[00:00:00] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Good evening ladies and gentlemen I'm going to call to order this regular city council meeting of the city of Richfield it is July 9th and I believe it's actually 7:02 PM so if you're able please rise and join us for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you um before we move on to the open Forum I wanted to take a point of personal privilege and ask if the city manager would introduce our new city clerk. [00:00:45] **City Manager Katie Rodriguez**: Yes thank you mayor we want to welcome our new city clerk Michelle Friedrich um she comes with 10 years of City experience and U most recently was the city clerk for the city of corkran and we are all thrilled that she is here um I also want to thank uh Administrative Assistant Kelly win because she has been serving as where's Kelly as interim clerk thank you Kelly um and she has been doing that on top of all of her other duties so very appreciative so and welcome again Michelle. [00:01:15] **Mayor Mary Supple**: So we Echo that thank you and welcome all right next we'll move on to the open Forum um just a reminder if you wish to call in for the open Forum you can do so by dialing 1-415-655-0001 the meeting ID number is 2630 556 5366 and the password is 1 234 um if you're here this evening to speak or if you're online wanting to speak we ask people to limit their remarks to three minutes if you could state your name and give your address and then you can there's a signup sheet that's over by the microphone and then we'll let you have your three minutes and we welcome everyone's participation is there anybody online at all? All right so we're not seeing anybody online so first we have oh and one other thing before we start is um we'll be listening and taking notes notes but it's not like a back and forth type thing and then if there's something that we need to follow up on um staff will follow up with you or we'll get the answer for the public in the next at the next meeting all right so first we have Heidi Gyore. [00:02:15] **Heidi Gyore**: 9:15 Wentworth I'm here to speak about Richfield roads tonight what is happening in Richfield with our streets and ability to get from point A to point B? Our major thoroughfares are becoming a nightmare of roundabouts one lane each way and 25 M hour roads. The thoroughfares were originally made for Motor Vehicles to easily move around they now cause confusion and frustration. A 25 mph speed limit is a good thing for residential side streets but for the thoroughfares it makes no sense. The real risk for crashes and accidents on the roads is not a reasonable 35 mes hour or a slow 30 m hour it's inattentive driving. Regarding the proposed plan for all I can say is marked pedestrian Crossings with flashing lights more roundabouts are proposed plus medians which cut off the side streets from accessing left turns onto nickolet. This is counterproductive to making streets more easily navigable. As a car driver and Walker I would add that roundabouts are in reality more dangerous for pedestrians and bikers demographics that the city says it wants to be mindful of. Please stay away from the idea of more roundabouts and medians which will restrict traffic flow. There is also the idea to make the medians green as time has borne out this might sound nice in theory but they require a budget for installation and long-term maintenance which is difficult for small Richfields to fund and therefore the maintenance is lacking. I do like the idea of having bike and pedestrian paths separated from traffic given rampant inattentive driving. The painted line bike Lanes have never been a safe idea in the interest of safer better flowing traffic I would like to urge the city council and other entities involved to revisit both the 25 M hour policy and the proposed plan for nickolet Avenue and perhaps put the focus on quashing inattentive driving thank you. [00:04:10] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Thank you next we have next we have Sharon Meister. [00:04:15] **Sharon Meister**: Good evening Sharon Meister 6414 Harriet Avenue South and I live just down a house from the Lynd View Apartments. Since the Lynd View Apartments have opened there have been there there is is going to be no cleaning of the streets there's going to be poor snow removal this went on as it was being built. Also we cars cars block the driveway they block our sidewalks they block the fire hydrant and they park on the street curve. Our trash Recycling and yard waste is not picked up because the cars are parking in front of them and the dump the uh trucks cannot stop and pick it up or move the cars to get at it. So and on 64th at the Riley Apartments you have put in restrictive um parking from November 15th to April 15th and if they can't park there they're going to park on our block because we're the closest ones there. So I am asking the city to look at new ways of having parking City parking because I realize streets are city property and anybody can park there however I think it is a bit hazardous particularly to the daycare that is on our street for people to be just parking anywhere at all times of the day and night thank you. [00:05:35] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Thank you next we have Stephanie Sather. [00:05:40] **Stephanie Sather**: Hello I live at 6320 Clinton Avenue Richville resident and this is my business partner Becky Shup and I'm just here to um try to get some information about the cannabis laws for Richfield if there's any zoning or anything has been determined for Richfield um I would love we're moving forward with applying for a license and we would love to open in the city of Richfield and give back to the community and just essentially do cannabis the right way here so that's what we are here for. Any questions Becky? [00:06:10] **Becky Shup**: No we just wanted to introduce ourselves and tell us you know put a face to to somebody who may start a retail business in your city and and just what we can find out about that as we go forward and try to navigate the real murky Waters of this whole thing. So I'm a Burnsville resident but a Minnesota you know born and bred and retired veteran so we're we're applying early because we we have the social Equity to do so. So thank you. [00:06:40] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Thank you next we have Shelley Jagger. [00:06:45] **Shelley Jagger**: Hi my name is Shelley Jagger I live at 6420 Harriet I share the fence with the Lynd View apartment buildings. If you drive down the street it looks like it's so close it looks like it's eating my garage. Um we when we first heard about this um we were told that they were going to provide like 200 parking spots um we went to a um online meeting with Enclave. The thing I didn't understand until it was fully built is that they're charging for them so they've got this whole second floor that hardly anyone is parking in and so our street has become a parking lot. And um what is happening to me is that my driveway is right at the entrance to their to their place and we have the curve from um Harriet to 6 where Harriet and 64th and a half so people are parking on that curve which is right at the end of my driveway. It's very hard for you know we have to be really super careful we don't hit somebody if we try and back in with like the truck with the boat or anything like that it's hard and when people Park on that curve it's hard to see around the curve when you're coming and they will actually literally park on the curve. Um when the snow plow came through it couldn't get through so it would block my driveway with a little berm so it causes a problem with the snow removal then when the cars are parked there it builds up it gets hard to go down the street. They Park every day in front of the fire hydrant and they've been doing that since the beginning. So basically um and what I have a concern about too is when if you finally get some retail in there I walked over there and there's maybe three or four spots so it's hard I mean we had a nice quiet block it felt safe um and now we've got cars zooming out of the parking lot we've got cars parking blocking our sidewalk. We had work done at my house and we were just hoping that we could figure out a way where the people that were working on the house could park um and all that so basically I don't know what would be possible I know it's already built I know it's already there I know you can't make the people give free parking but is it