Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-24-R -iI�DEN HILLS Approved: February 12, 2024 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8,2024 7:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor David Grant called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Tom Fabel, Brenda Holden, Tena Monson and Emily Rousseau Absent: None Also present: City Administrator Dave Perrault; Public Works Director/City Engineer Dave Swearingen; Community Development Director Jessica Jagoe; City Attorney Amy Schmidt; and Assistant to the City Administrator/City Clerk Julie Hanson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Rousseau requested New Business Item I I be discussed prior to Item 11A as there were a lot of people in the audience that were interested in Rice Creek Commons. Councilmember Rousseau requested items pulled from the Consent Calendar be addressed after Item 11 A and 1113. Councilmember Holden stated she disagreed with this recommendation. Mayor Grant recommended pulled Consent Calendar items be addressed under Item 9. Councilmember Fabel explained he supported Councilmember Rousseau's recommendation to have pulled Consent Calendar items discussed after Item 11 A and 11 B. Councilmember Monson questioned what items would like to pull from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Holden requested Items C, D, G, H, I and J be pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion under Item 9. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 2 Councilmember Monson indicated she did not object to pulling these items from the Consent Calendar but given the items that are pulled and what she anticipated the conversation was going to be, she supported moving Item 9 to just before Unfinished Business in order to have that conversation after TCAAP. However, she did support the pulled items being discussed after Items 11 A and 11 B. Councilmember Holden explained she disagreed with this recommendation and questioned why the Council would push items to the end of the agenda. She did not believe this action was transparent in nature yet now items were trying to be hidden late in the day so people could leave. She believed the pulled Consent Calendar items should be discussed under Item 9 like they always were. Councilmember Fabel indicated he concurred with the recommendations of Councilmember Rousseau and Councilmember Monson. MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Fabel seconded a motion to approve the meeting agenda as amended moving Item 11B before 11A and discussing all pulled Consent Calendar items prior to Item 12. Councilmember Holden suggested Item 10 be discussed after Item 11. Mayor Grant supported this suggestion. City Administrator Perrault reported the Public Hearings had to be held prior to discussing Items 11 A and 1113. The motion carried 3-2 (Councilmember Holden and Mayor Grant opposed). 2. TCAAP/RICE CREEK COMMONS UPDATE City Administrator Perrault stated since the last City Council meeting, the JDA had their first meeting of the year on January 2nd, at that meeting they approved their 2024 schedule and received updates on the infrastructure work at RCC, the traffic study, the energy advisory committee and reviewed the 2024 roadmap and development agreement schedule. At tonight's meeting, Council will be reviewing the TRC changes and as part of the discussion the preliminary traffic study results will be highlighted. For the infrastructure update, the County is going to be seeking a consultant to complete the design of the spine road and associated trunk utilities. Under their current plan, they estimate the spine road and associated infrastructure won't be complete until the end of 2027; however, this will depend on a variety of factors. That said, the developer is also researching what aspects could be done privately. The County is still working on selecting an energy consultant, and is expected to approve a contract sometime in January. For future advisory meetings, the advisory committee will be meeting likely once a month, while Staff will meet more often to discuss the details that will make up the development agreement. The energy committee will likely meet soon after the consultant is selected. Regarding Outlot A, the County Board is meeting tomorrow in closed session to discuss the sale of that property, it is expected details of the potential buyer will be released sometime in January. Lastly, the Council at its worksession earlier today discussed a concept plan by Maplewood Development Companies, the winner of the GSA auction. They are looking to prepare the Primer Tracer site for a future industrial use, but would be subject to Council's consideration of rezoning. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 3 Councilmember Monson noted for those interested in TCAAP, at the recent JDA meeting a traffic presentation was given by the County. She was pleased to report the traffic impacts have been improved. Councilmember Fabel stated the traffic study that was completed by the County Engineer was a revision on the previous studies that had been done, taking into consideration the recommendations the Council would be considering this evening, which would rezone the commercial/office space on the southern corner into residential. He indicated the conclusion from the traffic study was that the proposed zoning change would reduce the total number of trips that occur in the area by 3% meaning there will be less traffic on Highway 96. Councilmember Holden asked if a consultant completed the traffic study. She stated it was her understanding the County had intersections that currently had a rating of D and F. City Administrator Perrault explained this was mostly correct noting the County Engineer presented the information from the traffic study. He reported the traffic study was completed by an outside consultant. He noted the F intersection grades were not for the intersections overall score, but rather would be for a specific movement or turn within the intersection. Councilmember Holden questioned how long the County has had the data from the traffic study. City Administrator Perrault explained he was uncertain. He reported it was his understanding all data had been collected but the traffic study was still not finalized. Mayor Grant indicated the traffic study was proposing to change half of the spine road from two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction. City Administrator Perrault stated this was being contemplated based on the initial findings within the traffic study. Mayor Grant questioned if the same amount of right-of-way would be maintained, should the spine road need expansion in the future. City Administrator Perrault reported the footprint should remain the same for the spine road. 3. PUBLIC INQUIRIESANFORMATIONAL Donna Wiemann, 1406 Arden View Drive, encouraged all Arden Hills residents to watch the January 3 Planning Commission meeting. She urged all residents to listen to the resignation speech made by the Planning Commission Chair. She noted he was a long-standing, smart volunteer. She explained Chair Vijums relished his time on the Planning Commission and worked to help Arden Hills make the best decisions possible for the community. She indicated Chair Vijums pointed out the Commission's job was to evaluate each proposal, ask well-constructed questions and balance the needs of the applicant with what is best for the community. She stated Arden Hills was losing a dedicated volunteer that speaks for the Arden Hills community and not only the applicant. She encouraged the community to watch the meeting to see what caused the resignation of Chair Vijums because this affects all of us. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 4 George Winiecke, 4175 Old Highway 10, explained he has been before the Council several times. He wished the Council would go back to the original plan and not move forward with the new plan. He stated he did not trust the traffic count studies. Mayor Grant asked that the residents wishing to speak regarding TCAAP to speak under Item IOB. Mark Kelliher, 3712 Chatham Court, read a prepared statement regarding his experience on the PTRC. He expressed concerns about changes in the composition of members appointed to the PTRC and about Councilmember Rousseau's leadership and actions as the Council's Liaison to the PTRC. He stated that he felt that Councilmember Rousseau had humiliated him and tendered his resignation from the PTRC. Ann Hall, 4276 Norma Avenue, wondered if the City should examine how many women have served on the PTRC over the years, or how diverse this Commission has been. She indicated she was thrilled to see Councilmember Rousseau running for Council and she believed it was important to have women serving on the City Council. She thanked Councilmembers Rousseau, Monson and Holden for their service. She explained she has found Councilmember Rousseau to be respectful. A number of public comments were made via Zoom that were deemed inappropriate and not relevant to the City. On the advice of the City Attorney, Public Inquiries was ended early. Mayor Grant noted these comments do not represent Arden Hills. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES None. 5. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS None. 6. STAFF COMMENTS None. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. November 27, 2023, Special City Council Work Session B. November 27, 2023, Regular City Council MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the November 27, 2023, Special City Council Work Session meeting minutes as presented and the November 27, 2023, Regular City Council meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried 4-0-1 (Councilmember Rousseau abstained). C. December 11, 2023, Regular City Council D. December 11, 2023, Special City Council Executive Session ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL —JANUARY 8, 2024 5 MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the December 11, 2023, Regular City Council meeting minutes as amended and the December 11, 2023, Special City Council Executive Session meeting minutes aspresented. The motion carried (5-0). 8. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Motion to Approve Consent Agenda Item - Claims and Payroll B. Motion To Approve Resolution 2024-001 Relating To The 2023 Organization Of The City Of Arden Hills For- Commissiens And Committees And Mayor-Pro Tem D. ntn To Approve-Reselutren 2024-003 Rela6ng To The 2024 Appeintmen4s AndAnd Chairs Of The !'',,,,,,missions And Committees Of The City �aauaav vi laft Commissions[a11R�VIIIIIIIIG E. Motion To Approve Updated Personnel Policy Adding Juneteenth To Holiday Schedule F. Motion To Approve Compensation And Classification Study Proposal Member- H. 1.aV L1V11 1-VII eeept Resignation Of Planning Commiss' 1. Motion To Appr-eve Resolution 2024 004 Designating City Oy"ned PropeAy As setA1, wont pafk j. Motion ToApprove invoiee Frefn Emefgefiey Apparatus Maif4enanee, lne. Tanker- K. Motion To Approve Invoice From Valley-Rich Co., Inc — Old Highway 10 Watermain Break Repair L. Motion To Approve Professional Services Agreement With Bolton & Menk — Arden Manor Hardcourt Improvements Project M. Motion To Approve Met Council 2024 Private Property Inflow/Infiltration (1/I) Grant Agreement N. Motion To Approve Ramsey County Cooperative Agreement For Construction And Maintenance Of Old Snelling Avenue And County Road E/Lake Johanna Boulevard And Design, Construction And Maintenance Of Mounds View High School Trail O. Motion To Approve Ramsey County 2024 Shared Service Agreement — Erosion Inspection Services P. Motion To Approve Estoppel Certificate For Development Agreement (PC 17- 012) - 4255 Lexington Avenue N MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Monson seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as amended and to authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried (5-0). 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 6 A. Planning Case 23-020 — Preliminary Plat, Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit And Site Plan Review—3737 Lexington Avenue And 1133 Grey Fox Road—Crew Carwash Community Development Director Jagoe stated the Applicant has submitted a land use application for Preliminary Plat, Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review, proposing to redevelop a 2.48-acre site located at 3737 Lexington Avenue N and 1133 Grey Fox Road. The Subject Property is currently owned by STORE Master Funding III, LLC. The site is currently developed with a vacant industrial building and associated parking lot. The Applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and redevelop the site. The Subject Property would be combined and function as a single entity with shared site operations as part of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) with the phased development of the buildings. The Applicant is proposing two separate one-story carwash tunnel buildings. The first building would be an approximate 5,800 square foot exterior drive-through carwash to be constructed upon approval. The second building is an approximate 5,300 square foot interior drive-through carwash that the Applicant plans to construct three (3) to five (5) years after their customer base is established. This area includes Red Fox and Grey Fox roads and is bounded by Lexington Avenue, Highway 51, Interstate 694, and the Canadian Pacific railway. Community Development Director Jagoe reported this area is used by a number of small and large businesses for a variety of retail, manufacturing, distribution, warehousing, and office uses. This area was largely developed between the 1950s and 1970s, though the retail area along Lexington Avenue has had some new development and redevelopment in the last 15 years. This area is marked as an area of possible redevelopment in 2040. Staff reviewed the Plan Evaluation in further detail and recommended the Council hold a public hearing. Councilmember Holden asked that staff provide further information regarding the flexibility that has been requested. Community Development Director Jagoe explained the applicant was requesting setback, external material, transparency, lighting, landscaping with trees, monument signs, the number of signs, illumination of signs and wall sign flexibility. Councilmember Monson questioned if the applicant was available for questions. She asked what the hours of the business would be and inquired if all four lanes within the car wash would always be open. Community Development Director Jagoe deferred this question to the applicant, noting these questions could be addressed under Item 11B. Mayor Grant indicated this was a PUD, but noted it was his understanding not all of the buildings would be constructed at the same time. Community Development Director Jagoe stated this was correct. She explained the applicant was seeking a phased development. She reported the m=Master PUD would show the Council the full development plan, but the applicant was only seeking Final PUD approval on Stage 1 (exterior wash building). She indicated the applicant would have to come back for Final PUD approval on Stage 2 (interior wash building). ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL —JANUARY 8, 2024 7 Councilmember Holden asked what the tower adds to the project. Community Development Director Jagoe stated the Planning Commission had comments regarding how this project looked from Lexington Avenue. She commented further on how the applicant modified the building design in order to add a tower design to the interior wash building for consistency purposes. Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Jake Steen, Larkin Hoffman, explained he represented Crew Carwash. He reported Crew was a family-owned business that has been in operation since 1948 and has 45 locations in the Midwest. He stated Crew prides itself on being a well-designed, clean and efficient car washing experience. He estimated it took three to five minutes to clean the exterior of a vehicle. He indicated it would take another five to ten minutes if patrons would like to have the interior of their vehicles cleaned. He stated Crew was very excited to be coming to Arden Hills and stated this site would work well for this use. He commented on the proposed changes that were made to the plans, based on the feedback received at the Planning Commission meeting. He discussed how the buildings would now both have towers and explained the towers would be constructed out of metal. However, he noted he would be happy to construct these out of brick, if this was the desire of the Council. In addition, he indicated he would be willing to increase the level of glazing. He stated he understood another car wash was being proposed to the site just north of this property. He indicated he was fully confident in this site and what Crew Carwash could offer the community. He asked for the Council's support of his request. Lynn Diaz, 1143 Ingerson Road, commented she did not want the towers to be metal on the car wash. In addition, she was concerned with the proposed signage and lighting because it appeared to be excessive. Mayor Grant closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. B. Planning Case 2023-021 — Chapter 13, Section 1380 — Residential Land Uses And Density For TCAAP Regulating Plan, Rezoning, And Comprehensive Plan Amendments Community Development Director Jagoe stated on September 27, 2023, the JDA held a Special Work Session which included a presentation from Alatus ("Developer"), on proposed land use changes that would increase the total number of residential housing units from 1,460 units up to 1,960 units. The Developer identified two areas where they are proposing to increase the overall density of the Subject Property by an additional 500 residential housing units. The first location in Town Center South which currently allows for residential uses would shift the types of housing infrastructure offered to include multi-family. Then the second location in the southwest corner of the Subject Property is currently guided towards commercial flex office uses. Of which, approximately 32 acres of this area would be rezoned to residential uses to provide for a full range of residential housing infrastructure. Community Development Director Jagoe explained within these two areas, the Developer provided examples of a variety of housing infrastructure that would be represented in these locations. At their subsequent October 2, 2023 meeting, the JDA discussed increasing density ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 8 from 1,460 units to 1,960 units as presented by Alatus and requested both the City and County proceed with consideration of the necessary TRC and Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Community Development Director Jagoe further reviewed the Plan Evaluation and requested the Council hold a public hearing. Mayor Grant asked if it was a requirement for a minimum of 20% of the units to be affordable at 60%AMI. Community Development Director Jagoe reported this was correct. She stated the language within State Statute requires at least 20% of the development has to have units that meet affordability at 60% AMI or below. Mayor Grant discussed the Met Council goals for Arden Hills, noting these were strictly goals and not requirements. Community Development Director Jagoe stated this was what the City was asked to achieve. Councilmember Holden recommended the AMI language be amended to ensure that the units could be at 60%AMI or less. Community Development Director Jagoe indicated she could make this language change. Councilmember Holden questioned if Ramsey County completed the traffic study in October. Community Development Director Jagoe reported the traffic study was conducted (cars were counted) in October. She stated the City does not have the final report yet. Councilmember Monson thanked Community Development Director Jagoe for her detailed presentation. Councilmember Fabel commented on how AMI (Area Median Income) was defined and noted 60% AMI would be a family income of$74,520 in the metro area. Mayor Grant discussed how AMI fluctuated based on interest rates. Councilmember Holden reported the Met Council sets AMI rates on a yearly basis. She asked if AMI was based on the seven county metro area or the ten county metro area. City Administrator Perrault stated AMI was based on the Twin Cities Metropolitan Region. He indicated it was his understanding this was based on the seven county metro area. Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. George Winiecke, 4175 Old State Highway 10, explained he has spoken to the Council in the past. He expressed concern with the fact the Council was moving forward with a development with such a high level of residential units in such a small area. He commented on how the large number of residential units would be a burden to Arden Hills residents. He implored the Council ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 9 to reevaluate and reconsider this development and to go back to the original plan. While he understood there was a need for housing, he suggested the density be reduced. Kristine Poelzer, 1870 Indian Place, addressed the Council regarding TCAAP stating she has attended many meetings over the years. She explained she was once opposed to this development. She discussed how a trail was proposed in her rear yard and she vehemently opposed this trail. She indicated the Council, in their wisdom, approved this trail and she was delighted with how the trail turned out. She stated she had full belief in what the JDA was doing. She explained she appreciated all of the work Arden Hills staff and Councilmembers were putting into TCAAP. She encouraged the Council to approve the proposed land use changes and rezoning. She stated she has been pleased with the information the City has been providing to residents in the City newsletter. In addition, she thanked Councilmember Monson for sending emails to residents with information on this project. Lyle Salmela, 1480 Arden Vista Court, stated he supported the increase of residential density on Rice Creek Commons from 1,460 to 1,960 units. He explained this increase will expand regulatory technology and economic needs by allowing the developer to build more affordable units. He commented on how this development was working to reduce greenhouse gases. In order to achieve this, a clean all electric energy grid was being pursued for this development. He discussed how Xcel Energy was ready to support this project. He indicated the proposed designs for this project would make it the most energy efficient community in the State, noting the increased density would help to make the project cost effective. Nicole Hayden, 5152 163`d Lane in Andover, shared her support for the increased housing density in TCAAP. She reported she was a local realtor and she sold homes in Shoreview, Arden Hills, New Brighton, Columbia Heights, Mounds View, Blaine, Ham Lake and Anoka. She commented on how there was a massive need for more housing in the metro area. She explained the Federal Reserve of Minneapolis estimates the metro area was 85,000 units short on housing. She explained she understood the concerns that have been voiced regarding traffic, but stated her humanity led her to be more concerned with the need for more affordable housing units. She discussed how her clients were being impacted by high interest rates and home prices. She stated if the number of houses in the metro area continues to increase, the prices will go down, but if the number continues to decrease, housing prices will only continue to go up. She understood as a realtor that more people would love to move to Arden Hills and asked that the Council support the proposed zoning and land use changes in order to provide more housing units to the community. Donna Wiemann, 1406 Arden View Drive, commented on how 20% of the units would be affordable at a minimum of 60% AMI. She believed that the agreement that was signed with Ramsey County and the developer states that 22% of the 1,960 units will be affordable at 60% AMI or less. She requested staff or the JDA Councilmembers provide her clarification on this. City Administrator Perrault explained the agreed upon term sheet that was signed by the JDA stated 20% of the units would be affordable at 60% or less AMI. He noted the 22% recommendation addressed that 10% of the units should be affordable for first time home buyers. Ms. Wiemann requested a copy of the term sheet. City Administrator Perrault reported this document was available on the City's website. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 10 Ms. Wiemann stated when requiring 20% of the units to be affordable, she asked who would be deciding what the AMI percentage would be. She asked that the public be made aware of the percentage of affordability within the units going forward. Chris Hughes, 3515 Snelling Avenue North, commented this was an exciting time for the community. He stated the TCAAP property was a property that comes around once in a lifetime. He appreciated the fact the City was talking about development details. He explained he supported the 1,960 units because this would create additional affordable housing options for seniors in the community who want to downsize but remain in Arden Hills. In addition, the additional housing units would create more affordable housing options for folks that want to live in Arden Hills and work in the community. He supported the 1,960 units because it will create additional affordable housing options for families that want to take advantage of the great schools in the community. He also supported the additional housing because it will create housing options for folks that need a leg up. He encouraged the Council to support the comprehensive changes that were necessary in order to allow for the 1,960 housing units. Rita Lamatsch, 1535 Royal Hills Drive, stated she agreed with one part of the amendments and disagreed with the others. She supported the flex office space being rezoned to residential because the community had too much office space. However, she indicated she opposed the large multi- family housing units. She believed it would be better to keep with the character of Arden Hills to have more single family homes, townhomes or duplexes as opposed to the 175 unit apartment building. She asked if the proposed 125 unit apartment building on the North Heights Church property was being factored into the traffic study. She suggested the mixed retail north of Highway 96 be rezoned to allow for more townhouse or duplex style housing that was more in keeping with the neighborhood. She stated she was concerned with how TCAAP traffic could be coming down the spine road, through the North Heights Church and into her neighborhood. Nancy Jacobson, 3188 Asbury Avenue, stated after the dust settles tonight, she hopes the Rice Creek Commons project moves forward. She looked forward to seeing more detailed park and trail plans for RCC. In addition, she wanted to see more about how the surrounding area connects to RCC. She urged the Council to consider how important it would be for this development to be connected to the remainder of the City. Mary Henry, 3521 Ridgewood Court, explained she fully supported the proposed zoning changes for Rice Creek Commons. She indicated some people may feel changing the flex office to housing may impact employment. She discussed how more housing improves the economy for a community, given the fact more and more people were working from home. She stated it was important to understand how housing, post-pandemic, was employment. She reported there was not a strong need for additional office space given the fact the community already had excess retail and office space. Ann Hall, 4276 Norma Avenue, stated she was happy to see the proposal tonight and noted she supported the flexibility in zoning along with the higher density housing. She reported there was a clear for high quality affordable housing in the metro area. She was confident the City could provide this in a smart and effective manner. She reported safe housing was a basic human right. She expressed concern with the fact her children would not be able to purchase a home in the community once they are grown young professionals. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 11 Gregg Larson, 3377 North Snelling Avenue, stated was the culmination of a year's worth of work to bring new life to a project that has been stalled for the past six years. He stated it was encouraging to see the City ready to formally consider a compromise on 1,960 housing units for Rice Creek Commons. He indicated this was a density that was endorsed by the developer and Ramsey County. He reported a vote of approval would adopt changes that remove the roadblocks on a project that has held so much promise for so long. He explained the years of delay and litigation left the City with frustrations and lost opportunity costs. He stated now the City was close to realizing the benefits of more housing, more commercial development and more employment opportunities. He thanked staff for all of their efforts over the past year and for their renewed collaboration with Ramsey County. He acknowledged the work of the Planning Commission, who carefully reviewed these recommendations before recommending approval. Lastly, he commended Councilmembers Monson, Fabel and Rousseau for their leadership and for seeking a compromise with the County that has brought the City to this point. He stated after many years of observing City governance he would not hold his breath that these proposals will be unanimously adopted. But doing so would send a tremendously positive message to Ramsey County and the developer that this Council was united in moving this project forward. Christy Jacob, 1492 Arden Place, thanked the Council and staff for all of their efforts. She stated she was hopeful and excited to see the Council supporting a vote for increased density. Lynn Diaz, 1143 Ingerson Road, explained she supported the increased density of 1,960 housing units. She indicated this increased density would provide for a wider variety of housing units, increase the City's tax base and help attract additional amenities to the community. She appreciated how the proposed rezoning would decrease the number of traffic trips to and from the development. She recommended that smaller units be pursued given the fact a growing number of people live alone. She suggested detached homes be considered for lots that were less than .25 acre in size. She understood the Twin Cities has one of the largest housing shortages in the nation and she hoped the City would do its part to help in alleviating this problem. She wanted to see Arden Hills being a welcoming place for its workers, families and seniors by allowing the 1,960 units. Mayor Grant closed the public hearing at 9:20 p.m. 11. NEW BUSINESS B. Planning Case 23-021 —Chapter 13, Section 1380—TCAAP Redevelopment Code, Rezoning And Comprehensive Plan Amendments • Ordinance 2024-001 Amending Chapter 13, Section 1380 Concerning the Residential Land Uses and Density for TCAAP Regulating Plan and Rezoning Properties to Neighborhood (NR-3 and NR-4) • Publication of Summary Ordinance 2024-001 • Resolution 2024-006 Approving 2040 Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Chapter 6, Land Use and Appendix G (TCAAP Outlot C)—Planning Case 2023-021 Community Development Director Jagoe stated the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments are within Chapter 6, Land Use and Appendix G specific to the Neighborhood Residential (NR) and Flex Office (FO) future land use designations. The proposed comp plan ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 12 amendments would separate the NR-3 and NR-4 subcategories in order to delineate the acreage and development intensity of future development that is guided towards medium to high density residential land uses specific to the two areas in Town Center South and the proposed Southwest Neighborhood. Community Development Director Jagoe reported for this review, the City is proposing to amend language within the 2040 Future Land Use Classifications and Future Land Use Map that would be necessary to facilitate the future development of the Subject Property with a density of up to 1,960 units. In addition, language within the comprehensive plan is being added within Chapter 6, Section 6.4.10 to ensure that up to 20% of the housing units in TCAAP are affordable at 60% of Area Median Income or less. An amendment to the comprehensive plan must be approved by two-thirds vote of all of the City Council. However, amendments providing for affordable housing may be approved by a simple majority of all members of the City Council. Planning staff has reviewed and confirmed with Met Council that the proposed comprehensive plan amendments would meet the requirements of State Statute 462.355, Subd. 3 requiring a simple majority for approval. Community Development Director Jagoe reviewed the request in further detail and explained the Planning Commission offered the following Findings of Fact: 1. The Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the future land uses for the Subject Property. 