HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-10-25-WSPUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL
This is an opportunity for citizens to respectfully bring to the Council ’s attention any
items which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state
your name and address for the record. Comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes
or less. Written documents or other materials should be handed to the City Clerk for
distribution to the Council prior to or during the meeting. Council will generally not
respond at the same meeting where an issue is initially raised by a member of the
public but the Council may refer the issue to staff for further research and possible
report or action at a future Council meeting.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES
AGENDA ITEMS
Parks System Planning Proposal
Bryce Shearen and Casey Byers, Bolton & Menk
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
Zoning Code Update
Jessica Jagoe City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
ATTACHMENT C.PDF
ATTACHMENT D.PDF
State Of The City
Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
Code Of Conduct Policy
Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
ATTACHMENT C.PDF
Agenda Planning
Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
Rice Creek Commons/TCAAP Discussion
Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Mayor:
David Grant
Councilmembers:
Brenda Holden
Emily Rousseau
Tena Monson
Kurt Weber
City Council Work Session
Agenda
March 10, 2025
5:30 p.m.
City Hall
Address:
1245 W Highway 96
Arden Hills MN 55112
Phone:
651 -792 -7800
Website :
www.cityofardenhills.org
City Vision
Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential
neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our
long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.
Members of the public may attend a
meeting in -person at City Hall or they
may view the meeting remotely on the
City ’s website using the below link.
Meetings are also broadcast on Cable
Channel 16 for those that live in Arden
Hills.
https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -
City -Meetings
This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our
website.
CALL TO ORDER
1.
2.
3.
3.A.
Documents:
3.B.
Documents:
3.C.
Documents:
3.D.
Documents:
3.E.
Documents:
3.F.
Documents:
4.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALThis is an opportunity for citizens to respectfully bring to the Council ’s attention any items which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. Comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes or less. Written documents or other materials should be handed to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council prior to or during the meeting. Council will generally not respond at the same meeting where an issue is initially raised by a member of the public but the Council may refer the issue to staff for further research and possible report or action at a future Council meeting.RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIESAGENDA ITEMSParks System Planning Proposal Bryce Shearen and Casey Byers, Bolton & Menk
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
Zoning Code Update
Jessica Jagoe City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
ATTACHMENT C.PDF
ATTACHMENT D.PDF
State Of The City
Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
Code Of Conduct Policy
Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
ATTACHMENT C.PDF
Agenda Planning
Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
Rice Creek Commons/TCAAP Discussion
Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Mayor:David GrantCouncilmembers:Brenda HoldenEmily RousseauTena MonsonKurt Weber City Council Work Session Agenda March 10, 2025 5:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills.https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -City -MeetingsThis meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.3.A.
Documents:
3.B.
Documents:
3.C.
Documents:
3.D.
Documents:
3.E.
Documents:
3.F.
Documents:
4.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALThis is an opportunity for citizens to respectfully bring to the Council ’s attention any items which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. Comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes or less. Written documents or other materials should be handed to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council prior to or during the meeting. Council will generally not respond at the same meeting where an issue is initially raised by a member of the public but the Council may refer the issue to staff for further research and possible report or action at a future Council meeting.RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIESAGENDA ITEMSParks System Planning Proposal Bryce Shearen and Casey Byers, Bolton & MenkMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFZoning Code UpdateJessica Jagoe City AdministratorMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFState Of The CityJessica Jagoe, City AdministratorMEMO.PDFCode Of Conduct PolicyJessica Jagoe, City AdministratorMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFAgenda PlanningJessica Jagoe, City AdministratorMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFRice Creek Commons/TCAAP DiscussionJessica Jagoe, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Mayor:David GrantCouncilmembers:Brenda HoldenEmily RousseauTena MonsonKurt Weber City Council Work Session Agenda March 10, 2025 5:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills.https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -City -MeetingsThis meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.3.A.Documents:3.B.Documents:3.C.Documents:3.D.Documents:3.E.Documents:3.F.Documents:
4.
Page 1 of 1
AGENDA ITEM – 3A
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 10, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator
FROM: David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer
SUBJECT: Park System Planning Proposal Discussion
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
$75,000 $74,900 - $84,800 PIR – Parks
(TBD through discussion)
Council Should Consider
• Council should discuss the proposal for the Park System Master Plan.
Background/Discussion
From direction of the City Council at the February 10, 2025, Council Work Session, Bolton &
Menk has prepared a proposal from completing a Park System Master Plan for the city.
Bryce Shearen, CPRE, and Casey Byers, PLA, from Bolton & Menk will be at the Work Session
to review the proposal and stand for any questions the Council may have.
Budget Impact
The City currently has $75,000 budgeted for this project in 2025. The proposal from Bolton &
Menk ranges from the base package fee at $74,900 up to $84,800 if alternative services are
desired by the City Council. Complete details of these services will be outlined in the
presentation.
Attachments
Attachment A – Park System Master Plan Proposal
Attachment B – Enhanced Engagement Tools
111 Washington Avenue South
Suite 650 | Minneapolis, MN 55401
612-416-0220 | Bolton-Menk.com
PARK SYSTEM PLAN
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS,
MINNESOTA
MARCH 5, 2025
Contact:
Bryce Shearen, CPRE
763-344-3319
Bryce.Shearen@bolton-menk.com
111 Washington Avenue South
Suite 650 | Minneapolis, MN 55401
612-416-0220 | Bolton-Menk.com
BOLTON & MENK IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER.
Dear David:
The City of Arden Hills' Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan
is an exciting opportunity to elevate the city’s sense of
fun, safety, and community pride. Bolton & Menk, Inc. is
uniquely positioned to support this initiative, leveraging
decades of experience in park planning and design. We
understand that the City of Arden Hills provides a system of
parks and facilities with diverse recreational opportunities.
Our approach to this project centers on comprehensive
community engagement, which we believe is crucial to
the success of any public planning initiative. Our guiding
principles ensure that the plan will be safe, sustainable, and
beautiful.
PARKS AND RECREATION EXPERTS
We are passionate about park and recreation planning
and are dedicated to a set of strong guiding principles.
We strive to build and sustain healthy, equitable, and
resilient communities while navigating current and future
opportunities and challenges. Our team shares one goal—to
create healthy connected communities for all.
EQUITABLE ENGAGEMENT
Our approach is to collaborate with the City of Arden
Hills to bring a tailored engagement process that
prioritizes inclusive and equitable engagement. Our team
is skilled in combining traditional and innovative public
outreach strategies to involve a diverse range of park
users. We’re especially focused on engaging historically
underrepresented communities in recreation planning,
identifying their needs, and addressing barriers that may
prevent them from fully enjoying Arden Hills parks.
Our goal is to create an inclusive plan that truly reflects the
community’s desires and aspirations.
IMPLEMENTATION-BASED
We pride ourselves on creating plans that are not just
visionary, but also practical and implementable. Arden
Hills park system is a cherished asset, providing year-round
recreation for residents and visitors. Our team understands
how to optimize these resources to enhance quality of
life and maintain Arden Hills reputation as a premier city
in the metro area. You can trust that our approach will be
thoughtful, efficient, and aligned with the city’s long-term
goals.
We share your dedication to creating safe, sustainable, and
enjoyable spaces for the entire community. We look forward
to the opportunity to work together and help make the City
of Arden Hills’ vision of its parks a reality. I will serve as your
lead client contact and project manager. Please contact me
at 763-344-3319 or Bryce.Shearen@bolton-menk.com if you
have any questions regarding our proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Bryce Shearen, CPRE
Project Manager
February 05, 2025
David Swearingen
Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Arden Hills
1245 W Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
RE: Proposal for Park System Plan
Colorado
Denver
Iowa
Algona
Ames
Cedar Rapids
Des Moines
Jefferson
Spencer
North Carolina
Charlotte
Kinston
Raleigh
Wilmington
Youngsville
North Dakota
Bismarck
Fargo
Grand Forks
South Carolina
Conway
Greenville
Myrtle Beach
Rock Hill
Minnesota
Baxter
Burnsville
Chaska
Duluth
Eden Prairie
Fairmont
Grand Rapids
Hibbing
Mankato
MankatoCreative Studio
Minneapolis
Mountain Iron
Oakdale
Plymouth
Ramsey
Rochester
Sleepy Eye
St. Cloud
Willmar
FIRM PROFILE
BOLTON & MENK
We believe all people should live in safe, sustainable, and beautiful communities and we take
pride in our ability to make that happen. It's why we get out of bed every morning.
We promise every client two things:
WE'LL WORK HARD
FOR YOU AND WE'LL
DO A GOOD JOB.
We take a personal interest in the work
being done around us and do our part
to build a better quality of life for all. At
the end of the day, we're Real People
offering Real Solutions.
Our commitment to
communities began in 1949,
serving the needs of municipal
clients in small towns. As
we continue to grow in both
numbers and experience,
our dedication to building
trust and ensuring a true
partnership with our clients
remains the same. Our goal
is to help communities make
progress by listening to what
people want, finding the best
solutions for their needs, and
treating them right. Simply
put, we're people helping
people. Today, Bolton &
Menk has more than 1,000
multiregional employees
including a professional staff
of more than 300 engineers,
planners, landscape architects,
and surveyors.
Our dedication to our clients
shines through in the work we
provide. We are committed
to cultivating and delivering
exceptional community
infrastructure solutions.
From advocating for our
communities to designing
their dreams to finding
funding; we take pride in our
work because we live here
too. We believe in the power
of face-to-face meetings,
friendly conversations, and
collaborative decision-making
to keep your projects on
schedule, within budget, and
focused on real, workable
solutions.
We're Your Local, Trusted Partner
We understand the city’s processes through our team’s
work on prior projects, including the improvement projects
at Arden Manor, Arden Oaks, and Freeway Park. As well as
various road constructions, grant applications, and on-call
services for general engineering and parks related projects.
Several Bolton & Menk employees live in and near Arden
Hills and are personally invested in this project.
1 PARK SYSTEM PLAN | CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MNFIRM PROFILE
WORK PLAN
The City of Arden Hills can rest assured that the
Bolton & Menk team will provide superior project
management, exceptional community engagement
facilitation, and outstanding technical deliverables
in a timely and cost-effective manner to create this
plan.
The document is intended to provide guidance
to the Public Works Department, Parks, Trails &
Recreation Committee (PTRC), city council, and the
community to prioritize programs and projects as
future decisions are made on how to manage and
improve the park and trail system. The resulting
master plan will be flexible in format so that it can
be integrated into the city’s 2050 Comprehensive
Plan.
The detailed work plan is outlined by tasks
addressing all elements from city council direction.
Under each phase, time has been allocated for
task management that will capture the effort
necessary for internal project team coordination.
PHASE 1: EXISTING CONDITION
INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
The inventory and analysis phase of our work plan
will allow us to develop a thorough understanding
of the qualitative and quantitative condition
of the park system. We will also look into the
programming and services offered by the city, as
well as the departmental operations of the park
department.
The following are specific components of this
phase that will be accomplished:
• Level of Service (LOS) analysis: identify gaps
and redundancy in park proximity across the
community
• Evaluate the type, quantity, and conditions of
assets
• Develop comparative metrics considering
National Recreation and Parks Association
(NRPA) data, national recreation trends, and
peer-community comparisons
• Mobility analysis: identify high-level gaps in
connectivity to parks and trails and reviewing
how certain connections could be achieved
• Input gathering: at a community-wide level, and
through the input of stakeholders and staff
We will rely on city staff knowledge to supplement
data collection through site inventories or
database reviews during this task. Evaluation of
this information with respect to national trends
and benchmarks—along with the operational
needs and goals of the public works department—
will be included in this phase.
Task 1.1: Preparation of Base Mapping
Working with our GIS team and city staff, we will
develop base mapping for the overall community,
as well as individual park and trail facilities to use
throughout the planning process.
2WORK PLAN PARK SYSTEM PLAN | CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MN
Task 1.2: Previous Plan Audit
In coordination with city staff, our team will review
the following previously completed planning
studies and reports that are related to this plan:
• 2040 Comprehensive Plan
• 2002 Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan
• Previously prepared park inventory data
• Maintenance, operations, and other
departmental data
• Metropolitan Council Parks and Trails Plan
• Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Master
Plan
• Arden Hills Capital Improvement Plan relating to
Parks and Recreation
Task 1.3: Field Inventory and Review of Existing
Park and Trail Facilities
Data will be collected of existing park and trail
facilities/amenities to develop both a qualitative
and quantitative understanding of each park
within the City of Arden Hills. To streamline
this process, we will start with what we/city
staff already know and use current or recently
documented information to plug into our
collective inventory of data.
Visiting current park facilities is essential to
understanding and familiarizing ourselves with
its resources, reviewing existing conditions, and
confirming the accuracy of collected data to
update the city park inventory. All information will
be added to a customized Field Map app that will
allow inventory collection to be easily integrated
with Arden Hills existing GIS software. We will
also assess amenity adherence to the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Task 1.4: Park and Recreation Programs
Review current park and recreation programs and
available park use data as provided by the city.
