Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-13-25-R,-ARQEN HILLS Approved: February 10, 2025 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 2025 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 Brenda Holden, Tena Monson, Emily Rousseau and Kurt Weber Absent: None Also present: Interim City Administrator Jessica Jagoe; Public Works Director/City Engineer David Swearingen; City Attorney Greta Bjerkness; and Assistant to the City Administrator/City Clerk Julie Hanson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the meeting agenda as presented. The motion carried iLL 2. TCAAP/RICE CREEK COMMONS UPDATE Interim City Administrator Jagoe stated the Joint Development Authority has not met since the last Council meeting, neither have either of the committees. Ramsey County has appointed Commissioners Tara Jebens-Singh and Mary Jo McGuire as Members of the JDA with Commissioner Kelly Miller serving as the Alternate Member. Also, Commissioner Tara Jebens- Singh will be serving as the Vice -Chair. There has been no additional update from Ramsey County on the Purchase and Sale Agreement negotiations with Alatus. The next JDA meeting will be Tuesday, January 21St at 5:30. Councilmember Holden encouraged staff to paint a true picture within the City's newsletter articles telling all sides of the story when it comes to TCAAP. She commented on the recent Planning Commission meeting and expressed concern with the fact a Planning Commissioner ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 2 stated the Mayor and herself cost each member of the City $400 due to the lawsuit with Ramsey County. She reported this was not true. She explained the City spent $200,000 on the lawsuit and insurance covered everything beyond that. Councilmember Monson reported Tara Jebens-Singh was now the JDA's County Commissioner representative. Councilmember Monson discussed the challenges facing TCAAP and noted these have been discussed by the JDA. While she understood the recent newsletter article may not have addressed these concerns, they have been addressed by the JDA. 3. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL Richard Wenzel, 1931 Noble Road, questioned how much taxpayer money Arden Hills has spent on TCAAP. He indicated the City has been working on this project since he moved to the community in 1972 and nothing has been accomplished. He stated he would like an accounting on how much money the City has spent on this project. Mayor Grant reported staff could be directed to provide a response to Mr. Wenzel. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES None. 5. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS A. Oath of Office — Brenda Holden and Kurt Weber Assistant to the City Administrator/City Clerk Hanson administered the Oath of Office to Councilmember Kurt Weber. A round of applause was offered by all in attendance and photos were taken. Karen Nejedly administered the Oath of Office to Councilmember Brenda Holden. A round of applause was offered by all in attendance and photos were taken. Mayor Grant recessed the City Council meeting at 7:20 p.m. Mayor Grant reconvened the City Council meeting at 7:35 p.m. 6. STAFF COMMENTS None. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. December 9, 2024, City Council Work Session B. December 9, 2024, Regular City Council C. December 16, 2024, Special City Council Work Session D. December 16, 2024, Special City Council ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 3 MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the December 9, 2024, Cite Council Work Session minutes as amended, the December 9, 2024, Reaular Cite Council meeting, minutes as amended, the December 16, 2024, Special Cih- Council Work Session minutes; and December 16, 2024, Special Cite Council meeting minutes. The motion carried (5-0). 8. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Motion to Approve Consent Agenda Item - Claims and Payroll B. Motion to Approve Resolution 2025-001 Relating to the 2025 Organization of the City of Arden Hills C. Motion to Approve Resolution 2025-002 Relating to the 2025 Appointments and Chairs of the Commissions and Committees of the City D. Motion to Accept Resignation of Frank Cupery from the Economic Development Commission E. Motion to Approve Resolution 2025-003 Relating to 2025 Curbside and Non - Curbside Recycling Fees F. Motion to Approve Resolution 2025-004 Related to Utilizing Complete Streets Principles in Transportation Planning and Community Design G. Motion to Approve Payment No. 3 (Final) — Arden Manor and Royal Park Improvements Project — Peterson Companies, Inc. H. Motion to Approve Renewing Shared Service Agreement with Ramsey County for 2025 Grading and Erosion Control Inspections I. Motion to Approve Payment to Ramsey County for Right -of -Way Acquisition Costs through December 2024 ($277,460.80) — County Rd E/Old Snelling Avenue Roundabout Project; and Payment for Construction Engineering Fees and Costs ($1,354.707.10) — Mounds View High School Trail on Lake Valentine Road J. Motion to Approve Met Council 2025 Private Property I/I Grant Agreement K. Motion to Approve Hiring Permit Technician/Office Support Specialist L. Motion to Accept Resignation of Senior Communications Coordinator M. Motion to Approve Resolution 2025-010 Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Ad for Bids — 2025 CIPP Lining Project N. Motion to Approve Resolution 2025-005 Appointing Jessica Daniels to the Economic Development Commission O. Motion to Approve Purchase of 2025 F550 Regular Cab Diesel Truck MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Monson seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented and to authorize execution of all necessar%- documents contained therein. The motion carried (LT 9. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 4 A. Planning Case 24-018 — Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, Final Plat and Easement Vacation —1700 Highway 96 W — Trident Development, LLC Planning Consultant Hofer stated the Applicant has submitted a land use application for a Master Planned Unit Development (PUD), Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, Final Plat, and Easement Vacation to subdivide and develop an approximately 4 1. 10 acre property that currently contains a place of worship at 1700 Highway 96 West. North Heights Lutheran Church currently owns the Subject Property and contains a single structure that acts as a House of Worship. The property currently has split zoning with a majority of the site zoned R-1 Single Family Residential District and the northwest of the parcel zoned B-1 Limited Business District. The Subject Property is also within the Shoreland Overlay District based on its proximity to Round Lake. The proposed changes to the site would subdivide the property into two conforming lots, to facilitate construction of a 162,819 square foot, 119-unit multiple family dwelling, and construct additional parking for the existing house of worship. The proposed PUD for the land use and proposed flexibility would be exclusive to the proposed Lot 1, Block 1. Planning Consultant Hofer explained the Applicant made an application for Preliminary Plat and Rezoning on July 17, 2024. The Preliminary Plat and Rezoning (PC 24-015) was reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 7, 2024, and the City Council on September 9, 2024. A public hearing was held at both meetings for this application. The City Council approved the Preliminary Plat at the September meeting but tabled the Rezoning on based on the need to review the land use application concurrently with the rezoning request. The Preliminary Plat was approved with the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit to the City a land use application for Final Plat within three (3) months after the date of approval of the Preliminary Plat 2. The Applicant shall work with the Rice Creek Watershed District to review future modifications to vacate existing drainage and utility easements