possible that they could park across the street maybe in the parking lot east of LA Fitness? I don't know if the owners would let them do that but it's it's hard it feels like it feels like we don't have any rights anymore um the people when they Park their cars and they go grocery shopping they're up in our yard and taking all their stuff out and it's just and we've actually had people they walk their dogs up in our yard to go to the bathroom and my husband and I'm not sure if they're from this apartment building or the one behind me my husband um said uh we don't allow dogs in our yard and the guy gave him the finger we've had people walking up our driveway so we've really lost you know it feels like we don't have any rights anymore. So I don't know what you can do but it does cause a big problem in the winter and you know I need to get out to go to work um and you know I think that's you know like Sharon said she lives right next door to me we have problems with the garbage we've got the daycare across the street so my biggest issue is the um the parking and how we've lost our rights and our ability to move around and get around so thank you. [00:09:40] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Thank you is there anyone else who wishes to speak here that's in person? Is there anybody that's signed in online? Okay um then we will finish up with open Forum it doesn't look like anyone else is going to be calling in thank you for everyone who participated um so we'll move on next to the approval of the minutes of the special Council um closed session of June 18th 2024 and the city council work session of June 25th 2024 and the city council meeting of June 25th 2024. [00:10:15] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary**: Move approval of those minutes. [00:10:18] **Council Member Whan**: Second. [00:10:20] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Okay it's been moved and seconded um for the people that spoke at open Forum that are leaving there will be further discussion about parking if if you wish to stay all right um so it's been moved and seconded to um approve the minutes is there any discussion? All right hearing none all in favor of approving those three sets of minutes please say I. [00:10:40] **Council Members**: I. [00:10:41] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Um all opposed all right we've approved the three sets of minutes next we'll move on to approval of the agenda. [00:10:48] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary**: I'd move to approve of the agenda. [00:10:50] **Council Member Whan**: Second. [00:10:51] **Mayor Mary Supple**: It has been moved and seconded to approve the agenda is there any further discussion? All right all in favor of approving the agenda please say I. [00:11:00] **Council Members**: I. [00:11:01] **Mayor Mary Supple**: All opposed all right we've approved the agenda next we'll move on to the consent calendar city manager Rodriguez. [00:11:08] **City Manager Katie Rodriguez**: Thank you mayor the 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. There's just one item on tonight's consent calendar item A: consider the adoption of a resolution identifying the need for a livable communities pre-development funding and authorizing an application for Grant funds on behalf of the Penn Station development proposed for 6125 Penn Avenue South and I submit the one item for your consideration as part of the consent calendar. [00:11:50] **Council Member Whan**: And move approval of the consent calendar. [00:11:52] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary**: Second. [00:11:54] **Mayor Mary Supple**: It's been moved and seconded to approve the consent calendar is there any discussion? Hearing none all in favor please say I. [00:12:00] **Council Members**: I. [00:12:01] **Mayor Mary Supple**: All opposed thank you next we'll move on to item number four and I'll turn it over to council member Whan. [00:12:10] **Council Member Whan**: Thank you madam mayor um this item is the second reading of a transitory ordinance providing funding for certain Capital Improvements from the liquor contribution special Revenue fund as part of the capital Improvement budget an annual City budget process. Certain special Revenue funds are allocated each year to fund capital projects identified through the budget process. The source of the special Revenue funds are profits derived from the city's liquor store operation. These profits are transferred to the liquor contribution special Revenue fund before the funds can be used for the identified capital projects the city Charter requires that a transitory ordinance be used to authorize the expenditure of the funds. The proposed funding for 2024 per the approved Capital Improvement budget totals $500,000 and encompasses several Park and Recreation related projects. They are listed out with specific amounts um but they include The Donaldson park building demolition and rebuild The Donaldson park playground equipment and then several multi-year maintenance projects at the ice arena Community Center major parks and the Wood Lake building and fence. Does staff have anything to add for this item? Okay then I would move that we approve the attached transitory ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds from the liquor contribution special Revenue fund for the above listed Capital Improvements. [00:13:30] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary**: Second. [00:13:32] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Okay it's been moved in second and is there any discussion? [00:13:35] **Council Member Whan**: Um I have no idea if it the folks that brought up these questions would also be listening to this meeting but with the conversation this fall about ballot questions for Park and Recreation projects the question came up around well don't we have don't we have the liquor stores to fund these kinds of projects? And the answer is yes and that is does not cover the full needs of our community if we want to maintain and continue to have all of the different amenities that we offer. The amount for folks who have not paid attention to this before the amount of somewhere between 400,000 but recently it's been most years 500,000 coming from liquor store profits to fund various Park improvements that's fairly standard. That is provided in my five or so years on the council um that has paid for every playground replacement that we've done lots of like refinishing different courts or like and and some of this ongoing general maintenance but it it does not add up to the multi-million dollar projects that are being considered and decided on by voters this fall and so happy to talk more with any residents who have further questions but um just wanted to clarify that the profit from our liquor stores is wonderful allows us to do many things um and does not cover all of the needs. [00:14:55] **Council Member Troutman**: Thank you mayor and that's such a good point that council member Whan makes and for folks that may be listening I just want to get draw a couple of visual pictures of what we're investing in and what our limitations are. The Donaldson Park building demolition and rebuild for folks that aren't familiar with it's served our our community for a lot of years um and a lot of our abilities were built in the 70s with a lot of Creative Visions one of the Creative Visions was an inverted roof and so a roof where all the water comes right into the middle of the which has like a certain lovely aesthetic it's not long-term great you know 50 years later it's it's not it's not great. And so when we're making Investments we're making Investments for things like that that leaves a budget for another very creatively built um but highly inefficient and falling down building in Wood Lake that we have $10,000 um to to try and manage both the fence and um and and that that alien property. So we're really grateful for you know the more than $15 million we've gotten from the state and the federal um government to to make these Investments but that's why we're coming to you folks because this is a really small budget and we have some really um creative buildings that are in need of investment. [00:16:10] **Mayor Mary Supple**: All right is there any further discussion? It's been moved and seconded all in favor of approving the attached transitory ordinance please say I. [00:16:15] **Council Members**: I. [00:16:17] **Mayor Mary Supple**: All opposed all right thank you next we'll move on to item five which