HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-28-25-R It
-ARPEN HILLS
Approved: May 12, 2025
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 28, 2025
7:00 P.M. -ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor David Grant called to order the regular City
Council meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Tena Monson, and
Kurt Weber
Absent: Councilmember Emily Rousseau(excused)
Also present: City Administrator Jessica Jagoe and Assistant to the City
Administrator/City Clerk Julie Hanson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a
motion to approve the meeting agenda as presented. The motion carried
a±h
2. TCAAP/RICE CREEK COMMONS UPDATE
City Administrator Jagoe stated Since the last City Council meeting, the Joint Development
Authority has not met. Also, the JDA Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for April 23id was
canceled.
The Energy Advisory Committee met on April 17'where staff provided onboarding to the new
Advisory Committee members with an overview on the Energy Vision and Guiding Principles
from 2023 as well as the November 2024 Clean Energy Analysis Report prepared by Ever-Green
Energy and LHB, and lastly the JDA's adoption of the Sustainability Design Guidelines.
The next JDA meeting will be Monday, May 5d' at 5:30. Advisory committee meetings as they
are scheduled, will continue to be posted on the City's website.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—APRIL 28, 2025 2
Councilmember Monson reported a ground breaking ceremony will be held on Wednesday,
April 30 for Outlot A.
Councilmember Holden asked if anyone was looking at Site K from the County.
City Administrator Jagoe stated she would check with the County on this and report back to the
Council.
Councilmember Holden reported she was happy to see Outlot A was being developed, but noted
this was the prime site with no pollution and she looked forward development occurring on the
remainder of the site.
Mayor Grant explained the City Council was instrumental in getting the infrastructure in place
for Outlot A back in 2017. He questioned when the spine road would be constructed.
City Administrator Jagoe commented the plans would be completed in 2025 with construction
occurring in 2026.
Mayor Grant questioned if the City would be paying for the truck utilities on the spine road or
are they moving forward in a similar vein as Outlot A where the County did the road and utilities.
City Administrator Jagoe stated there has been no change in the previous discussions items with
regard to the City having the responsibility for the costs for the trunk utilities. She indicated she
would be bringing this item to the City Council in May.
Mayor Grant noted that he would like to go on record as saying as we don't have a development
agreement that it would be very difficult for me to authorize the City to pay for trunk utilities on
the project without a development agreement knowing there is going to be development and
revenue.
Mayor Grant noted he looked at the preliminary development agreement with Alatus, stating this
agreement runs through June 30, 2025. He reported there was no criteria for an extension within
the agreement. He indicated the substantial completion only applies to some time after October 31
through June 30 at which point either party could say there has not been substantial progress.
City Administrator Jagoe concurred there was no language in place within the preliminary
development agreement to address an extension.
Mayor Grant explained by stating the road would be constructed, he questioned if this meant a
development agreement was coming soon.
City Administrator Jagoe reported she was not foreshadowing this, but stated the County was
moving ahead with their portion of the project, which meant they were moving forward with the
design plans for the spine road.
Mayor Grant noted the property belongs to the County and they could choose to install a road on
their own property.
City Administrator Jagoe stated this was correct.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—APRIL 28, 2025 3
Mayor Grant reported through the joint powers agreement the City would be responsible for the
trunk utilities.
City Administrator Jagoe commented this was the case and noted the Council would be
discussing this matter at a future worksession meeting.
Councilmember Monson asked if the trunk utilities would be funded under the 429 special
assessment process.
City Administrator Jagoe stated this was the most recent discussion, but noted in the past there
was discussion the trunk utilities would be paid for through SAC and WAC charges.
Councilmember Monson indicated the City and JDA were well aware of this issue and have
made the County aware that this matter has to be addressed. She agreed the City was not
interested in funding these utilities without having some form of repayment. She reiterated that
this project has a developer named within the preliminary development agreement and the JDA
was working with them in order to achieve substantial progress.
Mayor Grant explained the JDA has an Advisory Committee that Councilmember Monson sits
on. He reported he was intentionally excluded from these meetings but noted he would continue
to watch out for the City and would voice his concerns.
