 18 parking stalls. Emergency vehicle access is provided on the east side of the site with a gated connection to the ice arena road. The site layout allows for future access from the southern parking lot to a potential north-south road connecting to 66th St E. The City is not currently planning a north-south connecting road, but it could become an option in the future if adjacent properties redevelop. 1.3 Study Purpose The purpose of this study is to evaluate traffic impacts and parking demand for the Proposed Project. The traffic study considers the effects of traffic from the Proposed Project on nearby roads and access points, including how it influences both traffic operations and safety for all users. The traffic study reviews existing conditions and year 2028 conditions without (termed No-Build conditions) and with the Proposed Project (termed Build conditions). The parking demand of the Proposed Project is evaluated by using multiple sources to verify adequate on-site parking is provided. Figure 1. Site Location and Layout Page 159 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page 2 of 12 May 15, 2026 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Study Area Input from the City of Richfield and Hennepin County helped define the following existing study area intersections. 1. Portland Ave S & 66th St E, Roundabout 2. Portland Ave S & 64th St S, Traffic Signal 3. Portland Ave S & Highway 62 South Ramps, Traffic Signal 4. Portland Ave S & Highway 62 North Ramps, Traffic Signal Figure 2 shows the study area and traffic characteristics are noted below. Portland Ave S (CSAH 35) Functional Class: A Minor Reliever Typical Section: 3-lane with center left turn lane Parking: No parking Speed: 35 MPH ADT: 15,072 vehicles/day (Year 2024) Bike: On-street and off-street shared path Pedestrian: Sidewalk/shared path both sides Transit: D-Line BRT with stops at 66th St E 66th St E (CSAH 53) Functional Class: A Minor Reliever Typical Section: 3-lane with center left turn lane Parking: No parking Speed: 35 MPH ADT: 13,751 vehicles/day (Year 2025) Bike: Cycle track both sides Pedestrian: Sidewalk both sides Transit: Route 515 with stops at Portland Ave 64th St E Functional Class: Minor Collector Typical Section: 2-lane undivided Parking: No parking Speed: 30 MPH ADT: 2,454 vehicles/day (Year 2025) Bike: On-street bike lanes Pedestrian: No sidewalks Transit: None Figure 2. Study Area Page 160 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page 3 of 12 May 15, 2026 2.2 Traffic Volumes AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at the Portland Ave S & 66th St E Roundabout and the Portland Ave S & 64th St E traffic signal on Tuesday, March 24th, 2026. Count data is available in the Appendix. Turning movement counts from July 2024 for the Portland Ave S & Highway 62 signalized ramp intersections, available through Hennepin County’s Multimodal Counts Map, were used. Figure A - 1 in Appendix A illustrates the existing peak hour traffic volumes at study area intersections. It is noted that the Portland Ave S & Highway 62 ramps volumes from July 2024 were approximately 100 vehicles higher during the AM peak hour in the northbound direction compared to the collected March 2026 counts. Investigation of Year 2022 Portland Ave S & Highway 62 ramps counts show lower northbound volumes. The higher volumes were used for the analysis. 2.3 Intersection Geometry and Control Existing intersection geometry and control were documented during a field visit. MnDOT supplied the current signal timing parameters for the Portland Ave S & Highway 62 ramps, including coordinated peak hour timing plans. Hennepin County provided the signal timing data for the Portland Ave S & 64th St E intersection, which operates in "free" mode, functioning independently according to demand without coordination with adjacent signals. 2.4 Multimodal Facilities The Proposed Project is ideally situated for multimodal travel (pedestrian, bicycle and transit). On-site paths will have pedestrian level lighting with connections to Veterans Park and existing sidewalks and secure on-site bicycle storage will be provided. Portland Ave S has on-street bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides, 66th St E has a cycle track and sidewalks on both sides, and 64th St E has on-street bike lanes. These facilities provide connections to other local and regional paths. Metro Transit D Line, a bus rapid transit route with frequent all day service, runs on Portland Ave S with stops at 66th St E. Metro Transit Local Route 515 runs on 66th St E with stops at Portland Ave S. These bus stops are easily accessible from the Proposed Project through sidewalk connections to the site and existing pedestrian crossing facilities (RRFBs) at the roundabout. Figure 3 shows the transit routes and stop locations. 2.5 Crash History A review of intersection and segment crash records was conducted to evaluate the safety of the study area and to determine if the addition of future traffic growth could exacerbate existing safety issues. Historical crash data for the study area from the most recent 4 years of data (2022 to 2025) was obtained from MnDOT’s Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT2). Four years of data was considered due to the 4-lane to 3-lane conversion of Portland Ave S in 2021. The following two factors were considered in the crash analysis: • Crash Rate - Crashes are a function of exposure. Roadways with higher traffic volumes experience more crashes than similar roadways with lower volumes and a crash rate is considered to normalize the locations Figure 3. Transit Routes and Stops Page 161 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page 4 of 12 May 15, 2026 and accurately assess the safety. Intersection crash rates are defined by the number of crashes occurring per million entering vehicles (MEV). • Critical Crash Rate - Critical crash rate comparison identifies locations that have a crash rate higher than similar facilities by a statistically significant amount. The critical crash rate is calculated by adjusting the system-wide average crash rate based on the amount of exposure and a statistical constant indicating the level of confidence (95th % confidence interval). At locations where the actual crash rate exceeds the critical crash rate (critical index >1.0), it is likely that the crashes are a result of deficiencies in the intersection design or other existing factors and further study is recommended. Table 1 summarizes the crash data for the study area intersections and provides a comparison of crash rates to critical crash rates. All study area intersections have a crash rate under the critical crash rate (critical index <1.0), indicating existing conditions are not currently contributing to an overall safety problem. Table 1. Intersection Crash Data * Fatal and “A” type serious injury crashes. ** System-wide average crash rates were found in MnDOT’s Intersection Green Sheets Table 2 summarizes the Portland Ave S segment crash rate from 66th St E to Highway 62. The segment has a crash rate under the critical crash rate (critical index <1.0), indicating existing conditions are not currently contributing to an overall safety problem. Table 2. Segment Crash Data * Fatal and “A” type serious injury crashes. ** System-wide average crash rate was found in MnDOT’s 3 lane data 3 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC CONDITIONS To evaluate the Proposed Project’s impact on nearby roads, traffic projections for completion without the Proposed Project (No-Build scenario) are used as a baseline to compare with scenarios including the project (Build scenario). A review of historical AADT data along the Portland Ave S corridor shows minor traffic volume fluctuation over time with a flat growth trendline, which is common for developed urban areas. To be conservative in the traffic analysis a 0.36% annual growth rate (exponential growth rate from 2016 to 2024 AADT data) was assumed and applied to existing traffic volumes to grow them to 2028 conditions. No other development projects or roadway construction are planned in the area that would impact year 2028 traffic. Figure A - 2 shows the 2028 No-Build traffic volumes. Total F&A*CR MnDOT Ave. CR** Critical CR Critical Index Portland Ave (CSAH 35) & 66th St E (CSAH 53) RAB 4 46 0 26,550 1.19 0.986 1.41 0.84 Portland Ave (CSAH 35) & 64th St S Signal 4 4 0 15,900 0.17 0.499 0.90 0.19 Portland Ave (CSAH 35) & Hwy 62 EB Ramps Signal 4 13 2 18,475 0.48 0.499 0.87 0.56 Portland Ave (CSAH 35) & Hwy 62 WB Ramps Signal 4 9 1 14,200 0.43 0.499 0.92 0.47 Intersection Crash Rates (CR)Years of Data Intersection Entering ADT Crash Details Control Total F&A*CR MnDOT Ave. CR** Critical CR Critical Index Portland Ave (CSAH 35) - 66th St E to Hwy 62 0.434 4 16 3 14,949 1.69 2.00 3.24 0.52 Segment Crash Rates (CR) Intersection Length (miles) Years of Data Crash Details Entering ADT Page 162 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page 5 of 12 May 15, 2026 4 BUILD TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 4.1 Site-Generated Traffic The Proposed Project includes 130 family apartments and 160 senior apartments. 80% of these units will be affordable and rented at 60% AMI. The other 20% will be at 80% AMI or market rate. The volume of vehicle site generated trips has been estimated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours and on a daily basis using the data and methodology described in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (TGM) 1. The TGM has traffic data for affordable housing land uses with subcategories for income limits and senior in a dense multi-use urban setting. ITE describes the dense multi-use urban setting as a high-density, pedestrian- friendly area served by transit, which is applicable to the site. Table 3 summarizes the trip generation estimate. 80% of units were assumed to be affordable housing, with the remaining 20% as market-rate units. The Proposed Project is estimated to generate 84 trips (25 entering and 59 exiting) during the morning traffic peak hour, 76 trips (46 entering and 30 exiting) during the evening traffic peak hour and 853 daily trips. Table 3. Trip Generation * Senior Adult Housing data is only available for the General Urban/Suburban Setting 4.2 Access Driveway Geometrics Both north and south access driveways on Portland Ave S are proposed to be full movement side-street stop- controlled with single entry and exit lanes. Westbound exit lanes are a single shared right and left turn lane to limit pedestrian and bicycle crossing distance and exposure. Southbound left turns entering the site from Portland Ave S will use the center left turn lane. The southern access driveway provides access to the underground parking garages for both buildings and the majority of site traffic will use this driveway. The north access driveway serves surface parking for seniors and guests. 4.3 Trip Distribution and Assignment Site-generated traffic was distributed to the study area network according to current volume patterns, expected residential commuting, and planned access points. Of this traffic, 70% is estimated to/from the north on Portland Ave S with the majority using Highway 62 and 30% is estimated to/from the south on Portland Ave S. Most of the site generated traffic will use the southern driveway on Portland Ave S during the weekday peak hours as the parking garages are accessed from this driveway. Figure A - 3 illustrates how site-generated traffic flows in and out of the study area network and access intersections. 1 Trip Generation Manual (TGM), Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 12th Edition Trips Generated: Enter Exit Enter Exit Affordable Housing - Income Limits - Dense Multi-Use Urban Setting 223 104 units 15 37 23 15 398 Affordable Housing - Senior - Dense Multi-Use Urban Setting 223 128 units 6 11 12 9 244 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) - Dense Multi-Use Urban Setting 221 26 units 1 6 5 2 76 Senior Adult Housing - Single-Family - General Urban/Suburban Setting 251 32 units 3 5 6 4 133 25 59 46 30 20% of Units at 80% AMI or Market Rate 84 PM Peak Weekday ADT 76 853 Land Use ITE Land Use Size AM Peak Totals 80% of Units at 60% AMI Page 163 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page 6 of 12 May 15, 2026 4.4 Build Traffic Volumes When combined, the site-generated traffic volumes and No-Build scenario traffic volumes result in the Build scenario traffic volumes shown on Figure A - 4 for year 2028. 5 TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS 5.1 Operational Analysis Methodology Intersection performance is measured by driver delay and vehicle queues, which depend on capacity relative to traffic volume. Industry standards for evaluating capacity and resulting driver delay are in the Highway Capacity Manual 2. Driver delay is represented as a Level of Service (LOS) grade with "A" as the best conditions and "F" as the worst. Table 4 summarizes the LOS and delay criteria for unsignalized/roundabout and signalized intersections. Typically, LOS “D” represents the threshold for acceptable overall intersection operations, and LOS “E” represents the acceptable individual movement threshold operating during a peak hour. For side-street stop- controlled movements on high volume mainline roads, side-streets often operate at LOS “D” or “E”. Table 4. Level of Service Grading Criteria The operational analyses also considers vehicle queuing. An intersection can operate with acceptable LOS, but if queues extend back to block entrances to turn lanes or access driveways, unsafe operating conditions could result. Average and 95th % queue lengths are considered in this study. The 95th % queue length refers to the length of vehicle queue that has a five-percent probability of occurring during an analysis hour. The Synchro/SimTraffic software package (12th Edition) was used to evaluate stop-controlled and signalized intersections. Operations are from an average of 10 SimTraffic simulations. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, the worst opposing left or side-street movement delay is reported rather than the overall intersection delay. Overall intersection delay for side-street stop-controlled intersections can misrepresent operations, since most mainline free-flowing vehicles experience no delay. Rodel software was used to evaluate roundabout-controlled intersections. 5.2 Operational Analysis Results The results of the operational analysis for Existing, 2028 No-Build and 2028 Build conditions are summarized for the AM and PM peak hour. Table 5 summarizes the AM peak hour and Table 6 summarized the PM peak hour. The access driveway intersections are shaded light blue. Detailed operational analysis tables are included in Appendix B. 2 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board, 7th Edition LOS A B C D E F Unsignalized/Roundabout Intersection Delay 0-10 seconds >10-15 seconds >15-25 seconds >25-35 seconds >35-50 seconds >50 seconds Signalized Intersection Delay 0-10 seconds >10-20 seconds >20-35 seconds >35-55 seconds >50-80 seconds >80 seconds Description Free-flow operation Unimpeded operation Stable operation Less stable & more delay Unstable & high delay Congested & back- ups Page 164 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page 7 of 12 May 15, 2026 Table 5. Traffic Operational Results - AM Peak Hour 1 Roundabout analyzed with Rodel Software. 2 Side-street stop delay is based on movement rather than lane group. 95th % queue is reported for the the stopped approach lane. Table 6. Traffic Operational Results - PM Peak Hour 1 Roundabout analyzed with Rodel Software. 2 Side-street stop delay is based on movement rather than lane group. 95th % queue is reported for the the stopped approach lane. 5.2.1 Existing Conditions Overview All intersections operate acceptably for Existing Conditions. Overall intersection LOS is C or better and no individual lane group operates below LOS D. Queuing is acceptable and accommodated by existing geometry for all intersections except the Portland Ave S/Highway 62 South Ramps signalized intersection during the PM peak hour. Queuing occurs on the eastbound ramp approach, but it does not back up onto Highway 62 and SimTraffic simulations show the queue clears quickly. There are no recommendations to improve Existing Conditions. 5.2.2 2028 No-Build Conditions Overview All intersections operate acceptably for 2028 No-Build Conditions. Overall intersection LOS is C or better and no individual lane group operates below LOS D. Queuing is acceptable and accommodated by existing geometry for all intersections except the Portland Ave S/Highway 62 South Ramps signalized intersection during the PM peak hour. Minor queuing occurs on the eastbound ramp approach, but it is considered acceptable as it clears quickly and does not impact Highway 62. There are no recommendations to improve 2028 No-Build Conditions. Intersection Control MOE Existing 2028 No-Build 2028 Build Overall LOS B-10.7 B-10.8 B-11.0 Worst LOS C-18.0 (WBLT)C-18.3 (WBLT)C-18.5 (WBLT) Queuing Issues None None None Overall LOS A-5.6 A-5.7 A-5.6 Worst LOS B-11.9 (EBLTR)B-12.4 (EBLTR)B-11.5 (EBLTR) Queuing Issues None None None Overall LOS B-11.1 B-11.3 B-11.6 Worst LOS D-35.2 (EBLT)D-35.9 (EBLT)C-34 (EBLT) Queuing Issues None None None Overall LOS A-8.8 A-9.0 A-9.0 Worst LOS D-42.0 (WBLT)D-42.0 (WBLT)D-40.9 (WBLT) Queuing Issues None None None Worst LOS B-13.7 (WBL) Queuing Issues 56' WBLR (95th %) Worst LOS B-10.2 (WBL) Queuing Issues 10' WBLR (95th %) NA NA NA NA Portland Ave & 66th St E 1 Portland Ave & North Driveway 2 Portland Ave & South Driveway 2 Portland Ave & Hwy 62 North Ramps Portland Ave & Hwy 62 South Ramps Portland Ave & 64th St E Side-Street Stop Side-Street Stop Signal Signal Signal Roundabout Intersection Control MOE Existing 2028 No-Build 2028 Build Overall LOS C-15.3 C-15.6 C-16.0 Worst LOS C-23.3 (EBLT)C-23.9 (EBLT)C-24.6 (EBLT) Queuing Issues None None None Overall LOS A-9.8 B-10.3 B-12.7 Worst LOS C-27.9 (WBLT)C-30 (WBLT)C-29.2 (EBLTR) Queuing Issues None None None Overall LOS C-27.0 C-27.9 C-30.5 Worst LOS D-39.5 (EBLT)D-42.3 (EBLT)D-47.4 (SBL) Queuing Issues Minor EB Queues Minor EB Queues Minor EB Queues Overall LOS B-10.6 B-10.7 B-12.2 Worst LOS D-41.6 (WBLT)D-41.6 (WBLT)D-42.6 (WBLT) Queuing Issues None None None Worst LOS D-27.5 (WBL) Queuing Issues 46' WBLR (95th %) Worst LOS D-29.6 (WBL) Queuing Issues 10' WBLR (95th %) Portland Ave & 66th St E 1 Roundabout Portland Ave & 64th St E Signal Portland Ave & Hwy 62 South Ramps Signal Portland Ave & North Driveway 2 Side-Street Stop NA NA Portland Ave & Hwy 62 North Ramps Signal Portland Ave & South Driveway 2 Side-Street Stop NA NA Page 165 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page 8 of 12 May 15, 2026 5.2.3 2028 Build Conditions Overview All intersections operate acceptably for 2028 Build Conditions. Overall intersection LOS is C or better and no individual lane group or movement operates below LOS D. Queuing is acceptable and accommodated by existing geometry for all intersections except the Portland Ave S/Highway 62 South Ramps signalized intersection during the PM peak hour. Minor queuing occurs on the eastbound ramp approach, but it is considered acceptable as it clears quickly and does not impact Highway 62. This queuing also occurs for Existing and No-Build conditions and is not a result of site-generated traffic. The proposed Portland Ave S/North Driveway and Portland Ave S/South Driveway access intersections operate acceptably with critical movements operating at LOS D or better. It is very common for side-street stop movements on busy roads to operate at LOS D or E. The southbound left turn lane queuing on Portland Ave S is minimal and the westbound left/right turn lane queues are short and do not create on-site safety concerns. There are no recommended development related mitigation measures to improve 2028 Build Conditions. 6 ACCESS SAFETY REVIEW The access safety review compares two proposed access points versus one access point and considers all modes of transportation. It is noted the majority of site traffic is expected to use the southern driveway since this provides access to the parking garages and surface parking (303 stalls total). The northern driveway provides access to 18 surface parking stalls. Review considerations are outlined below. Vehicle Traffic Operations 2 Access Points: The preceding operational analysis shows acceptable LOS and queuing for 2 access points. Most of the traffic is anticipated to use the southern access driveway. 1 Access Point: Delay and queuing increase with one access point but not to unacceptable levels. Access Spacing 2 Access Points: Accesses are spaced 280 feet apart, the maximum feasible separation. This is less than the County’s recommended 330 foot spacing between driveways. 330 foot spacing is not possible due to the site’s western property line. 1 Access Point: Spacing conforms to County guidelines. Conflict Points 2 Access Points: There are 18 vehicle to vehicle conflict points (9 per access) and 8 vehicle to pedestrian/bike (4 per access). 