is the first reading of an ordinance Amendment adjusting parking requirements and I'll turn it over to council member Hayford. [00:16:30] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary**: Thank you um that is April 25th 2023 work session on policy topic priorities the council directed staff to examine parking requirements to address a few long-standing issues and to continue working on broader city-wide objectives. A joint work session was held with the Planning Commission and City Council on February 26 2024. The attached ordinance is a result of the direction provided by council members and Commissioners at the work session. In short the ordinance updates the city parking requirements in the following ways: number one it reduces the requirements for a class 3 restaurant, two it creates requirements for libraries museums and art galleries, three it explains the council's flexibility in relation to non-driving populations and four it adjusts the requirement for multifamily housing to be consistent across all zoning districts at 1.25. There's an additional note that although this is the recommended action is what was described um the additional note is that staff from several departments have concerns with this proposed change. While on street parking is not a problem in theory there are concerns with the design of some roadways that lead to safety issues specifically a lack of sidewalks to replace the on Street walking space roadways less than 36 ft wide particularly on East West Roads that can make emergency vehicle access difficult when there is snow restrictions to on street parking to address these issues increase the need for police enforcement and push parking deeper into neighborhoods resulting in additional complaints. Staff recommends 1.5 spaces per unit retaining and expanding current discretionary language and allowing the reduction to 1.25 only if conditions are met. They would add roadway width and orientation to the factors to be considered however if we adopt four as recommended by the Planning Commission they suggest we revise the parking maximum for multifamily to ensure developments have the flexibility to secure financing. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 29th the commission recommended approval of the ordinance as presented and recommend that the city council consider an additional study of the city's sidewalk policies and funding as well as a study of reducing eliminating parking minimums in areas of close proximity to high frequency Transit lines and stations. Staff agrees that there is a direct Nexus between sidewalks and parking as well as factors like Road width and that is why staff continues to recommend that the discretionary language be retained and expanded and that's again referring to the 1.5/1.25 discretion. At the June 25th council meeting the council decided to postpone a vote and asked for the additional items first further discussion on discretion. Discretion allows the ability to consider the impact of parking reductions on the immediately surrounding area and to negotiate the mitigation of those impacts. Planning staff and the City attorney are discussing ways to link on street parking to sidewalk construction. Additional City staff have submitted comments regarding staff's recommendation which was in our packet uh alternate language which is also in our packet. So the original drafted ordinance from the Planning Commission and staff's alternative recommendations are both before us and a map showing the locations of the MR2 and MR3 zoning districts compared to the locations of the mixed use districts which already allow 1.25 units without discretion. The MR2 and MR3 districts are scattered throughout the city and tend to be in more residential areas the mixed use districts are mostly concentrated in the Penn Avenue Corridor the Cedar Avenue Corridor and along the I-494 Corridor and they have provided a zoning map. Does staff have anything to add before a motion or questions? I do not um recognizing there may be additional feedback I'd prefer to make the motion and if there is a desire for an amendment that we consider that after the motion so I would move that we approve a first reading of an ordinance amendment to adjust parking requirements. [00:20:10] **Council Member Whan**: Second. [00:20:12] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Okay it's been moved and seconded which allows us to now have the discussion and as you pointed out if someone wants to make any amendments um do we have questions for staff or anything that people would like to clarify? [00:20:25] **Council Member Whan**: Um I guess my first clarification question is is the motion on the table since we have both the original recommended by the Planning Commission and this alternative what is currently on the table? [00:20:35] **Mayor Mary Supple**: The recommended action which is the planning commissions so we would need an amendment to change that to use the staff recommendation instead. [00:20:45] **Council Member Whan**: Okay I would just I would appreciate if staff are willing to share more about discretion and it sounds like there are maybe some of my colleagues who want to discuss that more. I personally am more comfortable with the Planning Commission version that does not include the as much discretion and my reason is just that um I mean as as someone who is not going to be on this council with in a shorter time frame um but also I mean we make ordinances for when no one in this room will be making decisions based on them. I've I've seen other cities with use every possible form of discretion to delay reduce or block Housing Development and it's part of why we are a 100,000 units short as a state of Housing and so I think the the move is ultimately in recognition in in my opinion there's other reasons for it but one of the reasons for this move is that um when parking maximums are too high it increases the cost of housing and reduces the amount of housing that gets built and I don't want to leave potential routes for future leaders to continue that trend. So I would say that I am more comfortable at least so far with the not adding extra discretion but would appreciate hearing from staff or colleagues that are pushing for that to understand why. [00:22:15] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary**: I agree with council member Whan. I think we've made a conscious effort to have clear good rules in different ways with their zoning we had a big discussion about that with duplexes providing predictability is important um and I think we already have a discretionary thing which is the ability to reduce for non-driving populations the only discretion we'd be giving up is not being able to require more than one and a quarter in these situations. It was actually really helpful to have I I imagine we'll hear more directly from staff to have the written feedback to both hear the potential problems from police and fire as well as the potential problems from public works and the Public Works had an alternative idea that was sort of separate from this ordinance which is: could we just be more proactive with restricting street parking in these areas? And to me that seems like a dramatically better approach. We heard tonight from some folks who live near things in the mixed use District what we're considering tonight would not increase the parking requirements in those areas and it certainly can't increase parking requirements where buildings are already built. The only question before us is do we want to require or continue to require more parking just in those limited non-mixed use um MR2 MR3 and I see no reason that we should have a different requirement for them than mixed use. Another good example that I saw tonight that development that is causing problems Lynd View has one and a half parking spaces per unit and there's still a problem because they still charge for parking and people want to use the free parking that's available. All this would do to charge to increase the required parking would be cars would still be on the street we'd have more empty parking spots we'd have less affordable housing. So I just don't think it gets what we get at but I support what Public Works had in mind um I would also say I'd be happy to suggest a more comprehensive approach as part of a future Council policy topic because I think that really addresses the issue. The issue isn't how much off street parking there is the issue is is there too much parking concentrated or is it not being well enforced