Councilmember Monson commented she did not intend to offend the Mayor. She stated she
would continue to ask questions and noted she looked forward to addressing this matter at a future
worksession meeting.
Mayor Grant indicated he was not offended, but stated he was doing his job representing the
City. He stated he would continue to ask questions given the fact there were some unknowns, and
these unknowns were substantial. He reported he asked about the spine road with the knowledge
that the County funded the entire surface and utilities for the roadway serving Outlot A. He
commented further on how June 30 was rapidly approaching and would be the end of the
preliminary development agreement.
Councilmember Monson reiterated that the JDA was very aware of the June 30 deadline.
Councilmember Holden stated as a City, the utility work that has been done in the past was done
for redundancy purposes and the City was to be reimbursed for this work. She indicated this work
needs to be paid for by TCAAP as well.
Mayor Grant commented two and a half years have gone by and money has been spent, the
project has changed, density has changed, affordability has changed, acreage has changed, and
certain climate action plans have been instituted. He looked forward to hearing more on this
project. He asked if there was a general agreed upon definition of what might trigger an extension.
Councilmember Monson stated there has been no discussion as to what this would look like. She
reported she did not believe the development agreement had to be completed by June 30, but if
there was light at the end of the tunnel she could be open to an extension. She indicated there has
been no discussion as to what substantial progress looks like.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—APRIL 28, 2025 4
3. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL
Gretchen King, 1459 Glen Hill Road, stated she read about the issue of the thrift store and
understood a special amendment had been passed to allow thrift in the B-4 district. She believed
this was wrong and recommended thrift should be allowed in any normal retail space. She
explained she was a thrifter and spoke to how it was her environmental responsibility to reduce,
reuse and recycle. She believed the City was sending a bad message by relegating thrifting, by
considering it less than other retail spaces. She commented on how she had to go elsewhere to do
her thrifting because thrifting was currently not allowed in Arden Hills.
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES
None.
5. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
None.
6. STAFF COMMENTS
None.
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Motion to Approve Consent Agenda Item - Claims and Payroll
B. Motion to Approve 2026 Budget Calendar
C. Motion to Approve Payment No. 1 (Final) to M&B Services, Inc. — 2025 CIPP
Sewer Repair
D. Motion to Approve Resolution 2025-037 awarding the Sale of General Obligation
Capital Improvement Plan(CIP) Bonds, Series 2025A
E. Motion to Accept Resignation of Building/Code Enforcement Inspector
F. Motion to Authorize Recruitment of Building/Code Enforcement Inspector
G. Motion to Approve Metropolitan Council Regional Solicitation Safe Routes to
School Grant Agreement
H. Motion to Approve T-Mobile Lease Agreement Amendment No. 1- South Tower
(1230 Red Fox Road)
I. Motion to Acknowledge Financial Surety Obligations for Rice Creek Watershed
District Permit Number 24-064 for the Lake Johanna Fire Department
Headquarters Project
MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Weber seconded a
motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented and to authorize
execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried
4-Il .
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—APRIL 28, 2025 5
9. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
None.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Planning Case 25-001 —Variance and Conditional Use Permit for 1126 Benton
Way
City Administrator Jagoe stated 1126 Benton Way ("Subject Property ) is zoned R-3,
Townhouse and Low-density Multiple Dwelling District, and is designated for Low Density
Residential Uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Subject Property is the site of a
single-family dwelling owned by the Applicant. All adjacent properties to the north, east, and
south are also zoned R-3, Townhouse and Low-density Multiple Dwelling District, and
designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The
parcel to the west is zoned B-2, General Business District, and designated for Commercial Uses in
the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
City Administrator Jagoe explained in the 1970s, the Subject Property was established as part of
the Hunters Park neighborhood and homeowners associations through a Planned Unit
Development (PUD). A PUD can permit a greater amount of flexibility for developments from
the underlying zoning regulations. The Hunters Park PUD used the flexibility permitted in the
PUD process, and the neighborhood was designed with varying lot sizes, structure setbacks, and
lot coverages. A number of the lots were permitted to have structures that did not meet the
underlying zoning requirements, which is a legitimate use of the PUD process. Because the lot
sizes and building locations were approved as part of the PUD process, they are not considered
nonconforming even if they do not meet the underlying R- 3 zoning requirements. In 1985, the
City Council approved a process evaluating future changes to structures in Hunters Park:
• If additions or alterations to the homes do not require setback or coverage variances from
the R-3 Zone, only a building permit issued administratively by the City shall be required.