1 Access Point: There are 9 vehicle to vehicle conflict points and 4 vehicle to pedestrian/bike conflict points. Estimated Crashes 2 Access Points: The average crash rate for a three-legged intersection per MnDOT data is 0.113 crashes per MEV. Using this rate 1.28 crashes are estimated in year 2028 with two access points. 1 Access Point: 0.65 crashes are estimated in year 2028 with one access point. Site Design 2 Access Points: Two access points allow for more green space and pedestrian amenities on-site as internal parking lot connections are not needed and allows for the senior building’s main entry to be separated from the lobby of the family building. 1 Access Point: An on-site roadway would need to be constructed to connect surface parking locations. This decreases green space and pedestrian amenities. It also decreased surface parking stalls and adds more vehicle conflict points. Page 166 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page 9 of 12 May 15, 2026 The proposed two access driveways provide improved traffic operations and more green space on-site when compared to one access. Conflict points and crash potential increase with two access points, but very low traffic volume is expected to use the northern driveway. Based on operational performance, safety metrics, and site functionality, the two‑access configuration is the preferred and recommended alternative. 7 PARKING DEMAND REVIEW A total of 321 on-site parking spaces are proposed. 165 stalls are allocated to family housing and 156 stalls are for senior housing. Underground parking stalls are assigned for an additional monthly fee, with garage access provided by key fob. Surface parking is unassigned and requires resident vehicles to be registered with management and to hang a mirror tag. Surface parking registration will be provided at no cost. To enroll, residents must provide proof of vehicle registration and insurance. Management will permit parking overlap between buildings and will apply common on-site parking enforcement. 7.1 Parking Demand Calculations This parking review considers three sources for calculating parking demand: Richfield Zoning Code, ITE’s Parking Demand Manual and Developer provided parking rates for similar developments. 7.1.1 City Code The proposed site is in the MR-3 High Density Multi-Family zoning district and the minimum off-street parking requirement is 1.25 stalls per dwelling unit per Richfield Zoning Code3. A 10% transit reduction can be applied to the demand as the site is well served by transit. The net city code demand is 327 stalls with the transit reduction as noted in Table 7. It is requested the City consider a further 5% reduction, as residents are expected to have below‑average vehicle ownership. The zoning code notes “Council may further reduce the parking requirement for senior housing complexes or other similarly low-driving populations, including but not limited to households earning below 60% AMI, people who are neuro-diverse, and/or people with disabilities”. Table 7 shows the requested reduction applied to all of the senior housing and applied to 104 family units (amount at 60% AMI). With the requested reduction, the net parking demand is 312 stalls, which is below the proposed 321 stalls. Table 7. Parking Demand - Richfield City Code 1 5% reduction applied to all senior units and to 104 family units at 60% AMI. 7.1.2 ITE’s Parking Generation Manual Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Parking Generation Manual (PGM)4 is the industry standard source to estimate parking demand based on national surveys of land uses in different urban and transit settings. The PGM data is more detailed than typical city codes and includes standard and affordable housing land uses with subcategories for income limits and seniors in urban and suburban settings. The PGM also provides parking rates based on number of dwelling units and number of bedrooms. Parking demand was assessed based on four factors: whether the location was suburban or dense urban, and whether the calculation used dwelling units or bedrooms. Table 8 indicates that demand in a dense urban setting varies from 162 to 205 stalls, while Table 9 3 Richfield MN Zoning Code, Section 527-High-Density Residential District (MR-3) - link 4 Parking Generation Manual (PGM), Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 6th Edition Rate Gross Demand 10% Transit Reduction Net Demand 5% for Senior & 60% AMI 1 Net Demand Family Housing 130 1.25/unit 163 -16 147 -5 142 Senior Housing 160 1.25/unit 200 -20 180 -10 170 Totals 290 363 327 -15 312 Requested Reductions Land Use Dwelling Units City Code Parking Page 167 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page 10 of 12 May 15, 2026 reveals that suburban settings require between 213 and 263 stalls based on units versus bedroom calculations. Both dense urban and suburban ranges are well below the proposed 321 stalls. Table 8. PGM Demand for Dense Urban Setting *Senior Adult Housing is only available for suburban settings. ** Bedroom rates are not available. Demand from unit rate assumed. Table 9. PGM Demand for Suburban Setting ** Bedroom rates are not available. Demand from unit rate assumed. 7.1.3 Developer Provided Data The Developer provided existing parking data for similar affordable housing developments to the Proposed Project shown on Table 10. The Eastside 1256 development is comparable to the proposed family housing as it is located in a residential area of St. Paul near transit routes with minimal on-street parking available. The 4040 Flats development is comparable to the proposed senior housing as it is located in a residential area of Edina near transit routes with no on-street parking available. On-site parking at these locations require vehicle registration with management and the field parking ratio is number of registered cars per unit. Table 10. Similar Developments Parking Rates 1 Number of cars registered with management to park on-site. 2 Field parking ratio = Registered cars/unit. Using the field ratio of 0.75 stalls per unit from Eastside 1256, the proposed family housing demand is 98 stalls. Using the field ratio of 0.58 stalls per unit from 4040 Flats, the proposed senior housing demand is 93 units for a site total demand of 191 stalls. Units Bedrooms Affordable Housing - Income Limits Dense Urban 104 221 0.65 /unit 0.37 /room 68 82 Affordable Housing - Senior Dense Urban 128 156 0.38 /unit 0.49 room 49 77 Multifamily Housing -Mid-Rise Dense Urban 26 55 0.93 /unit 0.46 /room 25 26 Senior Adult Housing Suburban*32 39 0.61 /unit NA**20 NA (20)** Totals 290 162 205 80% of Units at 60% AMI 20% of Units at 80% AMI or Market Rate Land Use Setting Dwelling Units Bed- rooms Rates Demand Units Bedrooms Units Bedrooms Affordable Housing - Income Limits Suburban 104 221 1.00 /unit 0.55 /room 104 122 Affordable Housing - Senior Suburban 128 156 0.44 /unit 0.49 /room 57 77 Multifamily Housing -Mid-Rise Suburban 26 55 1.23 /unit 0.78 /room 32 44 Senior Adult Housing Suburban 32 39 0.61 /unit NA**20 NA (20)** Totals 290 213 263 20% of Units at 80% AMI or Market Rate 80% of Units at 60% AMI Land Use Setting Dwelling Units Bed- rooms Rates Demand Units Bedrooms Property Name Type Units On-Site Stalls Cars Parked 1 Field Ratio 2 Setting Notes Eastside 1256 1256 Wilson Avenue St. Paul, MN Income Limits Family Housing 114 141 85 0.75 • Residential urban area • Near BRT and local transit stops • Limited on-street parking available Theodore 2800 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN Income Limits Senior Housing 100 59 38 0.38 • Residential urban area • Near local transit stops • No on-street parking available within 500' 4040 Flats 4040 W. 70th Street Edina, MN Income Limits Senior Housing 118 101 68 0.58 • Residential urban area • Near local transit stops • No on-street parking available Page 168 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page 11 of 12 May 15, 2026 7.2 Parking Demand Summary Table 11 summarizes parking demand using the three sources reviewed. Under City code, demand is 327 stalls after the transit reduction, which is 6 more than the 321 stalls proposed. With both the transit reduction and the requested 5% low-driving-population reduction, City code demand drops to 312 stalls, below the proposed supply. The PGM and developer-provided data also indicate demand below 321 stalls and support applying the requested 5% reduction. Based on these findings, the proposed 321 on-site parking stalls are sufficient. Table 11. Parking Demand Summary 1 The highest demand in the range is reported. 8 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS The preceding analysis evaluated traffic impacts and parking demand for the 6501 Portland Ave S project, which consists of 130 affordable family apartment units, 160 affordable senior apartment units and 321 on-site parking stalls. The traffic and safety analysis notes: The project is estimated to generate 84 trips (25 entering and 59 exiting) during the morning traffic peak hour, 76 trips (46 entering and 30 exiting) during the evening traffic peak hour and 853 daily trips. Two full movement access driveways are proposed on Portland Ave S. The southerly driveway provides access to surface parking and the underground parking garages for both buildings (303 stalls total). The northerly driveway provides access to senior and guest surface parking with a total of 18 parking stalls. Emergency vehicle access is provided on the east side of the site with a gated connection to the ice arena road. The site layout allows for future access from the southern parking lot to a potential north-south road connecting to 66th St E. The City is not currently planning a north-south connecting road, but it could become an option in the future if adjacent properties redevelop. Connection of a future road could result in a loss of four parking stalls and increase traffic and conflict points through the parking lot. The City should carefully evaluate pedestrian and tenant safety if the road connection moves forward. Operations for Existing, 2028 No-Build and Build conditions are acceptable and there are no improvement recommendations. The proposed Portland Ave S/North Driveway and Portland Ave S/South Driveway access intersections operate acceptably with critical movements operating at LOS D or better with no queueing concerns. The access safety review notes two access driveways provide improved traffic operations and more green space on-site when compared to one access. Conflict points and crash potential increase with two access points, but very low traffic volume is expected to use the northern driveway. It is recommended the access driveways have single entry and exit lanes to limit pedestrian and bicycle crossing width. The parking demand review notes: Source Family Senior Total City Code (10% Transit Reduction)147 180 327 City Code (10% Transit + 5% Low Driving Reduction)142 170 312 PGM 1 166 97 263 Developer Data 98 93 191 Page 169 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page 12 of 12 May 15, 2026 A total of 321 on-site parking spaces are being proposed. 165 stalls are allocated to family housing and 156 stalls are for senior housing. Management will permit parking overlap between buildings and will apply common on-site parking enforcement. Site parking demand was calculated using three sources: Richfield Zoning Code, ITE’s Parking Demand Manual and Developer provided parking rates for similar developments. ITE’s Parking Demand Manual and Developer provided data indicate demand below 321 stalls. With both the transit reduction and the requested 5% low-driving population reduction, City code demand is 312 stalls and below the proposed 321 stalls. The proposed 321 on-site parking stalls provide adequate capacity when compared to the reviewed sources. Off-site parking is not anticipated to occur. Page 170 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page A1 of A5 Appendix A – Traffic Volume Figures Appendix A - Traffic Volume Figures Page 171 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page A2 of A5 Appendix A – Traffic Volume Figures Figure A - 1. Existing Traffic Volumes Page 172 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page A3 of A5 Appendix A – Traffic Volume Figures Figure A - 2. 2028 No-Build Traffic Volumes Page 173 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page A4 of A5 Appendix A – Traffic Volume Figures Figure A - 3. Trip Distribution and Assignment Page 174 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page A5 of A5 Appendix A – Traffic Volume Figures Figure A - 4. 2028 Build Traffic Volumes Page 175 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page B1 of B2 Appendix B – Traffic Operational Results Appendix B - Traffic Operational Results Table B 1. Traffic Operational Results - AM Peak Hour Avg.95th %Avg.95th %Avg.95th % NBLT B 11.7 -64 B 11.8 -65 B 12.0 -67 NBR 250'A 4.6 -3 A 4.6 -3 A 4.6 -3 WBLT C 18.0 -139 C 18.3 -143 C 18.5 -145 WBR 250'A 7.9 -19 A 8.0 -19 A 8.1 -20 SBLTTR A 9.5 -61 A 9.6 -62 A 9.8 -66 EBLT A 7.7 -22 A 7.7 -23 A 7.8 -23 EBR 180'A 4.6 -3 A 4.6 -3 A 4.6 -3 B 10.7 B 10.8 B 11.0 NBL 100'A 6.4 10 34 A 6.5 10 34 A 6.6 8 30 NBTR A 4.5 77 162 A 4.6 75 153 A 4.5 76 157 WBLT B 10.9 3 16 B 11.1 3 18 B 11.2 2 15 WBR 60'A 4.4 1 10 A 8.1 1 11 A 8.2 1 11 SBL 100'A 7.0 2 13 A 7.3 2 13 A 6.5 3 31 SBTR A 6.0 72 145 A 6 71 143 A 6 71 152 EBLTR B 11.9 38 73 B 12.4 37 70 B 11.5 35 70 A 5.6 A 5.7 A 5.6 NBT 345'A 7 73 151 A 7.2 75 161 A 8.1 86 179 NBTR A 9.1 56 128 A 9.1 56 127 A 10 65 144 SBL 230'B 10.9 39 80 B 12 41 85 B 11.7 43 82 SBT A 3.6 23 70 A 3.6 23 71 A 3.9 26 74 EBLT D 35.2 123 199 D 35.9 124 198 C 34 124 199 EBR A 9.3 89 144 A 9.5 92 151 A 9.4 92 160 B 11.1 B 11.3 B 11.6 NBL 230'A 8.5 105 190 A 8.7 108 195 A 9.1 112 205 NBT A 2.8 25 71 A 2.8 27 76 A 2.9 26 70 SBT 110'A 6.2 15 50 A 6.8 16 52 A 5.9 14 46 SBTR A 7.7 38 100 A 8.2 39 99 A 8.4 40 103 WBLT D 42 59 116 D 42 58 109 D 40.9 57 105 WBR 200'A 5.3 26 51 A 5.5 26 52 A 5.3 27 50 A 8.8 A 9.0 A 9 SBL 100'A 4.1 7 28 WBL B 13.7 WBR A 6.5 B 13.7 SBL 100'A 3.3 1 7 WBL B 10.2 WBR A 5.8 B 10.2 PHF:0.94, Trucks:2% PHF:0.93, Trucks:2.1% PHF:0.84, Trucks:2.7%, CL: 90s PHF:0.84, Trucks:2.7%, CL: 90s PHF:0.95, Trucks:1.4%, CL: 100s PHF:0.94, Trucks:2% PHF:0.92, Trucks:2% PHF:0.94, Trucks:3.2%, CL:Free Intersection Lane Group Bay Existing 2028 Build2028 No-Build LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue Portland Ave & 66th St E (Roundabout) Overall Notes Portland Ave & 64th St E (Signal) Overall Notes 29 56 1 10 Portland Ave & Hwy 62 South Ramps (Signal) Overall Notes Portland Ave & South Driveway (Side-Street Stop)Worst Mvmnt. Notes Portland Ave & Hwy 62 North Ramps (Signal) Overall Notes Portland Ave & North Driveway (Side-Street Stop)Worst Mvmnt. Notes Page 176 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page B2 of B2 Appendix B – Traffic Operational Results Table B 2. Traffic Operational Results - PM Peak Hour Avg.95th %Avg.95th %Avg.95th % NBLT C 20.7 -121 C 21.3 -126 C 22.0 -133 NBR 250'A 7.5 -7 A 7.5 -8 A 7.6 -8 WBLT B 13.3 -73 B 13.4 -74 B 13.6 -75 WBR 250'A 8.1 -20 A 8.1 -21 A 8.3 -21 SBLTTR B 14.5 -154 B 14.7 -158 B 14.9 -162 EBLT C 23.3 -193 C 23.9 -202 C 24.6 -210 EBR 180'A 5.7 -5 A 5.7 -5 A 5.8 -5 C 15.3 C 15.6 C 16.0 NBL 100'B 15.1 16 48 B 16.8 18 48 C 20.2 20 48 NBTR A 4.6 79 158 A 4.2 75 150 A 5.4 103 180 WBLT C 27.9 7 28 C 30 13 39 C 25 10 37 WBR 60'A 5.4 6 25 A 7.4 8 31 A 7.2 9 31 SBL 100'A 8.3 5 29 B 10.3 5 35 A 7.8 6 25 SBTR B 11.6 150 317 B 12.3 160 337 B 15.7 210 391 EBLTR C 26.5 48 90 C 26.3 47 89 C 29.2 47 86 A 9.8 B 10.3 B 12.7 NBT 345'C 27.7 117 227 C 29 121 226 C 30 121 246 NBTR C 31.3 196 324 C 31.9 205 335 D 38.2 236 407 SBL 230'D 38.3 120 198 D 42.3 123 216 D 47.4 135 240 SBT B 13.3 142 236 B 14.3 152 254 B 13 153 247 EBLT D 39.5 363 572 D 40.5 366 599 D 42.2 398 566 EBR B 15 200 391 B 15.2 199 394 C 20.3 264 471 C 27.0 C 27.9 C 30.5 NBL 230'B 13.4 96 176 B 13 88 164 B 14.3 102 173 NBT A 3.4 39 90 A 3.4 37 85 A 3.5 42 104 SBT 110'A 9.4 44 124 B 10.5 39 103 B 14.1 55 141 SBTR B 12.2 93 209 B 11.7 94 215 B 15 121 243 WBLT D 41.6 62 116 D 44.5 65 118 D 42.6 66 120 WBR 200'A 9.8 52 95 A 9.9 52 92 B 11.2 53 93 B 10.6 B 10.7 B 12.2 SBL 100'A 4.8 12 36 WBL D 27.5 WBR A 7.3 D 27.5 SBL 100'A 1.4 1 10 WBL D 29.6 WBR A 2.3 D 29.6 PHF:0.93, Trucks:2% Portland Ave & South Driveway (Side-Street Stop)Worst Mvmnt. Notes PHF:0.93, Trucks:2% Portland Ave & North Driveway (Side-Street Stop)Worst Mvmnt. Notes 19 46 1 10 Portland Ave & Hwy 62 North Ramps (Signal) Overall Notes PHF:0.95, Trucks:1.4%, CL: 100s Portland Ave & Hwy 62 South Ramps (Signal) Overall Notes PHF:0.95, Trucks:1.4%, CL: 100s Portland Ave & 64th St E (Signal) Overall Notes PHF:0.95, Trucks:1.5% PHF:0.93, Trucks:1.8%, CL: Free Portland Ave & 66th St E (Roundabout) Overall Notes Intersection Lane Group Bay Existing PM Peak Hour 2028 No-Build PM Peak Hour Delay Queue 2028 Build PM Peak Hour LOS Delay Queue LOS LOS Delay Queue Page 177 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study Page C1 of C1 Appendix C – Turning Movement Counts Appendix C – Turning Movement Counts Page 178 of 249 Intersection:Site CodeDate:Ref Pt:Duration:Start TimeU-TurnLeft Thru RightApp. TotalPeds/BikesU-TurnLeft Thru RightApp. TotalPeds/BikesU-TurnLeft Thru RightApp. TotalPeds/BikesU-TurnLeft Thru RightApp. TotalPeds/Bikes7:30--337139143----10106521684--2510010135--216371166151257:45--318035146111115647215----306731002122411377--53838:00--2957451311--1715757231--1259611133----10561076157128:15--336730130----109545150--2298615132--314541485--497--Hour Total -- 126 275 1495502 1 48 514 2017644 3 109 349 395002 6 62 188 483042 2118 10% of App.0.0% 22.9% 50.0% 27.1% 0.1% 6.3% 67.3% 26.3% 0.6% 21.8% 69.8%7.8% 2.0% 20.4% 61.8% 15.8%% of Total0.0% 5.9% 13.0% 7.0% 26.0% 20.0% 0.0% 2.3% 24.3% 9.5% 36.1% 40.0% 0.1% 5.1% 16.5% 1.8% 23.6% 20.0% 0.3% 2.9% 8.9% 2.3% 14.4%20.0%Cars Total--12226614753521485082007574310833639486266218147296120749Cars % of Movement0.0% 96.8% 96.7% 98.7% 97.3% 22.2% 100% 100% 98.8% 99.5% 99.1% 44.4% 100% 99.1% 96.3% 100% 97.2% 22.2% 100% 100% 96.3% 97.9% 97.4% 11.1% 97.9%Trucks Total--49215------617----113--14------7181441Trucks % of Movement0.0% 3.2% 3.3% 1.3% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.5% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 3.7% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 2.1% 2.6% ##### 2.1%6Peak Hour Begins At:7:30Total Vehicles: 2118Truck %:2.1%PHF:0.932126LeftThruRight149 275AM Peak Hour Data68Peds/Bikes42Peds/BikesLeft Thru49 514All Vehicles (Cars & Trucks) PrintedSSTS, LLCwww.S2Traffic.com Roundabout5Page No: 1 of 26:00-9:00Portland Ave (CSAH 35) & 66th St E (CSAH 53)Tuesday, March 24, 2026Int. Ped/Bike TotalSouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastboundPortland Ave (CSAH 35) 66th St E (CSAH 53) Portland Ave (CSAH 35) 66th St E (CSAH 53)Int. Veh. TotalPeds/Bikes2201RightPeds/BikesThru Right112 349Left39LeftThruRight48 188Page 179 of 249 Intersection:Site CodeDate:Ref Pt:Duration:Start TimeU-TurnLeft Thru RightApp. TotalPeds/BikesU-TurnLeft Thru RightApp. TotalPeds/BikesU-TurnLeft Thru RightApp. TotalPeds/BikesU-TurnLeft Thru RightApp. TotalPeds/Bikes16:1528610334225111089431431--267318117----1913218169--654216:30178118402371--1310470187----238218123----3012618174--721116:45--7111241224----1712257196----328017129----2014217179--728--17:00168118362232--169651163----208620126----181271616116733Hour Total 4 303 451 1519094 1 56 411 2216891 -- 101 321 73495-- -- 87 527 696831 2776 6% of App.0.4% 33.3% 49.6% 16.6% 0.1% 8.1% 59.7% 32.1% 0.0% 20.4% 64.8%14.7% 0.0% 12.7% 77.2% 10.1%% of Total0.1% 10.9% 16.2% 5.4% 32.7% 66.7% 0.0% 2.0% 14.8% 8.0% 24.8% 16.7% 0.0% 3.6% 11.6% 2.6% 17.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 19.0% 2.5% 24.6% 16.7%Cars Total429943714888841564032216811--10031672488----8652269677--27345Cars % of Movement100% 98.7% 96.9% 98.0% 97.7% 80.0% 100% 100% 98.1% 100% 98.8%20.0% 0.0% 99.0% 98.4% 98.6% 98.6% 0.0% 0.0% 98.9% 99.1% 100%99.1% 0.0% 98.5%Trucks Total--414321------8--8----1517----15--61421Trucks % of Movement0.0% 1.3% 3.1% 2.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.6% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% ##### 1.5%Peak Hour Begins At:16:15Total Vehicles: 2776Truck %:1.5%PHF:0.95All Vehicles (Cars & Trucks) PrintedSSTS, LLCwww.S2Traffic.com Roundabout5Page No: 2 of 215:00-18:00Portland Ave (CSAH 35) & 66th St E (CSAH 53)Tuesday, March 24, 202666th St E (CSAH 53)Int. Veh. TotalInt. Ped/Bike TotalSouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound151 451 307Portland Ave (CSAH 35) 66th St E (CSAH 53) Portland Ave (CSAH 35)Peds/Bikes4Right Thru Left221RightPeds/Bikes1PM Peak Hour Data411ThruLeft8757LeftThru527Peds/Bikes1Right69101 321 73Left Thru RightPeds/Bikes0Page 180 of 249 Intersection:Site CodeDate:Ref Pt:Duration:Start TimeU-TurnLeft Thru RightApp. TotalPeds/BikesU-TurnLeft Thru RightApp. TotalPeds/BikesU-TurnLeft Thru RightApp. TotalPeds/BikesU-TurnLeft Thru RightApp. TotalPeds/Bikes7:30--11397147----11--2----2157--159----13--518--326--7:45----14811159------1--1----4152--156----171321--337--8:00--212612140------1--1----6149--155----11--314131018:15--112712140--------11----31371141----10--414--296--Hour Total -- 4 540 42586-- -- 1 3 15-- -- 15 595 1611-- -- 51 1 15671 1269 1% of App.0.0% 0.7% 92.2% 7.2% 0.0% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 0.0% 2.5% 97.4% 0.2% 0.0% 76.1% 1.5% 22.4%% of Total0.0% 0.3% 42.6% 3.3% 46.