Task 1.5: Demographics, Trends, and National
Metrics Analysis
Our team will review available information from
Metropolitan Council, the U.S. census, NRPA, and
previous studies completed in Arden Hills and
Ramsey County to understand and document
demographic shifts, local and regional trends,
and what is new in the parks and recreation field.
Understanding these changes will be critical to
formulating a future vision for the park system.
Along with city staff, we will review the existing
funding allocations to assess how Arden Hills
compares to national averages and communities
with similar park systems. We will identify
opportunities for the city to consider improving
its facility’s functionality and level of service. This
effort will include a review of funding strategies.
Task 1.6: Steering Committee Meeting No. 1
This meeting will be an opportunity to introduce
the planning process, review work completed
to date, review project timeline, and engage the
committee in analysis. We will review where
they have been in the past, what the collective
vision is for the future, and equally important, to
set expectations for how the committee can be
champions for the park system planning process.
The proposed steering committee will be
comprised of city staff, two PTRC members, and
two city council members. Our team will assist the
city in determining how this committee will be
engaged during the process, what level of decision
making and review responsibility it will have, and
how they can advocate for input and participation.
Task 1.7: PTRC Meeting No. 1
The planning team will present the findings from
the existing conditions inventory and analysis to
the PTRC and gather feedback on the findings.
Our team will develop meeting materials including
agendas, content, and meeting minutes.
3 PARK SYSTEM PLAN | CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MNWORK PLAN
PHASE 2: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
A successful parks and recreation master plan
must reflect the needs and desires of the
stakeholders that will fund, use, and maintain the
facilities. Public involvement and engagement
is one of the most critical components of the
planning process. We are committed to providing
a robust engagement process that goes beyond
traditional engagement methods and provide
fun, convenient, and accessible methods that
will range from in-person and online formats to
engage stakeholders.
The planning team will evaluate and summarize
all the community engagement events to better
understand community needs and desires for
the park and trail system. These findings will help
guide final recommendations and the importance
of improvements.
Task 2.1: Community Survey
Working in conjunction with city staff, we will
develop a survey to solicit input from the broader
community. We envision this to be available
through an online platform to allow for efficiency
to respondents and in data collection and analysis.
The Bolton & Menk team will provide the city
with a link to the survey for use on its public-
facing website and social media platforms. Upon
completion of the survey timeframe, we will
provide a summary of the results. This information
will inform recommendations and priorities in the
master plan.
*A hard copy of the survey can be made available
if the city would like to distribute paper copies. City
staff would need to add responses from the paper
copies to the online survey platform.
Task 2.2: Pop-Up Engagement
Our team will facilitate two pop-up meetings to
solicit feedback from the public. Our intention
is to coordinate these efforts with city staff to
determine a venue and existing community
events that would engage with culturally
unique populations in the community while still
being available for all residents to participate.
Possibilities include the Touch-a-Truck event in
May and Penny Carnival in July.
Alternative Task 2.3: Enhanced Survey and
Project Marketing
Effective public engagement plays a key role
in project success. To generate interest in
the online survey and getting feedback from
residents, signage and sidewalk/trail decals will
be incorporated throughout the city during the
survey phase. The enhanced tools will be eye-
catching and have a QR code that links to the
survey and other important online materials.
These enhanced tools will not only allow an
alternative way for residents to discover a way to
provide feedback but will also allow residents to
be aware of the important park system planning
project. Our team proposes using 25 yard signs
and 25 trail decals.
Alternative Task 2.4: Interactive Community
Map
In addition to our online survey, we will use our
INPUTiD™ web-based comment map to gather
feedback on the existing conditions and proposed
project designs. Location-based feedback aids
in understanding community input, while user
features like liking, disliking, and responding to
comments help us identify key issues, ideas, and
concerns in exact locations.
Alternative Task 2.5: Youth Engagement
Youth are often some of the heaviest users of a
community’s park system; capturing their voices
is critical to successful master plan development.
We suggest coordinating with local schools
to distribute an activity that is tailored to this
demographic and will invite youth to share what
is important to them in the parks and recreation
system.
4 PARK SYSTEM PLAN | CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MNWORK PLAN
Task 2.6: Project Open House
To ensure the community remains
engaged in the master planning process,
we propose one open house events at
city hall. The open house will present
key findings from the needs analysis,
the current state of the park system,
and how the park system should grow
in the future. This feedback will inform
prioritization of initiatives/improvements.
The location of the open house will be
important, so it is inviting and easy to
access. We will work with city staff to
determine the best location and date to
schedule the event.
The open house events are an important
step in seeking consensus from the
community while validating that this
plan was developed in part from the
feedback they provided throughout the
process. PTRC meetings will be used as
alternative engagement opportunities to
share findings and solicit feedback from
residents.
Task 2.7: Steering Committee Meeting
No. 2
The planning team will evaluate and
summarize the community survey
responses to better understand
community needs and desires for the
park and trail system. These findings will
help guide final recommendations and
the importance of improvements.
PHASE 3: COMMUNITY NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
During this phase, we will use the
data and input that has been collected
and analyzed to evaluate what the
community needs in its park system.
This determination will be driven largely
by the input we gather through various
channels. We will assess the park system
based on national trends and metrics,
but one of the foremost important data
points is what the community, city staff,
and stakeholders tell us they need for
Arden Hills to be successful. Our team
intends to listen, learn, and uncover what
those needs are.
Task 3.1: Community Needs Evaluation
Feedback and research collected and
analyzed will be summarized for review.
This information will be used to begin
discussions about improvements,
opportunities, and priorities.
Task 3.2: Park and Trail Classifications
The planning team will work with city
staff to review and confirm, modify,
or add to existing classifications,
and preferred facility level of service
standards. Facility standards include level
of service standards and the population
served per recreational facility and park
amenities. These will be based on NPRA
guidelines, our team's experience, and
comparison with peer/survey agencies.
5 PARK SYSTEM PLAN | CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MNWORK PLAN
Task 3.3: Draft Goals, Policies, and Initiatives
Building on previous tasks, our team will develop
a list of recommendations alongside city staff
to address improvements to existing parks
and facilities to assist with overall LOS. We
will coordinate with the city to prioritize these
recommendations based on needs as determined
by existing conditions review, gap analysis, and
expressed community desires.
Task 3.4: Steering Committee Meeting No. 3
This steering committee meeting will be used
to review draft goals, policies, and initiatives for
the plan and prepare for Phase 4 of the planning
process that will introduce plan recommendations.
PHASE 4: IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING
Our team will work with the city to prepare
recommendations for improvements to Arden
Hills' parks and recreation facilities. This
includes improvements to existing park facilities,
maintenance efficiencies, and trail connectivity
opportunities. Part of this task will consist of
developing implementation budgets to accompany
improvement recommendations to seamlessly
incorporate park system improvements into the
city’s capital improvement plan (CIP) process.
We will finalize the master plan and provide copies
to the city for consideration and approval by the
parks commission and city council.
Task 4.1: Project Cost Estimating
Our team will use the prioritized list of
recommendations to prepare capital and
operational costs, informing anticipated needs
from identified improvements. We will note
assumptions included in these efforts to assist the
city better as they plan for refinement and future
implementation.
The costs will consider current construction costs
and anticipated inflation estimates for mid- and
long-term improvements.
Based on comparison of the budget, relative to
national averages and comparable communities,
we will provide an analysis to establish the need
to maintain the current LOS. Depending on their
findings, our team will establish differing resource
needs that would allow the city to provide
adequate and desired LOS.
Task 4.2: Develop Prioritized 10-Year CIP
Building on previous tasks, our team will develop
a list of recommendations alongside city staff
to address improvements to existing parks and
facilities. We will coordinate with the city to
prioritize these recommendations based on needs
as determined by existing conditions review, gap
analysis, and expressed community desires.
We will work with city staff to review
recommendations and anticipated costs of CIP
projects for upcoming funding cycles.
Task 4.3: Funding and Implementation Plan
The project team will review the existing budget
of the department. The review will focus on the
existing funding mechanisms the department has
and revenue that is generated. The project team
will also review recreation programs and events
that are being offered by the city and assess if
improvements or modifications could be made.
The project team will share with the city the
various traditional and non-traditional methods
they could employ to implement the plan. As
part of the implementation plan the project team
will further refine numbers on development
and operations, and how funding strategies can
potentially offset costs.
Task 4.4: Steering Committee Meeting No. 4
We will provide a working draft of the plan to the
advisory committee prior to this meeting and take
this time to discuss any comments and revisions as
a step towards final revisions of the draft plan.
Task 4.5: PTRC Commission Meeting No. 2
The second PTRC meeting will be used to
present a draft of the recommendations, CIP, and
implementation plan strategies for in from the
commission members.
6 PARK SYSTEM PLAN | CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MNWORK PLAN
PHASE 5: FINAL PLAN PREPARATION AND ADOPTION
Work produced and documented throughout the planning process will
be compiled into a user-friendly document.
During this final phase of the project, we will finalize the master plan
and provide copies to the city for consideration and approval by the
PTRC and city council.
Task 5.1: Draft Plan Preparation and Review
We will develop a working draft of the master plan (80%) for the city
and advisory committee to review to ensure the layout, formatting,
and information prepared to date align with the city’s vision for this
document.
Task 5.2: Final Plan Preparation
By considering the advisory committee’s feedback on the draft, we will
enact changes to finalize the master plan document for a final review
by the city. Any redlines will be addressed before present to the PTRC
and city council.
Task 5.3: PTRC Approval and Recommendation
We will prepare a presentation reviewing the process, highlighting
master plan findings, and listing identified priorities for consideration
of approval by the PTRC.
Task 5.4: City Council Approval
Upon acceptance by the PTRC, our team will present the master plan
to the city council for consideration of adoption.
7 PARK SYSTEM PLAN | CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MNWORK PLAN
TIMELINE
We have developed a schedule detailing the anticipated work tasks, task relationships, critical path timeline, deliverable due dates, and completion dates.
This schedule is based on our review of the project background, description, knowledge on project timing to maintain focused engagement, and scope of
services requested. Bolton & Menk will work with city staff and other project partners to revise and update this schedule as needed to ensure successful
project delivery.
Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12
EXISTING CONDITION
INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
COMMUNITY NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING
FINAL PLAN PREPARATION
AND ADOPTION
8 Weeks
8 Weeks
8 Weeks
24 Weeks 2 Weeks
30 Weeks
8 PARK SYSTEM PLAN | CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MNWORK PLAN
Project Advisory Committee
Casey Byers, PLA
Principal-in-Charge
Aus Perez
Landscape Designer
Anna Springer, PLA
Lead Park Planner
Bryce Shearen, CPRE
Project Manager
Katherine Gould, PLA, ASLA
Landscape Architect/Community Engagement Lead
Ashley Hudson, AICP
Funding Specialist
Dan Donayre, MWPCP, PWS
Natural Resources Specialist
David Malm, GISP
GIS Specialist
OUR TEAM
The Bolton & Menk team includes experts with a wide range of experience in landscape architecture, planning, and park and recreation administration,
culminating in a distinctly specialized set of skills that will be applied to the development of a system plan that meets the vision and needs of the City of
Arden Hills, its residents, and visitors. In addition to these individuals, the Bolton & Menk team also has the support of more than 1,000 Bolton & Menk staff
members who can provide additional insight to address any unique challenge or opportunity that arises during the project.
9 PARK SYSTEM PLAN | CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MNOuR TEAM
BRYCE SHEAREN, CPRE
Project Manager
As a parks and recreation strategic development specialist,
Bryce will provide overall project management for the project.
He will be the main point of contact for city staff for the duration
of the planning effort. Bryce will be responsible for leading the
effort and the team. He will establish the project schedule and
oversee deliverables, ensuring project goals are met on time and
within budget.
CASEY BYERS, PLA
Principal-in-Charge
Casey will use his industry experience to provide project
oversight and ensure the recommendations fit within the City of
Arden Hills' vision.
Bryce began his career in parks and recreation
in 2007 and has managed numerous short
and long-term park planning projects. Bryce’s
expertise lies in community engagement, park
and recreation planning, implementation,
maintenance, and operations. As a former parks
and recreation director, he uses his first-hand
knowledge of local government and parks and
recreation department leadership to inform
his approach to working with communities. His
experience in budgeting, funding, planning,
and the development of guiding documents
guides his approach to delivering positive and
multifaceted plans and projects. Bryce is also
an advocate for inclusive and universal park
and recreation offerings and creating spaces for
communities to grow, gather, and learn.