This removed the need for a PUD amendment with every change.
• If additions or alterations to cluster homes do require additional variances of any kind
from the R-3 Zone, the standard variance procedure set by the City shall apply.
• If both cases, the Architectural and Environmental Committee of the Hunters Park
Homeowners Association shall review and approve the proposed addition or alteration
before submitting the same to the City. It shall assist individual homeowners in
determining if a variance is required for proposed alterations.
City Administrator Jagoe commented according to the planning case files, the Hunters Park
homeowner association approved this process along with the City. Since many of the lots and
structures are "nonconforming" under the R-3 regulations, a variance is almost always required.
There have been at least five variances approved for additions in the Hunters Park neighborhood;
however, past variance approvals are not a basis for current variance reviews. In 2009, a previous
owner of the Subject Property requested three variances to construct a 585 square foot addition to
the dwelling. The proposed addition encroached eight (8) feet into the required 30 foot rear yard
setback, encroached four (4) feet into the required 40 foot front yard setback, and increased the
structure coverage on the lot from 19.4 percent to 26 percent. The variance was approved by the
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—APRIL 28, 2025 6
City Council with approval from the Architectural and Environmental Committee of the Hunters
Park Homeowners Association. The proposed addition was constructed before the Applicant
became the owner of the Subject Property.
City Administrator Jagoe reviewed the site data and plan evaluation in further detail with the
Council. Staff requested the Council determine if a variance request for flexibility on the structure
coverage should be approved. The submitted survey shows the location of the proposed addition.
The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the District Provisions in Section 1320 and the
Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4. In addition, a Conditional Use Permit
is required for Class 11 Accessory Home Occupations. A home occupation is allowed in
residential zoning districts as an accessory use, but it becomes a Class 11 Home Occupation when
there are patrons visiting the premises. City Code Section 1355.04 Subd. 3 of the Arden Hills
Zoning Code lists the criteria for evaluating a Conditional Use Permit. The City Council should
consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare
of the owners and occupants of the surrounding land and the community, in general, including but
not limited to the following factors:
1. Existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions;
2. Noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, and other
nuisance characteristics;
3. Drainage;
4. Population density;
5. Visual and land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land;
6. Adjoining land values;
7. Park dedications where applicable;
8. Orderly development of the neighborhood and the City within the general purpose and intent
of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City.
City Administrator Jagoe reviewed the plan evaluation in further detail with the Council and
requested the Council hold a public hearing.
Councilmember Monson asked if home occupation requirements was being reviewed by the
City's consultants.
City Administrator Jagoe stated this has not been addressed, but staff could pass along feedback
to the consultant to see if there are any review comments as part of their analysis.
Councilmember Monson supported the City not having to review CUP's for in-home piano
lesson businesses. She explained she would be supporting both the variance and the CUP.
Councilmember Holden indicated she supported the City having some regulations in place when
it comes to home occupations and suggested the allowed uses be listed within City Code.
Councilmember Weber stated he agreed with both points of view and recommended the Council
further discuss which uses are allowed and which are not for home occupations at a future
worksession meeting. He commented on the number of people who spoke on behalf of the
applicant at the Planning Commission meeting and noted he would be supporting the proposed
requests.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—APRIL 28, 2025 7
Mayor Grant indicated the request before the City Council was quite minimal and noted he
would be offering his support as well.
Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m.
Philip Lowe, 1126 Benton Way, reported his neighbors were in support of the request and stated
he was available for comments or questions.