2. The City has requested a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the future land use designation of approximately 32.4 acres in the southwest corner of the Subject Property to Neighborhood Residential,NR-3 and NR-4. 3. The City has requested a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to separate the NR-3 and NR-4 subcategories under the Neighborhood Residential classification to further clarify areas for multi-family residential uses. 4. The City has requested a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to designate specific areas for the subcategories of NR-3 and NR-4 from the Neighborhood Residential classification. 5. The City has requested a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to modify the density ranges allowed in the NR-4 subcategory of the Neighborhood Residential classification to be consistent with the Suburban designation to maintain future development at a minimum of five (5) units per acre on the Subject Property. 6. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to Section 6.4.10 Development Capacity and Net Residential Density further supports the goal and policies of Chapter 7 - Housing by incorporating language for housing that is suitable for a mix of ages, incomes and household types. 7. The City has requested a Comprehensive Plan Text and Map Amendment to areas currently designated as Town Center North and Town Center South which would modify existing boundaries. 8. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to establish the policies that guide the future physical and community development of Arden Hills. 9. The Metropolitan Council has previously approved similar amendments adding language supporting increasing the densities above the maximum permitted in a specific land use district. 10. The proposed Comprehensive Map and Text Amendments have been discussed with the Metropolitan Council. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 13 11. The City of Arden Hills is proposing to amend ordinance language consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Amendments as required by State Law within the Neighborhood Residential and Flex Office Zoning Districts. 12. The TRC ordinance amendments would allow for medium and large multi-family residential land uses outlined in the TRC land use chart as Permitted with Criteria with the Neighborhood Residential,NR-4 Zoning District. 13. The proposed ordinance will include amendments to the language of Chapter 13 —Zoning Code, Section 1380—TCAAP Redevelopment Code. 14. The City is proposing to rezone approximately 32.4 acres in the southwest corner of the Subject Property for consistency and implementation of future land uses as set out in the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 15. The proposed amendment in the City's TCAAP Redevelopment Code advances adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan the goals and policies as set forth in Chapter 6 — Land Use and Chapter 7 — Housing by broadening the housing types in the Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. 16. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code regulations require a public hearing prior to action by the City Council. 17. If the zoning amendments were approved, the Developer would be required to submit a land use application that would be subject to the formal review process. 18. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezoning and TRC Ordinance Amendments on December 6, 2023. Community Development Director Jagoe explained the Planning Commission reviewed this application at their December 6, 2023 meeting. At that time, they recommended approval of Planning Case 23-021 for Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezoning, and TRC Code Amendments to Chapter 13 by a 4-2 vote (Commissioner Wicklund abstained). The following are motion language options for the City Council to consider. MOTION: Councilmember Fabel moved and Councilmember Monson seconded a motion to adopt Ordinance 2024-001 for Planning Case 23-021 for Zoning Code Amendments to Chapter 13, Section 1380 - TCAAP Redevelopment Code and Rezoning to add and amend language for residential land uses and increase residential density up to 1,960 units within the regulating plan for TCAAP. Councilmember Monson explained she served on the JDA and she supported the proposed land use and rezoning recommendations. She reported the previous Council's did a lot of work, which included Councilmember Holden and Mayor Grant. She believed the City Council was now being asked to carry the water the last mile because of the work that had already been done. She thanked Councilmember Holden and Mayor Grant for all of the work they had done. She stated it was her hope this motion would have the support of five votes. Councilmember Rousseau indicated this project has been going on for a long time. She noted in 1941 the Army used eminent domain to take over this land. She recognized that this development would be something new for Arden Hills. However, she believed it was a very exciting opportunity for the City. Councilmember Holden stated 1,960 units was a great number. She indicated her only concern was with the fact there has been no negotiations between the City and the County. Rather there ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 14 has only been a concession to the County and the developer. She indicated 1,960 may be the best number, but nothing has been vetted. She reported when 1,460 chosen by the previous Council, this number was vetted, discussions were held with public safety and traffic studies were completed. She noted the public safety officials warned them to not put 1,000 units in a three block area. She expressed concern with the fact no vetting has occurred on the 1,960 number. She discussed how the previous Council had park, trail and stormwater plans in place. She questioned what the rush was to move this project forward given the fact the County didn't have enough money to build the spine road at this time. Councilmember Holden commented on how Arden Hills had nothing to do with affordable housing or zoning for affordable housing, rather affordable housing was brought forward by developers. She understood it will be great to have affordable housing on TCAAP, but she questioned if 1,960 was the right number for this development. She stated the financials for this project show it will take 30 years to develop. She feared how the current residents of Arden Hills would be impacted by the increased tax burden that would be brought on as this project begins to develop. She questioned why the financials for this project were unknown. She questioned what the rate of return would be for the developer. She commented on how she did not want Arden Hills residents to get stuck with a bill from this development, if it were not to be fully completed. She stated she was here to protect the residents of Arden Hills and she feared no one was doing this at this time. She recommended that additional time be spent vetting this project before moving it forward. She indicated her vision for this development was for it to be inclusive with housing varieties inter-mixed throughout the neighborhoods. Councilmember Holden discussed how Minneapolis and St. Paul would not survive without businesses recalling their employees back into their communities. She explained there was a need for improved transit in Arden Hills, and especially in TCAAP given the proposed density. She noted the City does not have any commitments from Met Council on any new bus lines. She feared how people living on TCAAP would get to work downtown. She indicated there were discussions about bringing a Costco to TCAAP. She reported Costco would bring over one million trips to the site and asked if this had been taken into consideration within the traffic study. She indicated the North Heights potential housing project had also not been taken into consideration. Councilmember Holden stated when Bob Lux and Alatus was brought on, it was the hope to create something unique and wonderful. She indicated the proposed development would now look like every other development in the metro area. She commented on Building 118 and how the JDA needed to work with the Army to maintain access. She explained she would like to have more information on the TCAAP financials and how the City would pay for this project. She wanted to know if TIF would be required for this development. She questioned how the businesses on TCAAP would survive given the surrounding traffic issues. She indicated she was concerned about the existing residents of Arden Hills and how they would be impacted by this project. Councilmember Holden commented on the amount of affordable housing that was already present in Arden Hills, which included a manufactured home community. She indicated the City previously moved this project forward through open and efforts of the City Council. She stated the continued to hold JDA meetings for 23 months, leaving the door open for the County to participate. She questioned again where the transparency was with the process that has been followed in the past year. She noted questions from the bench were not being answered. She ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 15 inquired how this project would be funded and how would it flow. She expressed concern with the fact the Council has held no discussions regarding TCAAP. She noted an open house was being held, but instead of taking feedback, the project was presented as this is how it is. She believed there had been a total lack of transparency on this TCAAP project and there has been no tolerance for the people who do not agree with the three slate candidates. She expressed concern with the fact there was no information available on how the infrastructure would be funded. While she stated she had no problem with the 1,960 number, she recommended that vetting and data be provided to show that this was the right number. She commented on how the Planning Commission Chair had paid dearly by raising questions about the 1,960 number as he was no longer the Chair. She stated she would not be offering her support to the 1,960 number until it was properly vetted. Mayor Grant stated as this project started out this past year, it was put out there that the Council needed to compromise. He was of the opinion the City did not compromise, but rather the City capitulated. He understood the County supported the proposal, which was a good thing. He did not believe