Casey is a principal landscape architect with
19 years of experience. He focuses on helping
communities plan and implement community-
centric projects. His experience in parks and
recreation, urban design, corridor planning,
and long-range planning spans the project
life cycle from concept development through
construction and operations. His ability to build
community support through conscious design,
timeliness, and effective public facilitation
has led to the successful adoption of many
projects backed by community consensus. A
practice area leader for planning and urban
design at Bolton & Menk, he finds great reward
in helping communities realize their visions;
helping convey the value of quality, technically
sound, and environmentally conscious design
to the public. Casey believes in a thorough
design process that explores outside-the-
box opportunities but also has long-term,
maintainable solutions.
Education
Bachelor of Landscape
Architecture, Iowa State
University
Credentials
Professional Landscape
Architect - IA, MN, CO
Project Experience
• Park System Plan, Robbinsdale, MN
• Park System Plan, Lake Elmo, MN
• Sechler Park Long-Range Plan, Northfield,
MN
• Park System Plan, Empire, MN
• Pioneer Park Improvements, Little Canada,
MN
• Arden Oaks and Freeway Park Engagement
and Planning, Arden Hills, MN
• 2025 Park Improvements, Arden Hills, MN
• Park System Plan, Little Canada, MN*
• Pioneer Park Phase I Planning, Design, and
Construction, Little Canada, MN*
• Rondeau Park All-Inclusive and Accessible
Park Enhancements, Little Canada, MN*
Project Experience
• Park System Plan, Robbinsdale, MN
• Master Parks and Trail Plan, Wabasha, MN
• Park System Plan, Empire, MN
• Crear Creek Point Park Master Plan,
Coralville, IA
• Park System Plan, Empire, MN
• Deep Lakes Park Master Plan, Muscatine
County, IA
• Parks Master Plan, Windsor Heights, IA
• Central Park Master Plan, Jones County
Conservation District (IA)
• Park System Master Plan, Blue Earth, MN
• Prairie Pointe Park Master Plan, Elkhart, IA
• Sturges Park Master Plan, Buffalo, MN
• Greenways Master Plan, Norwalk, IA
*While at a previous employer
Education
Bachelor of Science -
Business Administration and
Management, University of
Wisconsin - River Falls
Master of Public Administration,
Hamline University
Credentials
Certified Park and Recreation
Executive - CPRE, National
Recreation and Park Association
10 PARK SYSTEM PLAN | CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MNOuR TEAM
ANNA SPRINGER, PLA
Lead Park Planner
Anna will work collaboratively with the team to inventory,
analyze, and prepare recommendations for the park and
recreation system.
AUS PEREZ
Landscape Designer
Aus will work collaboratively with the team to develop high-
quality, easily interpreted plans, graphics, and communication
materials, including maps and system analysis.
As a senior project landscape architect with
13 years of experience, Anna is responsible
for the successful completion of park and
recreation system plans, trail, greenway
and open space plans, and long-range park
planning projects. Her expertise includes park
system planning principles, recreational needs
assessments, site inventory and analysis,
community engagement, report writing, and
site design from concept to documentation/
implementation. Anna uses her experience and
skills to help communities develop and achieve
their vision for their parks and recreation
system by uncovering needs and outlining a
clear path to implementation.
Aus is a landscape designer at Bolton & Menk
with 5 years of experience. Their responsibilities
include assisting with the development of
project deliverables, project-related graphics,
final report documents, meeting materials, and
other landscape architectural renderings and
visualizations. Combining technical experience
with creativity to help develop long-lasting,
beloved community spaces is what drives Aus in
their every day efforts.
Education
Bachelor of Landscape
Architecture, University of
Nebraska - Lincoln
Project Experience
• Park System Plan, Robbinsdale, MN
• Park System Plan, Lake Elmo, MN
• Park System Plan, Empire, MN
• Colby Park Design, Windsor Heights, IA
• Sechler Park Long-range Plan, Northfield,
MN
• Parks, Arts, and Recreation System Plan,
Monticello, MN
• Parks and Recreation System Master Plan,
Maplewood, MN*
• Park System Master Plan, Little Canada,
MN*
• Parks and Recreation System Master Plan,
Rochester, MN
• River to River Greenway Master Plan, Dakota
County, MN *
Project Experience
• Park System Plan, Robbinsdale, MN
• Sechler Park Long-Range Plan, Northfield,
MN
• Park System Plan, Empire, MN
• Park System Plan, Lake Elmo, MN
• Parks and Trails Master Plan, Wabasha, MN
• Pioneer Park Master Plan and Final Design,
Little Canada, MN
• Ironwood Park Expansion, Carver, MN
• Purgatory Park Master Plan, Minnetonka,
MN
• Pioneer Park Master Plan and Final Design,
Little Canada, MN
*While at a previous employer
Education
Bachelor of Science - Natural
Resources, University of
Wisconsin - Stevens Point
Master of Landscape
Architecture, University of
Minnesota - Twin Cities
Credentials
Professional Landscape
Architect - MN
11 PARK SYSTEM PLAN | CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MNOuR TEAM
KATHERINE GOULD, PLA, ASLA
Landscape Architect/Community Engagement Lead
Katherine will collaborate with stakeholders, gather public
input, and integrate these perspectives into the park's final
design, ensuring the project reflects the community's needs
and aspirations.
DAN DONAYRE, MWPCP, PWS
Natural Resources Specialist
Dan will oversee the natural resource assessments and
coordinate with regulatory agencies to ensure compliance with
environmental standards.
Katherine is a project landscape architect at
Bolton & Menk who began her career in 2016.
She has contributed to the design of parks,
streetscapes, trails, and community gathering
spaces across the Midwest. Through these
professional experiences and as a grassroots
climate activist, Katherine has come to
believe that consideration for the health of
natural systems is not just a feature, but a
goal integral to every successfully designed
landscape. Katherine is passionate about
community engagement, culturally relevant
design, and practicing landscape architecture
as a means of promoting public health and
environmental equity.
Dan leads Bolton & Menk's natural resources
team and is responsible for coordinating with
state and federal agencies to work through
difficult aquatic resource delineations and
permitting. He has conducted hundreds of
wetland delineations, GPS surveys, and both
Wetland Conservation Act and Clean Water Act
permits. Dan now focuses on natural resource
restoration, including wetlands, prairies,
streams, and pollinator habitats.
Education
Bachelor of Arts -
Environmental Studies,
University of North Carolina
Credentials
Professional Wetland Scientist
- PWS
Certified Minnesota Wetland
Professional - CMWP
Project Experience
• Beltz Park Master Plan, Forest Lake, MN
• Oakwood Park Master Plan, Cottage Grove,
MN
• Hazelnut Park Master Plan, Arden Hills, MN
• 2022 Park Master Planning, Cottage Grove,
MN
• Hackberry Park Master Plan, Orono, MN
• Rudy Johnson Park Master Plan, Anoka, MN
• Highland Park Master Plan, Anoka, MN
Project Experience
• Judd Street Mitigation, Marine on St. Croix,
MN
• Clear Lake Water Quality Improvements,
Forest Lake, MN
• Minnesota River Greenway Trail, MnDNR
• I-90 Off Site Wetland Delineation, MnDOT
• North Mine Wetland Delineation, Unimin
Corporation
• Settlers Parkway, Buffalo, MN
• Water Resource Management Plan,
Ramsey, MN
• TH 22 Mankato to Saint Peter Stream
Impact Mitigation Plans, MnDOT
• TH 93 Permitting Support, MnDOT
Education
Bachelor of Landscape
Architecture, Iowa State
University
Credentials
Professional Landscape
Architect - MN
American Society of Landscape
Architects – ASLA
12 PARK SYSTEM PLAN | CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MNOuR TEAM
ASHLEY HUDSON, AICP
Funding Specialist
Ashley will be responsible for securing and managing
funding for the project, ensuring financial resources are
effectively used.
DAVID MALM, GISP
GIS Specialist
David will apply his expertise in GIS to support the Arden Hills
Park Master Plan project, ensuring accurate spatial data and
analysis.
Ashley has the qualifications, experience,
and funding knowledge to effectively develop
and deliver aggressive comprehensive
funding plans and ultimately win competitive
funding requests. Since beginning her career
in 2011, Ashley has developed a range of
skills as a transportation planner. She fills
multiple roles on an assortment of projects,
including transportation corridor studies
and designs, regional system planning, and
persuasive project funding initiatives. As the
leader of Bolton & Menk's transportation
funding service, she is very engaged with
how projects are funded within an agency’s
planning and budget and a wide array of
competitive sources.
Dave is a GIS project manager who began his
GIS career in 2015. He provides GIS services
to internal and external clients and assists
in creating and maintaining databases, map
development, and asset management. He also
creates, develops, and maintains various web
mapping applications and handles project
set-up, data collection, and data processing
for high-accuracy GPS collection projects.
Dave loves being able to provide a high-quality
solution. He has extensive experience working
with Esri GIS software and is experienced with
AutoCAD Civil 3D, Microstation, and other
design software.
Education
Associate of Applied Science -
Civil Engineering Technology
South Central College
Credentials
Geographic Information Systems
Professional – GISP
Project Experience
• River Oaks Park Master Plan, Big Lake, MN
• Lakeside Park Master Plan, Big Lake, MN
• Friederichs Park Master Plan, Eden Valley,
MN
• Eldorado Park Master Plan, Clearwater, MN
• Parks and Trail Master Plan, Wabasha, MN
• Comprehensive Parks and Trail Plan, Rice,
MN
• Parks and Trails Master Plan, Forest Lake,
MN
Project Experience
• Veteran's Park Master Plan, Cokato, MN
• Sidewalk and Trail Master Plan, Watertown,
MN
• Big Island Master Plan, Orono, MN
• Municipal Utility Mapping, Two Harbors, MN
• Pavement Evaluation, Rushford, MN
• Web GIS Application, Winnebago, MN
• Municipal Utility Mapping, Rushford, MN
• Database Development, Red Lake Falls, MN
Education
Master of Science - Urban and
Regional Planning, Minnesota
State University, Mankato
Bachelor of Science -
Landscape Architecture
Environmental Design, North
Dakota State University
Credentials
Certified Planner – AICP
13 PARK SYSTEM PLAN | CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MNOuR TEAM
PROPOSED FEE
The following table summarizes the hours and cost breakdown for each major work task item. The estimated fee includes labor, general business, and other
normal and customary expenses associated with operating a professional business. Unless otherwise noted, the fees include vehicle and personal expenses,
mileage, telephone, survey stakes, and routine expendable supplies; no separate charges will be made for these activities and materials. Expenses beyond
the agreed scope of services and non-routine expenses, such as large quantities of prints, extra report copies, out-sourced graphics and photographic
reproductions, document recording fees, outside professional and technical assistance, and other items of this general nature will be invoiced separately.
PHASE 1: EXISTING CONDITION INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
FEE
$17,000
$7,700
$22,000
$4,200
$13,000
$15,200
$3,500
$74,900
$2,200
$9,900
$84,800
PHASE 2: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
PHASE 3: COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
TASK 2.3: ENHANCED SURVEY AND PROJECT MARKETING
PHASE 4: IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING
TASK 2.3: INTERACTIVE COMMUNITY MAP
PHASE 5: FINAL PLAN PREPARATION AND ADOPTION
SUBTOTAL
ALTERNATE SERVICES SUBTOTAL
COMBINED TOTAL
TASK 2.3: YOUTH ENGAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVE SERVICES
14 PARK SYSTEM PLAN | CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MNPROPOSED FEE
Bolton & Menk's web-based comment mapping tool, INPUTiDTM, is an interactive way to receive feedback
from the public. This customizable application can be used to collect feedback on layouts, design options,
construction staging and more. Each participant can explore the content and add comments directly on
the map, tying the comment to a specific location. People will also be able to view, like, and respond to
other comments. This process identifies key issues and trends, which ultimately are reported out to the
project team.
We can customize the header to reflect client branding
The comment
names and
icons can be
customized
Users can toggle
between base
maps
We can add
tabs that show
different concepts
The base map can be blank, or
we can add design linework
INPUTiD: COMMENT MAPPING
CHECK OUT THE INTERACTIVE SALES TOOL
Visit the site: arcg.is/10G4mz
SIGNAGE & DECALS
Project signage and sidewalk decals allow people to discover the project in common spaces such
as parks, business districts, trails and more. These eye-catching displays are placed at key places to
generate interest and discussion about the project. They often contain a QR code or URL that links to
the website, survey or other important online materials.
SIGNAGE
SIDEWALK DECAL
Page 1 of 3
AGENDA ITEM – 3B
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 10, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Zoning Code Update Discussion
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Council Should Consider
Council should discuss and provide direction to staff on zoning code updates within HKGi
Summary of Work Session #1 memo and recommendations brought forward for consideration.
Background
At the February 5th Planning Commission meeting, the consultants from HKGi presented their
first memo for the zoning and subdivision ordinance revisions that focused on the foundational
elements upon which the rest of the ordinances will be built. There were five broad topics that
were discussed. Included with this memo as Attachment A is the summary memo prepared by
HKGi that provides comments and
recommendations for City Council
consideration.