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 46.9% 0.1% 48.1% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.1% 1.2% 5.3% #####Cars Total--252640568----1----1----155811597----50--1363--1229--Cars % of Movement0.0% 50.0% 97.4% 95.2% 96.9% -- 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% -- 0.0% 100% 97.6% 100% 97.7% -- 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 86.7% 94.0% -- 96.8%Trucks Total--214218------314------14--14----11241401Trucks % of Movement0.0% 50.0% 2.6% 4.8% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 100% 80.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 100% 13.3% 6.0% ##### 3.2%6Peak Hour Begins At:7:30Total Vehicles: 1269Truck %:3.2%PHF:0.94Peds/Bikes01RightPeds/BikesThru Right15 595Left1LeftThruRight15 1Int. Ped/Bike TotalSouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastboundPortland Ave (CSAH 35) 64th St E Portland Ave (CSAH 35) 64th St EInt. Veh. TotalAll Vehicles (Cars & Trucks) PrintedSSTS, LLCwww.S2Traffic.com Signal10Page No: 1 of 26:00-9:00Portland Ave (CSAH 35) & 64th St ETuesday, March 24, 202651Peds/Bikes00Peds/BikesLeft Thru1 314LeftThruRight42 540AM Peak Hour DataPage 181 of 249 Intersection:Site CodeDate:Ref Pt:Duration:Start TimeU-TurnLeft Thru RightApp. TotalPeds/BikesU-TurnLeft Thru RightApp. TotalPeds/BikesU-TurnLeft Thru RightApp. TotalPeds/BikesU-TurnLeft Thru RightApp. TotalPeds/Bikes16:15--220618226----12251--714311511--16--8241406316:30--123816255----1--12----71671175----171119--451--16:45--221015227----11--2----514831565--19--625--410517:00--423613253----4--592--313621413--111416--4195Hour Total -- 9 890 62961-- -- 7 3 8183 -- 22 594 76239 -- 63 2 19841 1686 13% of App.0.0% 0.9% 92.6% 6.5% 0.0% 38.9% 16.7% 44.4% 0.0% 3.5% 95.3% 1.1% 0.0% 75.0% 2.4% 22.6%% of Total0.0% 0.5% 52.8% 3.7% 57.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.5% 1.1% 23.1%0.0% 1.3% 35.2% 0.4% 37.0% 69.2% 0.0% 3.7% 0.1% 1.1% 5.0% 7.7%Cars Total--986962940----73818----2258676158--6321883116569Cars % of Movement0.0% 100% 97.6% 100% 97.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 98.7% 100% 98.7% 88.9% 0.0% 100% 100% 94.7% 98.8% 11.1% 98.2%Trucks Total----21--21----------03----8--81------11--304Trucks % of Movement0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 1.2% 0.0% 1.8%Peak Hour Begins At:16:15Total Vehicles: 1686Truck %:1.8%PHF:0.93Left Thru RightPeds/Bikes9Peds/Bikes3Right1922 594 7Left637LeftThru28RightPeds/Bikes1PM Peak Hour Data3Thru62 890 9Portland Ave (CSAH 35) 64th St E Portland Ave (CSAH 35)Peds/Bikes0Right Thru Left64th St EInt. Veh. TotalInt. Ped/Bike TotalSouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastboundAll Vehicles (Cars & Trucks) PrintedSSTS, LLCwww.S2Traffic.com Signal10Page No: 2 of 215:00-18:00Portland Ave (CSAH 35) & 64th St ETuesday, March 24, 2026Page 182 of 249 6501 Portland Avenue Location and Zoning Map en i-----+--------1w � :::c l-----+--------1 I-� <----�-� 64TH STE en w >------+------1 � l----+-------1 z f----t-------l l-o:: 01-----,>------y-' D. i--------1 w f----l-----1� -----1 :::c f----'r-------1 I()>----, 66TH ST E 66TH ST E en 1------1 1-------1 w � f------1 1-------1 :::c f------1 1-------1 � f------1 1-------1 _,, -� •• Legion Site -Lupe Housing 67TH STE Legend 0 150 300 ft 600 -:' I .-1'1 111111 �.:J.\y1 la D R Low Density -MR-3 High-Density � ■ • Veteran's Park Area � I 11 I I II II I - n.l. I I 1-.� Ill�TIIII Ill 11 • 1 I rJ ffi ) I I I I 1"""": � : : : , :;;■:ft+t-t+-H+tt++++t-t+t-H++++ I I ' ,J. 'JJ LI I LI J I � Residential Multi-Family •••Overlay D R-1 Single Family -C-2 General -Parks Residential Commercial Lakes D MR-2 Multi-Family � MU-N Mixed Use-=:: City Limit Neighborhood l:\GIS\Departments\Community Development\Case Maps\2026\Lupe-Legion, 6501 Portland, Case Map.aprx Page 183 of 249 Page 184 of 249 1 Samantha Crosby From:Paige @ REC <paige@therecollab.com> Sent:Friday, August 21, 2026 11:36 AM To:Samantha Crosby Subject:I support the 300 NEW Homes slated for development in Richfield Hello, I am writing to ask you to support the proposed American Legion Development Site in Richfield and the creation of 300 new homes. Richfield (and the TC Region!!) needs more housing, and this proposal is an important opportunity to add much- needed homes while creating a thoughtful development that connects residents to the community. The project would provide: • 130 family apartments, with mostly 2 and 3 bedroom homes • 160 senior apartments, with mostly 1 and 2 bedroom homes • New pedestrian and trail connections to Veteran’s Memorial Park, the Richfield Ice Arena, and City Pool • Underground and surface parking, including one bike parking space per home • Thoughtful building design with stepped massing, courtyards, trees, plazas, and connections to the surrounding neighborhood I believe Richfield can and should welcome new housing that gives families, seniors, and other community members more opportunities to find a home here. This proposal is about more than adding 300 apartments. It is an opportunity to create housing alongside connections to parks, trails, recreation, and the surrounding neighborhood. Please support the American Legion Development Site and say YES to 300 new homes in Richfield. Thank you for considering my support and for your work on behalf of the Richfield community. Sincerely, Paige Kahle Paige Kahle @ REC The Real Estate Collaborative theRECollab.com paige@theRECollab.com 651-308-2754 Page 185 of 249 1 Samantha Crosby From:Meghan Howard <meghan@therecollab.com> Sent:Monday, August 24, 2026 11:28 AM To:Samantha Crosby Subject:A positive Vote for tonight Hello Sam, Thank you so much for taking the time to read my email. I am writing to ask you to support the proposed American Legion Development Site in Richfield and the creation of 300 new homes. I have toured the development in Edina that is similar to the one that has been recommended for Richfield and: WOW! What gorgeous housing! It was so fun to hear from the residents who live there as well. They were kind, quiet, and so grateful for the homes they had there. My kids even said, "Can we live here?"!" :) What an impressive housing development! It would be so wonderful to see this built in Richfield. Especially when MN so desperately needs more homes for our neighbors. In conclusion - I am writing to say: Please support the American Legion Development Site and say YES to 300 new homes in Richfield. Thank you for considering my support and for your work on behalf of the Richfield community. Sincerely, Meghan Howard Meghan Howard @ REC The Real Estate Collaborative theRECollab.com Meghan@theRECollab.com 612-803-2213 Page 186 of 249 August 18, 2026 Richfield Planning Commission Attn: Sam Crosby 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Via U.S. Mail and Email scrosby@richfieldmn.gov Re: 6501 Portland Avenue South (CASE NO. Z25-000010) – ARC Report Response and Supplemental Information Dear Sam: We represent MSP-LUPE Richfield, LLC (“Applicant”) regarding the proposed development of 6501 Portland Avenue South (“Property”) in the City of Richfield (“City”). The Property is zoned MR-3 and subject to the Veterans Park Area (VPA) Overlay District. On July 27, 2026, the Applicant submitted the application for a two-phase project (“Project”) consisting of a 130-unit multifamily apartment building to the east of the Property (“Phase 1”) and a 160-unit senior housing development (“Phase 2”) on the western portion of the Property. On August 10, 2026, the City provided the Applicant with the Administrative Review Committee (ARC) Report with comments from various City departments on the Project. This letter and the enclosed comments respond to the ARC Report which we were advised today in a teleconference by Ms. Crosby will form the primary basis for the staff report and recommendations. We object to certain proposed conditions of approval as proposed by staff in the ARC report and reserve the right to present either alternate findings or removal of certain conditions articulated in the ARC report. Please accept this letter as supplemental information for the Application and part of the formal record for the City’s land use file. The Project team’s responses to the ARC Report comments are addressed in Exhibit A. We have also provided additional information regarding six specific conditions of approval: 1. Economic Development: Bird Collision Reduction Plan. The ARC Report includes a comment under the Economic Development Heading that states “Both the [Whole Building Threat Factor] and the High-Risk Surface Threat Factor should meet the requirements set by the B3 Guidelines, S.5 Animal Habitat Support.” This statement is inconsistent with the state law and the City’s Code of Ordinances and is not a condition of approval we will consent to. The VPA Overlay includes the following language: Properties directly adjacent to or across the street from Veterans Park: New projects or projects involving the addition of more than 50 percent of the existing square footage of a building shall submit a Bird Collision Reduction Plan Page 187 of 249 Richfield Planning Commission August 18, 2026 Page 2 addressing the impacts of the building's glass, lighting, and site design on birds as part of their development application. City Code Sec. 541.25, subd. 5)(b) (emphasis added). This language explicitly requires a Bird Collision Reduction Plan only, not that the building be constructed to B3 Standards, which are only applicable when project funding is provided by the State of Minnesota. There is no reference in the City Code to requiring the building be constructed to B3 Standards; moreover, requiring building materials that exceed the Minnesota Building Code is explicitly prohibited by law. The B3 analysis was provided by the Applicant solely as a reference point because it is a commonly accepted metric for discussing bird-collision reduction strategies. It was not submitted because the B3 Guidelines apply to this Project, and nothing in the City Code requires compliance with B3 Standards. The VPA Overlay requires submission of a Bird Collision Reduction Plan; it does not incorporate B3, require satisfaction of B3 threat-factor thresholds, or authorize the City to impose B3-based building-material standards. The City therefore cannot convert the Applicant’s voluntary reference to B3 into a mandatory condition of approval. Requiring specific glazing treatments, films, patterns, glass specifications, or other exterior materials would regulate building components and systems. Those requirements are governed by the Minnesota State Building Code, and municipalities may not impose building-code provisions that are different from, additional to, or complementary to the State Building Code. Minn. Stat. § 326B.121, subd. 2(c); City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc., 749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2008). The Applicant will only comply with the City Code requirement to submit a Bird Collision Reduction Plan. The City cannot require compliance with B3 or require building materials that exceed state code, and we request this condition be removed from the conditions of approval. 2. Planning/Zoning: EV Charging Comment (c.) under Planning/Zoning—EV Chargers per City Code dictate that ten percent (10%) of all parking be provided with “Level 2” EV chargers, twenty percent (20%) have the conduit capacity to be installed at a future date at “Level 2” charging, and thirty percent (30%) have the conduit capacity to be installed at a future date at “Level 1” charging. Pursuant to conversations with the Acting Fire Chief, a request was made to locate these charging facilities as close as possible to the garage access point, to facilitate emergency responders dragging out potential car fire hazard from the building during a fire event, which the Applicant will attempt to accommodate. In 2023, the Minnesota Legislature adopted Minnesota Statutes Section 326B.106, subdivision 16, which requires the Department of Labor and Industry to adopt State Building Code provisions establishing minimum EV-ready spaces, EV-capable spaces, and EV-charging stations within or adjacent to multifamily structures. The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry is promulgating Rulemaking on EV Charging requirements for multi-family housing to be adopted to the Commercial Energy Code, chapter 1323. The proposed code change has three levels of chargers: Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) Installed Space, which has an electric vehicle charger installed; Electric Vehicle Ready Space, which is ready for a charger to be plugged in at the parking space; and Electric Vehicle Page 188 of 249 Richfield Planning Commission August 18, 2026 Page 3 Capable Space, which has a conduit or raceway but still requires additional work to be classified as EVSE of EV-ready. The proposal includes a table that establishes the number of spaces required for each classification. EV requirements will be specific to new construction and existing buildings being renovated under an occupancy classification change. The changes will be included in the next commercial energy code review, will go into effect once that code is adopted in 2026, and will only be required in buildings subject to the commercial energy code. Once those standards are adopted, municipal requirements regulating EV-charging infrastructure, electrical capacity, conduit, or related building systems that are different from, additional to, or complementary to the State Building Code will be superseded under Minnesota Statutes Section 326B.121, subdivision 2(c). The Applicant’s position is that affordable family and senior housing will generate less demand for electrical vehicle charging based on cost of such vehicles and the traditionally smaller vehicular ownership pattern of these rental profiles, making the City requirement potentially excessive and unnecessary. Notwithstanding the Applicant’s posture, the adopted state Commercial energy Code, Section 1323 – when adopted - should control the requirements for EV parking at this development, and we request the condition be amended to reflect the future state building code requirements. 3. Planning/Zoning: Circulation Comment (e.) under Planning/Zoning—Circulation recommends a condition of approval regarding a potential future connection to 66th Street, which would impose the obligation on the Applicant to fund and construct the portion of a future roadway connection “if such a connection is deemed necessary by the City.” This proposed condition would constitute an unlawful exaction under Minnesota Statutes and exceeds the City’s authority. It is not a condition of approval we will consent to. The proposed condition arises from language within the VPA Overlay, which states: “Sites north of 66th Street shall plan internal traffic circulation to accommodate the potential for a north-south road (an approximate extension of Oakland Avenue) that would connect the sites to 66th Street.” This language supports, at most, preserving the ability to make a future connection; it does not authorize the City to require the Applicant or a future owner to construct, fund, dedicate, or cost- share a public roadway improvement as a condition of approval. Any such requirement would exceed the plain language of the VPA Overlay and constitute an unlawful exaction under state and federal law unless the City makes an individualized determination that the condition has an essential nexus to impacts caused by this development and is roughly proportional to those impacts. No such determination has been made here. Under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, a municipality may not condition land use approval on the surrender of property or payment for public improvements unless the condition has an “essential nexus” to a legitimate governmental interest and is “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the proposed development. Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994); Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595 (2013). That framework applies to dedications of property, monetary exactions, and public improvement obligations imposed as conditions of approval. Koontz, 570 U.S. 595; Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267 (2024). Minnesota law codifies the same standard. Under Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 2c(a), there must be an essential nexus between the dedication or fee imposed and the municipal purpose sought Page 189 of 249 Richfield Planning Commission August 18, 2026 Page 4 to be achieved, and the dedication or fee must bear a rough proportionality to the need created by the proposed subdivision or development. The Minnesota Supreme Court has confirmed that these terms carry the same meaning as under Nollan, Dolan, and Koontz. Puce v. City of Burnsville, 997 N.W.2d 49 (Minn. 2023). Here, the proposed development does not create or trigger the need for a new north-south public road connection to 66th Street. The City’s stated interest appears to be preservation of a potential future connection for broader planning purposes. While that may support requiring the site to avoid precluding a future connection, consistent with the VPA Overlay. It does not support requiring the Applicant or a future owner to construct, fund, or dedicate roadway improvements unrelated to impacts caused by this development. We request this condition be removed from the conditions of approval. 4. Planning/Zoning: Building Elevations: Comment (K.) under Planning/Zoning—Building Elevations calls out: “Revise plans to meet the ground floor window requirements on the south side of the east building.” Per zoning code 544.07 Subd 10; Blank Walls, we are providing an art installation in lieu of architectural elements on the East Building. If this is not acceptable, then the Applicant will substitute art installation with glass block window openings to meet our safety concerns for vulnerable populations. If Staff intended the west building to have enhanced fenestration, we again offer the alternative of art installation to break up the rhythm of projection of a blank wall, or in the alternate, glass block windows meeting the intent of zoning code 544.07 Subd 10. Applicant is willing to provide glass block in lieu of interactive art, but not both. As either complies with the intent of the ordinance, we request a modification of this condition of approval to reflect an either or at the option of the Applicant in the final drawings. 5. Planning/Zoning: Landscaping: Comment (L.) under Planning/Zoning—Landscaping calls out: “The Grading Plan does not comply with the Tree Preservation Plan, and therefore the mature evergreens along the north property line are not considered preserved according to code. The grading plan must be revised to not impact the dripline of the trees, and the Tree Preservation plan must be revised to otherwise meet the requirements of Section 544.03, Subd.4. i. (depth of mulch, etc.) If any of the mature evergreens to be preserved are lost within the first five years post construction, they are to be replaced with like species at a 14-foot height…” The Applicant cannot preserve the trees and comport with the fire protection and water supply loop requirements of the NE quadrant of the site plan. The loop engineering will destroy the root system of the existing trees and prevent 14’ or higher replacements from being planted after tree death in the future. The Applicant requests this condition of tree protection be removed and the Applicant will make the necessary tree count adjustments for new tree planting in the final approved drawings after the existing trees are removed for construction. Page 190 of 249 Richfield Planning Commission August 18, 2026 Page 5 6. Planning/Zoning: Landscaping: Comment (N.) under Planning/Zoning—Landscaping calls out: “Mulch alone is not allowed. To comply with 544.03, Subd.4. f. the areas around the perimeter of the courtyards must include plantings. Please revise accordingly.” The Applicant objects to this condition because the perimeter of the building areas where mulch is indicated are located on the building roof rather than at ground level and would otherwise be exempt from Section 544.03, Subd.4. f. The Applicant requests this condition be removed from the conditions of approval. As there are other line-by-line concerns or considerations regarding staff proposed conditions of approval, the Applicant team has prepared a line-by-line response to the ARC report, which as I noted has been attached for your reference. Please contact me with any questions about the information contained in this letter or the enclosed exhibit. Sincerely, Jacob W. Steen, for Larkin Hoffman Direct Dial: 952-896-3239 Direct Fax: 952-842-1738 Email: jsteen@larkinhoffman.com Enclosures cc: Steve Minn (via email - Steve.Minn@lupedevelopment.com) Joe Power, Civil Engineer (jpowers@richfieldmn.gov) Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer (mhardegger@richfieldmn.gov) Mattias Oddson, Water Resources Engineer (moddsson@richfieldmn.gov) Rachel Lindholm, Sustainability Coordinator (rlindholm@richfieldmn.gov) Jan Youngquist, Economic Development Manager (jyoungquist@richfieldmn.gov) Rodger Coppa, Interim Fire Chief (rodgercoppa@richfieldmn.gov) Dan Devers, Inspector Mary Tietjen (mtietjen@kennedy-graven.com) Page 191 of 249 Richfield Planning Commission August 18, 2026 Page 6 Exhibit A ARC Report Comments and Responses 4923-7893-1143, v. 2 Page 192 of 249 August 10, 2026 Community Development Department Planning G Zoning MAYOR MARY SUPPLE CITY COUNCIL WALTERBURK SHARON CHRISTENSEN RORI A. COLEMAN- WOODS SEANHAYFORDOLEARY CITY MANAGER KATIE RODRIGUEZ Greta Norris Pope Design Group 767 N Eustis Ave, Suite 190 St. Paul, MN 55114 Via email: gnorris@popedesign.com SUBJECT: Legion/Lupe CUP – 6501 Portland Ave S – ARC REPORT CASE NO: Z25-000010 Below are the comments from the Administrative Review Committee (ARC) regarding the above-noted request. The following items need not be addressed at this time, but will be included as conditions of approval, to be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. Engineering, Public Works, Utilities Joe Powers, Civil Engineer, Ph. 612-861-9789 Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer, Ph. 612-861-9792 Stormwater: Mattias Oddsson, Water Resources Engineer, Ph. 612-861-9797 a. The site area values on the cover page do not match the tabulations in the civil plan. 92,750 SF = 4.42 AC, vs 4.22 AC on C600. 