on the street? One additional thought I want to just put in front of us um I recognize that you know as taking time to figure out where those no parking zones go figure out one side parking and enforcing creates a staff burden and we're you know we do our best to keep keep a lean staff to make sure that that time is being used well but just before this in the HRA capacity we approved a 1.5 million dollar subsidy to bring more affordable housing to Richfield. That's a pretty significant subsidy to to then go and say we can't make housing more affordable because we can't put up to no parking signs and we can't have police occasionally enforce that if we're willing to subsidize housing affordability to such a large extent so commonly I think we can subsidize it via some staff time to create reasonable parking restrictions and to enforce them. So I think that's a better approach I certainly support that but for the main decision tonight I strongly support one and a quarter as recommended by the Planning Commission. [00:25:20] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Great other comments or questions? Okay um we've had a request to hear from staff I have some comments later too but let's hear from staff first of all if each of the Departments could say something. [00:25:35] **Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman**: Thank you madam mayor I'll start from the Community Development perspective I think that um our our preference for discretion stems primarily from um an access issue in safety on the streets when we are um spilling over the parking onto our adjacent residential streets which in theory the planning staff does not have an issue with. The issue for us is then we're removing where people are currently walking and biking and replacing it with cars and not replacing that with anything else. Right now our development standards require that a new development um install sidewalks around their the entirety of their property um which is great I think that's a good requirement we should we should continue to do that however the parking often spills beyond the boundaries of that property. I don't think that the parking adjacent to the property itself is most often the issue it's when it's spilling down the side street. If we are then restricting parking um in addition to the enforcement issues we're pushing that problem farther into the neighborhood although perhaps it's dispersed at that point. By retaining this discretionary language I think planning staff would like to use it as a negotiating tactic that as is mentioned in the staff report we've been discuss in discussions with the city attorney about a trade: if you'd like to reduce your parking then we want you to construct a sidewalk which is the alternative ped and bike way on that block where your where your parking is potentially going to spill over. It allows us to address a primary safety concern so I I think that from from a planning perspective that is our primary reason for wanting to retain that discretion it gives us something um some negotiating power. [00:27:30] **Fire Chief Jenell Brooks**: So from a fire department perspective I think the challenges that have been raised about parking restrictions within the city I would just say that if we have an incident even in a summer day between the fire trucks arriving even even even if it's a fire call would create a stop in a street a medical call which we do about 13 times a day creates a stop in a street and that's in the summertime in the winter it just gets worse. The last accident we had was because of a congested parking area so I would I like the idea of being able to maintain some leverage um and not create a broad standard thank you. [00:28:15] **Police Chief Jay Henthorne**: Madame mayor council um yeah Public Safety has some concerns related to those these limitations. The first one is related to our our disabled community or people with mobility issues ultimately they might have to park further away from their destination so that's one concern. Secondly um if we take away off street parking um and well the streets in Richfield are narrow and everything the fire chief is talking about it becomes a traffic safety issue for us people navigating those narrow streets with additional on street parking just becomes an issue it's a safety issue. And then to follow up on that also um cluttered or or streets cluttered with off street parking public streets cluttered with um off street parking specifically not by a bike path or a sidewalk that becomes a hazard in our view to cyclists and pedestrians. We all think about the kid the visibility is messed up right we think about the kid running out between the parked cars to get the ball or whatever like that or at intersections the visibility becomes an issue and then one other issue I thought about walking down here was cars parked on the street become an opportunity for crime with the vehicle break-ins that we have in town and stuff like that so it's really four issues that we have then thank you. [00:29:40] **City Engineer Joe Powers**: Good evening Madame mayor council members um for the audience in attendance my name is Joe Powers I'm the city engineer. Public Works concerns with this potential change to the ordinance really revolve around maintenance of our roadways as well as supporting our Public Safety response and the issues that director Poehlman noted and retaining that flexibility. We would prefer to retain the flexibility in the policy we feel that we can approach these developments with more of a context and site specific lens at that point. The reality is that there are some areas in town where adjacent roadways close to developments just aren't going to be super suitable for on street parking they're probably few and far between but there are areas and our concern is that in those areas um having more onsite parking would be a likely better solution and we are we are concerned that in those areas where there's very little available on street parking we'd have to have excessive restrictions that would push this parking further and further out into neighborhoods thank you. [00:30:45] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Are there any other questions for staff? Um you have a question go ahead. [00:30:50] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary**: My question so again this is already the standard where most of our Redevelopment occurs in the mixed use districts could you speak to why it makes sense to have a higher standard only for this MR2 MR3 District versus where most Redevelopment happens? [00:31:05] **City Engineer Joe Powers**: I'm going to say I'm not an expert on the different zoning districts um so from a public works perspective I think we are this is kind of a Citywide policy that we're concerned about. Okay and maybe director Poehlman can expand on that. [00:31:25] **Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman**: Thank you um I will say that we this is the standard already in the mixed use districts and that is where we're experiencing some of these pinch points and um why I think that we're we're asking to add roadway design um into the discretion because of the issues that we've had at some of these other developments. The MR2 and MR3 districts are are farther away from the commercial districts they're not the Hub they're a little bit more tucked into the neighborhood and and potentially we're looking at expanding where those MR2 and MR3 districts are particularly along our highfrequency Transit lines so um I I think it's because of where they're located and the issues that we have that we're recommending this. [00:32:10] **Mayor Mary Supple**: All right other comments from any council members that haven't spoken otherwise I can weigh in but I was going to let everybody else have a chance to speak um I have two or three different issues. Um as far as choosing between the original version and the version that the alternate version that would allow the discretion given the concerns that we've been hearing I would prefer to allow for the discretion we can always tighten it up later but I would prefer the staff recommended version so that it we have some negotiating room and some discretion because I think there have been a number of issues that have been coming up and I was pleased that um council member Hayford asked for a map of where the mixed use districts were and where the MR2 and mr3s were because that helped when I saw that visual because it does seem like the MR2 and MR3 are