This process is currently in Phase 3, which
is when the technical updating and drafting
of regulations occurs. As part of the tasks
in this phase, the consultants will prepare
minor code update language for the
Planning Commission and City Council.
Based on the Council feedback, HKGi will
also start in this phase to conduct
community engagement, including online
mapping tools, creation of a project page
on City’s website, community in-person
events, and/or other outreach tools.
Page 2 of 3
As a next step, staff is looking for direction from the City Council on the proposed zoning code
revisions from HKGi. This feedback will be shared with the consultants and incorporated into
the draft ordinance language that is being prepared. Items for discussion include consideration
of the following:
• Base Zoning Districts – Below is the table of existing and proposed base zoning
districts.
• District Purpose Statements - In line with the changes to the base zoning districts
shown above, HKGi is recommending updated purpose statements that are simplified,
removes references to specific standards, and better match how the districts are being
applied within the city.
• Expanded Access to Housing – HKGi has prepared the proposed use table for
residential zoning districts. The consultants are not proposing to remove Conditional
Uses altogether but are recommending that the City consider transitioning to Permitted
with Standards. This would allow the City to apply the same conditions and would
remove some barriers to development (i.e. application review time and expense).
o Permitted Use has few additional standards beyond the usual lot and site requirements
such as lot size, yard setbacks, height, impervious coverage, etc.
o Conditional Use requires a public hearing to ensure that any potential impacts to
surrounding properties are mitigated through conditions that are tailored to the specific
use and circumstances.
o Permitted with Standards do not require a public hearing but do have additional
performance requirements listed in code that must be evaluated by Planning staff to
ensure they are being met before a proposed project may apply for a building permit.
o Additionally, the City Council should provide direction on Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs) or tiny homes being included in the land use table. ADUs were
discussed briefly at the October 28, 2024, Joint Work Session with the Planning
Page 3 of 3
Commission. There was Council consensus on seeing some of the data and
bringing this back to the City Council for further discussion on whether these
standards should be a part of the zoning code.
Ordinance development and review of ADUs is not currently a part of the zoning
code update process and will be a separate topic given the number of
considerations that need to be factored into considering this housing option. The
Planning Commission at their meeting on February 5th was supportive of the
Council moving forward with the potential incorporation of this housing option.
Attachment B is a summary of other cities that allow ADUs. If there is Council
direction and interest in pursuing this topic further, staff would bring back
additional research at a future work session for a more robust discussion.
• Lot and Site Standards - HKGi made several recommendations related to the existing
District Requirement Chart to simplify the information for how it is presented to the end
user (Attachment C and D).
At their April 9th meeting, the Planning Commission will receive a second presentation from
HKGi on the non-residential portion of the use table and will also examine specific development
standards such as parking, landscaping, fencing, outdoor lighting, and signage. Additionally,
draft code language associated with the topics from this memo (except ADUs) will be shared
with the Planning Commission for further refinement.
Budget Impact
N/A
Attachment
Attachment A – HKGi Summary Memo
Attachment B – ADU Research Summary
Attachment C – Draft Lot Requirement Table
Attachment D – Draft Site Standards Table
HKGi 800 Washington Ave N Suite 207, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 ~ www.hkgi.com
CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MEMO
TO: Arden Hills City Council
FROM: Jason Zimmerman and Kendra Ellner, Consulting Planners
DATE: February 17, 2025
SUBJECT: Summary of Work Session #1 – Zoning Ordinance Update
OVERVIEW
On February 5th, HKGi held the first work session with the Planning Commission to discuss various
recommended updates to the City’s Zoning and Subdivision ordinances. The report to the Planning
Commission is attached. This summary memo is intended to brief the City Council on the material
presented, the questions and discussions that occurred, and the general direction offered by the
Planning Commission.
WORK SESSION TOPICS
Five broad topics were discussed at the first work session; the discussion around each will be
summarized in turn:
• Base Zoning Districts
• District Purpose Statements
• Expanding Access to Housing
• Lot and Site Standards
• Accessory Dwelling Units
Base Zoning Districts
HKGi recommended that the B-1 and I-2 zoning districts be eliminated due to the large number of
zoning districts generally and the infrequency with which these two have been used. The sole site
zoned I-2 could be rezoned to I-1, and any concerns related to outdoor storage could be addressed
through use specific standards for lumberyards. The Planning Commission supported this
recommendation.
A second recommendation was to rename/rebrand the B-3 and B-4 zoning districts, as the uses located
there are not consistent with the stated purposes. It was recommended the B-3 district be renamed
the Corridor Business zoning district and the B-4 district be renamed the Business Park zoning district.
Planning Commissioners also supported this recommendation, stating that the naming and purposes of
these two districts had often been confusing.
Finally, HKGi suggested modifying the names of the residential zoning districts to remove the focus on
housing types and instead make the names more descriptive. Similarly, it was recommended that the
B-2 district, which allows a mix of uses, would be better served by being renamed as a Mixed Use
district. The Planning Commission supported these recommendations.
City Council Summary Memo – Work Session #1 – Zoning Ordinance Update– February 17, 2025
2
A reworked list of zoning districts that followed the recommendations would be listed as follows:
Revised District List
Suburban Residential 1 R-1
Suburban Residential 2 R-2
Mixed Residential R-3
Attached Residential R-4
Mixed Use MU
Neighborhood Business NB
Corridor Business CB
Business Park BP
Gateway Business GB
Limited Industrial I-1
I-FLEX I-FLEX
Civic Center CC
Institutional INST
Parks and Open Space POS
Conservation CD
District Purpose Statements
In line with the recommended changes to the base zoning districts, HKGi offered updated purpose
statements that were simplified, removed references to specific standards, and better matched how
the districts were being applied within the city.
One key change included bringing the Civic Center zoning district into alignment with how it is
currently being used – as locations for government facilities and services – and removing some of the
visionary language that described a district that included retail, educational, and residential uses. If this
vision for the area around City Hall resurfaces in future Comprehensive Plans, the description and uses
allowed in this zoning district could be amended. Until then, a clearer approach keeps the language
focused on current usage.
A full list of the proposed purpose statements can be found in the attached memo.
Expanding Access to Housing
In response to stated desires to increase access to housing throughout the city, HKGi shared a number
of photos and diagrams that described various housing types across a variety of scales and densities.
The existing table for residential uses was shown, and some of the current housing definitions were
explored. The conclusion was that the existing regulations are confusing at best and overly restrictive
as worst. HKGi introduced the idea of omitting Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) from the use table,
as a PUD is a zoning tool that allows deviations from base zoning standards and can be applied to any
use or district.
City Council Summary Memo – Work Session #1 – Zoning Ordinance Update– February 17, 2025
3
Following this overview, Commissioners were provided an empty use table and asked to populate it
with their preferred housing types for each district, as well as the type of approvals they felt were
appropriate for each type. HKGi collected these individual responses and aggregated them into a table
(shown below) that captures the areas of agreement and disagreement among Commissioners. Using
this information, along with knowledge of current trends and best practices in housing, HKGi has
drafted a proposed use table for consideration going forward (also shown below).
Methodology: After each Planning Commissioner’s sheet was collected, each column was reviewed and
counted towards the selected permission in each cell. These selections were then tallied and compared
to the total responses. The final results have been color-coded based on the majority selected
permission, however some were split and denoted with a ( | ). The final recommendations were derived
from these responses and aligned with HKGi best practices.
Green = All or majority consensus
Yellow = Some Consensus
Red= No consensus
PROPOSED USE TABLE – PLANNING COMMISSION RESPONSE SUMMARY
Use R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4
Single-unit Dwelling P P P P|-
Duplex PS P P P|-
Twinhome PS P P P|PS
Cottage Courtyard P|C P P P|PS
Townhome/Rowhouse - P|PS|- P P
Multi-unit Dwelling (small scale) - - P P
Multi-unit Dwelling (large scale) - - - P | PS (in
mixed use
district)
Other Suggestions (individual responses)
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P PS PS
Tiny Houses P P PS PS
Student Housing - PS P P
City Council Summary Memo – Work Session #1 – Zoning Ordinance Update– February 17, 2025
4
Permission Options:
P = Permitted Use
PS = Permitted with Standards
C = Conditional Use
- = Prohibited
PROPOSED USE TABLE – HKGI RECOMMENDATIONS
Use R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4
Single-unit Dwelling P P P -
Duplex PS P P -
Twinhome PS P P -
Cottage Courtyard PS PS PS -
Townhome/Rowhouse - PS P P
Multi-unit Dwelling (small scale) - - P P
Multi-unit Dwelling (large scale) - - - P
There were questions and general discussion around the following topics:
• What is a cottage courtyard development? A cottage courtyard development is a
collection of smaller single-unit dwellings that are clustered around a shared open space
or parking area. Front entrances to the dwellings are typically oriented towards the
shared courtyard (see image example below).
City Council Summary Memo – Work Session #1 – Zoning Ordinance Update– February 17, 2025
5
• Should ADUs, tiny homes, and student housing be included in this table? ADUs are being
considered separately and are not currently a housing option in Arden Hills. Similarly,
tiny homes are a use that has not been considered as a housing option, but could
conceivably be part of a Planned Unit Development. This type of housing does come
with certain unique building code requirements. Housing restricted to student use will
be addressed as part of the Institutional zoning district in the expanded use table.
• What about housing in the Mixed Use and Neighborhood Business districts? Both of
these districts currently allow limited housing. When the expanded use table is shared
as part of Work Session #2, the full range of uses allowed in each district – including
residential uses – will be listed.
• How does “Permitted with Standards” differ from “Permitted” and “Conditional” uses?
Typically, a Permitted use has few additional standards beyond the usual lot and site
requirements such as lot size, yard setbacks, height, impervious coverage, etc. A
Conditional use, on the other hand, requires a public hearing to ensure that any
potential impacts to surrounding properties are mitigated through conditions that are
tailored to the specific use and circumstances.
Uses that are Permitted with Standards do not require a public hearing, but do have
additional performance requirements listed in code that must be evaluated by Planning
staff to ensure they are being met before a proposed project may apply for a building
permit. For example, if a cottage courtyard use was Permitted with Standards, one of
the standards might be “A minimum distance between dwelling units shall be 12 feet.” If
staff confirmed this requirement was satisfied, the project could proceed without
additional hearings.
While HKGi is not proposing to remove Conditional uses altogether, reducing the
number of conditional use permits to which the city typically applies the same
conditions and transitioning them to Permitted with Standards would remove some
barriers to development.
Lot and Site Standards
HKGi made a number of recommendations related to the existing District Requirement Chart in an
effort to simplify the information presented. Key recommendations included:
1. Split the District Requirement Chart into at least two separate tables (Lot Requirements and
Site Standards)
2. Consider eliminating the “Minimum Lot Depth” standard
3. Eliminate Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as a standard
4. Reduce “Minimum Corner Side Yard Setbacks” for R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts
5. Simplify setbacks from some other uses and convert to table footnotes: building setbacks from
State Highways or County Roads, shoreland setbacks, building setbacks from abutting
residential districts
6. Remove accessory structure setbacks from the table and address separately
City Council Summary Memo – Work Session #1 – Zoning Ordinance Update– February 17, 2025
6
7. Eliminate the “Maximum Dwelling Unit Density per Net Acre” standard
Commissioners talked through removal of FAR as a standard and the proposed reduction in the
Minimum Corner Side Yard Setbacks and agreed with both. Previews of new Lot Dimension and Site
Standard tables were shared and a few ideas for refinement were offered by Commissioners. Updated
tables will be shared at the next work session.
Accessory Dwelling Units
HKGi provided a general overview of what Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are, pros and cons of
allowing them, and how they might be incorporated into the fabric of housing within a community. It
was made clear that any decision to move forward with considering ADUs would need to come from
the City Council and would likely need to include a broad community engagement effort.
Commissioners voiced general support for the idea of ADUs, but expressed caution around things like
parking and impervious coverage on existing lots.
The City Council should determine if a community conversation around ADUs is appropriate and, if so,
when it should occur. HKGi will prepare the updated zoning code in a way that will allow for ADUs to
be inserted seamlessly if they are eventually approved.
NEXT STEPS
The second work session, tentatively scheduled for April, will focus on the non-residential portion of
the use table and will also examine specific development standards such as parking, landscaping,
fencing, outdoor lighting, and signage. Draft code language associated with the topics that were
discussed at the first work session will be shared with the Planning Commission.
ATTACHMENT
• Memo to the Planning Commission dated February 5, 2025
HKGi 800 Washington Ave N Suite 103, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 ~ www.hkgi.com
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
TO: City of Arden Hills Planning Commission
FROM: Jason Zimmerman and Kendra Ellner, Consulting Planners
DATE: January 27, 2025
SUBJECT: Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Revisions – Work Session #1
MEETING DATE: February 5, 2025
OVERVIEW
HKGi was selected by the City of Arden Hills to complete an update to the existing Zoning and
Subdivision ordinances. The Planning Commission, as the body most involved with the application of
the code, will help conduct a technical review of the proposed changes and provide recommendations
to the City Council. The first work session will cover some of the foundational elements upon which the
rest of the ordinances will be built – base zoning districts, residential uses, and the required lot and site
standards.