Mayor Grant closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
11. NEW BUSINESS
A. Planning Case 25-001 - 1126 Benton Way
• Resolution 2025-038 Approving a Variance
• Resolution 2025-039 Approving a Conditional Use Permit
City Administrator Jagoe stated Philip Low ("Applicant") has submitted an application for a
Variance to construct an addition to the southwest elevation of the existing principal structure at
1126 Benton Way ("Subject Property"). To construct this proposal, the Applicant is seeking a
variance to exceed the maximum structure coverage of 25 percent to 27.3 percent. The Applicant
is proposing a 4.4 foot by 6.8 foot addition to expand the existing principal structure footprint by
30 square feet. The Applicant has also submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow a Class II Accessory Home Occupation at 1126 Benton Way. The Applicant is the owner of
a piano lessons business. A home occupation is allowed in residential zoning districts, but a
Conditional Use Permit is required when there are customers visiting the residence. The
Applicant is proposing to meet with customers in person by appointment only which triggered the
Class II designation requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
City Administrator Jagoe reported the Planning Commission reviewed this application at their
April 9, 2025 meeting and have offered the following findings of fact for your consideration:
General Findings:
1. City Staff received a land use application for the subject property located at 1126 Benton
Way. 2. The Subject Property is zoned R-3, Townhouse and Low-density Multiple Dwelling
District and is designated for Low Density Residential uses on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
3. The Applicant's land use application includes a request for a variance to the required R-3
Zoning District maximum structure coverage requirement to construct a 30 square foot
principal structure addition.
4. The Subject Property is part of the Hunters Park neighborhood development. If a variance is
required for a proposed alteration, the Architectural and Environmental Committee of the
Hunters Park Homeowners Association shall review and approve the proposed addition or
alteration before submitting the same to the City.
5. A single-family dwelling is a permitted use within the R-3 Zoning District.
6. The Applicant has provided documentation that the Hunters Park Homeowners Association
Architectural and Environmental Committee and both of their neighbors have reviewed and
approved the submitted plans.
7. The Applicant states that the addition would be located between the house and the garage and
that most people would be unlikely even to notice it is there.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—APRIL 28, 2025 8
8. The proposed addition would result in the Subject Property having an increased structure
coverage of 27.3 percent.
Variance Criteria Findings:
9. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of the ordinance.
10. The proposed addition would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because the
proposed design will look and feel consistent with the existing structure.
11. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone.
Conditional Use Permit Findings:
12. The Applicant's land use application also includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a Class II Home Occupation to conduct piano lessons at the Subject Property.
13. A home occupation is allowed in residential zoning districts, but a Conditional Use Permit is
required when there are patrons visiting the premises.
14. The proposed home occupation would have a limited number of patrons visiting the home
during set hours, as the Applicant would only be seeing one client at a time,by appointment.
15. The Applicant is the sole owner and employee of a piano lesson business.
16. The Applicant is the sole owner and occupant of the Subject Property.
17. The home occupation is conducted entirely within the dwelling.
18. Clients visiting the dwelling would park in the driveway on the Subject Property.
19. There will be no exterior evidence of the home occupation.
20. A public hearing for a Conditional Use Permit request is required before the request can be
brought before the City Council.
21. The required public hearing was held at the April 9, 2025, Planning Commission meeting.
City Administrator Jagoe reported the Planning Commission reviewed this application at their
April 9, 2025, meeting. At that time, they recommended approval of the variance request with two
conditions by a 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner Burlingame abstained). If the Council supported
approval of the variance, the motion language options for the City Council to consider would be
Approval with Conditions: Motion to approve Resolution 2025-038, approving Planning Case 25-
001 for a Variance to construct a 30 square foot principal structure addition at 1126 Benton Way,
based on the findings of fact and submitted plans in the April 28, 2025, Report to the City
Council, subject to the following conditions:
1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction.
2. The proposed building addition shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City
Code.