more of a buffer between like higher density things and Commercial if I'm not mistaken or excuse me and residential if I'm not mistaken. So I think there's going to be more of these issues happening in those places so we need to work out what our procedures are. The second thing though is when we look at what we currently have and the mixed use we have some things that we need to clean up and need to figure out and so one of the things I think would be helpful if we can let residents know what the procedure is like to request a change in parking signs or to request a change like I think there's like a traffic control committee and some of that. So before I finish my comment could someone explain what the procedures are if you think that you want to request parking to be restricted or some other change? [00:33:50] **City Engineer Joe Powers**: Yes madame mayor we do have a traffic control committee it's an internal staff committee it's made up of representatives from Public Works Community Development Public Safety including police and fire um so there's a on on the website the city website residents can submit a traffic control committee or basically traffic traffic control issue complaint concern. We bring those to the committee um and we discuss those on an individual basis and when we get those types of requests if we get a request for parking restrictions for example we're going to look very specifically at that area. We're going to look at roadway widths we're going to look at surrounding uses really a lot of the things that are kind of in this discretionary language in the ordinance are the things that we talk about in this committee and we make a determination on what we feel the best practices or best solution for this particular issue. The committee then makes a recommendation to the city manager who ultimately approves or denies the committee's recommendation and so typically if if we looked at an issue with parking and we found that it was warranted there are safety issues there are access issues then we would probably recommend some sort of parking restriction. And I I'll just add a note that I think Public Works staff and the traffic control commit is not necessarily opposed to this ordinance change but we do want to be very clear that we feel it will result in areas that are going to need more restricted parking and so that's going to be additional staff time across multiple departments we're not opposed to that just want to be clear. [00:35:35] **Council Member Troutman**: Thank you mayor um bring up a couple really good points and one question I had in particular with regards to that committee um which I hope under any circumstance will continue to become more robust sounds like there's consensus that we're going to utilize that more um but just hearing from both of our Chiefs um about these issues arising mostly I've heard of the traffic committee being utilized by residents um do staff have the ability interdepartmentally to utilize that and do they utilize that to say hey we you know and we we appreciate having tools for our our residents but also staff I haven't heard of staff utilizing maybe it's primarily staff I'm just curious if you could speak to that. [00:36:15] **City Engineer Joe Powers**: Sure it is primarily resident requests or business owner requests Community requests but it's open to staff. We do consider staff issues for example at our last meeting we considered a staff request for um some parking restrictions based on utility maintenance in a certain area so yep it's open to it's open to anybody who'd like to submit a request. [00:36:40] **Council Member Troutman**: Great I think you make a really good point that if we move forward we would expect that that and and and would invite those those requests not just to come from residents but from our Chiefs and other folks to say hey we really we really do need you know no parking here you know we this is we need to have more access and that feels like a great use of a committee that's that's already in existence so thanks for that. [00:37:05] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Can I ask one other clarification question about that? I mean we talked about things like stop signs and no parking can it be used to clarify something like saying parking's permitted here? Because I know I think I sense there's confusion on Lyndale Avenue like if you're north of the roundabout on I I don't remember if it's 6 I think on 65th there's a whole strip that I believe was supposed to be on street parking but there's no parking signs by the roundabout which refer to the roundabout and I don't see anybody parking there and we've heard from residents tonight in open Forum that they're parking behind the building when there's a whole strip of parking that could be used in front. So I don't know is that an appropriate use of that committee to suggest something like putting parking permitted signs up or? [00:37:55] **City Engineer Joe Powers**: Yeah no that's a that's a perfect use for that committee if there's confusion about where parking is permitted not permitted um if it's something that we feel that we get the request we feel is a fairly clear answer it may not go to the committee we may just answer it at a staff level and and clarify that um but if it's something that we might want to consider changing restrictions or adding or taking away signage to to further clarify things in the public then that would go to the committee and we have done had those types of requests in the past. [00:38:30] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary**: I guess I'm curious I my understanding is public works when there's a major development like a new apartment building you do some sort of review already like where the driveways are going to go and that sort of thing the utilities? [00:38:40] **City Engineer Joe Powers**: Yeah that's correct. [00:38:41] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary**: Could you potentially look at parking restrictions at that point in the process? [00:38:45] **City Engineer Joe Powers**: Yes I think that's something that we're considering at this point and I I noted that in my staff comments that were in the report um that there hopefully be an understanding from the council that if we are going to restrict parking it might even come at that plan review point before issues arise. [00:39:05] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary**: Yeah and I will say and this is sort of half commentary half directly response I think every issue that I've heard from police and fire would be better addressed by parking restrictions on the street than requiring more off street parking. That said even if the direction were to go with a higher parking requirement and MR2 MR3 I don't think that would still be useful I I struggled on 64th Street to you know get action on on those parking signs we eventually did but it's really tough to teach people new habits after they've learned they can park there. We don't have any issue on one side parking in areas where it's been established for years we do have issues retraining people and that becomes a bigger burden. So if we can be proactive I think that's in everybody's best interest. [00:39:55] **Mayor Mary Supple**: So I had one another question for Public Safety um it was mentioned during the open Forum about people parking by fire hydrants and those types of things and I know you do patrols and look for things but if a resident notices something like that do they call the non-emergency number or what's the procedure that's followed for that? [00:40:15] **Police Chief Jay Henthorne**: Yep absolutely mayor if if a citizen sees an issue a parking issue any issue they can call a non-emergency number and report that and then we can come out and take enforcement action or advise a homeowner or whoever it is to either move the vehicle or or cite it so. [00:40:35] **Council Member Whan**: I would put a maybe more pointed to that piece um Minnesotans were not always good at tattling on other people the city will never know someone's parked in front of a fire hydrant unless you call it in and tell us. That's not being rude that's just like how we take care of that so um very much second that. My my question um I like council member Hayford Oleary continue to I I agree continue to think that this is more of a question about um parking restrictions and less about how much parking is required or not um again because this is this is the minimum that developers can and do build more than that