BACKGROUND
The current zoning and subdivision ordinances were adopted in 1993 but have been amended several
times since – occasionally resulting in inconsistencies and poor formatting. In addition, procedures and
some content need to be updated to reflect modern administration and new tools and technologies.
HKGi has conducted a full evaluation of the current code and will be working throughout 2025 to meet
with the Planning Commission and City Council in order to revise the organization and contents of the
zoning and subdivision chapters.
The project has been broken down into four phases:
Phase 1 – Project Kick Off and Understanding [COMPLETE]
Phase 2 – Diagnose the Current Ordinances and Frame Approach [COMPLETE]
Phase 3 – Prepare Draft Codes
Work Session #1 – Zoning Districts and Uses [WE ARE HERE]
Work Session #2 – General Development Standards and Provisions
Work Session #3 – Development Procedures and Subdivision Regulations
Phase 4 – Final Ordinance Adoption and Implementation
HKGi prepared a document that summarizes the state of the current ordinances and proposes changes
to improve the structure and content – the Zoning and Subdivision Code Diagnosis Report. This
document was shared by City staff.
Each work session with the Planning Commission will be focused on a handful of topics. The City
Council will be briefed after each meeting on the discussion and recommendations of the Planning
Planning Commission Meeting – Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Revisions – Work Session #1 – February 5, 2025
2
Commission. Targeted stakeholder groups will be involved throughout the year as needed to provide
input on various topics. Consideration and adoption of the new code is anticipated for late fall of 2025.
WORK SESSION TOPICS
There are five broad topics that will be discussed at the first work session:
• Base Zoning Districts
• District Purpose Statements
• Housing Types
• Lot and Site Standards
• Accessory Dwelling Units
Base Zoning Districts
Arden Hills currently has 17 different base zoning districts. This number is high compared to the typical
number of districts in peer communities in the Twin Cities. There are four residential districts, which is
a typical number. There are six commercial/business districts; three to four is a more common number.
Unless there is a good reason to keep each district, and a clear difference between each of them, the
code would benefit from reducing the number of districts overall – and the number of business
districts specifically.
At the beginning of the code rewrite process, there were two zoning districts in the city that each had
only one site so designated – B-1 and I-2. Since that time, the single property zoned B-1 has been
rezoned. Given the large number of zoning districts, and the infrequency with which these two
categories have been used, HKGi is recommending they both be eliminated. The single site zoned I-2,
which is the lumberyard on Hwy 10, could be rezoned to I-1. Any concerns about outdoor storage of
materials at this location could be addressed as those standards are updated in the code generally.
Originally, there was thought of combining the B-3 and B-4 zoning districts into one new district as
these two seems to serve similar purposes, have a small number of parcels zoned within each, and the
two districts sit adjacent to each other. However, with the recent decision by the City Council to only
allow cannabis retail sales in the B-4 district, it is best to keep these two districts separate.
Currently, the B-3 district is called the Service Business District, even though the uses that are currently
there are primarily focused on retail. The B-4 district, on the other hand, is called the Retail Business
District but has little to no retail and instead contains a number of service businesses such as print
shops, contracting services, supply and distribution companies, and indoor recreation. Assuming the
preference of the City is to continue to encourage these uses in their current configuration, HKGi is
recommending name changes to these districts to make it clearer how they are intended to be used.
Since the B-3 district provides retail options along a major arterial, it is recommended it be renamed
the Corridor Business district. The B-4 district functions as a typical business park in the way it
accommodates multiple businesses in multi-tenant buildings with a focus on providing services or
other non-retail operations. It is recommended to be renamed the Business Park district.
Planning Commission Meeting – Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Revisions – Work Session #1 – February 5, 2025
3
Comparison of Existing and Proposed Districts
Current Districts Proposed Districts
Single Family Residential R-1 Suburban Residential 1 R-1
Single Family and Two Family Residential R-2 Suburban Residential 2 R-2
Townhouse and Low Density Multiple
Dwelling
R-3 Mixed Residential R-3
Multiple Dwelling R-4 Attached Residential R-4
Neighborhood Business NB Neighborhood Business NB
Limited Business B-1 --- ---
General Business B-2 Mixed Use MU
Service Business B-3 Corridor Business CB
Retail Center B-4 Business Park BP
Gateway Business GB Gateway Business GB
Civic Center CC Civic Center CC
Limited Industrial I-1 Limited Industrial I-1
General Industrial I-2 --- ---
I-FLEX I-FLEX I-FLEX I-FLEX
Parks and Open Space POS Parks and Open Space POS
Conservation CD Conservation CD
Institutional INST Institutional INST
District Purpose Statements
Within the zoning chapter, each district includes a statement of purpose which helps describe what
sorts of uses should be allowed and how it fits into the overall landscape of the city. Based on the
changes recommended by HKGi (the elimination of two of the lesser-used districts), as well as the
renaming of two or more of the base districts, the following purpose statements are being proposed.
Generally, the changes incorporate these four principles:
1. Move away from residential districts labeled with housing types.
2. Clarify the purposes of the B-3 and B-4 districts and rename to better align with the existing and
desired uses.
3. Revisit the Civic Center District to ensure the zoning matches the City’s vision.
4. Overall, keep the focus on the purpose of the districts and the sorts of uses allowed or
characteristics envisioned – remove references to how standards will be applied or how the
districts will function.
R-1: Suburban Residential 1
The purpose of the Suburban Residential 1 District (R-1) is to provide areas for single-unit and two-unit
dwellings, as well as for senior housing, or for institutional uses such as schools or places of worship in
settings that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Planning Commission Meeting – Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Revisions – Work Session #1 – February 5, 2025
4
R-2: Suburban Residential 2
The purpose of the Suburban Residential 2 District (R-2) is to provide areas for a mixture of single-unit
and two-unit dwellings, as well as for senior housing, or for institutional uses such as schools or places
of worship in settings that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
R-3: Mixed Residential
The purpose of the Mixed Residential District (R-3) is to provide areas for single-unit and two-unit
dwellings; attached housing, including twinhomes, townhomes, small-scale multifamily buildings; and
senior housing. Schools and places of worship may be permitted in settings that are compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood.
R-4: Attached Residential
The purpose of the Attached Residential District (R-4) is to provide areas for attached housing,
including multifamily buildings and senior housing. Schools and places of worship may be permitted in
settings that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
MU: Mixed Use
The purpose of the Mixed Use District (MU) is to serve as a mixed use area in which to live, work, or
recreate within a compact and architecturally enhanced setting. This district supports a wide range of
compatible residential, retail, service, office, and institutional uses. Site standards encourage
pedestrians and bicyclists and the creation of places for people to gather and socialize.
NB: Neighborhood Business
The purpose of the Neighborhood Business District (NB) is to provide areas for limited and compatible
retail, service, and office uses, along with small-scale mixed use buildings that may include dwelling
units. Development should encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation access.
CB: Corridor Business
The purpose of the Corridor Business District (CB) is to accommodate the transactions of a broad range
of goods and services to meet the needs of the surrounding community, as well as the needs of passing
motorists due to proximity to arterial streets or highways.
BP: Business Park
The purpose of the Business Park District (BP) is to provide a centralized location for multiple-
occupancy buildings that are able to serve a wide variety of uses, including supply and distribution,
printing, contracting offices, and indoor sports and fitness.
GB: Gateway Business
The purpose of the Gateway Business District (GB) is to establish areas for unified, large-scale
development of light industrial, office, warehouse, and research uses in close proximity to freeways.
Planning Commission Meeting – Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Revisions – Work Session #1 – February 5, 2025
5
I-1: Limited Industrial
The purpose of the Limited Industrial District (I-1), is to provide areas where industrial uses may locate
in order to present the fewest impacts to adjacent land uses.
I-FLEX
The purpose of the I-FLEX District is to allow for a variety of office, service, manufacturing, and other
compatible uses that serve local and regional needs. Development should foster employment and
complement the surrounding uses in terms of performance, character, quality, and appearance.
CC: Civic Center
The purpose of the Civic Center District (CC) is to accommodate intergovernmental facilities and uses
that provide important public services to the community. Development should be compatible with
adjacent uses and located on or in proximity to an arterial.
INST: Institutional
The purpose of the Institutional District (INST) is to establish areas for educational, residential, athletic,
or recreational facilities to serve students on the campus of a post-secondary education institution.
POS: Parks and Open Space
The purpose of the Parks and Open Space District (POS) is to provide areas for publicly owned lands
that have recognized outdoor recreational or open space resources, to support community health
through the provision of active and passive outdoor recreational opportunities, to promote natural and
ecological stewardship, and to conserve vital environmental resources.
CD: Conservation
The purpose of the Conservation District (CD) is to provide a "holding" zone for federally owned lands
on the Arden Hills Army Training Site to ensure that future development is staged, maintains a
sustainable level of public expenditures for utilities and services, and protects those areas generally
determined to be unsuitable for development due to the presence of wetlands, floodplains, steep
slopes, certain drainage and soil conditions, and critical wildlife habitat.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
• Is there a clear vision for each of the City’s base zoning districts?
• Do the names of each of the districts align with their purpose and how they are intended to be
used?
Expanding Access to Housing
The need and desire to expand access to housing, particularly addressing missing middle housing, was
emphasized in the survey responses from the City Council and Planning Commission, the October 2024
joint meeting, and HKGi’s diagnostic review of the code. Prioritizing this topic early in the code update
Planning Commission Meeting – Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Revisions – Work Session #1 – February 5, 2025
6
process establishes a foundation that informs other sections of the code, such as required lot and site
standards.
Currently, the use table in the existing code is restrictive in terms of the approval process, permitting
only detached single-family homes by right (see the existing use table below). Other housing types
require a conditional use permit (CUP) or must go through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process,
creating additional barriers such as increasing the time and cost for development. Additionally, the
definitions of existing housing types are unclear. For example, multiple family dwellings are defined as
"containing three or more attached units," but there is no distinction between the various types of
multiple family dwellings (e.g., townhomes, fourplexes, small scale or large-scale apartments). The
broad categories make it unclear which housing products would be acceptable in Arden Hills.
Images of various precedent housing types will be shown during the work session.
To clarify and simplify the housing options and align them with the city's intended character, HKGi will
explore this topic further and discuss the City’s comfort with various levels of regulation. The existing
use table below illustrates the existing options for housing in each district, along with the current type
of approval. The proposed use table shows HKGi’s suggestion for a more detailed breakdown of
housing types. An exercise during the meeting will help fill-in the types of approval in each district.
Based on the discussions, the proposed use table will be refined and allow new standards to be
incorporated into the updated zoning code. This will lead to right-sizing the lot and site standards for
each district to accommodate these housing options.
This approach will not significantly alter existing neighborhoods but will provide more flexible
opportunities for redevelopment and also help meet the goal of increasing housing options. This, in
turn, will influence affordability, community character, density, and other aspects of the zoning code.
Existing Use Table
Use R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4
Dwelling: single-family detached P P P P
Dwelling: single-family attached C C PUD PUD
Dwelling: two-family C C PUD PUD
Dwelling: multiple family C C
Table Legend:
P = Permitted Use
C = Conditional Use
PUD = Permitted only through a Planned Unit Development
Blank = Prohibited
Planning Commission Meeting – Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Revisions – Work Session #1 – February 5, 2025
7
Proposed Use Table
Use R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4
Single-unit Dwelling
Duplex
Twinhome
Cottage Courtyard
Townhome/Rowhouse
Multi-unit Dwelling (small scale)
Multi-unit Dwelling (large scale)
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
• What housing types are appropriate for each of the residential zoning districts in Arden Hills?
• What type of approval should be required for each?
Lot and Site Standards
Currently, most lot and site standards are contained within one large chart. The existing formatting
lacks hierarchy, includes requirements that are redundant or may not be needed, and may feel
overwhelming or confusing in terms of the amount of information provided. In addition, modified
standards are listed elsewhere in the code, either within text that addresses specific districts or related
to other circumstances such as land within the Shoreland Overlay.
HKGi has a number of recommendations related to this section of code for residential uses:
1. Split the District Requirement Chart into at least two separate tables (Lot Requirements and
Site Standards)
2. Consider eliminating the “Minimum Lot Depth” standard
3. Eliminate Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as a standard
4. Reduce “Minimum Corner Side Yard Setbacks” for R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts
5. Simplify setbacks from some other uses and convert to table footnotes: building setbacks from
State Highways or County Roads, shoreland setbacks, building setbacks from abutting
residential districts
6. Remove accessory structure setbacks from the table and address separately
7. Eliminate the “Maximum Dwelling Unit Density per Net Acre” standard
Draft tables for lot requirements and site standards are included with this memo as a starting point for
discussion, but may be revised as the districts and uses covered above are updated.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Floor Area Ratio is a measure of the total floor area of a building compared to the total area of the lot.