as well as proposed newly dedicated drainage and utility easements prior to the submittal of the Final Plat application. Modifications and newly dedicated easements shall be to the satisfaction of RCWD and the City. Planning Consultant Hofer reported the three-month deadline for the submittal for the final plat based on the above condition was December 9, 2024. Based on this date, the City extended the review of the rezoning in PC 24-015 to November 12, 2024. Discussion of the Rezoning will happen simultaneously with the current request as part of New Business on the agenda. The Applicant initially made an application for Master Planned Unit Development (PUD), Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and Site Plan Review in October of 2024, but the application was deemed incomplete. The Applicant applied again on November 4, 2024, with the addition of an application for Final Plat and Easement Vacation, and the application was deemed complete. Due to the meeting schedule of the City, the Applicant has also submitted a waiver for their rights to a timely review as required by Minnesota State Statute § 15.99, for the Final Plat and Rezoning applications, until January 13, 2025. Planning Consultant Hofer stated the Subject Property has access from County Highway 96 to the north and Snelling Avenue North to the east. Properties around the parcel are zoned R-1 ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 5 Single Family Residential District and POS Parks and Open Space District and are used for residential uses and houses of worship. Planning Consultant Hofer reviewed the history of the property, the Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit and Plan Evaluation information in detail with the City Council. He explained the Planning Commission reviewed this application at the December 4, 2024 meeting. The Commission discussed the discretion the City has in reviewing the application, the park dedication fees, traffic controls, the lack of affordable housing in the proposal, the density of the proposal, landscaping and tree management, access to the site, and internal circulation of traffic. The Commission voted 5-2 to recommend denial of Planning Case 24-018 with the following findings: 1. The application is not consistent with the policies within Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan: Land Use, or within and the goals of Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan: Housing, that encourage the incorporation of affordable and life -cycle housing into new development and redevelopment where feasible. 2. The request for additional density, floor area ratio, and building height is not consistent with Section 1355.04 Subd. 3.B of the City Code in that the proposed development does not meet the goals for population density and the orderly development of the neighborhood and the city within the general purpose and intent of this Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan for the City. Planning Consultant Hofer reported since the December Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant has submitted a supplemental narrative to address the concerns discussed at the meeting. The Applicant has stated the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plans that the feel they are meeting. The Applicant has also stated that in exchange for the City providing a financial subsidy they would propose to provide 10 units at 80% or less of the Area Median Income (AMI). Housing that has controlled prices under this value is considered affordable. He clarified a mistake in the staff report that stated the proposed rate for these units is estimated to be $336 and $625 per month and that the rates were to be between $1,864 and $1,950 per month. To accommodate these affordable units, the Applicant has stated that they would be looking for a cost savings of at least $1,300,000 for the development from the City. The Applicant has proposed this be achieved through a cash contribution or a reduction and/or waiver of City fees and charges. The Applicant did not indicate a time when the affordable units would be transitioned to market rate. Planning Consultant Hofer explained the City Council has the authority to waive the public use and park dedication fees required with the subdivision of the property as described in Section 1130.08. The City does have additional processes and means to provide financial support or business subsidies to projects that meet specific purposes. These standards are established in the City of Arden Hills Business Subsidy Criteria and City Public Financing Guidelines, (Public Financing Guidelines) dated July 27, 2015. This process allows for the City to consider public financing through tax increment financing, tax abatement, bonds, waiver of City fees (excluding building permits), and other forms of public financing, provided a development meets the criteria set within the standards. With the late addition of the affordable units, staff have not been able to evaluate the proposed project under these standards. Planning Consultant Hofer stated for the project to move forward with any kind of financial support that is detailed within Public Financing Guidelines, the Applicant would need to waive ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 6 their rights to a timely review under Minnesota Statute 15.99. The Applicant has already extended this deadline to January 13, 2025, and without their consent to extend, the City must act on PC 24-018 and the tabled request for Rezoning PC 24-015. The Applicant also stated that the flexibility requested for FAR, maximum building height, and density are appropriate based on the standards that have been exceeded. Councilmember Holden asked if any bike racks or EV charging stations were included in the proposal. Planning Consultant Hofer reported the developer had included 70 bike parking stalls in the underground parking facility. He noted there were no EV charging stations included in the proposal. Councilmember Holden requested further information regarding the trail on the northwest side of the property. Planning Consultant Hofer discussed the trail planned along Highway 96. Councilmember Holden stated she was not happy with the left turn out of the parking lot. She recommended a right-in/right-out be considered for the access point. She asked if this could be made a recommendation for approval. Interim City Administrator Jagoe explained this recommendation for approval could be made under Item I IA. She stated it was her understanding the applicant had a pork chop design exiting the newly created lot for the development, which would mean there is a left turn only onto Snelling Avenue. In addition, a partial pork chop would be installed at Snelling Avenue to direct traffic. Councilmember Holden stated the left turn only onto Snelling Avenue would not stop people from taking a right-hand turn. Councilmember Monson requested further information on the drainage impacts across Highway 10. Planning Consultant Hofer stated he would recommend the City Engineer address this question, but noted any drainage across property lines would need to be controlled and would be addressed within the stormwater control plans presented by the applicant. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen reported the review with the Rice Creek Watershed District was underway and staff will be coordinating with this organization. Councilmember Monson questioned if the City would be working with the Army Corp in wetland impacts. Planning Consultant Hofer reported the application was not sent to the Army Corp for review on any impacts. Councilmember Monson indicated there were wetland impacts. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 7 Planning Consultant Hofer stated there were wetlands on site, but he was not aware of any impacts. Councilmember Monson inquired how residents of this development would walk down to Royal Park. Planning Consultant Hofer reviewed the pedestrian facilities on the south side of the parking lot that leads to the house of worship. He commented there was no path out to Snelling Avenue. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen explained a bridge would have to be installed over the creek on site in order to have a pedestrian connection to the park. Councilmember Holden stated because this was a PUD, the City could ask for some sort of pathway, but there is a ravine. She asked if any type of recreational playground would be included within this development. Planning Consultant Hofer reported a patio would be included on the west side of the building, but a play structure was not included. Mayor Grant indicated the applicant was requesting a variance of three feet to the building height. He questioned how tall the existing church was. Planning Consultant Hofer stated he did not know the current height of the church. Mayor Grant asked what the pitch of the roof was on the church. Planning Consultant Hofer reported the church had a 6/12 pitch. Mayor Grant inquired if the senior living development would have a 6/12 roof pitch. Planning Consultant Hofer stated the applicant has indicated the roof would have a 6/12 pitch. Councilmember Holden commented she anticipated the North Heights Church was over 45 feet tall. Mayor Grant stated his reason for asking was because the applicant was asking for a variance, but it was next to a building that was taller, it the additional building height may not appear to be too much. He indicated the PUD was asking for 13.9 units per acre where 12 units per acre was allowed. He noted the City could allow for additional density through a PUD. Planning Consultant Hofer reported this was the case. Mayor Grant questioned how many additional units would be created if the PUD were approved. Planning Consultant Hofer stated this would be 17 units. Councilmember Holden inquired if the veneer would be mortared. Planning Consultant Hofer explained he was uncertain. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 8 Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Brad Bjorklund, 3530 Wood Court, stated the members of the Planning Commission had no problems with the physical aspects of the building, but rather had concerns with the lack of affordable housing. He noted he stated this clearly at the Planning Commission meeting. He reported the City has a project across the street that has been contentious that was slated to include 20% affordable housing. He indicated the project that was now before the City now included 8.4% affordable housing units. He questioned why the developer was requesting a large amount of funding back. While he believed the City was working with a fine developer, he recommended the Council support the denial of this project due to the affordability aspect because this project does not meet the City's comprehensive plan goals. Roger Fink, Trident Development, thanked the Council for considering his request. He thanked staff for the comprehensive staff report. He appreciated staff s assistance and support on this project. He commented he did not have a lot of prepared remarks. He reviewed the areas where he was requesting flexibility within the development and commented on the ability to integrate affordable housing within this application. He reported City Code spoke to a dedication of land (20%) or cash in lieu. He stated it has been tricky to determine the land value given this includes all of the improvements on the entire 40 acres with the house of worship. He noted the development would be on the 20 acres alone, without the house of worship. He recommended the park dedication fee be calculated from the 20 acre land value alone. He reported the church has agreed to sell the 20 acres of land for $2.25 million and this should be the value the park dedication fee should be calculated from. Mr. Fink clarified, if it weren't for the wetlands, he would be at 11 units per acre. He noted the FAR was being exceeded slightly. He indicated if he were to reduce the building size down to 3.0, he would have to sacrifice lobby space, common area space, the party room and rooftop patio. He stated the three extra feet of building height would allow for a nine foot ceiling height within the units versus an eight foot ceiling height for the three story building. He explained he was prepared to include affordable units if required by the City. He reported he could offer up to 10 units at 80% AMI. He estimated this project would cost $33,650,000. He explained he has worked to lower the project costs down to $32,300,000 in order to offer a proper return on investment, while still including the affordable units. He stated if the City moves forward with the affordable units, there will be a number of agreements that will need to be included in the development agreement. With no one coming forward to speak, Mayor Grant closed the public hearing at 8:32 p.m. 11. NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Cases 24-015 and 24-018 — 1700 Highway 96 W — Trident Development, LLC • Resolution 2025-006 PC 24-015 Approving a Rezoning for Subject Property • Resolution 2025-007 PC 24-018 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Lot 2, Block 1, Arden Heights Addition • Resolution 2025-008 PC 24-018 Vacating Drainage and Utility Easement Planning Consultant Hofer reviewed the staff report with the Council and offered the following Findings of Fact: ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 9 Planning Case 24-015 — Rezoning Findings: 1. The Subject Property at 1700 West Highway 96 is located in the B-1 — Limited Business District and R-1 — Single Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates future land use for the Subject Property as HDR, High Density Residential and as P/l, Public and Institutional. 3. The Applicant's land use application includes a request to rezone the proposed 10.74-acre northwest parcel from B-1 — Limited Business District to R-4 — Multiple Dwelling District. 4. The proposed 10.74-acre parcel would meet the size requirements for lots in the R-4 Zoning District. 5. The 30 +/- acres of developed land on the Subject Property would remain as R-1 — Single Family Residential. 6. The rezoning of the 10.74-acre parcel would resolve a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance. 7. Rezoning requires a public hearing prior to action by the City Council. 8. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this land use application on August 7, 2024. Planning Case 24-018 - Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit Findings: 1. The property located at 1700 Highway 96 West is designated for High Density Residential 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 Site Plan Review, Master and Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Final Plat, and Vacation in order to construct a 119-unit age -restricted apartment. 6. The Applicant has proposed a Master and Final Planned Unit Development for the development of one approximate 162,819 square foot multiple family dwelling on the Subject Property. 7. The Applicant has proposed additional improvements to the proposed Lot 2, Block 1, to construct additional parking and install landscaping for the existing house of worship use. 8. The Master and Final Planned Unit Development generally conforms to the requirements of the City Zoning Code and design standards. 9. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City Code, the Applicant has requested flexibility. 10. Flexibility through the PUD process has been requested in the following areas: density, floor area ratio, and building height. 11. A public hearing for a 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. 12. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this land use application on December 4, 2024. Planning Consultant Hofer stated the Planning Commission reviewed this application at their August 7, 2024, meeting. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 10 application for a Preliminary Plat and Rezoning by a 6-1 vote. Staff presented options regarding motions for the application, including approval for Planning Case 24-015 for a Rezoning for the 10.74-acre parcel at 1700 West Highway 96, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the January 13, 2025 Report to the City Council: 1. Approval is subject to the approval of Resolution 2025-007 for Planning Case 24- 018 (Approving a Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, Final Plat) Planning Consultant Hofer explained the Planning Commission reviewed this application at their December 4, 2024, meeting. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the application for Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, Final Plat, and Easement Vacation, by a vote of 5-2. Councilmember Weber stated having heard this case on the Planning Commission, he had a lot of his questions and concerns addressed. He noted the Council was now hearing a proposal that includes affordable housing. He indicated he had a chance to look this over. He stated in order to attain the additional density bonus, the development should include affordable housing. He reported this was the way he read the City's comprehensive plan. He commented it would then be a perk for the developer and a perk for the City. However, in this case, the developer was requesting $1.3 million of a financial subsidy from the City which would be 22.5 years of rental payments for the 10 affordable units. He did not believe this was a reasonable starting point and would be a deal breaker for him. Councilmember Holden questioned if the City had a policy in place that required developers to provide affordable housing. Interim City Administrator Jagoe reported the City does not have any policies in place that require affordable housing, even in the language within Chapter 6 of the comprehensive plan. She commented even with additional density through the PUD process, the language does not specify the requirement for a component for affordability. Councilmember Holden asked if picking one aspect of the comprehensive plan was enough of a reason to deny a request, such as building height or the affordability aspect. She commented she was concerned about the legality of this. City Attorney Bjerkness stated this was a key thing to keep in mind. She reported the City Council can enforce regulations and rules within City Code. She explained the comprehensive plan was not rules and regulations, but rather provided guidance. Interim City Administrator Jagoe reported the portion of the comprehensive plan the Planning Commission referenced addressed housing goals that encourage affordable and life cycle housing. Councilmember Holden stated the goals within the comprehensive plan were provided to the City by the Met Council, and again, these are goals not requirements for the City. Councilmember Rousseau indicated the applicant has stated they would be willing to provide 8% of the units at 80% AMI and this would require $1.3 million from the City to offset the profits for the investors. She believed the $1.3 million was not a realistic number for the City to offset ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 11 the costs for the affordable units. She stated it was disappointing the comprehensive plan's affordable housing goals were not considered earlier by the developer. She understood former Councilmember Fabel mentioned this at a meeting and it was also her understanding Planning Commissioner Bjorklund reached out to the developer to encourage affordable housing as part of this project. She understood other 55+ housing projects and the City has not followed the affordability goals. She indicated she was not on the Council when these projects were completed. It was her understanding that the City did not have an Ordinance in place to address affordable housing requirements, and this was not okay. She commented on the park dedication fees, noting the fee schedule was not updated this year. She anticipated with inflation, the fees should have been increased 15%. She questioned if how many people living within these developments qualified for some kind of subsidized housing discount. Interim City Administrator Jagoe commented 80% AMI can be considered market rate and in order to qualify for grant opportunities, the City would need to look at 50% or 60% AMI for affordable housing needs. Councilmember Holden stated two different 55+ housing developments have been completed in the City. She reported the City was not willing to give the requested amount of financial assistance for the first. She commented the second building had an agreement with the State of Minnesota and Bethel University, where Bethel would be training their health care students at the assisted living facility across from the Anderson Center. She agreed that 80% AMI was market rate and noted she would not be willing to provide $1.3 million in order to create 10 units at 80% AMI. However, she also was not willing to give up a $33 million housing project. She stated she would be considering all aspects of this development. Mayor Grant provided further information on PUD's and the flexibility that can be offered through the PUD process. He discussed how 80% AMI could happen organically and agreed that 80% AMI was a de facto market rate. He indicated the individuals that would be renting from this development could afford more than market rate, while others would be below the area median income. He stated he would not be able to support the $1.3 million financial request. He explained this was a $33 million project for the City and he was not willing to turn it down on one item alone. He stated if the 80% AMI and the $1.3 million were removed, he could support the project. He reported earlier today he met with seven mayors and city administrators where he asked if any of the other cities have directly funded affordable housing without TIF. He learned that none had done it, except for one, which provided the developer a loan that had to be paid back. Councilmember Monson asked how the City used the park dedication and residential dedication fees. Interim City Administrator Jagoe explained the park development fees would be used for park improvement projects or the ongoing maintenance of parks. She reported the residential development fee was used towards the overall maintenance and upkeep of park development and park maintenance. She indicated the land use application is paid for through the application and escrow fees. Councilmember Monson asked what City ordinance says when it comes to setting park dedication fees for projects. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 12 Interim City Administrator Jagoe stated for the residential dedication, the City looks at the fair market value of the land for a cash dedication. She indicated the City did not get a value so the City had to go off of the value of the property today, as assessed by Ramsey County. However, she noted City staff has been provided with additional information as to the purchase price for the land for this project. Councilmember Monson stated when additional density is allowed, this typically means the developer will provide additional amenities, such as EV chargers or a trail to the park. She indicated the developer was meeting very basic standards and was still asking for variances on several more items. She reported to her, this was not enough for the City to offer additional density. She wanted to see the items that were missing included within the project plans, such as a path to Royal Park. She indicated the City was already struggling to pay for trails and this project would benefit greatly by having a trail connection. Mayor Grant questioned if the City were to count the wetlands, no density bonus would be required. Planning Consultant Hofer reported this was the case, noting the site was 10.74 acres with 119 units on it. Mayor Grant commented the PUD allows the Council to grant the density flexibility. Planning Consultant Hofer stated this was correct. Mayor Grant stated the