um but I I guess I'm not hearing any staff response to the very real phenomenon that council member Hayford Oleary named where places that have built more parking than required still have on street parking and to me that feels like the biggest I don't know argument reason for this to be a conversation this safety and like Street Maintenance conversation to be about parking restrictions and not about parking requirements. I'm wondering if staff from any Department have any to speak to that specific point of places where there is more than enough parking by requirement but we're still seeing on street parking in places that are causing issues. [00:42:05] **Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman**: Council member Whan um you know I think when parking is available freely on the curb outside of your property particularly in nice summer weather you're going to park there rather than in a stall where you have to pay um because parking costs are generally in new buildings now unbundled which is something that um we are in favor of because if you don't have a car you shouldn't be subsidizing the people that do. By putting parking restrictions in um adjacent to or in the in the adjacent low density areas because of safety concerns or whatnot it could perhaps force people to say well gosh now it's too inconvenient for me I don't want to park a block away from my building I was willing to park um you know half a block away but but now especially in the winter I'm just going to pay for my parking. So it could it could force um more people to park in the lot. I also think there is an equilibrium here those building owners it is in their best interest to rent those spots um it does take time and particularly right now with Staffing challenges that buildings are having that everyone is having um you know that doesn't seem to be something that management companies are focusing on they're focusing on their units instead of adjusting their parking costs um but it is in everyone's best interest to have the parking stalls on site utilized for whatever they might be able to charge for them does that help some? [00:43:40] **Council Member Whan**: I and maybe it's less of a question and just sharing my opinion but I I mean we we see the same thing on streets that are all single family homes that there's some that are wide open and some that consistently have half the block fully parked and there's there's safety concerns to that too and that's not that doesn't mean that the people who built those homes didn't should have built maybe a three-car garage instead of a one-car garage like it we allow parking on our streets if the issue is where people are parked on our streets then I feel like we should limit that and not um yeah I just it's tens of thousands of dollars per per additional parking space that I I think will come back to us as requests for more Public Funding for these projects if we're requiring more parking spaces. [00:44:30] **Mayor Mary Supple**: A clarification question because I was a resident called and spoke to me about wondering if we could require the developers to put in free parking inside the building and I think you mentioned that but can you go back over that again? [00:44:45] **Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman**: Sure uh we first of all maybe a question for the City attorney is whether or not we could require that by ordinance that they provide free parking um philosophically I don't think it's in line with the city council's goals to require them to provide free parking. Parking is very expensive it is a high cost item as part of these developments and we're asking for affordable units in these developments we're building Transit pedestrian and bicycle facilities um to try to help our residents who do not either by choice or by means own a car philosophically I do not think that we want those residents to be subsidizing those that have vehicles so City attorney might have to help me on whether or not we we legally would be able to require that. [00:45:45] **City Attorney Mary Tietjen**: Mayor and Council um having only thought about this for about 30 seconds um my initial reaction would be I I think it could be problematic um and I guess the reason I say that is it's really a business decision and more of a private matter about how they would want to run that run that property and run that business and I'm not sure I don't know but I don't my gut reaction to it initial reaction is I think it could be problematic legally to make that a requirement of the city. But that's just my sort of off the top of my head response. [00:46:25] **Council Member Troutman**: Thank you mayor and um thanks to staff and my colleagues I I appreciate the input. I've I've lived in Richfield for for most of my life and also I'm an alum of living in Loring Park where parking is at a huge premium and you know walking three blocks is not unheard of um in in the winter and um I I I have to say that I I'm I'm in favor of the planning commission's proposal but feel more comfortable with it um if we're utilizing the traffic committee to really address particularly problematic areas also for residents to be able to do that too. So I I'm I'm I'm I'm going to support the motion but with with the understanding that that we we need we need a more robust and maybe even more timely process or whatever we can do to to facilitate that not just for residents but also for different staff and different departments that that we can timely address their their concerns. [00:47:35] **Council Member Whan**: It may be moot as I I think that as a third person interested in the Planning Commission recommendation but I I was confused also in the alternate version why um the discretion if I I think I'm reading the correct line on page three of the alternate one one under multifamily dwellings it says two spaces per unit may be reduced to 1.25 per unit if factors warrant um I guess I thought the maximum we were considering was 1.5 and then my maybe my last comment in favor of the original version um is just if we went with discretion I would want it to be a lot more specific than "if factors warrant" and would be more comfortable with a default of 1.25 may be increased to something if factors warrant rather than starting from the upper end. But again perhaps I guess if um I mean council member Christensen you haven't weighed in yet but perhaps if we are no longer considering the alternate version then we don't need to spend time on that. [00:48:45] **Council Member Sharon Christensen**: I think looking at the different developments in the city you know the planning the planning and the developers have to come together for some kind of an agreement. I think of where um where personally where I am living the underground parking is one car per unit if you have an additional one you park elsewhere and they do have a ramp available a ramp available close by that they can made arrangements with the owners of that ramp to park in a lower level. So if something like that could be negotiated with the developers perhaps or something um and personally we don't pay for our parking it it's probably blended right into the rent and um if the developers could do some kind of arrangements with the tenants whether it be affordable tenants or maximum amount paying tenants whichever they would come to an agreement. Because those streets in that area are very limited they are very narrow and um I drove down one the other day for for some other reason and I thought to myself this is in the summer with double parking how can a fire truck get through here how can an ambulance get through here how can a police car get through here? Two cars coming at each other from different distances you can't do it you have to move somewhere and so with these people with new developments like Lynd View is like some of the residents say that um some kind of consideration needs to be done with the existing streets and that's just the way the streets were built back then you know for they didn't have as many cars but now we do and this is something that we need to deal with so. [00:50:35] **Mayor Mary Supple**: All right other comments or questions? So from what I'm hearing I think there's consensus that we need to make sure that we are utilizing the tools we have for the developments that have already been built to make sure we take care of fire concerns public safety concerns plowing concerns with Public Works Street Maintenance concerns that we need to make sure we go back and fix some of