111,306 SF = 2.55 AC, vs 3.63 AC on C600. Please ensure consistency throughout plans. Quantities on sheets C600/C601 were updated to align with the cover page. Total site area is 4.42 AC. b. Regarding note #2 of the General Notes on Sheet C100, please note that approval of a permit from Hennepin County will also be required. Note was amended as requested. c. Please provide ped ramps where sidewalks cross drive aisles. PED ramps shown at all drive aisle crossings. d. Regarding the Construction Staging Plan, please note that extended closure of the sidewalk will be subject to a sidewalk closure permit for time that is not required for construction of the sidewalk (currently $30/day). Contractor will work with the city to maintain the walking path during construction. e. The erosion control details are out of date and in the process of being deprecated. If desired, use MnDOT standard details for erosion control BMPs. Updated inlet protection and silt fence details to MN/DOT standards. f. Sheet C600, an as built survey of all the stormwater BMPs … shall be submitted to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City of Richfield prior to project closeout. Page 193 of 249 Note was amended as requested. g. The second Sheet C600: o Appears to be mislabele d as existing instead of proposed. Page 194 of 249 Legion CUP ARC Report 8-10-26 Page 3 Sheet was renumbered to C601 and updated to say "Proposed Conditions". o Proposed impervious was 3.63 acres in last submittal - is this change due to the green roof being counted as pervious? Correct. o Drainage area 5 is not included in total area. Proposed total area should be 4.22. Proposed total area was corrected to 4.42 to match the cover page. h. The right-of-way easement should be one easement dedicated from the edge of the existing 33-foot easement to the back of the proposed sidewalk. As previously discussed, the alignment of the utility easement will be updated once the city determines the final sanitary design. Revised sidewalk easement to 8.0 feet wide from existing ROW easement. i. The northern lot shall be signed for overflow parking per the traffic study analysis recommendation. The northern lot provide closet entry to the Phase 2 building entrance. A sign for overflow parking will direct the majority of residents and visitors to the southern lot. j. See additional comments on Sheet C300, attached. Revised water line to make a looped connection, revised limits of tree removal, and added utility crossing table to C301 per additional comments. Sustainability Rachel Lindholm, Sustainability Coordinator, Ph. 612-861-9188 Please, no Maples. An acceptable overstory substitute for the Maples along the south property line would be Linden or Honeylocust. o The Maples will be substituted for Lindens Economic Development Jan Youngquist, Economic Development Manager, Ph. 612- 861-9771 The Bird Collision Reduction Plan (Plan) indicates that it focuses on best practices adopted in the B3 Guidelines, S.5 Animal Habitat Support and that those best practices include " ... monitoring for collisions and if needed, managing glass threat factor." However, for new construction, in addition to monitoring the building for one year after construction, the B3 Guidelines also require managing the glass threat factor. The applicable requirements include: o No more than 15% of the area of a "High Risk Surface" shall have a threat factor greater than or equal to 75. The Bird Safe Calculator Spreadsheet (Spreadsheet) that was submitted indicates that the windows are a High Risk Surface, with a threat factor of 100. The threat factor for the windows can be reduced by measures such as adding films or patterns to the glass. The Spreadsheet includes a worksheet (App S-9a TF Table) that provides the threat factors for various types of materials that can reduce the threat factor of the windows. Per the zoning code Table 541.25 Subd. 5. b, reference the quote below. We are providing a Bird Collision Reduction Plan that meets the requirements. We are providing the glass threat factor and a 1-year post-construction monitoring plan to manage the Whole Building Threat Factor. We are also providing a photometric plan for lighting and will not include uplighting. For site plan design, see the Page 195 of 249 Legion CUP ARC Report 8-10-26 Page 4 landscape diagram for the types of planting and their locations to promote bird safety. “shall submit a Bird Collision Reduction Plan addressing the impacts of the building's glass, lighting, and site design on birds as part of their development application” o The Whole Building Threat Factor (WBTF) shall be less than or equal to WBTF 45. The Spreadsheet that was submitted indicates that the WBTF is 54.2. Reducing the threat factor for the windows will also result in a reduction of the WBTF. Noted. The Spreadsheet indicates that the total vertical surface area for both buildings combined is 110,159 square feet and the windows are 36,391 square feet. However, according to the Elevations Sheets, the total vertical surface for Building 1 is 78,412 sf and Building 2 is 135,360 sf. Additionally, the Elevations Sheets indicate that the window surface for Building 1 is 25,354 sf and Building 2 is 45,935 sf. It appears that there may be an error in the surface area calculations on the both the Spreadsheet and the Elevations Sheets. These calculations should be corrected so the Spreadsheet accurately assesses the WBTF and the High Risk Surface Threat Factor. Revised and corrected. Both the WBTF and the High Risk Surface Threat Factor should meet the requirements set by the B3 Guidelines, S.5 Animal Habitat Support. Noted Planning/Zoning Sam Crosby, City Planner, Ph. 612-861-9776 Parking: a. Placement of bike racks shall not be so close to other site improvements that it hinders ability to lock the frame to the rack. (Phase one exterior racks.) Include the manufacturer’s spacing and placement requirements in the plan details. The bike racks will be adjusted to avoid other site elements. The manufacturer’s spacing and placement requirements will be provided. b. Bike parking count inside the west/senior building – totals are unclear (plan note says 42, table data says 48, I counted 46); final count to comply with code, including not more than 75% lift spaces. The bike count for the senior building has been updated. c. EV chargers and readiness to comply with code. EV chargers are under discussion with the Fire Chief regarding concerns and safety requirements. Will be revised based on Fire Chief recommendations. d. The south side parking lot to comply with the 5 foot setback requirement from the rear property line on the north side. Parking lot layout will be updated to comply with setback requirement as noted. Circulation: e. In lieu of sidewalk easements, staff recommends a condition of approval that all Page 196 of 249 Legion CUP ARC Report 8-10-26 Page 5 perimeter sidewalks remain permanently open and accessible to the public. Noted. To be discussed further. f. Currently, city staff envisions that a future connection would be a one-way south- bound private drive, however, the future needs are uncertain. Staff recommends the following condition of approval regarding the possibility of a future connection to 66th Street: The owner agrees to cooperate with the creation of a potential future private access connection to 66th Street. If such a connection is deemed necessary by the City, the owner will be responsible for construction of the portion that is located within the boundary line of the subject site. The City must review and approve the design plans for the connection. The owner agrees to construct the improvement within the same construction season as the adjacent property to the south unless alternative timing is approved in writing by the City. (No plan change needed, this comment is just for informational purposes.) Noted. g. Emergency vehicle access to be removeable steel bollards spaced not more than three feet apart (no chain), with surmountable curb on either side of the asphalt. Final design subject to staff review and approval. Noted. To be discussed with Fire Chief. h. Please provide crosswalks at all locations where they cross a drive aisle, particularly across the middle of the south side parking lot. Added crosswalk striping to sheet C400. Screening: i. As depicted on both the landscape plan and the renderings, the ground equipment shall be screened by vegetation, however, the vegetation must be designed to obstruct ground level views from any point on the property or adjacent property (ie: be taller), changes subject to staff review and approval. Will provide fencing. j. Details for mechanical and rooftop screening to be provided, subject to staff approval. Noted. Will provide screening. Building Elevations: k. Revise plans to meet the ground floor window requirements on the south side of the east building. Elevation revised. Per zoning code 544.07 Subd 10; Blank Walls, we are providing an art installation in lieu of architectural elements. Windows at the ground floor are a safety concern; owners are willing to provide glass block in lieu of interactive art. Landscaping: l. The Grading Plan does not comply with the Tree Preservation Plan, and therefore the mature evergreens along the north property line are not considered preserved according to code. The grading plan must be revised to not impact the dripline of the trees and the Tree Preservation plan must be revised to otherwise meet the requirements of the Section 544.03, Subd.4.i. (depth of mulch, etc.) If any of the Page 197 of 249 Legion CUP ARC Report 8-10-26 Page 6 mature evergreens to be preserved are lost within the first five years post construction, they are to be replaced with like species at a 14 foot height. Due to additional utility work requirements and a Public Works comment to avoid dead-end hydrants by looping the watermain around the north and east sides of the Phase 1 building, the mature evergreens along the north property line will need to be removed and can no longer be preserved. m. Landscaping around the perimeter of the lot may not be counted towards internal parking lot island calculations, because it counts towards perimeter planting requirements. Parking stalls may not be counted towards landscaping. In order to count, the island must be completely landscaped (not hardscaped) and meet the minimum size requirement. Revise Sheet A-008 accordingly, subject to staff review and approval. Noted n. Mulch alone is not allowed. To comply with 544.03, Subd.4.f. the areas around the perimeter of the courtyards must include plantings. Please revise accordingly. Section 544.03, Subd.4.f states that All lot areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, driveways, patios, or similar hard-surface materials shall be covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by the City. (Gravel and/or landscape rock by itself does not constitute groundcover.) The courtyards are located on the building roof rather than at ground level and, as a result, should be considered exempt from this requirement. o. Not more than 25% of the required trees shall be composed of one species (Fat Albert Spruce). Also, evergreens are not recommended along the south property line due to due to shading of the parking lot in the winter. Changing these 8 evergreens to a deciduous overstory will solve both of these issues. (Maybe more Honeylocust? Just a suggestion). The landscape plan will be revised to ensure that no single tree species accounts for more than 25% of the required trees. p. The landscape plan is 11 trees short of code. Either revise the plan to provide the required number of overstory trees on site, or plant an equivalent amount of boulevard trees along Portland (with County permission), or pay into the public tree planting fund at the equivalent amount per Appendix D (the Fee Schedule), or some combination thereof. 11 trees will be added to the landscape plan. q. Any off site trees that are removed must be replaced – tree type and size to be approved by city staff. Noted Other: r. The signage as proposed does not appear to meet size requirements. The signs may not exceed a total of 36 square feet (both together) and must be setback at least 3 feet from the sidewalk. Separate sign permit required for any sign over six square feet in size. We will comply with signage requirements and acquire the required permits. Fire Department Rodger Coppa, Interim Fire Chief, Ph. 612-861-0661 Page 198 of 249 Legion CUP ARC Report 8-10-26 Page 7 I would like to discuss and provide recommendations for the planned location of any electric vehicle charging stations in the parking garages prior to the issuance of a building permit. We will locate the EV charging closest to the garage door per the Fire Chief’s recommendation. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, please provide the planned location of the FDC for review and approval to ensure the utility plan accommodates hydrant placement in close proximity to the planned FDC locations of each building. We will provide the utility plan. Environmental Health Department Dan Devers, Inspector, Ph. 952-563-8975 If the complex will include any food sales or service (coffee shop, micromarket, etc.) that portion of the project will require plan review by either Bloomington Environmental Health or Minnesota Dept. of Agriculture. Food services or sales will not be included in the project. No other comments were received. If you have further questions on a particular item, please contact the staff person(s) indicated. If you have any other questions regarding the process in general, please call or email me any time. I can be reached at either scrosby@richfieldmn.gov or (612) 861- 9776. Sincerely, Sam Crosby City Planner Attachments: TC2 Peer Review of Traffic and Parking Study Engineering mark-up of Sheet C300 Page 199 of 249 To: Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer City of Richfield From: Matt Pacyna, PE, Principal Transportation Collaborative & Consultants, LLC Date: August 7, 2026 Subject: 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study – Peer Review INTRODUCTION TC2 conducted a peer review of the 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study, dated May 15, 2026 completed for redevelopment of the former American Legion into a 290-unit multifamily residential complex. The purpose of this review is to confirm the reasonableness of the assumptions, methods, and findings, as well as identify any potential modifications or improvements for additional consideration. Note that the overall study approach, methods, and findings are reasonable. However, the following considerations and / or clarifications are offered for further discussion. 1) Access – Although two access points to Portland Avenue is consistent with the current site, the existing access locations are technically one-way driveways (i.e., the north access is entrance only and the south access is exit only); this represents an increase in access and potential conflicts along Portland Avenue. However, since the proposed north access is anticipated to serve a small proportion of the overall development, no significant issues are expected with the proposed configuration. 2) Crash Analysis – The crash analysis does not indicate if there is a history of any crashes at the existing American Legion access locations along Portland Avenue, nor is there any discussion on pedestrian / bicycle crashes or overall crash severity relative to locations with similar characteristics. This information may help clarify any concerns with the proposed two access configurations. 3) Trip Generation and Distribution – The trip generation, directional distribution, and assignment assumptions are reasonable. 4) Traffic Operations Analysis – The methods, analysis, and findings are reasonable; note that minimal traffic was assumed to utilize the north access and therefore in a single access scenario, the south access would likely operate similar under a one (1) access scenario to what is shown in the report. 5) Parking Demand Review – The parking demand analysis focuses on the average parking demand and does not mention the 85% percentile parking demand, which may provide another level of information / comfort regarding the parking requirements / needs for the site. A cursory review of ITE data indicates the 85% demand for the proposed land uses in a “dense urban environment” range from a total of 295 to 317 spaces. 6) Wayfinding / Overflow Parking – The proposed parking supply appears adequate for typical operating conditions; however, consideration should be given to wayfinding and parking signage throughout the site. In particular, the north parking lot should be signed as overflow parking to help direct visitors during peak demand periods and support efficient circulation within the development. | www.transportationcollaborative.com | Page 200 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study – Peer Review August 7, 2026 Page 2 7) Future Connectivity Considerations – The proposed access and circulation plan functions adequately under current development conditions. However, Section 541.25, Subd. 5.b(7) of the VPA Overlay District requires sites north of 66th Street to plan internal traffic circulation that accommodates the potential for a future north-south roadway connection (approximately aligned with Oakland Avenue) extending to 66th Street. The 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study does not specifically support preserving or removing this connection. Therefore, the development should accommodate the potential for a future north-south connection consistent with current code requirements. The means of preserving this future connection should be documented and incorporated into the final development approvals. 8) Requested Revisions - In Table 11 (Section 7.2), the label "City Code" appears in two separate rows. The second reference should be revised to "Requested Reductions" to clearly distinguish the applicant's requested parking reductions from the minimum parking requirements established by City Code. Page 201 of 249 24-INCH PCCP 846.62 840.89 RE=846.24 IE 12" CONC=841.24 TERMINUS UNKNOWN RE=848.68 IE N/S 8" CONC=835.88 C C C C C C C TERMINUS UNKNOWN RE=827.24 IE N/NW 12" CONC=823.04 IE SW 15" CONC=823.64 IE SE 18" CONC=822.94 EXISTING BUILDING RE=829.24 IE SW 4" METAL=827.04 (FULL OF DEBRIS) NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Date xxxx Licensee Lic. No. 12345 DATE PROJECT # PROJECT STATUS DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 07/24/2026 26176.50 CITY REVIEW WH KAM S I G N RICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062 UTILITY PLAN © 2026 BKBM Engineers 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt C300 Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 26176.5 D E 24-INCH PCCP 8-INCH CIP All trees to be removed in this area (Lupe's direction) Ex. 18” STM Provide table of locations where sanitary and storm cross watermain with anticipated wall-to- wall pipe separation Add crossing label to 1/C300 and table to C301. Page 202 of 249 4898-1664-6600, v. 1 Page 203 of 249 Memorandum To: Richfield Planning Commission From: Jacob W. Steen Date: August 24, 2026 Re: 6501 Portland Avenue South: Proposed Alternative Conditions 1. Future 66th Street Connection (Condition 3.c) The owner shall plan internal traffic circulation to accommodate construction of a future access connection from the southern parking lot on the subject site to a potential north-south road connecting to 66th Street, as required by the City's Overlay District and the traffic study conducted for the property. If the City determines that the connecting road becomes necessary due to further development or a change in use, owner agrees to grant necessary easements to the City for construction of the access connection and road on the same or similar terms and conditions of any related right-of-way acquisitions. Any costs associated with the construction of the access connection on the subject site shall be assessed to the subject site and paid by owner. consistent with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. 