It is generally a way of controlling the mass or volume of a building, but does not regulate where on
the lot the building may be located or how tall it can be.
Planning Commission Meeting – Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Revisions – Work Session #1 – February 5, 2025
8
An FAR of 1 could be represented in a few different ways. It could be a one story building that covers
the entire lot (a 1:1 ratio), a two story building that covers half the lot (a 2:1/2 ratio which equals 1),
etc. An FAR of 2 means there is twice as much floor area as lot area – a two story building that covers
the entire lot is an example of this ratio. See the Met Council’s example graphic below:
Because there is a great deal of variability between building shape and size with the same FAR,
regulating the form may be better served by using a combination of three other standards already in
the zoning code: setbacks, height, and lot coverage.
Corner Side Yard Setbacks
Staff and the City Council have indicated a desire to examine the current standard for corner side yard
setbacks in residential districts, due to the number of variances that have been requested (and
granted) in recent years.
Corner lots have two yards that face streets. In Arden Hills, the shorter of the two street lot lines is
determined to be the front yard, while the longer of the two street lines is determined to be the corner
side yard. For all residential districts, the setback requirement for the corner side yard currently
matches that of the front yard at 40 feet. Variance requests to reduce the corner side yard setback
generally come as property owners look to expand their homes into this area.
An examination of a number of other communities in the metro area shows that most of those
researched have a reduced corner yard setback in relation to the front yard – though this is not the
case for three communities immediately adjacent to Arden Hills. The reduced corner side yard is
anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 the size of the front yard setback, as shown in the table below:
Planning Commission Meeting – Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Revisions – Work Session #1 – February 5, 2025
9
Setbacks Requirements in Other Metro Cities
City Front Yard Setback (ft) Corner Side Yard Setback (ft)
Crystal 30 10
Columbia Heights 25 12
Edina 30 15
Golden Valley 35 May not reduce the remaining building
envelope to less than 27 feet in width
Little Canada 30 20
Minneapolis 20 8
Richfield 30 12
Robbinsdale 30 15, or 5 for 40 foot wide lots
Roseville 30 10
St. Louis Park 25 15, or 9 for lots less than 60 feet wide
Vadnais Heights 30 20
Mounds View 30 30
New Brighton 30 30
Shoreview 25 25
Arden Hills 40 40
The main reason to keep the corner side yard setback as large as the front yard setback is to maintain a
wide viewshed from the public right-of-way. A primary reason to reduce the corner side yard setback is
the argument from homeowners that this yard feels and functions as a side yard (not a front yard) and
that by keeping it at 40 feet, the area on the lot in which they can build is limited compared to other
lots on the block where the interior side yard setback may be as little as 5 feet. A secondary reason is
that repeated variances to request a reduction of this requirement cost property owners and the City
time and money.
HKGi believes it in the interest of the city to reduce the corner side yard setback to 20 feet for single-
unit dwellings, duplexes, and twinhomes in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts. Looking at the past
four variance requests that were made, two would have been allowed by right if this standard had
been in place, while the remaining two requests were large enough they would still have needed to
come to the City for consideration.
Planning Commission Meeting – Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Revisions – Work Session #1 – February 5, 2025
10
Recent Variance Requests
Zoning Corner Side Yard
Required (ft)
Corner Side Yard
Existing (ft)
Corner Side Yard
Variance Approved (ft)
R-1 40 40.2 28.2
R-1 40 35.33 23.33
R-2 40 1.4 5.8
R-1 40 20 7.82
Maximum Dwelling Unit Density per Net Acre
Residential densities are currently addressed in multiple places. The first is as part of the
Comprehensive Plan – the Met Council requires metro communities to establish densities for all land
uses as part of the future land use plan. Second, each of the residential zoning districts states the
target residential density in its purpose statement. Third, the District Requirement Chart includes a
standard for maximum density for all districts that allow residential uses. Finally, the minimum lot area
per dwelling unit provides the same information in a slightly different form. The site standard chart can
be simplified and made easier to use by reducing duplicative requirements.
The residential portions of the two draft tables for Lot Requirements and Site Standards are included
as attachments to this memo.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
• Are there questions or concerns around any of the recommended lot and site standard
changes?
Accessory Dwelling Units
In addition to the previous topic around housing types, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) offer a smaller-
scale solution. ADUs are secondary dwellings on the same lot as a principal dwelling, with their own
entrance, kitchen, living area, and bathroom. They are also known as in-law suites, granny flats, or
carriage houses. Cities often consider ADUs for several reasons:
• They provide housing in closer proximity for family members, students, the elderly, in-home
health care providers, the disabled, and others.
• Homeowners who create ADUs may benefit from added income and assistance with
property maintenance.
• They typically offer a lower cost of living, meeting the needs of existing and future residents
within established neighborhoods while respecting architectural character and existing
infrastructure.
Planning Commission Meeting – Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Revisions – Work Session #1 – February 5, 2025
11
• They provide a unique housing option for those whom want to downsize, but desire to stay
within their existing neighborhood.
Cities exploring ADUs often consider regulations on size, utilities, parking, occupancy, design, setbacks
and construction. ADU construction can be detached, attached, or conversion/internal, demonstrated
in the graphic below. HKGi is addressing this topic because it was highlighted as an area of interest to
explore alongside expanding access to additional housing through the use table. The City Council has
indicated it is an option they may explore in the future, but at this point the Planning Commission is
not being asked to delve into the potential regulation. As the new code is drafted a placeholder will be
carved out to allow ADUs to be added down the road following further discussions and more robust
conversations and direction from the Council.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
• What are the general reactions to the idea of ADUs in Arden Hills?
NEXT STEPS
Following Work Session #1, HKGi will draft revisions to the zoning code text and review the proposed
changes with staff. A summary of the session will be forwarded to the City Council. Work Session #2
will focus on completing the updated use table (with nonresidential uses) and on specific development
standards such as parking, landscaping, fencing, outdoor lighting, and signage.
ATTACHMENTS
• DRAFT Lot Requirement Table
• DRAFT Site Standard Table
There are at least 25 Twin Cities metro area communities allowing ADUs, including Apple Valley,
Blaine, Bloomington, Burnsville, Crystal, Eagan, Fridley, Golden Valley, Hopkins, Inver Grove
Heights, Lakeville, Long Lake, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Mounds View, Orono, Plymouth, Richfield,
Roseville, Stillwater, Shoreview, St. Louis Park, St. Paul, Wayzata and White Bear Lake.
Ten cities from different areas of the metro have been consolidated here:
City ADU Key Findings Links
Apple Valley • Allowed on R-1 zoned lots 40,000 sq.ft. or
more.
• One ADU permitted per lot.
• Conditional use permit required.
• Conversion or attached ADUs only; No
detached ADUs allowed.
• Owner occupancy requirement.
• Size shall be no more than 40% of the
primary residence’s footprint or 900 sq. ft, but
no less than 300 sq. ft.
• Two additional parking stalls required.
Communities for a Lifetime
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Guide
Burnsville • Allowed in R1 and R1A zones. Minimum
10,000 square foot lot.
• Owner occupancy requirement.
• One ADU per lot.
• Conversion or attached ADUs; No detached
ADUs allowed.
• No more than 50% of the primary
residence’s footprint, but no less than 300 sq.
ft.
• Two additional parking stalls required.
Communities for a Lifetime
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Guide
Columbia
Heights
• Only allowed on lots with detached single-
family houses.
• Owner occupancy requirement.
• Separate utilities required.
• Must meet minimum parking requirements.
Accessory Dwelling Units
Crystal • Allows all forms of ADUs.
• One ADU per single-family property.
• Max size is 50% of finished floor area of
primary dwelling except if ADU is in the
basement.
• Detached ADUs max height: 22 ft.
• One additional parking space required.
Accesssory dwelling
units.indd
• Utilities connection should be the same as
home or separate connection at the same
point on the property.
Roseville • Allowed on lots with one-family dwellings.
• Owner occupancy requirement.
• Conversion or attached ADUs; No detached
ADUs allowed.
• Site meets the minimum parking standards
for a single-family residential home. (four off-
street parking spaces, two of which must be
enclosed
• ADU size: 75% of the principal dwelling’s
floor area. Min 300 square feet, up to a
maximum size of 600 square feet of living
area.
Microsoft Word -
110523_Accessory
Dwelling Units Discussion
_2_.doc
Bloomington • ADUs are a permitted accessory use in the
single-family residential district and not in any
other district.
• ADUs are only allowed on lots that meet the
City’s minimum lot size (11,000 sq. ft.).
• Site must meet the minimum off-street
parking standards for a single-family home.
• Minimum size of 300 sq. ft. and maximum of
960 sq. ft.
• No more than two bedrooms allowed in the
ADU.
• ADUs must be attached to principal
structure. ADUs are not allowed as detached
structures.
Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU).pdf
Shoreview • ADUs (termed “accessory apartments”) are
permitted in the single-family residential
districts and not in any other zoning district.
• ADUs must have a minimum of 500 sq. ft
with a maximum of 800 sq. ft. and two
bedrooms.
• Ownership occupancy requirement
• Only one ADU permit will be issued per
single-family home.
Planning essentials
accessory apartments
Regulation Considerations:
• Location
• Lot Size
• Quantity
• Height
• Number of occupants
• Setbacks
• A minimum of three off-street parking spaces
must be provided, two of which shall be
enclosed.
Edina • Allows all forms of ADUs (attached,
detached, internal/conversion).
• Permitted only on single-family lots
• One ADU permitted per property
• An ADU shall not exceed 1,000 square feet
of floor area
• No minimum parking requirement
Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs) | Edina, MN
Minneapolis • Allows all forms of ADUs (attached,
detached, internal/conversion).
• One ADU permitted per property.
• Permitted on single or two-family lots.
• If internal ADU, owner occupancy required.
• Size: 300 sq ft – 800 sq ft.
• Detached ADU max height: 21ft.
• No minimum parking requirements.
Accessory-Dwelling-Unit-
Application.pdf
Saint Louis
Park
• Allows all forms of ADUs (attached,
detached, conversion).
• One ADU per property.
• Permitted only on single-family lots (R-1, R-2
and R-3 zoning districts).
• ADU must be at least 200 sq ft; no more than
40% of gross floor area of principal building.
• No minimum parking requirements; unless
ADU is a garage conversion then applicant
shall demonstrate that parking can be
located in a structure or behind the front face
of the house.
• Requires owner occupancy.
• Short term rentals (STRs) not allowed in an
ADU.
Accessory Dwelling Units |
St. Louis Park, MN
• Parking
• Form
• Entry requirements
• Utility requirements
• Landscaping
• Independent sale of ADU
• Home occupation
• Shore term rentals
• General rental
• Impervious surface/building coverage
• Regulation: Permitted with Standards (PS) or Conditional (C)
• Design
• Administration process: permitting, license, or registration etc..
Additional resources:
• https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/housing/info-2019/accessory-dwelling-units-
adus.html
• https://www.fhfund.org/report/adu/
Min. Lot Area Min. Lot Width Min. Lot Area per
Dwelling Unit
(sq ft)(feet)(sq ft)
Single-unit Dwelling 14,000 95 14,000
Duplex 14,000 95 7,000
Twinhome 7,000 85 7,000
All other permitted uses 14,000 95 ---
Single-unit Dwelling 11,000 85 11,000
Duplex 11,000 85 5,500
Twinhome 5,500 75 5,500
All other permitted uses 11,000 85 ---
Single-unit Dwelling 11,000 85 11,000
Duplex 11,000 85 5,500
Cottage Courtyard 15,000 100 3,000
Townhome/Rowhouse 15,000 100 4,840
Multi-unit Dwelling 15,000 100 4,840
All other permitted uses 11,000 85 ---
Multi-unit Dwelling 11,000 100 3,630
All other permitted uses 11,000 100 ---
Townhome/Rowhouse 6,500 100 2,178
Multi-unit Dwelling 6,500 100 2,178
All other permitted uses 13,000 100 ---
Duplex 11,000 85 5,500
Townhome/Rowhouse 15,000 100 4,840
Multi-unit Dwelling 15,000 100 4,840
All other permitted uses 13,000 100 ---
MU
NB
Additional standards for lots within the Shoreland Overlay District are provided in Section 1330.03 Subd. 1.
Where standards between the two sections conflict, the more restrictive standard shall apply.