City Administrator Jagoe explained at their April 9, 2025, meeting, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit request for the Applicant's piano lessons
business with four conditions by a 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner Burlingame abstained). The
Planning Commission recommended amending Condition Number 4 to read "No exterior signage
shall be permitted as evidence of the home occupation." If the Council supported approval of the
Conditional Use Permit, the motion language options for the City Council to consider would be
Approval with Conditions: Motion to approve Resolution 2025-039, approving Planning Case 25-
001 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Class II Accessory Home Occupation at 1126 Benton
Way, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans in the April 28, 2025 Report to the City
Council, subject to the following conditions:
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—APRIL 28, 2025 9
1. No exterior evidence of the home occupation shall be permitted.
2. No exterior signage shall be permitted as evidence of the home occupation.
3. The Applicant shall comply with all sections of the City Code, including no more than four
vehicles parked in a driveway at any one time.
4. The Applicant shall be required to submit and maintain a Home Occupation Accessory Class
II License with the City while the home occupation is active.
MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Mayor Grant seconded a motion to adopt
Resolution #2025-038, approving Planning Case 25-001, for a Variance to
construct a 30 square foot principal structure addition at 1126 Benton Way,
based on the findings of fact and submitted plans in the April 28, 2025 report
to the City Council, subiect to the recommended conditions. The motion
carried (4-0).
MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Monson seconded a
motion to adopt Resolution #2025-039 approving Planning Case 25-001 for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow a Class II Accessory Home Occupation at
1126 Benton Way, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans in the
April 28, 2025 Report to the City Council, subiect to the recommended
conditions. The motion carried (4-0).
B. Resolution 2025-040 Amending City Resolution 2025-007 to Revise Conditions
for Approval of a Master and Final Planned Unit Development and
Conditional Use Permit for Lot 1, Block 1,Arden Heights Addition
City Administrator Jagoe stated on January 13, 2025, the City Council approved a Master and
Final Planned Unit Development, Final Plat, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and
Easement Vacation for Trident Development ("Developer") at 1700 Highway 96 W. The project
would subdivide the property into two conforming lots, to facilitate construction of a 162,819
square foot, 119-unit multiple family dwelling on an approximately 41.10-acre property, and
construct additional parking for the existing house of worship. The project was approved with 33
conditions. One of the conditions of approval was added by the City Council to require the
Developer to install, at their expense, a trail extension as part of the development project.
City Administrator Jagoe reported Condition 28 of the City Council's approval requires the
Applicant shall install at their expense a trail along Snelling Avenue and within Snelling Avenue
right-of-way, adjacent to the Subject Property, which shall be approximately 1,373 feet in length
to serve as a connection to Royal Hills Park to be consistent with City Code requirements. The
final location and specifications of the trail connection shall be determined by the PW
Director/City Engineer and Community Development Director. Since the City Council's January
13, 2025 approval, Staff has been in communication with the Developer to draft the Development
Agreement. Conditions 28 is included in the draft language for the Development Agreement. As
part of the Development Agreement review, the Developer has met with Staff to discuss the
proposed final location and specifications of the trail.
City Administrator Jagoe explained in an April 22, 2025 narrative letter to the City Council the
Developer proposes to make a financial contribution toward the cost of the trail in the amount of
$90,000.00 in place of bearing the total expense of the 1,373-foot trail as referenced in Condition
28. The Developer also proposed that a portion of the Park Development and Park Dedication
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—APRIL 28, 2025 10
fees to be paid as part of the development project, totaling $1,223,500, be allocated toward the
additional costs of the trail. The narrative notes that the trail could be constructed by Trident's
contractor or by the City.
City Administrator Jagoe commented on the request before the Council is a revision to
Condition 28 to read: "The Applicant shall install at their expense a trail along Snelling Avenue
and within Snelling Avenue right-of-way, adjacent to the Subject Property, which shall be
approximately 1,373 feet in length to serve as a connection to Royal Hills Park and consistent
with City Code requirements. The final location and specifications of the trail connections shall
be approved by the PW Director/City Engineer and Community Development Director. The costs
in excess of$90,000 incurred to the Applicant for the installation of the approximately 1,373 feet
will be deducted from the Applicant's park development fee."