the County was asked to compromise, but he wouldn't know any of this because all of the meetings were held behind closed doors and he wasn't allowed to attend. He was told at one point that he could attend and upon trying to attend, he was told he could not attend. Mayor Grant commented on how 2024 would be the year when people are asked to go back to work. He understood that the pandemic led to many people working from home, but noted the pendulum was going to swing back the other direction. He discussed the parks plan that was previously completed. He understood the Council was being asked to consider zoning changes, but noted there were other aspects of this project that were not working, such as the financials. He reported one of the plans was to ask the State to chip in $25 million for this project. He stated this may happen, but this may not. He explained at this time, the financials for this project were not good. Mayor Grant stated he understood the 1,960 units was a rallying cry and people wanted to see this project done. He noted there was some value in this. However, he supported the City looking before leaping, or properly vetting this project before moving it forward. He indicated it was hard to visualize 1,960 units on this piece of property. He stated this was a lot of units on 190 acres. He noted this would lead to approximately 10 units per acre throughout the development. He explained this project would not resemble Arden Hills, but rather would look like a small version of St. Paul. He believed the residents of Arden Hills moved to this community because they wanted to have some space. Mayor Grant indicated 1,960 may be the right number, but he did not have this information. He commented on how other uses or zoning changes could have been considered in order to protect jobs within the development. He discussed how this project was not slated to begin until 2026, at which time grading and infrastructure would be completed. Mayor Grant explained a comp plan amendment was being proposed and generally these amendments required four votes, except if 20% affordable housing was within the proposed changes. He noted the matter before the Council only required three votes. He stated after speaking with public safety individuals he had concerns with the amount of high density housing being proposed within this development. He was pleased to see the AMI would be at least 60%. He reiterated that he did not believe this project was properly vetted and he wanted to protect the City from a poorly designed, poorly planned project from a risk perspective. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL —JANUARY 8, 2024 16 Mayor Grant noted Bob Lux from Alatus was selected for this project and he believed Mr. Lux had innovative and creative ideas. He was of the opinion it was a mistake to remove the businesses in the southwest corner. He commented on how the project needed to be a vibrant mix of retail, housing, shopping and restaurants. He indicated the development does not get made special by adding more housing. He stated again that his biggest concern was with the financials, but this was not being addressed because this was a rezoning. He explained he wanted the project to move forward, but he questioned if this should be done without proper vetting. Mayor Grant reported he does not have an answer on if an agreement was in place on the Civic Center or if the proper utilities were in place. He stated if the rezonings were approved at this meeting, the decisions down the road get increasingly difficult. He indicated remediation work has to be redone on the wells and none of this information was available at this time. He wished that the entire Council could be included in the planning process for this project. Councilmember Monson explained a lot of the comments that have been made would be addressed in the development agreement and were not part of the zoning code. She reported she would never put the City in financial harm for a development. She indicated she would make sure the financial statements were sound. She encouraged the residents to watch and listen to the JDA meetings, along with the worksession meeting where the economics of this project were discussed. She reported there was opportunity for residents to comment on TCAAP at all City Council and worksession meetings. In addition, she encouraged residents to contact her if there was any information they would like to know about the TCAAP project. Councilmember Monson called the question. MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Fabel seconded a motion to call the question. The motion carried 3-2 (Councilmember Holden and Mayor Grant opposed). The motion carried 3-2 (Councilmember Holden and Mayor Grant opposed). MOTION: Councilmember Fabel moved and Councilmember Monson seconded a motion to adopt Resolution 2024-006 for Planning Case 23-021 for Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Chapter 6 and Appendix G to allow for an increase in residential density up to 1,960 units within the regulating plan for TCAAP based on the Findings of Fact and as presented in the January 8, 2024 report to the City Council. Community Development Director Jagoe asked if the Council's motion included the amended language for the 60% AMI language. Mayor Grant reported the question has been called and the language could no longer be amended. Councilmember Monson requested clarification from h q the City Attorney on this matter. City Attorney Schmidt stated it was her understanding that when Councilmember Fabel made the motion he included it at that point, but when he reread the motion, it was not. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL —JANUARY 8, 2024 17 Councilmember Fabel explained he read the motion straight from Community Development Director Jagoe's recommendation within the staff report. Mayor Grant asked if staff could clarify what the motion was. Community Development Director Jagoe reported the recommended motion from staff includes reference to the adoption of a Resolution, which is the Comprehensive Plan language. She stated she was confirming if the Council was approving the language as presented, or as amended, noting suggested language that 20% of the units would be at 60% AMI or less. City Administrator Perrault explained the motion could be withdrawn and restated. Councilmember Fabel asked if he should withdraw his motion. Mayor Grant asked if the Council needed to make a motion to reconsider. Councilmember Fabel said he was not moving to reconsider the calling to question, he was moving to seek approval of the two resolutions and he was willing to restate that. He noted he was not moving to reconsider. City Attorney Schmidt clarified that a motion to reconsider was not in order because this would have the Council reconsidering the motion that was previously on the floor, which was to call the question. Mayor Grant requested staff call the question. The motion carried 3-2 (Councilmember Holden and Mayor Grant opposed). Mayor Grant reported the prevailing side could now make a motion to reconsider the approval if an amendment was needed. MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Rousseau seconded a motion to reconsider the adoption of Resolution 2024-006 for Planning Case 23-021 for Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Chapter 6 and Appendix G to allow for an increase in residential density up to 1,960 units within the regulating plan for TCAAP. City Attorney Schmidt clarified if the motion to reconsider was for both items, the Council would have to reconsider both and both items would have to be voted on again. She suggested Councilmember Monson withdraw her motion. Councilmember Monson withdrew her motion. Councilmember Rousseau withdrew her second. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 18 MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Rousseau seconded a motion to reconsider the adoption of Ordinance 2024-001 Amending Chapter 13, Section 1380 Concerning the Residential Land Uses and Density for TCAAP Regulating Plan and Rezoning Properties to Neighborhood (NR-3 and NR-4) and Resolution 2024-006 for Planning Case 23-021. The motion carried 4-1 (Mayor Grant opposed). MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Fabel seconded a motion for the adoption of Ordinance 2024-001 Amending Chapter 13, Section 1380 Concerning the Residential Land Uses and Density for TCAAP Regulating Plan and Rezoning Properties to Neighborhood (NR-3 and NR-4) and adoption of Resolution 2024-006 for Planning Case 23-021 for the Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Chapter 6, Land Use Appendix G (TCAAP Outlot C) as amended clarifying the AMI language was for 60% or less. Councilmember Holden commented on the insults that were directed at her and the Mayor based on the length of their comments. She stated she would not have had to speak this long if she had been allowed to address this topic one of the times that she had asked for it to be on the agenda, and they could have had a discussion. However, this did not occur and noted she was not allowed to attend the meetings that were held behind closed doors. She stated now she was the bad guy because she dared to talk about stuff that should have been addressed a year ago. The motion carried 3-2 (Councilmember Holden and Mayor Grant opposed). MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Mayor Grant seconded a motion to approve Authorization to publish a Summary Ordinance of 2024-001 for Planning Case 23-021. The motion carried (5-0). Mayor Grant recessed the City Council meeting at 10:24 p.m. Mayor Grant reconvened the City Council meeting at 10:32 p.m. A. Resolution 2024-005 Approving Conditional Use Permit — 373 Lexington Avenue And 1133 Grey Fox Road—Crew Carwash—Planning Case 23-020 Community Development Director Jagoe stated the Applicant has submitted a land use application for Preliminary Plat, Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review, proposing to redevelop a 2.48-acre site located at 3737 Lexington Avenue N. and 1133 Grey Fox Road. The Subject Property is currently owned by STORE Master Funding III, LLC. The site is currently developed with a vacant industrial building and associated parking lot. The Applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and redevelop the site. The Subject Property would be combined and function as a single entity with shared site operations as part of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) with the phased development of the buildings. The Applicant is proposing two separate one-story carwash tunnel buildings. The first building would be an approximate 5,800 square foot exterior drive-through carwash to be constructed upon approval. The second building is an approximate 5,300 square foot interior drive-through carwash that the Applicant plans to construct three (3) to five (5)years after their customer base is established. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 19 Community Development Director Jagoe explained the Planning Commission offered the following Findings of Fact: 1. The property located at 3737 Lexington Avenue N. and 1133 Grey Fox Road is designated for Commercial uses on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2. New building construction or site modification identified requires the submittal of a Site Plan Review application prior to construction. 3. For proposals for new construction, redevelopment of a site, and significant modifications to existing sites a PUD is required. 4. The PUD process allows for flexibility within the City's regulations through a negotiated process with a Developer. 5. The Applicant has proposed a Master and Final Planned Unit Development for a phased development consisting of two separate one-story carwash tunnel buildings, one approximate 5,800 square foot exterior drive-through carwash and one approximate 5,300 square foot interior drive-through carwash that will function as a single entity on the Subject Property. 6. The Applicant has proposed a phased development plan with Phase I referred to as the Exterior Carwash to be constructed following the land use approvals herein and Phase II referred to as the Interior Carwash to be constructed approximately three (3) to (5) years later. 7. The Master and Final Planned Unit Development generally conforms to the requirements of the City Zoning Code and design standards. 8. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City Code, flexibility has been requested by the Applicant. 9. Flexibility through the PUD process has been requested in the following areas: landscaping, setbacks, building materials, transparency, lighting, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, drive-through facilities, and signage. 10. A public hearing for a Preliminary Plat, Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, and Conditional Use Permit request is required before the request can be brought before the City Council. 11. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on December 6, 2023. Community Development Director Jagoe reported the Planning Commission reviewed this application at their December 6, 2023 meeting. At that time, they recommended approval with conditions of the Crew Carwash application for a Preliminary Plat, Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review by a 6-1 vote. The Planning Commission added a condition that the Applicant confirm adequate egress per city code based on discussion at the December 6, 2023 meeting. The following are their recommended conditions and motion language options for the City Council to consider. 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. The Master and Final Planned Unit Development approval for Phase I shall expire one year from the date of City Council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension has been granted by the City Council. The City Council may extend the expiration date of such approval upon written application by the person to whom the approval was granted. 3. A violation of any condition set forth in the permit shall be a violation of this Code, and shall be cause for revocation of the permit. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 20 4. A Master and Final PUD Development Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval for Phase I of the Development for the exterior carwash. The Master and Final PUD Development Agreement shall be fully executed prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. The Applicant will be required to submit for PUD Final Plan approval of Phase 11 at the time of future development prior to the issuance of permits associated to construction of the interior carwash building. 6. The Applicant shall apply to the City for Final Plat review and approval within three (3) months of City Council approval of Preliminary Plat. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape financial security equal to 125% of the cost of the landscaping to be installed on the site shall be submitted. The Applicant must submit a detailed cost estimate for the landscaping so staff can determine the final amount. Landscape financial security shall be held for two full growing seasons. For any landscaping that is not in accordance with the approved landscaping plan at the end of two growing seasons, the Developer shall replace the material to the satisfaction of the City before the guarantee is released. Where this is not done, the City, at its sole discretion, may use the proceeds of the performance guarantee to accomplish performance. 8. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the city's Engineering Division prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, MPCA, Rice Creek Watershed District, MnDOT and Ramsey County prior to the start of any site activities. 9. The final plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer, Building Official, and Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit. 10. Final grading, drainage, utility, and site plans shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Director, City Engineer, and City Planner prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit or other development permits. 11. Upon completion of grading and utility work on the site, a grading as-built and utility as- built shall be provided to the City for review. 12. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site shall be required and maintained by the Developer during construction to ensure that sediment and storm water does not leave the project site. 13. The Applicant shall be responsible for protecting the proposed on-site storm sewer infrastructure and components and any existing storm sewer from exposure to any and all stormwater runoff, sediments and debris during all construction activities. Temporary stormwater facilities shall be installed to protect the quality aspect of the proposed and existing stormwater facilities prior to and during construction activities. Maintenance of any and all temporary stormwater facilities shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. 14. A right-of-way permit shall be required for work performed within the City right-of-way. 15. All light poles, including base, shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height and shall be shoebox style, downward directed, with high-pressure sodium lamps or LED and flush lenses. 16. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be hidden from view with the same materials used on the building in accordance with City Code requirements. 17. A separate sign permit shall be required for all signs on the site. 18. Any future trash enclosures shall utilize gates and be constructed on three sides using the same materials and patterns used on the building. Locations shall be approved by the Planning Department. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 21 19. The Applicant shall be financially responsible for all applicable water and sanitary charges. Rates applied shall be memorialized in the Development Agreement. 20. All disturbed boulevards shall be restored with sod. All areas of the site, where practical, shall be sodded or seeded and maintained. The property owner shall mow and maintain all site boulevards to the curb line of the public streets. 21. The proposed structures shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 22. The Applicant shall provide a copy of the Stormwater Management Report and verification of Rice Creek Watershed approval prior to the approval of Development Agreement. 23. The Applicant must work with City staff to confirm adequate egress. 24. A zoning permit sign permit shall be required for fencing to be installed on the site. 25. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, all items identified in the January 3, 2024 Engineering Division memo and review comments made within the attached plan sheets to this memo shall be addressed. All comments shall be adopted herein by reference. 26. Applicant shall be responsible for addressing Ramsey County review comments as noted in the January 3, 2024 report to the City Council. Councilmember Monson requested the applicant speak to what the hours of operation would be and if all four lanes would be open at all times. Sally Grant, Crew Carwash representative, explained she was a third generation employee of Crew Carwash. She reported she was excited to be a part of the Arden Hills community. She indicated the hours of operation would be 7AM to 9PM during the spring and summer and 7AM to 8PM in the fall and winter. She stated all of the lanes would remain open during business hours. Councilmember Holden requested staff speak to the differences between a CUP and PUD. She reported there appears to be a significant amount of flexibility being requested within this Planning Case. She indicated she did not see anything within this project that was so appealing that she should vote for every single flexibility that was being requested. She understood the applicant may be willing to be flexible on the plans, but she also understood the applicant was aware of the City's standards when they submitted their plans. Community Development Director Jagoe explained the CUP was required for the land use, car wash component. She indicated the PUD was an overlay district that is required in this zoning district for redevelopment and where the applicant could seek flexibility from the City's standards. Through the PUD process, there might be some offsetting enhancements to the project that without those variations, this project might not be as good as it is. She reported the applicant was seeking a PUD with flexibilities in order to achieve an overall better design. She reported staff had reviewed the City's ordinance criteria, district standards, building materials and CUP requirements for the code with the applicant prior to their submittal. Councilmember Holden asked if the proposed building materials were an enhancement for the City. Community Development Director Jagoe indicated she believed this was a decision for the City Council. She stated the Council would have to determine if the applicant had made enhancements through the PUD in other areas. She reported as far as the building materials, there were no other materials that were introduced that are an enhancement. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 22 Councilmember Holden commented on the transparency and look of the project from Lexington Avenue. She asked if the only change that was made to the plans was the addition of a tower. Community Development Director Jagoe reported this was the case. She indicated the applicant did add some additional glazing. Councilmember Monson requested comment from the applicant regarding the contamination on this property. Jake Steen, Larkin Hoffman, explained he had a Phase 1 on this site. He noted he was fully committed to cleaning up this site. Travis Smith, Crew Carwash representative, discussed how the Wayzata Crew Carwash property properly cleaned. He noted he worked with the State on this project. He was contaminated and p p y p J indicated he would be working with a local engineer who was familiar with the site. He commented further on the cleanup work that would be required on the Arden Hills property noting the groundwater on this site would not be used. Councilmember Rousseau asked if a study should be done on the B-3 District to determine if motor vehicle land uses and services stations were sustainable. She understood a second car wash would be considered by the Council in February. She indicated the study may assist with determining if any language should be considered to limit proximity of these uses. She noted a study would require the Council to put a moratorium in place. Councilmember Holden questioned when the Council had to take action on this item. Community Development Director Jagoe reported the Council had to take action by January 14, 2024. Councilmember Holden wondered if the current owners of the property knew what this building was previously utilized for. Mr. Smith stated he was uncertain. Councilmember Holden questioned if Crew Carwash would be responsible for all of the cleanup. Mr. Smith reported this was the case. He noted once he became the title owner of the property, he would complete a Phase 2 and would file with the State of Minnesota regarding the previous contamination found onsite. Councilmember Holden stated if the cleanup became more expensive than previously anticipated, would the second building be pushed out further than three to five years. Mr. Smith commented on the process that was followed for cleaning up brownfield sites. He did not anticipate the cleanup would push back the phased plans for this property. Councilmember Fabel questioned why there would be a three to five year delay before the interior building was constructed. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 23 Mr. Smith explained he does not have an interior cleaning operation in Minnesota. He stated this was a very new and unique operation. He reported the desire would be to have the exterior clean open first and brought up to a level of operational excellence and the interior clean would be brought on later. Ms. Grant indicated it takes three to four years to build a superior customer base for car washes. She discussed how this phased approach has been successful in another market. Mayor Grant questioned why only two sites had the interior/exterior model and the rest were only exterior cleaning car washes. Ms. Grant explained the interior/exterior model was much more labor intensive. She noted the roots were to provide full service, but in 1985 the focus shifted to exterior only because it was less labor extensive. She reported over time the interior cleaning model has been investigated and the first site opened in Indiana three years ago. She noted three more sites in Indiana would be opening later this year. Mayor Grant asked if a phased PUD required an applicant to build the second phase. Community Development Director Jagoe stated this would not be required. Councilmember Holden indicated she believed there were a lot of issues with the proposal. She requested further information regarding the proposed exterior building materials. Ms. Grant explained she spent $6.5 million on the exterior of buildings. She indicated Crew Carwash would be investing over $10 million on this property. She commented on how Crew Carwash built things to last, using brick, limestone and steel in order to stand the test of time. She then provided the Council with a materials board. Councilmember Holden asked if the brick would be veneer. Ms. Grant stated she would be using real limestone on this building and not veneer. Councilmember Holden requested further information on the lighting and asked why Crew could not meet the City's requirements. Ms. Grant discussed how important safety was to Crew Carwash. She reported she would have 16, 17 and 18 year old team members working onsite. She explained having the property well-lit during business hours was important for both the employees and visitors. Mr. Smith noted the only area that required lighting flexibility was at the entrance of the property. Councilmember Fabel questioned if the vacuum stations would be installed in Phase 1. Ms. Grant explained these would be installed with Phase 1. Councilmember Monson reported the applicant does have a lot of variance requests. She indicated this was a really busy looking site with additional lighting and signage. She stated this ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 24 was cause for concern for her. She explained the City had restrictions in place and noted all other businesses have had to follow these restrictions. Councilmember Holden indicated she would like to go through each of the variances in further detail. However, she did not believe this was her purpose. She believed the flexibility asks were not offset by any enhancements. She noted the site was short on landscaping. Mr. Smith explained he could not plant additional trees along Lexington Avenue due to the location of the utility right of way. Councilmember Holden reported the applicant was still asking for setback and other flexibilities. She stated at this time she could not support this project moving forward. Ms. Grant stated Crew Carwash was one of the top brands in Indiana. She encouraged the Council to visit the Crew Carwash in West St. Paul. She commented she would be happy to work with the City to better understand how this business would work in Arden Hills. Mr. Steen reported the City Council had the authority to extend the approval timeline by 60 days. He stated he would be willing to take the Council's feedback and could amend the plans. Councilmember Holden reported the applicant would have to readdress the entire site plan given the number of flexibilities that have been requested and she did not believe this could be worked through at this meeting. Councilmember Fabel asked if the Planning Commission recommended approval of this Planning Case. Community Development Director Jagoe indicated the Planning Commission had recommended approval but had many of the same concerns regarding the building materials, landscaping and design. Councilmember Fabel questioned what kind of risk the City Council would be running if the project were denied. City Attorney Schmidt explained the fact that the Planning Commission recommended approval was a net neutral stating the City Council makes all final determinations on applications. She reported as far as assessing risk, it was difficult for her to say, noting arbitrary and capricious is a legal standard, noting this would be a quasi-judicial decision that would be determined by the findings approved by the Council. Councilmember Fabel inquired if the approval period could be extended 60 days. City Attorney Schmidt advised the City Council has unilateral authority to request 60 additional days before taking action on the qualifying application. Councilmember Fabel supported pursuing a 60-day extension for this Planning Case. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Rousseau seconded a motion to deny Planning Case 23-020 and Resolution 2024-005 for a ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 25 Preliminary Plat, Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development Phase I, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review at 3737 Lexington Avenue N and 1133 Grey Fox Road, based on the fact the flexibility request was too extensive, does not include enhancements within the project and does not lead to a better overall project. Mayor Grant reported if the motion was adopted the applicant could return with another proposal in 180 days. Councilmember Fabel explained he opposed the motion. He recommended the applicant be allowed 60 days to revise the plans for consideration by the Council at a future meeting. The motion carried 4-1 (Councilmember Fabel opposed). 9. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS C. Motion To Approve Resolution 2024-002 Appointing 2024 City Council Liaisons For Commissions And Committees And Mayor Pro-Tem Councilmember Holden clarified an item on the Resolution, noting Councilmember Monson would be appointed Mayor Pro-Tem. She requested further information regarding the duties of the Mayor Pro-Tem. Mayor Grant stated in the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro-Tem would serve as the public facing City Council representative. Councilmember Holden noted the Mayor Pro Tem may or may not have warning that the Mayor was not going to be at a meeting as there could be an emergency or illness. She said it would not be the Mayor's fault if the Mayor Pro Tem had to conduct a meeting, and asked if Councilmember Monson understood the responsibilities of serving as the Mayor Pro-Tem. Councilmember Monson stated she understood these responsibilities. MOTION: Councilmember Fabel moved and Councilmember Monson seconded a motion to Approve Resolution 2024-002 Appointing 2024 City Council Liaisons For Commissions And Committees And Mayor Pro-Tem. The motion carried 4-1 (Councilmember Holden opposed). D. Motion To Approve Resolution 2024-003 Relating To The 2024 Appointments And Chairs Of The Commissions And Committees Of The City Councilmember Holden stated since the City had no policies for their Commissions and Committees, she wanted further information on how Chair appointments were being brought forward. City Administrator Perrault explained at the December 18 Council Worksession, the Council was asked to discuss the Council liaison appointments. He noted the liaisons were asked to make a recommendation for the Commission/Committee Chair appointments. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 26 Councilmember Holden asked if the Council would be discussing the dismissed Chairs. City Administrator Perrault indicated the Council was being asked to make the Chair appointments. MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Fabel seconded a motion to Approve Resolution 2024-003 Relating To The 2024 Appointments And Chairs Of The Commissions And Committees Of The City. The motion carried 4-1 (Councilmember Holden opposed). G. Motion To Accept Resignation Of Parks, Trails And Recreation Committee Member Councilmember Holden noted during the Public Inquiries portion of the meeting Mark Kelliher gave his resignation from the PTRC. She explained Mark has done an outstanding job eliminating buckthorn from the community. She thanked Mr. Kelliher for his dedicated service to the community and for how diligently he worked to eliminate buckthorn in the community. Councilmember Fabel noted Mr. Kelliher had received thanks from the City Council before based on his contributions to the community. He stated Mr. Kelliher made accusations this evening against Councilmember Rousseau that were offensive and inaccurate. He believed these actions were reasons why he was not able to be a good Commission member. He explained he wanted to affirm the respect he has for Councilmember Rousseau and commented on the wonderful work she has done as the liaison with the PTRC and Planning Commission, working positively with members from both genders. Mayor Grant thanked Mark Kelliher for all of the great work he has done. He stated it was his understanding Mr. Kelliher obtained $130,000 in funding to remove buckthorn from the City. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen reported the funding was part of the bonding bill and the City would find out more about this in April. Mayor Grant commented on the time Mark Kelliher and other residents have spent removing buckthorn from City property. Councilmember Holden explained based on Councilmember Fabel's comments, he must know everything that happens and he has read every email. She stated she was uncertain as to the communication between Councilmember Rousseau and Mr. Kelliher. She believed Mr. Kelliher deserved a thank you based on his years of service and noted no one has had a problem with him in years past. She hoped Mr. Kelliher would keep up the great work in removing buckthorn in the community. MOTION: Councilmember Fabel moved and Councilmember Rousseau seconded a motion to Accept Resignation Of Parks, Trails And Recreation Committee Member. The motion carried (5-0). H. Motion To Accept Resignation Of Planning Commissioner Councilmember Holden read Planning Commission Chair Paul Vijums' letter of resignation in full for the record. The letter offered Mr. Vijums' perspective on his role and experience with the ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 27 Planning Commission, his contribution to the commission and the city, and his next volunteer opportunity. Mayor Grant requested Councilmember Holden provide staff with a copy of this letter. Councilmember Holden noted that the letter was available from the City Administrator. Councilmember Rousseau thanked Paul Vijums for his service. She noted there were a couple of challenging meetings and the last one ended up being a request from some of the Commissioners that a new facilitator should come in. She indicated Vice Chair Wicklund would have done a great job, but he serves as the JDA Chair and noted Commissioner Weber would be willing to help going forward. Councilmember Monson thanked Paul Vijums for his service. She stated she was disappointed in his resignation noting he was requested to step aside as Chair to allow for somebody else, but she understood he had other opportunities. Councilmember Holden indicated Paul Vijums has been the Chair for several years and with one complaint he was now replaced. She explained the entire Planning Commission recommended he serve as the Chair for three more years in November and now he has resigned. She believed Mr. Vijums has always been very attentive to the Planning Cases. She noted the trouble did not arise until after the TCAAP vote. She indicated his vote to not move forward with TCAAP at this time without addressing the significant questions was the source of his dismissal. She stated this action was pointing to the fact that leaders had to toe the line or pay the price. She explained this message has also been sent to staff. She thanked Paul Vijums for his years of dedicated service to the City and apologized for the fact he had to lose his position on the Planning Commission because he asked hard questions and offered challenging ideas when it came to doing what was best for the City. She stated the emotional abuse from leadership was really sad to see. She commented on how Commissioners were addressed in the past when they were found to be dishonest. She believed that the manner in which this was handled was wrong and was a loss that should have never happened. She reported the members of the Planning Commission represented the City and not the Council liaison. Mayor Grant thanked Paul Vijums was Vijums for his contributions to the City. He believed Mr. Vij J Y J an outstanding Chair of the Planning Commission. He noted this was an important position and if this matter would have been handled properly it would not have led to his resignation. He stated the City lost a really good Planning Commissioner. He indicated it was apparent that Mr. Vijums took this very personally and this was difficult to see, especially when someone has contributed so much to the community. - Councilmember Fabel commented he has not met Mr. Vijums and he has no doubt that he has contributed significantly to the community over the years. However, he was approached by several people who advised him that they witnessed that Mr. Vijums was not simply opposed to moving forward with the TCAAP item, but rather he tried to prevent the Planning Commission from having a vote. He stated people felt this was exercising a degree of authority that was inappropriate as the Chair. He stated it was his understanding Mr. Vijums was not asked to step down from the Planning Commission altogether, but rather to step down from serving as the Chair. He reported it was Mr. Vijums decision to step down from the Planning Commission after being approached on how he handled this matter. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 28 MOTION: Councilmember Fabel moved and Councilmember Rousseau seconded a motion to Accept Resignation Of Planning Commissioner. Councilmember Holden asked if Councilmember Fabel had watched any of the other Planning Commission meetings where Mr. Vijums was the Chair. She stated she was surprised criticisms were being made about tabling a motion given the fact the Council has taken this same action instead of bringing things forward. She noted Paul has run meetings for the past five years, perhaps he was having a bad day and to remove him based on one meeting seemed unfair and irresponsible. She commented further on the emotional abuse that was being placed on the volunteers of the City. Mayor Grant stated there will always be difficult topics at meetings. He noted Mr. Vijums was voted to be the Chair in November for the next three years. He explained after one tough meeting he was removed from the Commission. Councilmember Rousseau clarified that Mr. Vijums was not removed from the Commission, he was encouraged to stay but was asked to step down as Chair given the feedback she received. Mayor Grant stated he believed this matter was mishandled. Councilmember Monson reported the comments stating Councilmember Rousseau was emotionally abusing people were out of line. She stated the allegations were not compatible with her personality and who she was. She explained Councilmember Rousseau was a fantastic person and she believed it was unfair for another Councilmember to attack her in this way. Councilmember Holden stated she would like to talk about offensive comments. She explained she was not allowed to serve on a committee or commission because she will not throw people off a committee because they don't toe the line. She indicated she has received more votes when there are five people running than Councilmember Monson or Councilmember Rousseau. She stated she has institutional knowledge, but the slate has determined she cannot serve on a committee. She described how she takes a leadership approach when serving, she talks with people in order to bring out the best in people. She understood that Mr. Vijums did not have to resign, but he was demoted to nothing and he chose not to stay. She indicated he was humiliated. The motion carried 3-2 (Councilmember Holden and Mayor Grant opposed). I. Motion To Approve Resolution 2024-004 Designating City-Owned Property As South Point Park Councilmember Holden stated the Council had agreed to this park name. However, she stated she did not have enough information regarding the park signage and how it would be laid out. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen explained he would be bringing this item back to the PTRC to get their recommendation on the type of signage and signage location for this park. MOTION: Councilmember Fabel moved and Mayor Grant seconded a motion to Approve Resolution 2024-004 Designating City-Owned Property As South Point Park. The motion carried (5-0). ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 29 J. Motion To Approve Invoice From Emergency Apparatus Maintenance, Inc. — Tanker Truck Repairs Councilmember Holden stated she spoke with Director Swearingen earlier regarding this matter. She explained the City was looking to spend $10,000 on repairs on a vehicle that would be replaced next year. She questioned why this matter was not being investigated by a fleet manager. She questioned what could be done to take care of City vehicles to ensure this type of costly repair was not needed in the future. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen indicated this vehicle was purchased in 2009 and noted materials are replaced over time with stainless steel to assist with preventing rust. He explained the City does not have a way to spray the underside of its vehicles at the Public Works facility. Councilmember Holden asked if the City would be trading this vehicle in after one year. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen reported this was the case. He commented further on how the fleet manager was evaluating the City's vehicle purchase for 2025. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Monson seconded a motion to Approve Invoice From Emergency Apparatus Maintenance, Inc. — Tanker Truck Repairs. The motion carried (5-0). 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Holden asked if staff or the Council had any updates on if the Fire Department had received any federal funding. Councilmember Monson explained Brad Martens was working with Amy Klobuchar's office to fill out the paperwork. Councilmember Holden stated she would like to know more about the wetland credits on TCAAP. City Administrator Perrault reported he was still unsure if they would be pursuing wetland credits. Councilmember Holden suggested all future agendas be designed in a manner to have resident items addressed first. City Administrator Perrault commented he could work to do this in the future. Councilmember Rousseau thanked Community Development Director Jagoe for her detailed presentation on TCAAP. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 30 Mayor Grant encouraged the Council to be careful when calling the question at future meetings because this makes it difficult to go back and make amendments on motions. Mayor Grant commented on great work that was being done by the Energy Resiliency Team and thanked Councilmember Monson for her efforts. ADJOURN MOTION: Mayor Grant moved and Councilmember Monson seconded a motion to adiourn. The motion carried (5-0). Mayor Grant adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 11:42 p.m. cv,, � -,t- jJu e Hanson David Grant C t Clerk Mayor