those things. And what I'm also hearing is people are saying any new developments we need to be proactively thinking about some of this instead of trying to retrain people so I think that seems to be a consensus and I I would like you know if we can even put out information for people that aren't here tonight or aren't listening tonight for how you can make those um requests for changes for parking and those types of things. As I said I prefer the alternate version that the staff is doing because I think we need more discretion obviously I'm going to be outvoted on that um so I didn't have an issue with some of the other things like parking for the libraries or museums and that kind of things but I do think we need more discretion and I may end up voting no on this whole thing because of that. But pragmatically if that's going to pass then we need to deal with the parking maximums because um one of the things it talked about here in the staff report is that if you have the maximum as a percentage of the minimum and we lower the minimums sometimes you are affecting what that maximum is and then people have trouble getting financing. And so I don't want to have an unintended consequence there so I do think if we end up doing this I want to make sure that we revise the parking maximum for multifamily to ensure that developments had the flexibility needed to secure financing and I'm I know this is a first reading so I don't know how we if we need a motion to to that effect or to amend the things or what would happen. [00:52:25] **Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman**: Thank you Madame mayor we that is incorporated into the Planning Commission's recommended ordinance so if you are going to vote on the recommendation the revised maximum for those um districts is included. [00:52:45] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Okay thank you for that clarification I know I was looking at previous ones from last time too um the other issue I had um has to do with ADA parking how will this affect um because I think that's also done on a percentage basis can we require additional um parking for people with disabilities or does it is it all going to be dependent on what we require here? [00:53:05] **Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman**: Madame mayor good question the parking handicap parking is prescribed by the building code um it's generally done sort of I I describe it in pods so for each pod of parking there is a requirement based on the overall amount of parking. Let's say it's a range of between if you have between 1 and 50 parking stalls you are required to provide to handicap stalls. So this change um which overall is going to be a a fairly minor adjustment in a large pod of parking and with those ranges um I don't anticipate um making a large difference in terms of the amount of handicapped stalls. One other thing to note is that our building inspector does um interpret the building code to say that if there are um accessible units that there needs to be a parking stall a handicap parking stall for each of those accessible units so we are providing more than just kind of the base code based on our inclusionary housing policy and the way that he interprets the building code um so for the for the ordinance before you tonight I do not anticipate this causing a problem. [00:54:20] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary**: I don't have anything more to say on what's before us but I do just want to say briefly since we got everybody here thinking about parking um I I do want to note our streets are really wide compared to most streets in the Metro 36 feet is exceptionally wide and this has come up actually when we wanted 20 miles per hour as our default speed. Public Works said no your streets are so honkin' wide there's no way you're going to get people to go 20 on those I'm paraphrasing slightly but you did cite the large Street width as a reason why cars were going to go so fast through our neighborhoods. So I understand I think it's true that both wide streets can add some safety benefits and some safety costs but I guess I'm just hoping as different departments are aware of these issues that we bear that in mind so if there I don't know enough about fire trucks but if there are options for narrow fire trucks when you're doing equipment purchases anyway that perhaps we not commit ourselves to always having a future of 36 foot wide streets because in a lot of ways there there are significant trade-offs to having those. And I will just say that that's wider than any of our neighbors build Bloomington are narrow Minneapolis are narrow Edina's are 10ft narrower so we have big streets. [00:55:50] **Mayor Mary Supple**: That also brings up the issue that came up earlier this evening at the HRA meeting talking about things like and director Poehlman mentioned it having where sidewalks are required and the difference between an East-West Street and a North-South Street and walking around certain neighborhoods that if you're going north and south it's a nice wide street but if you're going and West it isn't. So I think some of that needs to be considered as far as when we're putting in the parking restrictions and I'd rather be proactive on those than reactive. We do need to clean up some things apparently so we do have to be reactive for a while here but going forward we I want would like us to be proactive and thinking ahead on those things and I know the sidewalk is going to be a large discussion because there's a whole lot of variables and unintended consequences there and that's not what we're voting on tonight but I do wish that we would be proactive and think through all of these things. Any other comments before we take the vote? All right so we have the motion before us to approve a first reading of an ordinance amendment to adjust parking requirements and it was clarified it would be the original version that was put forward by the Planning Commission is um all in favor please say I. [00:57:10] **Council Members**: I. [00:57:11] **Mayor Mary Supple**: All opposed and I'm going to vote no and so it has passed 4 to 1 so the next thing that will happen is this will come before us at our next meeting as a second reading is that correct? [00:57:25] **Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman**: Yes that's correct in two weeks you should see a second reading and a summary publication of the ordinance. [00:57:35] **Mayor Mary Supple**: All right thank you and I also want to say thank you to staff for weighing in with all the recommendations because that's something we did ask for to get like a real robust discussion and to hear what everybody um thought about it so we can consider all the factors so thank you thank you for that I appreciate it. All right so moving back to the agenda let's see we are on to the city manager report. [00:58:00] **City Manager Katie Rodriguez**: Thank you mayor I also wanted to thank staff um for coming tonight and providing feedback and sending it ahead of time and also to council for asking for additional feedback I appreciate it. We've had earlier tonight we discussed cannabis time place manner regulations and that was a cross departmental project and parking is as well so was good to see the team working together so thank you um and then also I um at past open forums there has been some discussion and suggestions about Richfield being a charter City and not having to follow state law when it comes to some recent changes and so I've asked City attorney Tietjen to clarify that. [00:58:45] **City Attorney Mary Tietjen**: Thank you mayor and council I won't give you too long of a report on Charter and statutory cities but I'll give you the very very brief version. Statutory cities derive powers from State statutes and Charter cities which Richfield as one derive powers from their City Charters. It does not mean however that Charter cities are exempt from all other general laws in fact any specific State statute typically will define what a city is for purposes of applying that law. And one example is the sacred settlement legislation which the resident brought up that in his opinion Richfield did not have to comply with that because it's a charter City and actually that statute defines city as any City no matter how the city is organized so that's just one example of a statute that makes it clear um to which cities the law applies and so that's my sort of abbreviated short explanation of that issue thank