Mayor Grant stated the total length of the trail was 1,373 feet.
City Administrator Jagoe explained this was only the length of the trail abutting the North
Heights property. She estimated the length of the trail adjacent to the property to the north of the
subject property to be 396 feet.
Councilmember Weber asked whether the original proposal was not intended for a grade
separated trail.
City Administrator Jagoe reported this was correct, noting after the developer looked at the
area, an initial trail plan was created to start a dialogue with the Public Works Director. She
indicated it was at this time, the Public Works Director noted the proposed trail would not meet
MSA standards because the trail would have to be grade separated.
Councilmember Holden explained the City was supposed to be getting something in return for
the flexibility offered for this project and this was supposed to be the trail. She reported the costs
were what staff had estimated and the developer had agreed to this. However, she understood
there were things the Council did not understand at that time. She stated she appreciated the
proposal and appreciated the fact there would be a trail up to the playground. She supported the
trail moving forward as proposed by staff.
Councilmember Weber clarified the applicant would only be paying $90,000 towards the trail
and the City would be paying the remainder. He indicated the developer had readily agreed to put
in this trail in order to get the additional density, but then changed their minds, once the costs
came in for the actual trail. He did not believe the trail costs were hidden and commented on how
the additional density that was approved would be worth more than $1.3 million for the
developer. He was of the opinion the developer received a good deal. He supported the developer
paying for all trail costs.
Mayor Grant commented if his math was correct, the developer would be paying $1.23 million
and the City would be paying $253,000. He noted this leaves about $900,000 that the developer
will have to bring forward. He indicated these funds could be used for this project or the Old
Highway 10 Trail. He stated that particular trail was an important connection for the City because
it goes from Roseville to Highway 96. He explained the City has Safe Routes to School dollars
from the Met Council and if these funds were applied to this project, the City's portion would be
close to fully funded.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—APRIL 28, 2025 11
Councilmember Weber stated denying this portion of the project would not end the project. He
anticipated this project would move forward. He expressed frustration with the fact there was now
push back from the developer after the City had been very generous in approving additional
density. He did not recommend that discussion about this trail segment be combined with the Old
Highway 10 trail. He indicated the developer was not offering to pay more, but rather was
offering to pay less.
Councilmember Monson recalled Condition 28 had a lengthy Council discussion and required
the developer to build a trail because they wanted density. She explained this was seen as a
benefit to the City and the trail was to be funded by the developer. She commented the developer
offered to complete the 396 foot trail also. She stated now the developer was not going to fund
the 396 foot trail and now they would only be funding a portion of the entire length and the trail
was to be funded by the $1.2 million. She expressed frustration with the fact the recording of the
final plat was extended presuming the City was almost there, and now there was a sticking piece.
She indicated she did not want to go back on what the Council approved, but she was open to
having a negotiation on a cap amount. She believed there should be a priority on where this
money should go and she was uncertain if that priority was the Old Highway 10 Trail.
Councilmember Holden questioned how much additional density was approved for this project.
City Administrator Jagoe explained the project received an additional 17 units, noting 102 were
allowed and the project was approved with 119 units.
Councilmember Holden stated this project was a PUD, and whether or not the developer
received additional density, the project had to offer a benefit to the City given the flexibility that
was being considered for the project. She noted she was making a decision on this project asking
for a trail based on information received from the public works director. She understood the trail
was proposed to be next to the curb and has since learned the trail had to be grade separated. She
reported the trail was proposed because the project was a PUD and not because extra density was
being requested. She was sorry that people didn't get what they wanted out of this, but noted she
wanted a 10 by 20 easement.
Councilmember Weber called for a point of order regarding Councilmember Holden's
statement.
Mayor Grant commented Councilmember Holden was making a general statement about the
Council and was not speaking against any one Councilmember.
Councilmember Holden indicated to her when she was strong arming these people, it was based
on information from the Public Works Director. To her, she was ready to negotiate,but she would
never ask for another $300,000 because the City didn't get everything they wanted. She reported
it was the Council's fault because when Councilmember Fabel brought it up at the meeting, the
rest of the Council sat silent. She reported the Planning Commission are not elected officials and
they do not get to say, give us this, or we will not approve it. She understood this threat was made
even before this item came to the City Council. She believed this entire thing was ridiculous.