2. Bird Collision Reduction / B3 Standards (Condition 3.o) Provide a Bird Collision Reduction Plan that provides a Whole Building Threat Factor of 45 or less using the B3 Guidelines Bird-Safe Design Calculator or otherwise quantitively reduces anticipated bird collisions by a similar amountaddressing the impacts of the building’s glass, lighting, and site design on birds consistent with City Code Section 541.25, Subdivision 5(b).\. 3. EV Charging (Condition 3.k) Comply with the number and location of EV chargers and EV ready parking required by zoning code Section 544.13, Subd.7. in a manner consistent with the Minnesota State Building Code at the time the building permit is issued.. 4. Tree Preservation (Condition 3.l) A revised Tree Preservation Plan be submitted reflecting the trees removed as a result of the water line construction and the replacement trees proposed.Grading and construction plans to comply with the tree preservation plan, including the preservation of the 13 mature evergreens along the north property line in compliance with 544.03, Subd.4.i. Page 204 of 249 2. 5. Ground Floor Window Requirement (Condition 3.f) The Applicant may satisfy applicable blank-wall requirements through either public art, glass block, or a combination thereof in accordance with the Zoning Code Section 544.07, subdivision 10.All common area ground floor windows on the west side of the Phase 2/Senior building shall remain transparent and may not be permanently covered. 6. 6. Landscaping / Related ARC Compliance Requirement (Condition 3.n) Comply with all requirements detailed in the City's ARC Report dated August 10, 2026 that are not otherwise addressed by this Resolution, with the caveat that item k should reference the west building, not the east building; that mulch be allowed where on a building rooftop; and the Bird Collision Reduction Plan Comments are replaced with the following: 4924-2593-8122, v. 1 Page 205 of 249 September 1, 2026 City of Richfield City Council Attn: Sam Crosby 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Via U.S. Mail and Email scrosby@richfieldmn.gov Re: MSP-Lupe Richfield, LLC – 6501 Portland Avenue South, Case No. Z25-000010 Objection to Bird Collision Reduction and Future Access Connections Conditions Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: We represent MSP-Lupe Richfield, LLC regarding the proposed redevelopment of 6501 Portland Avenue South (the “Project”). The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Project subject to two unlawful conditions: 1. “Provide a Bird Collision Reduction Plan that provides a Whole Building Threat Factor of 45 or less using the B3 Guidelines Bird-Safe Design Calculator or otherwise quantitively reduces anticipated bird collisions by a similar amount.” 2. “The owner shall plan internal traffic circulation to accommodate construction of a future access connection from the southern parking lot on the subject site to a potential north-south road connecting to 66th Street, as required by the City’s Overlay District and the traffic study conducted for the property. If the City determines that the connecting road becomes necessary due to further development or a change in use, owner agrees to grant necessary easements to the City for construction of the access connection and road. Any costs associated with the construction of the access connection on the subject site shall be assessed to the subject site and paid by owner.” Our client respectfully objects to these conditions and requests that they be removed from the final approval. The Bird Collision Reduction Plan condition exceeds the requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, regulates the design and materials of the buildings in a manner prohibited by Minnesota law, and imposes a substantive B3 performance standard that the City has never adopted into its Code. 1. The Bird Collision Reduction Plan Condition is Arbitrary and Capricious The Veterans Park Area Overlay District requires qualifying projects to submit “a Bird Collision Reduction Plan addressing the impacts of the building’s glass, lighting, and site design on birds as part of their development application.”1 Our client has complied with that requirement by 1 City Code § 541.25, subd. 5(b). Page 206 of 249 City of Richfield City Council September 1, 2026 Page 2 submitting a plan addressing each of those subjects, including lighting, landscaping, glass threat factors, and post-construction monitoring. a. The City Code Requires a Bird Collision Reduction Plan, Not Compliance with a B3 Performance Standard The Zoning Ordinance does not require a Whole Building Threat Factor of 45 or less. It does not incorporate the B3 Guidelines; require use of the B3 Bird-Safe Design Calculator; mandate any particular glazing treatment; or establish a quantitative collision-reduction threshold. Indeed, City staff acknowledged that the Bird Collision Reduction Plan was an area of “discretion,” as opposed to one of the identified areas in which the plans did not satisfy an express Code requirement. Staff nevertheless recommended that the Project meet the B3 Guidelines because staff believed doing so would further the “intent” of the ordinance. That approach impermissibly transforms a requirement to submit an evaluative plan into a substantive construction standard. A condition may reasonably implement an ordinance, but it cannot create a new requirement that the ordinance itself does not contain. Minnesota courts recognize that zoning ordinances regulate the development and use of property and that restrictions on private property rights must be construed narrowly.2 Because landowners generally retain the right to freely use their property, courts favor interpretations that are least restrictive on those rights.3 Because the Zoning Ordinance is to be construed against the City and in favor of the property owner, any land use restriction must be clearly stated to be enforceable.4 Courts consistently emphasize the right of a property owner to use land freely unless restrictions are clearly articulated.5 The language relied on by City staff and the Planning Commission to condition approval on a Bird Collision Reduction Plan with a WBTF of 45 or less using the B3 Guidelines Bird-Safe Design Calculator only requires our client to “submit a Bird Collision Reduction Plan addressing the impacts of the building’s glass, lighting, and site design on birds . . ..”6 Nowhere does the Zoning Ordinance require said plan to show a WBTF of 45 or less, nor does it require using the B3 guidelines. These requirements asserted as a condition of approval are not clearly and expressly stated in the Zoning Ordinance, as required by Minnesota law to be effective.7 Consequently, under Franks Nursery Sales, Inc. and Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n, the Zoning Ordinance cannot be interpreted to authorize the specific Bird Collision Reduction Plan requirements recommended by the Planning Commission. If the City intends to establish a mandatory WBTF threshold for new construction, it must first possess legal authority to regulate that subject and then adopt a clear, generally applicable standard through the appropriate 2 In re Denial of Eller Media Company's Applications, 664 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Minn. 2003); Minn. Stat. § 462.352, subd. 15. 3 Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604, 608-09 (Minn. 1980). 4 See Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335, 340 (Minn. 1984) (“To be effective, any restriction on land use must be clearly expressed.”) 5 See id; Kenneth H. Young, Anderson's American Law of Zoning § 18.04 (4th rev. ed. 1996). 6 City Code, Appendix B § 541.25, subd. 5a. 7 Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n, 342 N.W.2d at 340. Page 207 of 249 City of Richfield City Council September 1, 2026 Page 3 legislative process. It cannot create that standard for the first time through an ad hoc condition attached to this Project. b. The Condition Regulates Glazing and the Building Envelope The practical effect of the condition confirms that it is a building-design requirement, not merely a planning requirement. The Project architect evaluated what would be necessary to achieve a WBTF of 45 or less using the B3 calculator. Based on that analysis, the first three stories contain approximately 23,311 square feet of glazing, and approximately 6,400 square feet of that glazing would need to achieve a threat factor of 20 or less. The architect also evaluated whether the threshold could be met by reducing glazing and determined that approximately 5,311 square feet of glazing would have to be replaced with solid wall, an option the design team does not consider viable. The City’s condition therefore compels the Applicant to alter the quantity, composition, treatment, pattern, or performance characteristics of exterior glazing. Glazing and windows are components of the buildings, and their configuration is part of the building envelope.8 The condition’s alternative language, permitting another method that “quantitively reduces anticipated bird collisions by a similar amount,” does not cure the problem. Any method that achieves the required reduction through changes to glazing, windows, or the exterior wall assembly would still regulate building components. Moreover, the phrase “similar amount” identifies no baseline, calculation method, or objective measure by which compliance would be determined. c. Minnesota Law Prohibits Municipalities from Imposing Different Building- Code Requirements Minnesota has adopted a uniform State Building Code that applies statewide to the construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, and use of covered buildings and supersedes municipal building codes.9 The Legislature has expressly prohibited a municipality from requiring provisions regulating components or systems of a structure that are different from the State Building Code.10 Municipal planning authority does not extend to an ordinance that conflicts with a State Building Code provision regulating building components or systems.11 The Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc.12 confirms the breadth of this prohibition. The Court held that a local requirement is a prohibited building-code provision when it regulates a subject covered by the State Building Code, governs a component or system of a structure, and imposes a requirement different from the State Building Code. The Court further held that “different from” is broader than direct conflict. Even an additional or complementary local requirement is prohibited.13 8 Anything regulated by the building code, including glazing, is a building code provision which the City may not regulate. City of Morris v. Sax Investments, 749 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Minn. 2008). 9 Minn. Stat. § 326B.121, subd. 1(a)-(b). 10 Minn. Stat. § 326B.121, subd. 2(c). 11 Id., subd. 2(g). 12 749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2008). 13 Id. at 9-10. Page 208 of 249 City of Richfield City Council September 1, 2026 Page 4 Of particular importance here, City of Morris invalidated a municipal requirement governing egress-window covers because windows are components incorporated into the structure and the ordinance required an additional device on those components. The Court explained that a municipality may not require something the State Building Code leaves to the owner’s discretion.14 It also rejected the proposition that a municipality can avoid preemption by describing its regulation as an exercise of a different municipal power. The controlling question is what the requirement actually regulates, not the label the municipality gives it. The same reasoning applies here. The challenged condition dictates the treatment, performance, or quantity of exterior glazing. It does so by imposing a WBTF threshold derived from B3 Guidelines that are not part of the City Code and have not been identified by the City as part of the State Building Code applicable to this Project. Because the condition imposes an additional construction and material standard on components of the buildings, it is prohibited by Minn. Stat. § 326B.121. The City also cannot avoid the statute by imposing the requirement through a conditional use permit rather than placing it verbatim in a building-code chapter. Section 326B.121 expressly preserves zoning and planning authority only to the extent that the local regulation does not conflict with State Building Code provisions regulating structural components or systems. A municipality cannot accomplish through a project-specific land-use condition what state law prohibits it from requiring as a generally applicable construction standard. d. The Condition Is Not Authorized or Supported as a CUP Condition The City’s staff report correctly recognizes that its discretion over a conditional use permit is limited and that a qualifying application must be approved when it satisfies the standards established by the City Code. Although reasonable conditions may be imposed to implement the Code or protect adjacent properties, such conditions must remain within the City’s lawful authority and must be supported by legally sufficient reasons. In BECA of Alexandria, L.L.P. v. County of Douglas,15 the court held that a municipality may not impose a CUP condition based on vague or subjective standards and may not reject expert evidence without adequate supporting reasons. Where a project conforms to the governing ordinance, a condition imposing an additional restriction is arbitrary and capricious absent legally sufficient reasons supported by the record. Here, the City Code requires submission of a Bird Collision Reduction Plan, and the Applicant has submitted one. The record does not identify an ordinance requiring a WBTF of 45, a finding that the Applicant’s proposed lighting, landscaping, monitoring, and other measures violate any codified standard, or evidence establishing why this particular Project must satisfy the B3 threshold. Instead, staff selected a numerical B3 performance criterion and elevated it into a mandatory condition because it is considered desirable. That is not implementation of the existing Code. 14 Id. at 12. 15 607 N.W.2d 459, 463-64 (Minn. App. 2000). Page 209 of 249 City of Richfield City Council September 1, 2026 Page 5 The condition is particularly problematic because it is written as an outcome mandate rather than a request for further information. Unless our client materially changes the glazing or building envelope, the City may withhold a building permit even though the Project satisfies the State Building Code and the Applicant has submitted the plan expressly required by the Zoning Ordinance. The City may not use its permitting authority to compel compliance with an otherwise unauthorized construction standard. Our client supports reasonable and lawful measures to reduce bird collisions and has complied with the VPA Overlay District by submitting a Bird Collision Reduction Plan addressing glass, lighting, landscaping, site design, and post-construction monitoring. Our client is also prepared to continue discussing voluntary measures that do not materially alter the approved architecture or impose requirements inconsistent with Minnesota law. The Applicant cannot, however, consent to a condition that: 1. imposes a WBTF threshold not found in the City Code; 2. incorporates B3 performance criterion that the City has not adopted; 3. requires substantial modification or treatment of exterior glazing; 4. regulates components of the buildings differently from or in addition to the State Building Code; and 5. makes issuance of a building permit dependent on compliance with an unauthorized and indeterminate local construction standard. The City Council should remove the Bird Collision Reduction Plan condition from the final approval or revise it to be consistent with Minnesota law. 2. Imposing Obligations to Dedicate Property Rights for Preservation of a Future Access Connection to 66th Street is Unlawful Second, the City’s proposed condition requiring our client to "plan internal traffic circulation to accommodate construction of a future access connection from the southern parking lot on the subject site to a potential north-south road connecting to 66th Street" and, if later deemed necessary by the City, grant easements and bear the costs of constructing the connection, constitutes an unlawful land use exaction that exceeds the City's authority under both federal and Minnesota law. At the outset, it is important to distinguish between preserving the possibility of a future connection and imposing a present obligation to dedicate property rights and fund future public infrastructure. The City's VPA Overlay District requires only that sites north of 66th Street "plan internal traffic circulation to accommodate the potential for a north-south road." The Zoning Ordinance does not require construction of a road, dedication of easements, payment for public improvements, or reimbursement of future roadway costs. The Planning Commission's condition goes substantially further than the Zoning Ordinance by obligating our client and future owners to surrender property interests and construct roadway improvements whenever the City later determines such a connection is desirable. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a municipality may not condition land use approval on the dedication of property or payment for public improvements unless the condition satisfies the constitutional standards established in Nollan v. California Coastal Page 210 of 249 City of Richfield City Council September 1, 2026 Page 6 Commission,16 Dolan v. City of Tigard,17 and Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District.18 As those cases make clear, an exaction is lawful only when the government demonstrates both (1) an "essential nexus" between the condition imposed and a legitimate governmental interest, and (2) "rough proportionality" between the burden imposed and the impacts attributable to the proposed development. Minnesota has codified the same requirements in Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 2c, relating to approvals of subdivisions or developments.19 The City cannot satisfy either requirements of Nollan, Dolan, and Koontz here. a. The Record Demonstrates No Essential Nexus Between the Proposed Development and a Future 66th Street Connection. The City's own evidence establishes that the Project functions adequately without any connection to 66th Street. The staff report specifically acknowledges that the Project's traffic study concluded the existing access configuration is sufficient and that "a third egress is not needed at this time." The report further states that the two access points onto Portland Avenue are adequate to accommodate traffic generated by the Project. Likewise, the City's independent traffic consultant concluded that the proposed access and circulation plan "functions adequately under current development conditions." The consultant did not conclude that a future connection was needed because of this development. Rather, the consultant merely observed that City Code calls for developments north of 66th Street to preserve the possibility of a future connection and recommended that any means of preserving that option be documented in the development approvals. In other words, the only rationale identified by the City is preservation of a possible future roadway serving broader planning objectives and future development in the area. The connection is not being required because this Project creates a traffic problem. Indeed, the City's traffic analysis reaches precisely the opposite conclusion. Because the City's own evidence demonstrates that the Project operates acceptably without the connection, there is no essential nexus between the exaction and any traffic impact caused by this development. The proposed condition utterly fails to further any end advanced by the City related to this Project, other than burdening private property for an indeterminate future planning objective unrelated to the Project. b. The Condition Fails the Requirement of Rough Proportionality Even if preserving a future roadway connection could satisfy the nexus requirement, the condition fails the separate requirement of rough proportionality. The City has made no individualized determination quantifying the traffic impacts of the Project that would necessitate a new north- south roadway connection. Nor has the City quantified what share of a future public roadway could reasonably be attributed to this Project. Instead, the condition requires the Applicant to grant easements and construct the portion of the connection located on the property whenever the City 16 483 U.S. 825 (1987). 17 512 U.S. 374 (1994). 18 570 U.S. 595 (2013). 