Zoning
District Use
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
Interior (b)Corner
Single-unit Dwelling
Duplex
Twinhome*
All other permitted uses 40
Single-unit Dwelling
Duplex
Twinhome*
All other permitted uses 40
Single-unit Dwelling
Duplex
Cottage Courtyard
Townhome/Rowhouse*
Multi-unit Dwelling
All other permitted uses
Multi-unit Dwelling
All other permitted uses
Townhome/Rowhouse*
Multi-unit Dwelling
All other permitted uses
Duplex
Townhome/Rowhouse*
Multi-unit Dwelling
All other permitted uses 30 (c)
*Adjoining units shall be permitted to utilize zero lot line interior setbacks
(a) Reduced setbacks for covered front porches on single-unit dwellings, duplexes, and twinhomes are described in Section 13XX.XX
(b) Minimum setback for any one yard / total setback of both yards
(c) A vegetated buffer yard shall be provided adjacent to all residential uses outside the NB district
40 40
40 40
Front Yard
(a)Rear Yard Side Yards Abutting
Residential
Use
Zoning
District Use
Minimum Setbacks (feet)
Maximum
Height (ft)
Max. Lot
Coverage
(structure)
35 25%
R-2 40 30 5 / 15 20 ---35
R-1 40 30 10 / 25 20 ---
25%
R-3
40 30 5 / 15 20 ---35 25%
See Use Specific Standards
30 5 / 15 ---35 25%
---50 45%
R-4 30 5 / 15 ---35 25%
MU 50 20 10 / 20 20
35 35%NB 20 20 5 / 15 20 ---
Min.
Landscaped
Lot Area
65%
65%
65%
65%
65%
20%
35%
Page 1 of 2
AGENDA ITEM – 3C
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 10, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator
SUBJECT: State of the City Discussion
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Council Should Consider
Council should discuss and provide feedback on State of the City (SOTC) future planning.
Background
The City Council held the last State of the City Address on Saturday, February 10, 2024. Last
October, staff received feedback from the majority of the Council to move the discussion for the
2025 State of the City Address till after the 1st of the year. The SOTC process generally begins
with the Communications Coordinator attending a series of work session meetings. However,
with the current vacancy in this position, I am bringing forward to at a minimum discuss a
potential date and location that would allow for some preliminary planning to begin.
Altogether, this is about a three to four month process from start to finish. The list below
highlights the work session meetings that lead up to the SOTC:
o Meeting #1: Discuss setting a date, location, marketing/outreach, topics, etc.
o Meeting #2: Council members review the final topics, assign presenters, and
determine the Q&A format or any other notable changes or updates to the
annual event.
o Meeting #3: Council members provide feedback on the first draft of the SOTC
presentation.
Council should discuss general timing of this event and give direction if there is interest in
setting a date and location. Planning for the 2025 SOTC topics and outreach would then be
brought back at a future work session for additional discussion.
Page 2 of 2
Budget Impact
N/A
Attachment
N/A
Page 1 of 2
AGENDA ITEM – 3D
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 10, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Code of Conduct Policy Discussion
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Council Should Consider
Council should review the draft Commissions and Committee Code of Conduct and Resolution
2016-022 for City Council Norms of Behavior and provide direction to staff on next steps.
Background
At the February 10th Work Session, the City Council requested staff schedule for the March
Work Session the code of conduct policy discussion. There are two policies that are applicable
to this discussion. The first policy would be intended for Commissions and Committee
members. The second is Resolution 2016-22 which is the City Council Norms of Behavior.
For the Commissions and Committee Code of Conduct, this policy development began in
2023/24 with the involvement of Councilmember Rousseau and Mayor Grant along with
guidance on language from Amy Schmidt, former City Attorney, with Campbell Knutson.
Additionally, one member of each Commission and Committee was given an opportunity to
review and provide comments. The draft code as presented to the Council incorporates the final
revisions from Ms. Schmidt.
This code would apply to all Appointees and includes an aspirational statement for decorum of
Commissions and Committee Members, along with examples of behavior that “meets” and “does
not meet” expectations. Any report for addressing unacceptable behavior would be presented to
the Personnel Committee for review.
For Resolution 2016-22, the City Council should review to determine if this remains sufficient or
provide staff with direction on updates for the Norms of Behavior. Also included with this
memo are the January 3, 2024 special work session minutes reflecting Council discussion with
LMCIT Collaboration Services regarding this topic.
Page 2 of 2
Budget Impact
N/A
Attachment
Attachment A: Draft Commissions and Committee Code of Conduct
Attachment B: Resolution 2016-22
Attachment C: January 3, 2024 Special Work Session Minutes
1
Adopted _________, 2025
230744v4
City of Arden Hills
Code of Conduct
City Commissions and Committees
Scope and Applicability:
Commissions and Committee meetings and activities are expected to be an ethical, friendly, and safe
environment for all residents and participants. The City Council appoints members of the Arden Hills
community to serve on Commissions and Committees as provided in the Arden Hills City Code.
This Code of Conduct (“Code”) outlines the expectations of people appointed to serve on a City Commission
or Committee (individually, an “Appointee”, or collectively, “Appointees”), and to those City
Councilmembers (including the Mayor) who interact with Appointees. This Code also outlines the processes
for addressing behavior that does not meet these expectations. This Code applies to all Appointees, who
serve at the pleasure of the Council as volunteers for the City, and to City Councilmembers (including the
Mayor) to the extent outlined in this Code.
Decorum of Commissions and Committee Members:
Aspirational Statement: All Appointees will assist the presiding officer in preserving order and decorum, and
in providing for the efficient operation of the meeting. Appointees will not engage in conduct that delays or
interrupts the proceedings, or that hinders honest, respectful discussion and debate. Commission and
Committee meetings will be conducted in a courteous manner that recognizes the validity of differing points
of view and promotes the ideal of democratic discussion and debate free of insult, slander, and personal
attacks and threats.
To effectuate these aspirational goals, all Appointees are expected to conduct themselves at meetings in a
manner consistent with the following principles.
Behavior that meets the expectations of the Code includes, but is not limited to:
• Be kind
• Treat people with respect, courtesy, politeness, and civility
• Encourage others to express their opinions and ideas
• Be considerate of the time you take on a subject to allow others time to address issues
• Listen
• Use the ideas of others to improve decisions and outcomes
• Recognize and respect differences
• Come to meetings fully prepared by reading the agenda prior to the meeting
• Act as a decision maker, not an advocate
Behavior that does not meet the expectations of the Code includes, but is not limited to:
• Speaking over, or cutting off another individual’s comments
• Insulting, disparaging, or putting down people or their ideas
• Violence or the threat of violence
• Discriminatory jokes, language, unwelcome sexual attention
• Bullying other members by displaying a pattern of belittling, demeaning, judging or patronizing
language or behavior
• Communicating in a tone that is not professional or appropriate for the setting, or in a manner that
makes others feel unsafe
• Repeated harassment of others. If someone asks you to stop, stop.
Conflict of Interest:
2
Adopted _________, 2025
230744v4
As trusted advisors to the City Council, Appointees should make decisions in the interests of the City. If a
Commission or Committee decision may create a favorable advantage for any Appointee, their business, or a
person or entity close to the Appointee, the Appointee must disclose such a conflict of interest, and abstain
from discussing and voting on the matter from which the conflict arises. Although there are many examples
of conflicts of interest, it is especially important for an Appointee to abstain from any matter involving a
personal financial interest in a sale, lease, or contract under consideration.
Role of the Chair:
The Chair is the facilitator of meetings. The Chair works with the Administrative Staff Liaison to draft meeting
agendas, keeps discussions focused on the issues, and clarifies motions. The Chair seeks input and
consensus around agenda items and does not let their own point of view bias or influence the Commission’s
or Committee’s discussion or decision.
Processes for Reporting and Addressing Unacceptable Behavior:
An Appointee who observes or experiences behavior that does not meet the expectations of this Code by any
of the following persons, should report such conduct to a City Councilmember on the City Council Personnel
Committee (“Personnel Committee”):
• Another Appointee,
• The Commission or Committee Chair,
• The City Council Liaison, or
• Any City Councilmember (including the Mayor) who interacts with Appointee(s).
The Administrative Staff Liaison may assist the Appointee in contacting a member of the Personnel
Committee, if needed.
Any report made will be taken up by the Personnel Committee. All good-faith reports will be taken seriously
and reviewed appropriately. As part of its review, the Personnel Committee may meet with the person whose
behavior has been reported to the Personnel Committee.
For Reports About Appointees: The Personnel Committee will determine appropriate actions to address or
mitigate the reported behavior. Such actions will be commensurate with the seriousness of the reported
behavior and may include asking the Appointee to stop the behavior, or temporarily asking the Appointee
to not participate at future meetings of the Commission or Committee. The Personnel Committee will
convey the request(s) to the Appointee in writing. Immediate compliance by the Appointee is expected.
If the Appointee does not comply with the request(s) of the Personnel Committee; or if the reported
behavior resumes; or if the Personnel Committee determines at any time that any reported behavior is
egregious, the Personnel Committee may present the matter to the City Council with a recommendation
that the City Council consider removing the Appointee pursuant to City Code.
For Reports About any City Councilmember (including the Mayor): After review by the Personnel Committee,
the Personnel will present the matter to the City Council with a recommendation whether appropriate
action should be taken as permitted by Minnesota Statutes or other City policy that governs elected
officials.
I acknowledge I have read and understand the Code of Conduct.
Signature
Printed Name____________________________________________________________ Date__________________
It
ARZEN HILLS
Approved: February 12, 2024
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
JANUARY 3, 2024
5:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the Special City
Council Work Session at 5:30 p.m.
Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Emily Rousseau,
Tena Monson and Tom Fabel
Absent: None
Also present: City Administrator Dave Perrault and League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust (LMCIT) Collaboration Services Manager Aimee Gourlay
1. AGENDA ITEMS
A. Council Discussion with LMCIT Collaboration Services
Ms. Gourlay said the goal is to give them the opportunity to discuss what they might like to do or
change about the Norms of Behavior/Code of Conduct, and what the process would be for
moving forward. She reviewed the items they hope to achieve; productive and efficient Council
meetings, improved teamwork and agreement on process. She asked if anyone wanted to add
anything else.
Council also requested to talk about respect and decency.
Ms. Gourlay said she would add that under meeting management. She explained the agenda and
said she had brought a short Code of Conduct summary from the League of Minnesota Cities. She
said the League doesn't have a standard code as they are specific to each community. Some cities
have very detailed codes and Duluth has one paragraph. She expanded on the items they would be
discussing. The idea was to share and hear others ideas and incorporate as many considerations as
they could. The goal of a Code of Conduct is to increase their ability to have positive conflict that
helps get good outcomes, and decrease the likelihood of interpersonal negative conflicts that can
detract from making good decisions.
Ms. Gourlay explained the Norms of Behavior 2016 could be a starting point because it already
exists. Discussion was probably more important than the paper at this point.
ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION - JANUARY 3, 2024 2
Council discussed issues in the past related to processes and how they have or have not come to
agreement on items.
Ms. Gourlay said it was about perceptions and how you're feeling about the discussion. What
they seem to agree on the need to balance the meeting efficiency with making sure everyone's
voice is heard and making sure the conversation is appropriate to the topic. They could talk about
how to move on when all opinions have been voiced. If they feel like they're hearing the same
thing and want to move on for efficiency sake, how does the Mayor know?
Council discussed how side comments or underhanded remarks affect decorum.
Ms. Gourlay said you're probably not listening well if there are side comments, and people will
shut down if they're hearing things as attacks. That is a part of meeting decorum. It can be
difficult if Councilmembers are speaking for long periods of time. So how do they balance
making sure everyone has a voice? Maybe everyone says their initial thoughts and has longer to
speak after that.
Ms. Gourlay thought there was already a divide about how they were feeling about respect. She
wondered if only some people were experiencing that or if it was a council -wide consideration.
Council discussed past issues or events that they have felt contributed to feelings of disrespect or
mistrust.
Ms. Gourlay thought getting to a point of understanding that could be another piece of the code.
And whatever code they come up with everyone has to be willing to go along with. She watched
a video of a meeting but she didn't see much of this dynamic.
Ms. Gourlay said there may be a need to address some of the past hurt in some way however,
something that can be helpful is to look at places they've been more successful and see how they
can take what is working and build on that.
Council discussed teamwork and their perspectives on information sharing.
Ms. Gourlay stated they're talking about Code of Conduct, but it really keeps coming back to
this one issue. She asked what they needed to move forward.
Council discussed better communication moving forward and past issues, also discussed looking
forward not at the past when making decisions.
Council discussed adding agenda items to formally report back to Council, such as,
Committee/Commission updates.
Ms. Gourlay said one thing they were talking about was committee reports and separating that
from Council Comments. They also talked about agreeing to disagree about the past and not
bring it up going forward. They talked about annual committee updates and sharing City goals.
Ms. Gourlay commented that one of the things she's observing is that it's hard to get to
consensus because what they're talking about keeps shifting.
ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION - JANUARY 3, 2024 3
Ms. Gourlay reiterated they wanted efficient meetings, to stay on appropriate topics, everyone's
voice be heard, and to avoid personal comments. Some of the items they are considering would
address some of that list.
Ms. Gourlay said sometimes councils have struggles with how to get things on the agenda,
what's the complaint process, or the process for taking something off the consent agenda.