developer will have access to the right of way along Highway 96 to the north. He indicated a trail could be established to the Highway 96 trail. He anticipated the church would have to provide some flexibility in order for a trail to be built to the adjacent park. Planning Consultant Hofer reported that while the applicant was proposing to plant trees on the house on the house of worship lot, there was limited work plan on the proposed Lot 2, Block 1. He indicated the applicant could ask to construct a trail on the house of worship property, but the church would have to give permission. Mayor Grant anticipated it would be in the church's best interest, to provide this amenity to the members as it would be nice to have a trail from the church to the park. He questioned if the development agreement could require the applicant to construct a trail to reach the park. City Attorney Bjerkness indicated City Code has the option, where a subdivision borders a trail that is identified within the comprehensive plan, the City can require the developer construct trail improvements to connect, but this would only be applicable to property the developer owns. Mayor Grant commented while the City really wants a trail connection, this would be on land the developer does not own. Rather, the church owns the land. Councilmember Holden stated this was a PUD and she was not seeing any special amenities included within the plans. She suggested funding be provided by the applicant in order to complete the trail connection to the park. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 13 Mayor Grant questioned who the applicant was for this project, Trident Development or the church. Interim City Administrator Jagoe reported the church was the property owner, but the applicant was Trident Development. Mayor Grant commented the standard park development rate would require the applicant to pay $773,500, but based on the purchase price that was provided by Trident Development to applicant was proposing to pay $450,000. Councilmember Monson agreed with Councilmember Holden, reiterating this was a bare minimum application and she did not understand how this project came forward. She reported the City has no more time to make a decision on this project. She stated the information the Council had requested before had not been included within the application. She commented the offer for affordable housing offended her. She was of the opinion this was a clear strategic plan that was brought forward by the applicant with the understanding the City would never accept. She wanted to have a development on this property, but she was angered by the manner in which this project has moved forward. While she wanted to deny the project, she was stuck. She expressed frustration noting this was not the manner in which a developer partnered with the City. She commented she did not love this project and noted she was not interested in waiving any fees for the developer. Councilmember Holden stated when the concept plan was considered, Councilmember Fabel mentioned affordable housing and none of the other Councilmembers offered support. She stated it was the Council's fault for not addressing this issue sooner. She noted one other member of the Planning Commission discussed affordable housing with the developer. Councilmember Monson agreed the Council did not make the affordable housing requirements clear. However, the Planning Commission wanted this addressed and she was offended by the developer's response. Mayor Grant reiterated this was not a project where TIF financing was involved. He commented this would be a totally different arena. Councilmember Rousseau questioned what the benefit to the community would be with the higher density. Mayor Grant anticipated this would be higher tax revenue. Councilmember Holden indicated the additional density was provided based on how the building was laid out. Mayor Grant requested the Council address the series of issues facing this request. Councilmember Holden addressed resident dedication and noted she would support a payment of $450,000. Mayor Grant supported the Council putting a motion on the floor with amendments then to be considered versus discussing each issue prior to putting a motion on the floor. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 14 Interim City Administrator Jagoe reported the Council had tabled action on the rezoning, which meant the rezoning would have to be considered first prior to taking action on the PUD, conditional use permit, site plan review, final plat and easement vacation. Mayor Grant asked if these items could be considered under one motion. City Attorney Bjerkness reported there are different voting thresholds for the different items. Interim City Administrator Jagoe indicated these items were also separate Planning Cases. Councilmember Monson stated she supported the Council working its way through what items would be amended on Planning Case 24-018 before the rezoning was considered. Mayor Grant commented typically the Council does not hold long discussions on items prior to having a motion on the table, but perhaps this case could be an exception in order to gain agreement. He suggested the Council speak further to the park dedication fee. Councilmember Monson indicated staff has recommended 25 different conditions for this Planning Case and any additional conditions would begin with Condition 26. Councilmember Holden reiterated that she supported the residential dedication fee being on only the parcel being purchased by the applicant based on the purchase price, which would set the fee at $450,000. Councilmember Monson stated she supported this as well. Mayor Grant indicated he supported the $450,000 residential dedication fee. Councilmember Holden recommended this fee be based on the appraisal information City staff received from the applicant. Planning Consultant Hofer stated staff did not receive appraisal information from the purchaser and seller, and did not receive appraisal information. He explained if the City and the applicant do not agree to a fair market price for the property, there needs to be an appraisal from the applicant. Interim City Administrator Jagoe commented if the Council wanted to condition that they would require an appraisal, this can be determined at the filing of the final plat. Councilmember Holden asked if the City Attorney had language for this requirement. City Attorney Bjerkness recommended this requirement read: The resident dedication fee be based on an appraised amount to be determined and provided by the applicant at the applicant's expense. The Council supported this language. Councilmember Holden addressed the park development fee, which was $6,500 per unit. She supported this fee being upheld. She noted based on the per unit fee, the applicant would be responsible for paying a park development fee of $773,500. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 15 Councilmember Rousseau supported the proposed park development fee. Councilmember Monson indicated the Council was unsure of how many units would be constructed as part of this project, which would impact the park development fee that was paid by the developer. She noted she did support the park development fee remaining $6,500 per unit. Councilmember Weber agreed. Councilmember Holden explained she had not made up her mind regarding density. She recommended the wetlands not be included because this has not been included in past developments. She reported the maximum density for this project should be 12 units per acre and the developer was asking for 13.9 units per acre. Mayor Grant stated the Council had the ability to provide for additional density through a PUD, in exchange for something that improves the project. Councilmember Monson questioned what the total number of units would be if the density bonus were not allowed. Planning Consultant Hofer stated the development would be allowed to have 102 units. Councilmember Monson inquired what should be exchanged for the additional density. Mayor Grant supported the addition or inclusion of a trail connection to the park. He reported if 14 units were removed from the project, this may jeopardize the financial feasibility of the project. He explained these 14 units should be worth something to the developer and the developer should be giving the community some benefit. City Attorney Bjerkness pointed out that Section 1130.08 of the City Code speaks to cases where a subdivision borders a trail identified in the City's comprehensive plan, the developer or subdivider shall (must) be responsible for constructing trail improvements that provide connections to the trail. She reported this code language means the City Council shall make the trail connection a requirement for the developer. Interim City Administrator reported this language speaks to the fact the developer or subdivider shall be responsible for creating the trail connection. Mayor Grant questioned the length of the trail connection. Interim City Administrator stated the trail connection would only be the length of the property, which would be approximately 1,373 feet. She commented there would still be a gap from the North Heights property line to Highway 96. Councilmember Holden indicated she could support the bonus density for the full trail connection. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen explained this trail segment would be a good candidate for a back of curb bituminous trail. He noted the trail would require some tree removal and site grading. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 16 Councilmember Weber indicated he envisioned the affordable housing units for the additional density. He agreed the proposal from the developer was offensive. He noted while the trails would be a nice add, he wanted to see the affordable housing units remain on the table. Councilmember Holden asked if the Council supported giving the bonus density in order to receive the trail. She indicated she could support the requested flexibility for density, FAR and building height if the trail was included in the plans. Councilmember Monson questioned if EV charging stations could be included. Councilmember Holden commented this would be a separate requirement. Councilmember Monson requested further information on what Councilmember Weber was envisioning for affordable housing. Councilmember Weber stated he hoped the entire density overage would be affordable housing, or 17 units. He believed it was in good faith of the comprehensive plan, that the City should seek options for affordable housing within this development. Councilmember Holden asked if the comprehensive plan lists areas within the community where affordable housing was allowed. Interim City Administrator Jagoe explained at the time of writing the comprehensive plan, within the housing chapter, there were areas that were anticipated for future development and this site was not one guided for redevelopment and affordable housing. She noted this property was zoned R-1 and guided for low density residential to the east. Councilmember Monson inquired if the City could ask for affordable housing as a requirement for density bonus. City Attorney Bjerkness stated the requirement for affordable housing, or a threshold far affordable housing in exchange for the density does go outside what is generally considered within a PUD application. She referred back to her previous statement, noting the affordable housing goals within the comprehensive plan have not been codified within City ordinances. She did not recommend the City Council require affordable housing within the land use application because it was within the comprehensive plan and not City ordinances. Councilmember Monson asked if the City Council could require the trail. City Attorney Bjerkness advised the trail connection could be required, due to the specific language within City Code. She reported the trail connection does not have to be tied to the density bonus. Mayor Grant commented typically within a PUD, the trade offs relate to each other. Councilmember Rousseau indicated she supported the inclusion of a trail connection. Councilmember Monson was in agreement. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 17 Councilmember Weber explained he had a very hard time accepting the fact there was a statement within the comprehensive plan to add additional density and the City can't tie it to anything. He stated one of the biggest needs in the community was affordable housing. He recommended this language be reviewed because he wanted the City to have this option. He indicated he could support the inclusion of the trail connection. Mayor Grant commented on how expensive affordable housing was for developers and stated often times required cost sharing between the City, school district, State and the County. Councilmember Monson supported the City having leverage in these moments and she supported the City Council having further discussions on what other cities have done to encourage affordable housing. Mayor Grant indicated he could support the increased density, FAR and building height with the City requiring the trail connection. Councilmember Holden stated she would like to hear from the applicant, noting she would not support the rezoning, if the applicant was not going to construct this building. Mr. Fink addressed the Council noting when he first started looking at this project, even in the early concept phases, he was in excess of 120 units. He reported as he worked with City staff and learned how density was calculated, the number of units was pared down through the design phase to 119 units. He was of the opinion this was an appropriate number of units given the lot size, especially given the wetland deductions, which required the density bonus request. He explained 119 units was the minimum number in order to make the finances work. He explained he could support the trail requirement as proposed by the Council. He suggested the trail connection extending to Highway 96 adjacent to the site to the northeast corner of the church property, if within the public right of way, that the cost be offset from the park dedication fee. He indicated this would then provide a complete trail connection. Councilmember Holden stated she believed this was a great idea, because a complete trail would then be in place. Councilmember Monson agreed. She asked if the applicant had a problem with providing EV charging stations. Mr. Fink explained he did not object to EV charging stations being required. He reported it was his understanding the charging stations would have to be outside of the parking ramp for fire safety purposes. Mayor Grant stated he has heard the applicant supported moving forward with the project with the inclusion of a trail/trail extension to Royal Park and the inclusion of EV charging stations. Mr. Fink reported this was the case. Councilmember Holden questioned how many EV charging stations should be required. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 18 Mr. Fink indicated he recently completed a housing project in Chaska with 112 units and he was required to have two EV charging stations which would provide four charging spots in the parking lot. Councilmember Holden questioned what the possibility was for getting a small play structure included in the development for grandchildren to play on. Mr. Fink anticipated he could come to some sort of an agreement on a play structure for this development. Councilmember Holden requested further information regarding the security system that would be in place. Planning Consultant Hofer stated the conditional use permit has specific standards that have to be met or reviewed and the standards within the code that describe the security plan do not set specific metrics to be met. Therefore, staff could not determine if the plans were sufficient. Interim City Administrator Jagoe commented the City Council could add a condition requiring the applicant to provide a security plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. She explained City Code states a security plan shall be submitted at the time of the development proposal, subject to approval of the Ramsey County Sheriff s Department. Mr. Fink indicated this was a request he was unfamiliar with. He explained he provided his security measures and noted he could work with the Sheriff's Department on this matter. Councilmember Holden questioned if the brick would have mortar. Mr. Fink reported the brick product was a thin brick that was applied with an adhesive on the exterior of the building and in between each brick was a grout product. Councilmember Holden addressed the pork chop. She questioned how the proposed traffic plan would keep people from taking a right hand turn out of the underground parking lot. She inquired if there was more the City could do to address the traffic safety concerns. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen indicated he could further review the geometry to ensure the allowed turning movements were more apparent. Councilmember Holden recommended a condition be added to require the applicant to work with the City Engineer on the egress/ingress points from the parking garage. Mr. Fink stated the proposed renderings were an artistic depiction and were not the engineered plans. He commented on how the right hand motion may be necessary in order to allow residents to take a right hand turn out of the underground parking lot. He suggested the restriction of traffic out onto Snelling Avenue be managed in another manner. Councilmember Holden agreed, but noted she was worried about cars driving through the church parking lot in order to reach Snelling Avenue. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 19 Councilmember Monson supported the removal of the pork chop directly outside the underground parking ramp. She was of the opinion the pork chop at Snelling Avenue was sufficient. Mr. Fink indicated he was not opposed to the pork chop at Snelling Avenue. Mayor Grant stated he has heard that these conditions were acceptable to the applicant and he was still willing to build the proposed structure. Mr. Fink reported this was the case. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councihnember Monson seconded a motion to approve Planning., Case 24-015 and the adoption of Resolution 2025- 006 for an amendment to the zoning„ map to rezone 10.74 acres from B-1 Limited Business District to R-4 Multiple Dwelling" District at 1700 HighwaN 96 West. based on the findin,,s of fact and the submitted plans. as amended bN the conditions in the JanuarN 13.2025 Report to the Citv Council. The motion carried 4-1 (Councilmember Weber opposed). MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and MaN or Grant seconded a motion to approve Plannin<t Case 24-018 and the adoption of Resolution 2025-007 for a Master Planned Unit Development. Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit. Site Plan Review. Final Plat for the propertN that currentlN contains a place of worship at 1700 Hio_hwaN 96 West, based on the fmdin,,;s of fact and the submitted plans. as amended b% the conditions in the JanuarN 13.2025 Report to the CitN Council. Councilmember Weber stated the amount of discussion that has been held on this item speaks to the fact this item should have gone back to the City Council at a work session and probably still should. Councilmember Monson asked if this item were approved, should amendments then be considered. Mayor Grant commented amendments would be considered at this time. Councilmember Weber expressed concern with how much it would cost to build the portion of trail that would be covered by park dedication. Mr. Fink indicated he would receive competitive bids for this project and he could provide City staff with back up documentation as to these costs. Mayor Grant estimated the trail portion that would have to be covered by park dedication fees was about 396 feet. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 20 AMENDMENT: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Monson seconded a motion to add Condition 26 to read: Residential dedication shall be a cash contribution in lieu of land and calculated based upon the fair market value of Lot 1, Block 1, as determined by an appraisal submitted to the City by the Applicant and paid for by the Applicant; Condition 27 to read: The Park Development shall be a cash contribution in lieu of land and calculated using the current per unit fee of $6,500, for a total park development fee of $773,500.00 based upon 119 units; Condition 28 to read: The Applicant shall install at their expense a trail along Snelling Avenue and within Snelling Avenue right-of-way, adjacent to the Subject Property, which shall be approximately 1,373 feet in length to serve as a connection to Royal Hills Park and consistent with City Code requirements. The final location and specifications of the trail connections shall be determined by the PW Director/City Engineer and Community Development Director; Condition 29 to read: The trail connection north of this site to Highway 96 along Snelling Avenue and within Snelling Avenue right-of-way, which shall be approximately 396 feet in length to serve as a connection to Royal Hills Park and consistent with City Code requirements. The final location and specifications of the trail connections shall be determined by the PW Director/City Engineer and Community Development Director. The costs incurred to the Applicant for the installation of the approximately 396 foot long trail may be deducted from the Applicant's park development fee; Condition 30 to read: The applicant shall be required to install two EV charging stations with a total of four charging outlets; Condition 31 to read: The Applicant shall reserve an exterior area of no less than 12 feet by 12 feet, upon which Applicant will install a play structure. The location and specification of the play structure is subject to approval by the PW Director/City Engineer and Community Development Director; Condition 32 to read: The Applicant shall provide a Security Plan to the City, which must be reviewed and approved by the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office; and Condition 33 to read: The vehicular access points to the Subject Property onto Snelling Avenue such as "left turn only" must be reviewed and approved by the PW Director/City Engineer. The amendment carried (5-0). Mayor Grant questioned if the $1.3 million for affordable housing had been removed from consideration. City Attorney Bjerkness explained this addition was only included within the supplemental narrative from the applicant and not the submitted plans. The City Attorney explained the supplemental narrative was not included in the motions for approval from City staff. The amended motion carried 4-1 (Councilmember Weber opposed). Planning Consultant Hofer reported City staff had no concerns regarding the vacation of drainage and utility easements. He explained the City Engineer found the easements were no longer necessary. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 21 MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 24-018 and the adoption of Resolution 2025- 008 for a Vacation of Drainage and Utilitv Easement for the property at 1700 Highway 96 West. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried (5-0). B. Resolution 2025-009 Relating to the 2025 City Council Liaisons for Commissions and Committees and Mayor Pro-Tem Assistant to the City Administrator/City Clerk Hanson stated at its December 9 work session, the City Council discussed liaison assignments to the City's Committees and Commissions. During that discussion, Council consensus was to remove the Council liaison for Communications and staff received direction on the remaining appointments. Following that work session, staff became aware of a conflict regarding potential appointments to the Lake Johanna Fire Department (LJFD) liaisons; therefore, staff is seeking direction from Council regarding those appointments. Assistant to the City Administrator/City Clerk Hanson reported the City's other various commission and committee assignments as previously agreed upon at the December work session: Councilmember Monson indicated she supported the appointments as discussed. However, she noted her name should have been included on the Fire Relief Association, as she previously agreed to this position. Councilmember Holden asked that her name be removed from the PTRC as she did not believe she would be a good fit for this committee. In addition, she did not believe the Yellow Ribbon committee should be included on this list. Councilmember Rousseau stated she did not understand how the Yellow Ribbon was accepting individuals and she supported having the Yellow Ribbon removed from this list. The Council was in agreement with the recommendation to remove the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon City -appointed representative. Councilmember Holden commented the Yellow Ribbon does not have events but rather supports individuals in need of assistance. Councilmember Monson indicated Councilmember Holden was interested in the Lake Johanna Board of Directors and noted there may be an opportunity to see if there was a way to rearrange the timeframe, or shorten the meetings. Councilmember Holden commented she has not been good enough to serve on a committee for the past two years and this was bothersome to her. She indicated the biasness for the past two years was concerning to her. She questioned why she was good enough to serve on a committee now. Councilmember Weber asked if Councilmember Holden just asked to get off of a committee. Councilmember Holden reported this was the case, noting she did not believe she was a good fit for the PTRC. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 22 Councilmember Weber questioned what committees Councilmember Holden would like to serve on now. Councilmember Holden explained she asked to serve on the Planning Commission. Councilmember Weber indicated he was the only person to raise his hand for the Planning Commission. Councilmember Holden asked Councilmember Weber if he remembered her saying she didn't think he should be on the Planning Commission because he just served with the Planning Commission and she wanted to serve with this group. Councilmember Weber confirmed that he remembered and that he's sure it's recorded when she said she didn't think it was the best thing for him, but that she did not offer to serve and nobody else offered to serve on the Planning Commission. He stated that was revisionist history. Councilmember Holden responded very much so. Mayor Grant commented one option to resolve this issue would be for Councilmember Weber to serve on the PTRC and allow Councilmember Holden to serve as the Planning Commission liaison. Councilmember Weber declined this request. Councilmember Rousseau indicated she would be willing to serve as the PTRC liaison. MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Rousseau seconded a motion to adopt Resolution 2025-009 Appointing 2025 City Council Liaisons for Commissions and Committees and Mavor Pro Tem with the amendment that the Lake Johanna Fire Department Headquarters JPA Representative and Board of Directors Representative be Councilmember Holden, the Relief Association Representative be Councilmember Monson and the PTRC Liaison be Councilmember Rousseau. The motion carried 4-1 (Councilmember Holden opposed). C. Recruitment of Senior Communications Coordinator Interim City Administrator Jagoe stated the City currently has a vacancy following the resignation of the Senior Communications Coordinator. She reported Council should discuss the potential next steps for recruitment for this position which include authorization to recruit, give staff direction to bring this to the Personnel Committee, or schedule as a future work session discussion to review the job description duties and City communication needs. Councilmembers have previously expressed an interest in being part of the interview panel for certain positions at City Hall; currently no Councilmembers are slated to be on the interview panel for this position. Council may want to discuss if any Councilmembers would want to be designated to participate if there were a motion to authorize recruitment. Mayor Grant stated at a recent mayors/city administrator meeting he asked how other cities were managing communications. He explained there were a wide range of options, noting larger cities ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 23 were in one camp and cities of Arden Hills size had a portion of an FTE. He asked if this matter should go back to the Personnel Committee for further consideration. MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to table action on this item recommending this item be reviewed by the Personnel Committee and be brought back to the Cih Council with a recommendation. The motion carried (5-0). 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Grant reported St. Anthony and Falcon Heights both did solar panels through the Public Building Solar Panel Project and the payback could be as quick as a couple of years. He noted he passed this information onto staff. Mayor Grant commented the Lake Johanna Fire Department opening bid would occur on January 30. Mayor Grant indicated the single hauler referendum in Mounds View failed. He noted the city of Mounds View had voted to require haulers to provide the City with rate sheets and failure to provide this sheet would mean the business was not licensed. He reported Mounds View has as many or more haulers as Arden Hills. He stated this was an interesting approach to level the playing field. Councilmember Rousseau thanked the Chair Jill Anderson of the PTRC for her years of service to the City. Councilmember Rousseau thanked Tim Nelson for serving on the PTRC for three terms. She recommended a thank you be sent to Mr. Nelson acknowledging his commitment to the City. She explained she wanted to see the City doing more to acknowledge its volunteers. Councilmember Rousseau commented the PTRC recommended any improvements to the Hazelnut parking lot not be done during the State Fair. Councilmember Rousseau requested staff forward the Great River Greening contract onto the City Council. She noted buckthorn would be removed from Floral and Hazelnut Parks next week. Mayor Grant welcomed Councilmember Weber to the City Council. Councilmember Weber stated after serving on the Planning Commission many years, he wanted to thank Commissioners Wicklund, Blilie and Mitchell for their service on the Planning Commission. He welcomed the new members to the Planning Commission. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 24 Councilmember Weber explained he was looking at the Twin Cities Gateway site and he recommended the Northern Lights Bingo Hall be removed. Councilmember Holden questioned how the City was doing on the lead water connectors. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen stated he did not have an updated number for the City Council. He estimated the City had identified 500 connections, not on the City side. Councilmember Holden requested further information on the LED light kits. Interim City Administrator Jagoe estimated the City had given away less than 10 kits to date. Councilmember Monson commented the City was working to find connections in order to communicate with Arden Manor regarding the LED light kits. Mayor Grant stated the city of Ramsey joined the Gateway Visitor Bureau. He indicated the City of Arden Hills was seeing increased heads in beds, which meant revenues were up. Councilmember Holden explained she attended the ribbon cutting for Chiroway with Councilmember Rousseau. ADJOURN MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Mayor Grant seconded a motion to adiourn. The motion carried (5-0). Mayor Grant adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 10:45 p.m. Julie Hanson City Clerk i�' �J" 4J David Grant Mayor