19 Stating that fees or required dedication must bear a rough proportionality to the needed created by a proposed subdivision or development. Page 211 of 249 City of Richfield City Council September 1, 2026 Page 7 later determines the connection has become necessary due to future development or changing circumstances. That obligation is untethered from impacts caused by this Project. It effectively requires the Applicant to subsidize future public infrastructure that may be necessitated by entirely different developments years or decades from now. The City has conducted no proportionality analysis, no cost allocation study, and no individualized findings demonstrating that the burden imposed bears any relationship to impacts generated by this Project. The absence of such findings is fatal under both constitutional doctrine and Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 2c. c. The City Cannot Use a CUP Condition to Obtain Infrastructure Contributions It Lacks Authority to Require. The condition is also problematic because it attempts to obtain future roadway improvements through a conditional use permit rather than through the statutory mechanisms authorized by Minnesota law. Minnesota courts have repeatedly emphasized that municipalities possess only those powers expressly granted by statute or necessarily implied from those grants. In Harstad v City of Woodbury, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that municipalities may not impose roadway-related financial obligations as conditions of development approval absent express statutory authority.20 The court concluded that a municipality lacked authority to require payment of a major roadway assessment as a condition of subdivision approval and held that municipal planning authority does not imply broad financing authority. The principle of Harstad v City of Woodbury is directly applicable here. The City is attempting to obtain roadway infrastructure through a permit condition that requires future easements, future construction obligations, and future assessments against the property. The City cannot circumvent statutory limitations by characterizing those obligations as conditions attached to a CUP. Municipal planning authority does not create an unrestricted ability to impose public infrastructure obligations on individual property owners. d. The Condition Is Arbitrary Because the Project Already Complies with the Applicable Ordinance. Minnesota courts have likewise made clear that permit conditions must be supported by legally sufficient reasons grounded in the record. In BECA of Alexandria LLP v County of Douglas ex rel Bd of Comrs, the Court of Appeals held that where a development complies with the applicable ordinance requirements, a municipality acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it imposes additional conditions unsupported by legally sufficient reasons. The court further held that conditions cannot be justified by speculation, generalized concerns, or unsupported future possibilities. Here, the Project satisfies the applicable ordinance requirement by planning internal circulation in a manner that accommodates the possibility of a future connection. The City seeks more. It seeks future easements, future roadway construction obligations, and future assessments triggered solely by the City's future determination that a connection has become desirable. The record contains no evidence establishing that such obligations are necessitated by the Project itself, and the City's traffic consultants expressly concluded that the Project functions adequately without 20 Harstad v. City of Woodbury, 916 N.W.2d 540, 549 (Minn. 2018). Page 212 of 249 City of Richfield City Council September 1, 2026 Page 8 them. Accordingly, the proposed exaction is unsupported by the record and is arbitrary as a matter of law. The VPA Overlay District authorizes the City to require the Applicant to preserve the possibility of a future roadway connection through site planning. It does not authorize the City to compel future easements, roadway construction, assessments, or cost-sharing obligations. Because the proposed condition lacks an essential nexus to impacts caused by the Project, is not roughly proportional to any demonstrated impact, exceeds the City's statutory authority, and is unsupported by legally sufficient findings, it constitutes an unconstitutional and unlawful land use exaction and must be removed from the approval 3. Requested Action For these reasons, we respectfully request that the City Council remove the Bird Collision Reduction Plan and future connection to 66th street conditions from the resolution approving the Project. Alternatively, if the City wishes to retain a condition reflecting the ordinance, it should be limited to confirming that the Applicant has submitted a Bird Collision Reduction Plan addressing the building’s glass, lighting, and site design, as required by City Code § 541.25, subd. 5(b), without requiring compliance with a WBTF threshold, the B3 Guidelines, or any comparable quantitative building-performance standard. No further condition is necessary to address the future connection to 66th street condition since the Project plans presently preserve what the VPA Overlay District requires. Please include this letter and its supporting materials in the City’s administrative record. Should there be any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Jacob W. Steen, for Larkin Hoffman Direct Dial: 952-896-3239 Direct Fax: 952-842-1738 Email: jsteen@larkinhoffman.com Enclosures cc: Steve Minn (via email - Steve.Minn@lupedevelopment.com) Jan Youngquist, Economic Development Manager (jyoungquist@richfieldmn.gov) Mary Tietjen (mtietjen@kennedy-graven.com) Sam Ketchum (sketchum@kennedy-graven.com) Page 213 of 249 City of Richfield City Council September 1, 2026 Page 9 Exhibit A ARC Report Comments and Responses 4923-5105-5307, v. 1 Page 214 of 249 August 10, 2026 Community Development Department Planning G Zoning MAYOR MARY SUPPLE CITY COUNCIL WALTERBURK SHARON CHRISTENSEN RORI A. COLEMAN- WOODS SEANHAYFORDOLEARY CITY MANAGER KATIE RODRIGUEZ Greta Norris Pope Design Group 767 N Eustis Ave, Suite 190 St. Paul, MN 55114 Via email: gnorris@popedesign.com SUBJECT: Legion/Lupe CUP – 6501 Portland Ave S – ARC REPORT CASE NO: Z25-000010 Below are the comments from the Administrative Review Committee (ARC) regarding the above-noted request. The following items need not be addressed at this time, but will be included as conditions of approval, to be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. Engineering, Public Works, Utilities Joe Powers, Civil Engineer, Ph. 612-861-9789 Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer, Ph. 612-861-9792 Stormwater: Mattias Oddsson, Water Resources Engineer, Ph. 612-861-9797 a. The site area values on the cover page do not match the tabulations in the civil plan. 92,750 SF = 4.42 AC, vs 4.22 AC on C600. 111,306 SF = 2.55 AC, vs 3.63 AC on C600. Please ensure consistency throughout plans. Quantities on sheets C600/C601 were updated to align with the cover page. Total site area is 4.42 AC. b. Regarding note #2 of the General Notes on Sheet C100, please note that approval of a permit from Hennepin County will also be required. Note was amended as requested. c. Please provide ped ramps where sidewalks cross drive aisles. PED ramps shown at all drive aisle crossings. d. Regarding the Construction Staging Plan, please note that extended closure of the sidewalk will be subject to a sidewalk closure permit for time that is not required for construction of the sidewalk (currently $30/day). Contractor will work with the city to maintain the walking path during construction. e. The erosion control details are out of date and in the process of being deprecated. If desired, use MnDOT standard details for erosion control BMPs. Updated inlet protection and silt fence details to MN/DOT standards. f. Sheet C600, an as built survey of all the stormwater BMPs … shall be submitted to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City of Richfield prior to project closeout. Page 215 of 249 Note was amended as requested. g. The second Sheet C600: o Appears to be mislabele d as existing instead of proposed. Page 216 of 249 Legion CUP ARC Report 8-10-26 Page 3 Sheet was renumbered to C601 and updated to say "Proposed Conditions". o Proposed impervious was 3.63 acres in last submittal - is this change due to the green roof being counted as pervious? Correct. o Drainage area 5 is not included in total area. Proposed total area should be 4.22. Proposed total area was corrected to 4.42 to match the cover page. h. The right-of-way easement should be one easement dedicated from the edge of the existing 33-foot easement to the back of the proposed sidewalk. As previously discussed, the alignment of the utility easement will be updated once the city determines the final sanitary design. Revised sidewalk easement to 8.0 feet wide from existing ROW easement. i. The northern lot shall be signed for overflow parking per the traffic study analysis recommendation. The northern lot provide closet entry to the Phase 2 building entrance. A sign for overflow parking will direct the majority of residents and visitors to the southern lot. j. See additional comments on Sheet C300, attached. Revised water line to make a looped connection, revised limits of tree removal, and added utility crossing table to C301 per additional comments. Sustainability Rachel Lindholm, Sustainability Coordinator, Ph. 612-861-9188 Please, no Maples. An acceptable overstory substitute for the Maples along the south property line would be Linden or Honeylocust. o The Maples will be substituted for Lindens Economic Development Jan Youngquist, Economic Development Manager, Ph. 612- 861-9771 The Bird Collision Reduction Plan (Plan) indicates that it focuses on best practices adopted in the B3 Guidelines, S.5 Animal Habitat Support and that those best practices include " ... monitoring for collisions and if needed, managing glass threat factor." However, for new construction, in addition to monitoring the building for one year after construction, the B3 Guidelines also require managing the glass threat factor. The applicable requirements include: o No more than 15% of the area of a "High Risk Surface" shall have a threat factor greater than or equal to 75. The Bird Safe Calculator Spreadsheet (Spreadsheet) that was submitted indicates that the windows are a High Risk Surface, with a threat factor of 100. The threat factor for the windows can be reduced by measures such as adding films or patterns to the glass. The Spreadsheet includes a worksheet (App S-9a TF Table) that provides the threat factors for various types of materials that can reduce the threat factor of the windows. Per the zoning code Table 541.25 Subd. 5. b, reference the quote below. We are providing a Bird Collision Reduction Plan that meets the requirements. We are providing the glass threat factor and a 1-year post-construction monitoring plan to manage the Whole Building Threat Factor. We are also providing a photometric plan for lighting and will not include uplighting. For site plan design, see the Page 217 of 249 Legion CUP ARC Report 8-10-26 Page 4 landscape diagram for the types of planting and their locations to promote bird safety. “shall submit a Bird Collision Reduction Plan addressing the impacts of the building's glass, lighting, and site design on birds as part of their development application” o The Whole Building Threat Factor (WBTF) shall be less than or equal to WBTF 45. The Spreadsheet that was submitted indicates that the WBTF is 54.2. Reducing the threat factor for the windows will also result in a reduction of the WBTF. Noted. The Spreadsheet indicates that the total vertical surface area for both buildings combined is 110,159 square feet and the windows are 36,391 square feet. However, according to the Elevations Sheets, the total vertical surface for Building 1 is 78,412 sf and Building 2 is 135,360 sf. Additionally, the Elevations Sheets indicate that the window surface for Building 1 is 25,354 sf and Building 2 is 45,935 sf. It appears that there may be an error in the surface area calculations on the both the Spreadsheet and the Elevations Sheets. These calculations should be corrected so the Spreadsheet accurately assesses the WBTF and the High Risk Surface Threat Factor. Revised and corrected. Both the WBTF and the High Risk Surface Threat Factor should meet the requirements set by the B3 Guidelines, S.5 Animal Habitat Support. Noted Planning/Zoning Sam Crosby, City Planner, Ph. 612-861-9776 Parking: a. Placement of bike racks shall not be so close to other site improvements that it hinders ability to lock the frame to the rack. (Phase one exterior racks.) Include the manufacturer’s spacing and placement requirements in the plan details. The bike racks will be adjusted to avoid other site elements. The manufacturer’s spacing and placement requirements will be provided. b. Bike parking count inside the west/senior building – totals are unclear (plan note says 42, table data says 48, I counted 46); final count to comply with code, including not more than 75% lift spaces. The bike count for the senior building has been updated. c. EV chargers and readiness to comply with code. EV chargers are under discussion with the Fire Chief regarding concerns and safety requirements. Will be revised based on Fire Chief recommendations. d. The south side parking lot to comply with the 5 foot setback requirement from the rear property line on the north side. Parking lot layout will be updated to comply with setback requirement as noted. Circulation: e. In lieu of sidewalk easements, staff recommends a condition of approval that all Page 218 of 249 Legion CUP ARC Report 8-10-26 Page 5 perimeter sidewalks remain permanently open and accessible to the public. Noted. To be discussed further. f. Currently, city staff envisions that a future connection would be a one-way south- bound private drive, however, the future needs are uncertain. Staff recommends the following condition of approval regarding the possibility of a future connection to 66th Street: The owner agrees to cooperate with the creation of a potential future private access connection to 66th Street. If such a connection is deemed necessary by the City, the owner will be responsible for construction of the portion that is located within the boundary line of the subject site. The City must review and approve the design plans for the connection. The owner agrees to construct the improvement within the same construction season as the adjacent property to the south unless alternative timing is approved in writing by the City. (No plan change needed, this comment is just for informational purposes.) Noted. g. Emergency vehicle access to be removeable steel bollards spaced not more than three feet apart (no chain), with surmountable curb on either side of the asphalt. Final design subject to staff review and approval. Noted. To be discussed with Fire Chief. h. Please provide crosswalks at all locations where they cross a drive aisle, particularly across the middle of the south side parking lot. Added crosswalk striping to sheet C400. Screening: i. As depicted on both the landscape plan and the renderings, the ground equipment shall be screened by vegetation, however, the vegetation must be designed to obstruct ground level views from any point on the property or adjacent property (ie: be taller), changes subject to staff review and approval. Will provide fencing. j. Details for mechanical and rooftop screening to be provided, subject to staff approval. Noted. Will provide screening. Building Elevations: k. Revise plans to meet the ground floor window requirements on the south side of the east building. Elevation revised. Per zoning code 544.07 Subd 10; Blank Walls, we are providing an art installation in lieu of architectural elements. Windows at the ground floor are a safety concern; owners are willing to provide glass block in lieu of interactive art. Landscaping: l. The Grading Plan does not comply with the Tree Preservation Plan, and therefore the mature evergreens along the north property line are not considered preserved according to code. The grading plan must be revised to not impact the dripline of the trees and the Tree Preservation plan must be revised to otherwise meet the requirements of the Section 544.03, Subd.4.i. (depth of mulch, etc.) If any of the Page 219 of 249 Legion CUP ARC Report 8-10-26 Page 6 mature evergreens to be preserved are lost within the first five years post construction, they are to be replaced with like species at a 14 foot height. Due to additional utility work requirements and a Public Works comment to avoid dead-end hydrants by looping the watermain around the north and east sides of the Phase 1 building, the mature evergreens along the north property line will need to be removed and can no longer be preserved. m. Landscaping around the perimeter of the lot may not be counted towards internal parking lot island calculations, because it counts towards perimeter planting requirements. Parking stalls may not be counted towards landscaping. In order to count, the island must be completely landscaped (not hardscaped) and meet the minimum size requirement. Revise Sheet A-008 accordingly, subject to staff review and approval. Noted n. Mulch alone is not allowed. To comply with 544.03, Subd.4.f. the areas around the perimeter of the courtyards must include plantings. Please revise accordingly. Section 544.03, Subd.4.f states that All lot areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, driveways, patios, or similar hard-surface materials shall be covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by the City. (Gravel and/or landscape rock by itself does not constitute groundcover.) The courtyards are located on the building roof rather than at ground level and, as a result, should be considered exempt from this requirement. o. Not more than 25% of the required trees shall be composed of one species (Fat Albert Spruce). Also, evergreens are not recommended along the south property line due to due to shading of the parking lot in the winter. Changing these 8 evergreens to a deciduous overstory will solve both of these issues. (Maybe more Honeylocust? Just a suggestion). The landscape plan will be revised to ensure that no single tree species accounts for more than 25% of the required trees. p. The landscape plan is 11 trees short of code. Either revise the plan to provide the required number of overstory trees on site, or plant an equivalent amount of boulevard trees along Portland (with County permission), or pay into the public tree planting fund at the equivalent amount per Appendix D (the Fee Schedule), or some combination thereof. 11 trees will be added to the landscape plan. q. Any off site trees that are removed must be replaced – tree type and size to be approved by city staff. Noted Other: r. The signage as proposed does not appear to meet size requirements. The signs may not exceed a total of 36 square feet (both together) and must be setback at least 3 feet from the sidewalk. Separate sign permit required for any sign over six square feet in size. We will comply with signage requirements and acquire the required permits. Fire Department Rodger Coppa, Interim Fire Chief, Ph. 612-861-0661 Page 220 of 249 Legion CUP ARC Report 8-10-26 Page 7 I would like to discuss and provide recommendations for the planned location of any electric vehicle charging stations in the parking garages prior to the issuance of a building permit. We will locate the EV charging closest to the garage door per the Fire Chief’s recommendation. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, please provide the planned location of the FDC for review and approval to ensure the utility plan accommodates hydrant placement in close proximity to the planned FDC locations of each building. We will provide the utility plan. Environmental Health Department Dan Devers, Inspector, Ph. 952-563-8975 If the complex will include any food sales or service (coffee shop, micromarket, etc.) that portion of the project will require plan review by either Bloomington Environmental Health or Minnesota Dept. of Agriculture. Food services or sales will not be included in the project. No other comments were received. If you have further questions on a particular item, please contact the staff person(s) indicated. If you have any other questions regarding the process in general, please call or email me any time. I can be reached at either scrosby@richfieldmn.gov or (612) 861- 9776. Sincerely, Sam Crosby City Planner Attachments: TC2 Peer Review of Traffic and Parking Study Engineering mark-up of Sheet C300 Page 221 of 249 To: Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer City of Richfield From: Matt Pacyna, PE, Principal Transportation Collaborative & Consultants, LLC Date: August 7, 2026 Subject: 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study – Peer Review INTRODUCTION TC2 conducted a peer review of the 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study, dated May 15, 2026 completed for redevelopment of the former American Legion into a 290-unit multifamily residential complex. The purpose of this review is to confirm the reasonableness of the assumptions, methods, and findings, as well as identify any potential modifications or improvements for additional consideration. Note that the overall study approach, methods, and findings are reasonable. However, the following considerations and / or clarifications are offered for further discussion. 