Oftentimes it has to do with how things get heard. She wondered what's the process for assigning
committees, is there an assumption that everyone gets a committee and similar types of things.
Council discussed adding committee/commission reports to future agendas, and about tying it into
committee/commission liaison responsibilities.
Ms. Gourlay recommended they have a work session item for discussion of committee updates
before it be brought for a vote at a regular meeting so there is no misunderstanding of what the
policy will be. She asked if this session was a useful conversation.
Council discussed not bring up past issues when making decisions affecting the present and
future.
Ms. Gourlay said they should move forward with discussing the issues they talked about at work
sessions and if they would like her to come back she could. She could also arrange for not full
group discussions.
Ms. Gourlay said they remind her of good people with knowledge coming together from
different places but the team can't come together.
Council thanked Ms. Gourlay for her time.
2. COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
City Administrator Perrault said he had emailed two questions to the Council. The 2024 PMP
was at 80% plan and was scheduled to be an item on the upcoming work session, did they prefer
to leave it on that meeting. Also, did they want to schedule a retreat, if so he will find a date.
Councilmember Rousseau would rather do a special work session on January 22 for the PMP,
and she would love to have a retreat in March or April.
Councilmember Monson was comfortable with having the PMP discussion on either date but
she could make January 22 work.
Mayor Grant explained there's what they go in at and then there's the bid. So, 80% was
probably close enough.
Councilmember Monson said then she was fine with it being on January 8 at 80%. She would
like to have city goals at a retreat but didn't think they needed the personality piece.
Mayor Grant felt a retreat was the wrong way to approach it. He thought it would be better for
the group to look at some strategic topics and discuss them. He didn't know if they needed
ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION — JANUARY 3, 2024 4
someone else to help them do that. He thought a facilitator would make it more touchy-feely and
they would probably waste time with ice breaker type stuff.
Councilmember Fabel agreed.
Councilmember Monson said she found Ms. Gourlay to be valuable in these discussions.
Councilmember Rousseau asked if they were going to go through the list of work session topics
at the next work session and prioritize them.
Mayor Grant was thinking more strategic than chickens or food trucks; he was worried more
about bigger things like trails and the fire station.
City Administrator Perrault said he was planning to include the list of work session priorities
on the next work session so Council can let staff know what they want to bring forward in what
order.
Councilmember Rousseau explained that things they see on the list as a priority could be what
they base a strategic plan on.
Councilmember Holden asked if they were going to update the Council Tracker.
City Administrator Perrault said past practice was they only removed things at Council
direction.
Councilmember Rousseau asked how they were moving forward with a Code of Conduct for
committees.
Ms. Gourlay said she had examples from other cities to send to the Mayor and Councilmember
Rousseau.
I\ 11 rsl IMok
Mayor Grant adjourned the Special City Council Work Session at 7:09 p.m.
ai Zii 4j. itimi
David Grant
Mayor
Page 1 of 2
AGENDA ITEM – 3E
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 10, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Agenda Planning
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Council Should Consider
Council should discuss its next work session agenda.
Background
Per Council’s adopted policy on agenda setting, please find the proposed agenda below for the
upcoming meeting.
April 14th Work Session
• Speed Limit Old Snelling
• To Be Determined
• RCC/TCAAP Discussion (not time sensitive)
• Agenda Planning (time sensitive)
April 28th Work Session
• Spine Road Design Update
• To Be Determined
• RCC/TCAAP Discussion (not time sensitive)
• Agenda Planning (time sensitive)
Attachment A is the list of topics that have yet to be discussed by Council and the 2025 ranking
of priority topics as distributed to the Council at the January 13th work session. Staff will begin
to work the higher priority items into upcoming work sessions sooner while putting the lower
priority items to later discussions. Please note, this does not reflect all items at work sessions as
Staff will have necessary items for discussion, such as, budget discussions, concept plan reviews,
or Public Works projects that need timely direction. Council may want to discuss if any items
Page 2 of 2
need to be added to this list for future discussion or assign a future meeting for some of these
items. This would need to be done by a majority consensus of Council.
Below is a running list of things Staff brings forward to work session annually, in recent years,
we have shifted away from bringing some items forward unless needed, such as, the Pavement
Management Update from Public Works. Note, these timelines may shift year to year. Most
items discussed at work sessions are one-off items that may require multiple meetings but are
usually not reoccurring.
• January
o Legislative priorities
• February
o None
• March
o Initial guidance on next year’s Public Works projects
• April
o None
• May
o None
• June
o Follow up on next year’s Public Works projects
• July
o Capital improvement planning
• August
o Operating budgets
• September
o Operating budget and levy discussion
• October
o State of the City (if planned for early following year)
• November
o City-wide budget and fee schedule
o Follow up on next year’s Public Works projects
• December
o Committee and commission appointments
Budget Impact
N/A
Attachment
Attachment A: Council Priorities
Attachment B: Agenda Setting Policy
Ra
n
k
To
p
i
c
f
o
r
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Li
k
e
l
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
No
t
e
s
To
p
i
c
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
1
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
/
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
G
o
a
l
S
e
t
t
i
n
g
Ad
m
i
n
TB
D
To
o
l
f
o
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
f
u
t
u
r
e
w
o
r
k
p
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
t
a
s
k
s
.
3
Vo
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
(
t
o
P
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
f
i
r
s
t
)
Ad
m
i
n
TB
D
Av
e
n
u
e
s
f
o
r
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
w
h
i
c
h
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
.
3
Sp
e
e
d
L
i
m
i
t
O
l
d
S
n
e
l
l
i
n
g
PW
TB
D
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
2
5
m
p
h
C
i
t
y
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
a
n
d
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
o
r
n
o
t
i
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
t
o
a
h
i
g
h
e
r
s
p
e
e
d
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
w
a
y
O
l
d
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
a
c
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
r
o
u
t
e
v
s
.
a
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
3
Tr
a
i
l
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
(
L
a
k
e
J
o
B
l
v
d
v
e
r
s
u
s
o
l
d
H
w
y
1
0
)
PW
/
F
i
n
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
4
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
As
s
i
g
n
i
n
g
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
t
o
t
r
a
i
l
s
(
i
.
e
.
f
u
t
u
r
e
t
r
a
i
l
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
,
a
c
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
f
o
r
t
r
a
i
l
s
,
t
r
a
i
l
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
/
n
e
e
d
s
)
.
4
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
Ad
m
i
n
TB
D
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
o
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
a
c
l
i
m
a
t
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
.
4
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
/
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
Ad
m
i
n
TB
D
Yo
u
t
h
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
v
s
.
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
m
e
m
b
e
r
(
i
.
e
.
a
g
e
)
,
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
v
s
.
n
o
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
,
a
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
t
e
r
m
s
.
4
EV
F
l
e
e
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
PW
TB
D
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
l
e
e
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
a
n
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
E
V
C
i
t
y
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
.
5
En
e
r
g
y
a
u
d
i
t
Ad
m
i
n
TB
D
5
Po
r
t
a
p
o
t
t
i
e
s
PW
TB
D
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
o
n
c
o
n
v
e
r
t
i
n
g
a
l
l
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
c
i
t
y
p
a
r
k
s
t
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
A
D
A
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
b
a
t
h
r
o
o
m
s
.
6
ED
A
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
CD
/
A
d
m
i
n
Fu
t
u
r
e
E
D
A
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
o
n
a
l
l
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
o
f
c
i
t
y
c
o
u
n
c
i
l
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
a
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
s
a
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
S
t
a
t
e
S
t
a
t
u
t
e
.
7
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
u
r
v
e
y
Ad
m
i
n
TB
D
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
o
n
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
n
g
a
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
s
u
r
v
e
y
-
h
o
w
i
s
t
h
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
,
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
/
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
k
e
d
,
l
e
n
g
t
h
,
e
t
c
.
Ra
n
k
To
p
i
c
f
o
r
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Li
k
e
l
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
No
t
e
s
To
p
i
c
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
1
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
R
e
n
t
a
l
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
CD
/
A
d
m
i
n
TB
D
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
s
h
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
r
e
n
t
a
l
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
.
2
Re
n
t
a
l
L
i
c
e
n
s
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
CD
/
A
d
m
i
n
TB
D
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
o
n
r
e
n
t
a
l
r
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
r
e
n
t
a
l
l
i
c
e
n
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
a
n
d
r
e
n
t
a
l
l
i
c
e
n
s
i
n
g
c
a
p
.
4
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
/
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
CD
TB
D
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
o
n
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
-
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
7
Ke
e
p
i
n
g
o
f
D
u
c
k
s
a
n
d
R
e
v
i
e
w
C
h
i
c
k
e
n
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
CD
/
A
d
m
i
n
TB
D
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
t
h
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
o
f
d
u
c
k
s
a
n
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
c
h
i
c
k
e
n
s
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
.
Ad
d
ed
it
e
m
s
:
Pr
o
c
l
a
m
a
t
i
o
n
Po
l
i
c
y
Ga
r
b
a
g
e
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
-
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
d
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
/
C
o
m
m
is
s
i
o
n
Lia
i
s
o
n
R
o
l
e
Po
l
i
c
y
Co
d
e
of
Co
n
d
u
c
t
Do
o
r
to
Do
o
r
G
r
o
u
p
Af
f
i
l
i
a
t
i
o
n
/
I
n
f
o
r
m
at
i
o
n
W
i
t
h
Ci
t
y
Ap
p
r
o
v
ed
Po
l
i
c
y
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Bu
y
No
t
h
i
n
g
Da
y
/
C
l
e
a
n
Up
Da
y
MN
T
W
C
En
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
(2
0
2
5
)
Do
o
r
to
Do
o
r
So
l
i
c
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ad
o
p
t
a
P
a
r
k
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
75
t
h
A
n
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
r
y
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
R
e
v
i
e
w
I
t
e
m
s
:
Topic for Consideration Likely Responsible Dept.Total Average
75th Anniversary Discussion Planning Admin 14 2.8
Short-term Rental Ordinance CD/Admin 13 2.6
Rental Licensing Program CD/Admin 13 2.6
Code of Conduct Admin 13 2.6
Encroachment Discussion (2025)PW 13 2.6
Trail Prioritization (Lake Jo Blvd versus old Hwy 10)PW/Fin 12 2.4
Committee/Commission Liaison Role Policy Admin 12 2.4
MNTWC CD/Admin 11 2.2
Committee/Commission Goal Setting Admin 10 2
Volunteer Recognition (to Personnel first)Admin 10 2
Committee/Commission Membership Admin 10 2
EDA Membership Discussion CD/Admin 10 2
Building Materials Update/Discussion CD 10 2
Keeping of Ducks and Review Chicken Ordinance CD/Admin 10 2
Buy Nothing Day/Clean Up Day Admin 10 2
Adopt a Park Discussion PW 10 2
Speed Limit Old Snelling PW 9 1.8
Garbage Collection (MV Presentation?)Admin 9 1.8
Climate Action Plan Admin 8 1.6
Door to Door Group Affiliation/Information With City Admin 8 1.6
Energy audit Admin 7 1.4
Porta potties PW 7 1.4
Community Survey Admin 7 1.4
Proclamation Policy Admin 7 1.4
Door to Door Solicitations Admin 7 1.4
EV Fleet Analysis PW 6 1.2
Approved Policy Discussion Admin 6 1.2
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
Agenda Setting Policy
The purpose of this policy is to establish a method for agenda setting that allows for Council to
review and have control over its agendas and decide as a Council how it wants items for
consideration to be brought forward.
For regular worksession agendas:
• Prior to concluding each regularly scheduled worksession, the City Council shall review
its next regularly scheduled worksession agenda and direct Staff on any changes.
• Should an individual Councilmember want to raise an item for discussion at the next
meeting or in the future, they would do so during this review period. The item would
need at least one other Councilmember to agree to having the item considered for future
discussion, and then Council, by majority, would direct to have it placed on a future
agenda or not.
• Staff will have flexibility to add or remove items to the worksession as needed to
maintain operational efficacy.
For regular City Council meeting agendas:
• Agendas will be largely Staff driven based on approvals needed for normal operations.
• Items coming from the City Council shall first be discussed at a worksession and can
direct Staff at said worksession to bring items forward for formal approval if needed.
• In rare instances, if a Councilmember brings forward an item that needs approval prior to
going to a worksession, they may request the City Administrator add the item to the
agenda. The City Administrator shall have the discretion to determine if the issue should
be added or not, but Councilmembers will make every effort to having the item first
discussed at a worksession.
Special meetings and emergency meetings:
• Special meetings and emergency meetings may still be called at the discretion of the
Mayor or any two Councilmembers, and the members calling the meeting shall set the
agenda.
Page 1 of 1
AGENDA ITEM – 3F
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
March 10, 2025
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Rice Creek Commons/TCAAP Discussion
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
For Council Consideration
Council will have the opportunity to comment on any TCAAP related items they so choose.
Background
N/A
Budget Impact
N/A
Attachment
N/A