you. [01:00:00] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Is there anything else for the city manager report? All right um next we'll move on to claims and payroll. [01:00:10] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary**: I would move claims and payroll. [01:00:12] **Council Member Whan**: Second. [01:00:14] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Been moved and seconded to approve claims and payroll is there any further discussion? All in favor of approving claims and payroll please say I. [01:00:20] **Council Members**: I. [01:00:22] **Mayor Mary Supple**: All opposed all right we've approved the claims and payroll next we'll move on to hats off to Hometown hits and we'll start off with council member Whan. [01:00:35] **Council Member Whan**: Thank you mayor um I imagine others may comment on this as well but my biggest hats off is to our Richfield 4th of July committee everyone who made all of those events possible everyone who wrestled with the hard decisions about weather. Um I got to watch the parade for the first time ever actually I've been in it a lot but got to watch it for the first time with my wife and son and that was lovely despite the rain. And so yeah just huge thank you hats off to everyone who played a role in organizing that and then of course I know our staff in addition to the the fun part of just being in the parade had a lot of logistics work to help make those events possible as well so thank you to everyone. Um and then the other hats off I want to give um is my my wife and son got to be part of the story time at Augsburg Park and would highly recommend that to anyone else with small children it was a lovely opportunity thank you. [01:01:45] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Council member Christensen. [01:01:50] **Council Member Sharon Christensen**: Yes I would also like to thank the Fourth of July committee. I met with them I spoke with them every week at the farmers market and they extensively telling me about different things that they were planning and different things contingency plans and it was a very tough call with the fireworks this year and but they I believe they did a very excellent job explaining why why they could not do the fireworks why they had to why did they had to cancel things at certain times during the day but um it worked out well. So you know and the other hats off also is to the farmers market and what they do every week is phenomenal. They're growing they're expanding beyond the Pavilion area and they're bringing a lot of different wide variety of things so that's thank you. [01:02:45] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Council member Hayford Oleary. [01:02:50] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary**: I also give a quick thanks to the Fourth of July committee as well as our staff for assisting. I talked with a few people from Wreck of course police and fire were very visible and I'm sure there were other departments there as well I'm sure Public Works coordinating. Um so much of our time gets focused on nitty-gritty like the the long discussion about parking or just you know sort of keeping the lights on as a city but these events are things that like really make it feel like a community and they're so important and so them helping restore this tradition after a really difficult set of years is so important and I wish them the best next year. Um I do also want to just say how excited I am for the Nicolet Avenue open house I was going to mention to the somebody who had spoke during open Forum with concerns about Nicolet there will be the open house tomorrow 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. at the community center. Transportation Commission has spent a bunch of time on this they've been very present at the open houses engaging with the community as well as city and county staff and our consultants so I think they've got a really good draft design and I hope people come and give the best possible feedback to make it even better thank you. [01:04:15] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Council member Troutman. [01:04:20] **Council Member Troutman**: Thank you mayor uh I'm reminded everything's been said but it's not yet been said by everybody. Um I like my heart just is bursting with thankfulness and gratefulness and joy to our to all the volunteers and everybody who who invested time that includes definitely our staff it certainly includes our fourth July committee Steve Schneberger and and so many others that just people I don't know if they understand how many hours how many days it takes to organize something like that thank you. Thank you it just made it feel like Richfield of old it was a restoration of something really beautiful and also a special thank you for everybody who stands up and leads and then when something goes doesn't happen the way we want it to and people are really passionate about that for everybody that led and then took that that energy thank you. You know that is part of leadership and um you don't get paid for being on the 4th of July committee you just um you have the thanks of a grateful community and so I just want to say that multiple times it was incredible and um looking forward to participating as a as a citizen next year thank you. [01:05:40] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Um I also wanted to say thank you to everyone who spoke at open forum and has been participating in reaching out and giving feedback to council members um it's really important to hear what the community has to say so we can make better decisions and so I really appreciate that. Um I want to do a kudos to Bloomington Public Health which incorporates Richfield Edina and Bloomington and we received word today that the CDC the Centers for Disease Control and prevention has um given us um re accreditation for the public health accreditation board. So that required a we had to go through a lot of documentation and and a lot of site visits and things like that that were going on and not everybody does that and so I just want to say hats off to Bloomington Public Health for being re accredited and thank you to everybody that was part of that process. Um also I see fire chief Brooks is in the audience and I want to say a thank you to the fire department because I know there's been a number of things happening with branches falling on power lines and electrical fires and I really appreciate all of the work that the fire dept's been doing and also the coordination with all of the neighboring departments I mean we've gone over to help at Edina they're coming over to help us we help out at the airport they help us and I think it's phenomenal how all the different departments work together so I wanted to do a hats off to that. Um I also found out about something that I don't know if anybody else knows about this but apparently the neighbors around Jefferson Park have put together they've worked in cooperation with the city to put together a wildflower garden and it's next to the playground and they're they had their open house tonight from 6:30 to 8 but if you're stopping by Jefferson Park sometime you probably want to check out their work and I want to thank everybody um all the neighbors and all the staff and everybody that worked together on that. And finally um I did want to do a thank you as well as everybody else did to everybody involved with the Richfield 4th of July it was great to see everybody coming together. Um I was over there at Street dance on July 3rd and it was just fun to see the multi-generational group of people there from the little kids dancing to the people that were my age and older and everybody having fun together. So um and so thank you to the committee to the volunteers and to the staff and everybody who worked together and to all the residents that came out and celebrated because I think that's important too because you can plan everything if nobody shows up you don't have the celebration either so thank you to everyone. Um and with that if there's no further business I would entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. [01:08:45] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary**: So moved. [01:08:47] **Council Member Whan**: Second. [01:08:48] **Mayor Mary Supple**: Spend moved and second and to adjourn the meeting all in favor please say I. [01:08:52] **Council Members**: I. [01:08:53] **Mayor Mary Supple**: All opposed all right and we've adjourned the meeting thank you city clerk Friedrich he made it through our first council meeting.