1) Access – Although two access points to Portland Avenue is consistent with the current site, the existing access locations are technically one-way driveways (i.e., the north access is entrance only and the south access is exit only); this represents an increase in access and potential conflicts along Portland Avenue. However, since the proposed north access is anticipated to serve a small proportion of the overall development, no significant issues are expected with the proposed configuration. 2) Crash Analysis – The crash analysis does not indicate if there is a history of any crashes at the existing American Legion access locations along Portland Avenue, nor is there any discussion on pedestrian / bicycle crashes or overall crash severity relative to locations with similar characteristics. This information may help clarify any concerns with the proposed two access configurations. 3) Trip Generation and Distribution – The trip generation, directional distribution, and assignment assumptions are reasonable. 4) Traffic Operations Analysis – The methods, analysis, and findings are reasonable; note that minimal traffic was assumed to utilize the north access and therefore in a single access scenario, the south access would likely operate similar under a one (1) access scenario to what is shown in the report. 5) Parking Demand Review – The parking demand analysis focuses on the average parking demand and does not mention the 85% percentile parking demand, which may provide another level of information / comfort regarding the parking requirements / needs for the site. A cursory review of ITE data indicates the 85% demand for the proposed land uses in a “dense urban environment” range from a total of 295 to 317 spaces. 6) Wayfinding / Overflow Parking – The proposed parking supply appears adequate for typical operating conditions; however, consideration should be given to wayfinding and parking signage throughout the site. In particular, the north parking lot should be signed as overflow parking to help direct visitors during peak demand periods and support efficient circulation within the development. | www.transportationcollaborative.com | Page 222 of 249 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study – Peer Review August 7, 2026 Page 2 7) Future Connectivity Considerations – The proposed access and circulation plan functions adequately under current development conditions. However, Section 541.25, Subd. 5.b(7) of the VPA Overlay District requires sites north of 66th Street to plan internal traffic circulation that accommodates the potential for a future north-south roadway connection (approximately aligned with Oakland Avenue) extending to 66th Street. The 6501 Portland Ave S Traffic & Parking Study does not specifically support preserving or removing this connection. Therefore, the development should accommodate the potential for a future north-south connection consistent with current code requirements. The means of preserving this future connection should be documented and incorporated into the final development approvals. 8) Requested Revisions - In Table 11 (Section 7.2), the label "City Code" appears in two separate rows. The second reference should be revised to "Requested Reductions" to clearly distinguish the applicant's requested parking reductions from the minimum parking requirements established by City Code. Page 223 of 249 24-INCH PCCP 846.62 840.89 RE=846.24 IE 12" CONC=841.24 TERMINUS UNKNOWN RE=848.68 IE N/S 8" CONC=835.88 C C C C C C C TERMINUS UNKNOWN RE=827.24 IE N/NW 12" CONC=823.04 IE SW 15" CONC=823.64 IE SE 18" CONC=822.94 EXISTING BUILDING RE=829.24 IE SW 4" METAL=827.04 (FULL OF DEBRIS) NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Date xxxx Licensee Lic. No. 12345 DATE PROJECT # PROJECT STATUS DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 07/24/2026 26176.50 CITY REVIEW WH KAM S I G N RICHFIELD, MN | 07/24/26 | 47621-25062 UTILITY PLAN © 2026 BKBM Engineers 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com G R O U P Autodesk Docs://47621-25062 Lupe_Richfield/47621-25062_Am. Legion Richfield_R25.rvt C300 Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 26176.5 D E 24-INCH PCCP 8-INCH CIP All trees to be removed in this area (Lupe's direction) Ex. 18” STM Provide table of locations where sanitary and storm cross watermain with anticipated wall-to- wall pipe separation Add crossing label to 1/C300 and table to C301. Page 224 of 249 City Council Meeting 9/8/2026 Agenda Section: Other Business Agenda Item: 12.a. Report Prepared By: Courtney DesCamps, Senior Analyst Department Director: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager Item for Consideration: Consider the Charter Commission's recommendations for amendments to the current City Charter by ordinance and publish a notice of public hearing on the proposed City Charter Amendments. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Charter Commission is recommending amendments to several sections of the Richfield City Charter related to election petitions. The proposed amendments would align the Charter with petition form and content requirements established in Minnesota Rules and reorganize the Charter’s petition requirements to make them easier for residents to use and for City staff to administer. The Charter Commission voted on August 19, 2026, to recommend amendments to Sections 4.05, 5.04, 5.05, 5.10, 5.12, and 5.15. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Accept the letter from the Charter Commission transmitting the recommendations for proposed amendments to the Richfield City Charter; and 2. Authorize staff to publish a public hearing notice. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The Charter Commission is recommending an ordinance to amend several sections of the charter related to election petitions. Last year, the League of Minnesota Cities undertook a project to review charters in Minnesota and identified many cities, including Richfield, that did not include a requirement that petitions comply with form and content rules adopted by the Secretary of State. Specifically, Minnesota Rule 8205.1010 provides that petitions required for any election in the state, including nominating and recall petitions comply with the general form requirements of the Rule, which includes, amongst other things, a “... space for the date of signature; a signature; and each signatory's year of birth; printed first, middle, and last name; and residence address, municipality, and county.” The Charter Commission discussed the issue on January 21, 2026, including options to make the Charter more user friendly by moving detailed petition requirements from the Charter itself to standardized petition forms contained in an appendix. The Commission was supportive of this approach and ultimately recommended it as part of the proposed ordinance. Page 225 of 249 EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS The proposed amendments are intended to make petition requirements clearer and easier for residents to understand and use. Standardized forms may also reduce confusion for petitioners and provide greater consistency in how City staff review and verify petition signatures. POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.) The proposed amendments affect Charter Sections 4.05, 5.04, 5.05, 5.10, 5.12, and 5.15. Minnesota Rule 8205.1010 establishes general form requirements for election petitions, including requirements for a signer’s date of signature, signature, year of birth, printed name, residence address, municipality, and county. Charter amendment petitions are also governed by Minnesota Statutes, section 410.12. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES The Charter Commission’s formal recommendation and proposed ordinance are scheduled to be received by the City Council on September 8, 2026. Within one month of receiving the recommendation, the City must publish notice of a public hearing. The hearing must occur at least two weeks, but no more than one month, after publication of the notice. The City Council must vote on the ordinance within one month following the public hearing. All Council Members must be present because adoption requires the affirmative vote of all members. If adopted, the ordinance becomes effective 90 days after passage and publication, subject to the statutory referendum process. FINANCIAL IMPACT There may be routine administrative costs associated with publication and implementation of the Charter amendments. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS The amendments are intended to bring the Charter’s petition requirements into alignment with Minnesota Rule 8205.1010. The primary substantive change to the existing requirements is adding the signer’s year of birth. The remaining changes largely standardize and reformat petition requirements. Following adoption and publication, registered voters have 60 days to file a petition requesting a referendum on the ordinance. The petition must contain signatures equal to at least 5 percent of the City’s registered voters or 2,000 registered voters, whichever is less. If a valid petition is filed, the ordinance does not become effective unless approved by voters. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) The City Council could decline to proceed with the Charter Commission’s recommended amendments or direct staff to provide additional information before scheduling the required public hearing. ATTACHMENTS Page 226 of 249 1. Richfield Charter Commission Recommendations - signed_1 2. DOCSOPEN-#1089153-v5- Richfield_Charter_Amendment_Elections_and_Petitions 3. DOCSOPEN-#1105601-v1-Nomination_Petition_Form_Page_1 4. DOCSOPEN-#1105615-v1-Circulator_Affidavit 5. Pages from DOCSOPEN-#1105679-v1-Sponsoring_Committee_Affidavit_Page_1 6. Pages from DOCSOPEN-#1105598-v1-Initiative_Petition_Page_1 7. DOCSOPEN-#1105599-v1-Referendum_Petition 8. DOCSOPEN-#1105597-v1-Recall_Petition Page 227 of 249 Charter Commission MAYOR MARY SUPPLE CITY COUNCIL WALTER BURK SHARON CHRISTENSEN RORI A.COLEMAN- WOODS SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY CITY MANAGER KATIE RODRIGUEZ September , 2026 Mayor Mary Supple and Council Members City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Richfield Charter Commission Recommendations Dear Mayor and Council Members: The purpose of this letter is to transmit to the Richfield City Council proposed amendments to the Richfield City Charter. The enclosed proposed amendments (collectively, the “Amendments”) are being forwarded for consideration for adoption by ordinance pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, subdivision 7. At its meeting on August 19, 2026, the Commission formally acted to recommend the Amendments for adoption by the City Council. The Amendments are intended to update the charter to include all statutorily required information related to election petitions and to simplify readability of the charter by creating forms for the various types of petitions. This letter will serve as the Charter Commission’s formal recommendation to the City Council to amend the City Charter by adoption of the enclosed ordinance. Sincerely, Bill Bullock Charter Commission President 6 700 PO R T LAND A VENU E, R IC HFI E LD, MINNESO TA 5 542 3. | P HO NE: 61 2. 86 1. 9 700 WWW.RICH FI EL DMN.GO V | AN EQ UA L O PPO R TUNITY E MP LO YER Page 228 of 249 Page 229 of 249 1 BILL NO. _____ AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTERS 4 AND 5 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER RELATED TO ELECTIONS AND PETITION REQUIREMENTS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background; findings; authority. 1.01. The City of Richfield (“City”) is governed by home rule charter adopted pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410 (“the Act”). 1.02. The Richfield Charter Commission (“Commission”) determined it was appropriate to amend the Charter to standardize the processes related to petitions submitted by the public and to incorporate new legal requirements. 1.03. Section 410.12, subdivision 7 of the Act allows the City Council to amend the Charter by ordinance upon recommendation from the Commission. Such an ordinance may only be adopted upon “an affirmative vote of all members of the city council and is approved by the mayor”. 1.04. A public hearing on the amendments was held on __________, 2026 by the City Council after two weeks' published notice containing the text of the amendment as required by the Act. The notice contained a brief description of the nature and scope of the amendments. All persons desiring to be heard with reference to the amendment were heard at the public hearing. 1.05. The City Council finds and determines that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to adopt the proposed amendments. Section 2. Adoption; effective date; filing. 2.01. The amendments as proposed by the Charter Commission are adopted. 2.02. Section 4.05 of the Richfield City Charter is amended to read as follows: Section 4.05. Nomination Petitions. Nomination petitions must substantially comply with the following form requirements of Minnesota Statutes and Minnesota Rules 8205.1010, as amended. A form petition is available in Exhibit A-1. The circulator of the petition must submit an affidavit in substantially the form provided in Exhibit A-2. Page 230 of 249 2 We, the undersigned registered voters of the City of Richfield, hereby nominate, _______whose residence is _______, for the office of _______, to be voted for at the primary election to be held on the _______ day of _______, 20_______, and/or the regular municipal election to be held on the _______ day of _______, 20_______, and we individually certify that we are qualified registered voters and that we have not signed more nomination petitions of candidates for this office than there are persons to be elected thereto. Name Street and Number ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he or she is the circulator of the foregoing petition paper containing ___________ signatures, and that the signatures appended thereto were made in his or her presence and are the signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be. Signed: ___________ Subscribed and sworn to before me this ________ day of _______, 20___, ___________ Notary Public This petition, if found insufficient by the City Clerk, will be addressed to ___________ at ___________ (address). I hereby indicate my willingness to accept the office of ___________ if elected. Signed: ___________ 2.03. Section 5.04 of the Richfield City Charter is amended to read as follows: Section 5.04. - Initiation of Measures. Any ten (10) residents of the City who are registered voters may form themselves into a sponsoring committee for the initiation of an ordinance as permitted by section 5.01 of this Charter. Before circulating any petition, the committee must file an affidavit and its proposed petition with the City Clerk. The affidavit must state that a committee has been formed, must contain the names and addresses of the committee members, and must be signed by each member of the committee, whose signatures must be verified by a notary public. The sponsoring committee affidavit must be in substantially the form provided in Exhibit A-3. The committee must also attach a verified copy of the proposed ordinance to each of the signature papers herein described, together with the committee members' names and addresses as sponsors. The ordinance must relate to only one (1) subject which is clearly expressed in the petition. Every circulator of a signature paper must be a resident of the state of Minnesota and a registered voter in the City of Richfield. Page 231 of 249 3 2.04. Section 5.05 of the Richfield City Charter is amended to read as follows: Section 5.05. - Form of Petition and of Signature Papers. The petition for the adoption of any ordinance must consist of the ordinance, together with all the signature papers and affidavits attached. The petition must comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes and Minnesota Rules 8205.1010, as amended. A form petition is available in Exhibit A-4. A petition is not complete unless signed by a number of registered voters equal to at least five (5) percent of the total number of registered voters at the time of the last regular municipal election. All the signatures need not be on one (1) signature paper, but the circulator of every signature paper must make an affidavit that each signature appended to the paper is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. The circulator affidavit must be substantially in the form provided in Exhibit A-2. Each signature paper must be in substantially the following form: INITIATIVE PETITION Proposing an ordinance to ___________ (Stating the Purpose of the Ordinance). A certified copy of the proposed ordinance is attached. Sponsoring Committee This ordinance is sponsored by the following committee of City of Richfield residents who are registered voters: Name Address 1. ___________ ___________ 2. ___________ ___________ 3. ___________ ___________ 4. ___________ ___________ 5. ___________ ___________ Instructions to Petition Signers You are being asked to sign a petition. You must be a resident of, and a registered voter in, the City of Richfield. Every person signing this petition must do so in the presence of the person circulating the petition. It is a criminal offense to sign a name other than your own to the petition or to accept compensation for signing your name to the petition. The undersigned registered voters, understanding the terms and nature of the ordinance attached, petition the Council for its adoption, or, in lieu thereof, for its submission to the voters for their approval. Page 232 of 249 4 Date Legal Signature Name (print legibly) Address (print legibly) 1. ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 2. ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 3. ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ (The affidavit of the circulator must be attached at the end of each signature paper.) 2.05. Section 5.10 of the Richfield City Charter is amended to read as follows: Section 5.10. – Initiation of Charter Amendments. Nothing in this Charter will be construed as in any way affecting the right of the registered voters under the constitution and statutes of Minnesota to propose amendments to this Charter. Petitions for charter amendments must comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 410.12, as amended. 2.06. Section 5.12 of the Richfield City Charter is amended to read as follows: Section 5.12. - Referendum Petition. The requirements in Sections 5.04 and 5.05 as to the formation of committees, the form of referenda petitions and signature papers, and residency requirements for committee members and circulators, for the initiation of ordinances will apply to the referendum but with such changes as may be necessary. A circulator affidavit must be substantially in the form provided in Exhibit A-2. The sponsoring committee affidavit must be in substantially the form provided in Exhibit A-3. Each petition and signature paper must be in substantially the form provided in Exhibit A-5. A referendum petition must read substantially as follows: REFERENDUM PETITION Proposing the repeal of an ordinance to ___________ (stating the purpose of the ordinance). A certified copy of the ordinance is attached. Sponsoring Committee Page 233 of 249 5 The proposed repeal is sponsored by the following committee of City of Richfield residents who are registered voters: Name Address 1. ___________ ___________ 2. ___________ ___________ 3. ___________ ___________ 4. ___________ ___________ 5. ___________ ___________ Instructions to Petition Signers You are being asked to sign a petition. You must be a resident of, and a registered voter in, the City of Richfield. Every person signing this petition must do so in the presence of the person circulating the petition. It is a criminal offense to sign a name other than your own to the petition or to accept compensation for signing your name to the petition. The undersigned qualified registered voters, understanding the nature of the ordinance hereto attached and believing it to be detrimental to the welfare of the City, petition the Council for its submission to a vote of the voters for their approval or disapproval. Date Legal Signature Name (print legibly) Address (print legibly) 1. ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 2. ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 3. ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ (The affidavit of the circulator must be attached at the end of the list of signatures.) 2.07. Section 5.15 of the Richfield City Charter is amended to read as follows: Section 5.15. - Recall Petitions. The petition for the recall of any Council Member must comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes and Minnesota Rules 8205.1010, as amended. A form petition is available in Exhibit A-6. consist of a certificate identical to that filed with the City Clerk together with all the signature papers and affidavits thereto attached. All the signatures need not be on one (1) signature paper, but the circulator of every signature paper must make an affidavit that each signature appended to the paper is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. Every circulator of a Page 234 of 249 6 signature paper must be a resident of the state of Minnesota. Each signature paper must be in substantially the following form: The circulator affidavit must be substantially in the form provided in Exhibit A-2. The sponsoring committee affidavit must be in substantially the form provided in Exhibit A-3. RECALL PETITION Proposing the recall of ___________ from the office as ___________ which recall is sought for the reasons set forth in the attached certificate. Sponsoring Committee This movement is sponsored by the following committee of registered voters eligible to vote on candidates for that office. Name Address 1. ___________ ___________ 2. ___________ ___________ 3. ___________ ___________ [listing all members of the committee] Instructions to Petition Signers You are being asked to sign a petition. You must be a resident of, and a registered voter in, the City of Richfield. Every person signing this petition must do so in the presence of the person circulating the petition. It is a criminal offense to sign a name other than your own to the petition or to accept compensation for signing your name to the petition. The undersigned registered voters, all being eligible to vote on candidates for that office, understanding the nature of the charges against the Council Member herein sought to be recalled, desire the holding of a recall election for that purpose. Date Legal Signature Name (print legibly) Address (print legibly) 1. ________ ________ ________ ________ 2. ________ ________ ________ ________ 3. ________ ________ ________ ________ The affidavit of the circulator must be attached at the end of the list of signatures. 2.08. The Richfield City Charter is amended to add the following Exhibits: A-1 (form of nomination petition); A-2 (form of circulator affidavit); A-3 (form of sponsoring Page 235 of 249 7 committee affidavit): A-4 (form of initiative petition); A-5 (form of referendum petition); and A-6 (form of recall petition). 2.09. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective ninety (90) days after its publication, except that if within sixty (60) days after publication a petition requesting a referendum on this ordinance, signed by the number of registered voters of the City required by the Act is filed with the City Clerk, this ordinance will not be effective until approved by 51% of the voters voting on the question of its adoption at the special election called by the Council for that purpose. 2.10. Filing. On the effective date of the Amendment, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to file copies of the charter amendments with the Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota, the Hennepin County Recorder, and the City Clerk's office together with the certificate required by Section 410.11 of the Act. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this ____ day of ________________, 2026. Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk Page 236 of 249 8 Page 237 of 249 NOMINATION PETITION FORM (EXHIBIT A-1) The purpose of this petition is to nominate a candidate for office. We, the undersigned registered voters of the City of Richfield hereby nominate _________________________, whose residence is ____________________________for the office of ________________________________ to be voted for at the primary election to be held on the ______ day of ___________, 20___, and/or the regular municipal election to be held on the ______ day of _____________________, 20___. We individually certify that we are qualified registered voters and that we have not signed more nomination petitions of candidates for this office than there are persons to be elected thereto. (A copy of this form is available by contacting the city clerk). Signer’s oath: “I swear (or affirm) that I know the contents and purpose of this petition and that I signed this petition only once and of my own free will.” All information on this petition is subject to public inspection. This petition, if found insufficient by the City Clerk, will be addressed to _________________________ at __________________________________________________ (address). I hereby indicate my willingness to accept the office of _______________________, if elected. Signed by nominated candidate: ____________________________________ **All information must be filled in by the person(s) signing the petition unless disability prevents the person(s) from doing so. Page _____of _____ NO. DATE OF SIGNATURE SIGNATURE YEAR OF BIRTH CLEARLY PRINT FIRST, MIDDLE, AND LAST NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS (HOUSE NUMBER & STREET NAME) CITY AND COUNTY Page 238 of 249 CIRCULATOR AFFIDAVIT FORM (EXHIBIT A-2) State of Minnesota ) ) ss County of ___________ ) I, ________________________________, certify that: a. I am a registered voter in the City of Richfield; b. I reside in the City of Richfield at _____________________________; c. I am the circulator of the foregoing petition paper containing _________ signatures/pages; d. The signatures appended thereto were made in my presence and are the signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be. e. To the best of my knowledge and belief, each petitioner’s signature contained on the attached petition is a registered voter of the City of Richfield. _________________________________________ Signed and sworn to before me on __________________________by _______________________________. _________________________________________________________ Notary Public Page 239 of 249 1 SPONSORING COMMITTEE AFFIDAVIT (EXHIBIT A-3) The following ____________ [insert number] individuals have formed a committee (the “Committee”) for the purpose of petitioning the city of Richfield related to one of the following measures (select one): Initiative Referendum Recall We, the undersigned sponsoring members of the Committee, have reviewed the City Charter and included all necessary information for the measure identified above. The number of committee members required vary depending on charter requirements for the type of measure being sought. 1._____________________________________________________________________________________ Name (Print) Address (House Number, Street, City and County) Year of Birth __________________________ signed and sworn to before me on _________________ by ___________________ Signature _________________________ Notary Signature Notary Stamp 2._____________________________________________________________________________________ Name (Print) Address (House Number, Street, City and County) Year of Birth __________________________ signed and sworn to before me on _________________ by ___________________ Signature _________________________ Notary Signature Notary Stamp 3._____________________________________________________________________________________ Name (Print) Address (House Number, Street, City and County) Year of Birth __________________________ signed and sworn to before me on _________________ by ___________________ Signature _________________________ Notary Signature Notary Stamp 4._____________________________________________________________________________________ Name (Print) Address (House Number, Street, City and County) Year of Birth __________________________ signed and sworn to before me on _________________ by ___________________ Signature _________________________ Notary Signature Notary Stamp Page 240 of 249 INITIATIVE PETITION FORM (EXHIBIT A-4) The purpose of this petition is to propose an ordinance (state the purpose): (certified copy of the proposed ordinance and a copy of the Sponsoring Committee Membership form must be attached). The undersigned residents of and registered voters in the City of Richfield, understanding the terms and nature of the proposed ordinance, petition the Richfield City Council for its adoption or, in lieu thereof, for its submission to the voters for their approval. (A copy of this form is available by contacting the city clerk.) Signer’s oath: “I swear (or affirm) that I know the contents and purpose of this petition and that I signed this petition only once and of my own free will.” All information on this petition is subject to public inspection. Every person signing this petition must do so in the presence of the person circulating the petition. It is a criminal offense to sign a name other than your own to the petition or to accept compensation for signing your name to the petition. **All information must be filled in by the person(s) signing the petition unless disability prevents the person(s) from doing so. Page _____of _____ NO. DATE OF SIGNATURE SIGNATURE YEAR OF BIRTH CLEARLY PRINT FIRST, MIDDLE, AND LAST NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS (HOUSE NUMBER & STREET NAME) CITY AND COUNTY Page 241 of 249 REFERENDUM PETITION FORM (EXHIBIT A-5) The purpose of this petition is to propose to repeal an ordinance (state the purpose of the ordinance): (certified copy of the ordinance and a copy of the Sponsoring Committee Membership form must be attached). The undersigned residents of and registered voters in the City of Richfield, understanding the terms and nature of the ordinance attached hereto and believing it to be detrimental to the welfare of the City, petition the Richfield City Council for its submission to a vote of the voters for their approval or disapproval. (A copy of this form is available by contacting the city clerk). Signer’s oath: “I swear (or affirm) that I know the contents and purpose of this petition and that I signed this petition only once and of my own free will.” All information on this petition is subject to public inspection. Every person signing this petition must do so in the presence of the person circulating the petition. It is a criminal offense to sign a name other than your own to the petition or to accept compensation for signing your name to the petition. ** All information must be filled in by the person(s) signing the petition unless disability prevents the person(s) from doing so. Page _____of _____ NO. DATE OF SIGNATURE SIGNATURE YEAR OF BIRTH CLEARLY PRINT FIRST, MIDDLE, AND LAST NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS (HOUSE NUMBER & STREET NAME) CITY AND COUNTY Page 242 of 249 REFERENDUM PETITION FORM (EXHIBIT A-5) The purpose of this petition is to propose to repeal an ordinance (state the purpose of the ordinance): (certified copy of the ordinance and a copy of the Sponsoring Committee Membership form must be attached). The undersigned residents of and registered voters in the City of Richfield, understanding the terms and nature of the ordinance attached hereto and believing it to be detrimental to the welfare of the City, petition the Richfield City Council for its submission to a vote of the voters for their approval or disapproval. (A copy of this form is available by contacting the city clerk). Signer’s oath: “I swear (or affirm) that I know the contents and purpose of this petition and that I signed this petition only once and of my own free will.” All information on this petition is subject to public inspection. Every person signing this petition must do so in the presence of the person circulating the petition. It is a criminal offense to sign a name other than your own to the petition or to accept compensation for signing your name to the petition. ** All information must be filled in by the person(s) signing the petition unless disability prevents the person(s) from doing so. Page _____of _____ NO. DATE OF SIGNATURE SIGNATURE YEAR OF BIRTH CLEARLY PRINT FIRST, MIDDLE, AND LAST NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS (HOUSE NUMBER & STREET NAME) CITY AND COUNTY Page 243 of 249 REFERENDUM PETITION FORM (EXHIBIT A-5) The purpose of this petition is to propose to repeal an ordinance (state the purpose of the ordinance): (certified copy of the ordinance and a copy of the Sponsoring Committee Membership form must be attached). The undersigned residents of and registered voters in the City of Richfield, understanding the terms and nature of the ordinance attached hereto and believing it to be detrimental to the welfare of the City, petition the Richfield City Council for its submission to a vote of the voters for their approval or disapproval. (A copy of this form is available by contacting the city clerk). Signer’s oath: “I swear (or affirm) that I know the contents and purpose of this petition and that I signed this petition only once and of my own free will.” All information on this petition is subject to public inspection. Every person signing this petition must do so in the presence of the person circulating the petition. It is a criminal offense to sign a name other than your own to the petition or to accept compensation for signing your name to the petition. ** All information must be filled in by the person(s) signing the petition unless disability prevents the person(s) from doing so. Page _____of _____ NO. DATE OF SIGNATURE SIGNATURE YEAR OF BIRTH CLEARLY PRINT FIRST, MIDDLE, AND LAST NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS (HOUSE NUMBER & STREET NAME) CITY AND COUNTY Page 244 of 249 REFERENDUM PETITION FORM (EXHIBIT A-5) The purpose of this petition is to propose to repeal an ordinance (state the purpose of the ordinance): (certified copy of the ordinance and a copy of the Sponsoring Committee Membership form must be attached). The undersigned residents of and registered voters in the City of Richfield, understanding the terms and nature of the ordinance attached hereto and believing it to be detrimental to the welfare of the City, petition the Richfield City Council for its submission to a vote of the voters for their approval or disapproval. (A copy of this form is available by contacting the city clerk). Signer’s oath: “I swear (or affirm) that I know the contents and purpose of this petition and that I signed this petition only once and of my own free will.” All information on this petition is subject to public inspection. Every person signing this petition must do so in the presence of the person circulating the petition. It is a criminal offense to sign a name other than your own to the petition or to accept compensation for signing your name to the petition. ** All information must be filled in by the person(s) signing the petition unless disability prevents the person(s) from doing so. Page _____of _____ NO. DATE OF SIGNATURE SIGNATURE YEAR OF BIRTH CLEARLY PRINT FIRST, MIDDLE, AND LAST NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS (HOUSE NUMBER & STREET NAME) CITY AND COUNTY Page 245 of 249 PROPOSED RECALL PETITION FORM (EXHIBIT A-6) The purpose of this petition is to propose the recall of ____________________ from the office of _______________________________ which recall is sought for the reasons set forth in the attached certificate. (A certificate stating the grounds for recall and a copy of the Sponsoring Committee Membership form must be attached). The undersigned residents of and registered voters in the City of Richfield, all being eligible to vote on candidates for the above office and understanding the nature of the charges against the Council Member herein sought to be recall, desire the holding of a recall election for that purpose. A REMOVAL ELECTION, IF CONDUCTED, WILL BE CONDUCTED AT PUBLIC EXPENSE. (A copy of this form is available in different formats by contacting the city clerk). Signer’s oath: “I swear (or affirm) that I know the contents and purpose of this petition and that I signed this petition only once and of my own free will.” All information on this petition is subject to public inspection. Every person signing this petition must do so in the presence of the person circulating the petition. It is a criminal offense to sign a name other than your own to the petition or to accept compensation for signing your name to the petition. **All information must be filled in by the person(s) signing the petition unless disability prevents the person(s) from doing so. Page _____of _____ NO. DATE OF SIGNATURE SIGNATURE YEAR OF BIRTH CLEARLY PRINT FIRST, MIDDLE, AND LAST NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS (HOUSE NUMBER & STREET NAME) CITY AND COUNTY Page 246 of 249 PROPOSED RECALL PETITION FORM (EXHIBIT A-6) The purpose of this petition is to propose the recall of ____________________ from the office of _______________________________ which recall is sought for the reasons set forth in the attached certificate. (A certificate stating the grounds for recall and a copy of the Sponsoring Committee Membership form must be attached). The undersigned residents of and registered voters in the City of Richfield, all being eligible to vote on candidates for the above office and understanding the nature of the charges against the Council Member herein sought to be recall, desire the holding of a recall election for that purpose. A REMOVAL ELECTION, IF CONDUCTED, WILL BE CONDUCTED AT PUBLIC EXPENSE. (A copy of this form is available in different formats by contacting the city clerk). Signer’s oath: “I swear (or affirm) that I know the contents and purpose of this petition and that I signed this petition only once and of my own free will.” All information on this petition is subject to public inspection. Every person signing this petition must do so in the presence of the person circulating the petition. It is a criminal offense to sign a name other than your own to the petition or to accept compensation for signing your name to the petition. **All information must be filled in by the person(s) signing the petition unless disability prevents the person(s) from doing so. Page _____of _____ NO. DATE OF SIGNATURE SIGNATURE YEAR OF BIRTH CLEARLY PRINT FIRST, MIDDLE, AND LAST NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS (HOUSE NUMBER & STREET NAME) CITY AND COUNTY Page 247 of 249 PROPOSED RECALL PETITION FORM (EXHIBIT A-6) The purpose of this petition is to propose the recall of ____________________ from the office of _______________________________ which recall is sought for the reasons set forth in the attached certificate. (A certificate stating the grounds for recall and a copy of the Sponsoring Committee Membership form must be attached). The undersigned residents of and registered voters in the City of Richfield, all being eligible to vote on candidates for the above office and understanding the nature of the charges against the Council Member herein sought to be recall, desire the holding of a recall election for that purpose. A REMOVAL ELECTION, IF CONDUCTED, WILL BE CONDUCTED AT PUBLIC EXPENSE. (A copy of this form is available in different formats by contacting the city clerk). Signer’s oath: “I swear (or affirm) that I know the contents and purpose of this petition and that I signed this petition only once and of my own free will.” All information on this petition is subject to public inspection. Every person signing this petition must do so in the presence of the person circulating the petition. It is a criminal offense to sign a name other than your own to the petition or to accept compensation for signing your name to the petition. **All information must be filled in by the person(s) signing the petition unless disability prevents the person(s) from doing so. Page _____of _____ NO. DATE OF SIGNATURE SIGNATURE YEAR OF BIRTH CLEARLY PRINT FIRST, MIDDLE, AND LAST NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS (HOUSE NUMBER & STREET NAME) CITY AND COUNTY Page 248 of 249 PROPOSED RECALL PETITION FORM (EXHIBIT A-6) The purpose of this petition is to propose the recall of ____________________ from the office of _______________________________ which recall is sought for the reasons set forth in the attached certificate. (A certificate stating the grounds for recall and a copy of the Sponsoring Committee Membership form must be attached). The undersigned residents of and registered voters in the City of Richfield, all being eligible to vote on candidates for the above office and understanding the nature of the charges against the Council Member herein sought to be recall, desire the holding of a recall election for that purpose. A REMOVAL ELECTION, IF CONDUCTED, WILL BE CONDUCTED AT PUBLIC EXPENSE. (A copy of this form is available in different formats by contacting the city clerk). Signer’s oath: “I swear (or affirm) that I know the contents and purpose of this petition and that I signed this petition only once and of my own free will.” All information on this petition is subject to public inspection. Every person signing this petition must do so in the presence of the person circulating the petition. It is a criminal offense to sign a name other than your own to the petition or to accept compensation for signing your name to the petition. **All information must be filled in by the person(s) signing the petition unless disability prevents the person(s) from doing so. Page _____of _____ NO. DATE OF SIGNATURE SIGNATURE YEAR OF BIRTH CLEARLY PRINT FIRST, MIDDLE, AND LAST NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS (HOUSE NUMBER & STREET NAME) CITY AND COUNTY Page 249 of 249