Mayor Grant explained one of the interesting aspects for this project was that that Council added
a condition regarding the trails because this item was a PUD. He indicated there should be some
give and take with this project and he believed a trail would be good for the project and the City.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—APRIL 28, 2025 12
He stated when this action is taken at the last minute, the Council is relying on the public works
director and the developer. He reported it turns out the trail was going to be more expensive than
originally thought. He stated this matter was now being brought back to the Council given how
much more the trail was going to cost. He did not believe this reflected poorly on the Public
Works Director or the developer. He explained he was looking at this as a project that would
benefit the City in a lot of different ways and he sees an opportunity to get a trail segment on a
portion of North Snelling. He stated if the Council did not want to spend the additional funds on
Old Snelling, the City did not have to do this. Rather, the dollars could be used on parks.
However, the dollars were available to closely fund this gap. He was of the opinion a north south
connection from Roseville to Highway 96 was important and the City was close to achieving that.
Councilmember Weber stated the word he used was conflate, and that the discussion was again
conflating the two trails. He pointed out again, that the funding the City would lose from agreeing
to this could take away funding from Old Highway 10 and giving it to the developer. He
explained to Councilmember Holden's point that she reached out to the Public Works Director
regarding a grade separated trail. He did not believe anyone driving through this area would state
this was a super easy trail. He reiterated that the developer was readily agreeable to building this
trail within the original agreement. He explained when he asked for affordable housing he was a
City Councilmember and was no longer serving on the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Holden called for a point of order stating she felt like she was being attacked.
Councilmember Weber stated he was responding to Councilmember Holden's comment.
Mayor Grant encouraged the Council to speak for themselves.
Councilmember Monson reported she was not confused about the cost for the trail. In her mind,
this was what the City was going to do for the PUD, whether or not it was because this was a
PUD or because of the extra density. She recommended the developer pay for the entirety of the
trail and that the $1.2 million be used for the Old Highway 10 trail. She explained she could
support the City Council having further discussions about the cap. She indicated the $90,000 was
not acceptable to her.
Councilmember Holden questioned where the $90,000 came from.
City Administrator Jagoe deferred this question to the applicant, noting this number came from
the applicant through this narrative.
Councilmember Holden stated she came up with the trail idea and the Council supported it. She
commented further on how she proposed the trail and that costs were not fully understood at that
time. She indicated she works to try and get a public benefit out of every PUD. She recommended
the $1.2 million be put in the City coffers and not be allotted for any one project. She stated the
developer agreed to complete the proposed trail along with the trail to the Ukrainian project.
MOTION: Mayor Grant moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to adopt
Resolution #2025-040 — Amending City Resolution 2025-007 to revise
Condition 28 in the conditions of approval of a Master and Final Planned Unit
Development and Conditional Use Permit for Lot 1, Block 1 for the Arden
Heights Addition.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—APRIL 28, 2025 13
Councilmember Monson asked if there was appetite to increase the $90,000, which was the
payment being paid by the developer towards the trail.
Mayor Grant recommended the applicant address this question.
Councilmember Holden stated she could support asking the developer for more funding, setting
the payment at $200,000.
Mayor Grant supported the developer paying half of$343,250, which was $171,625.
Councilmember Monson questioned if the Council would support not putting any City funding
into this project and using the entire $1.2 million for the Old Highway 10 trail.
Mayor Grant stated this was another option and he would not have a problem with this.
Councilmember Weber explained if the Council were to delete this amendment, the developer
would not be required to build a trail. He reported the only cost difference would be the City
would not build a 373 foot section on the north end. He was of the opinion it would be a good
deal to spend $100,000 to get 1,500 feet of trail.
Councilmember Monson indicated she liked the original amendment, but could also be
supportive of requiring the developer to pay $200,000.
Mayor Grant commented a trail section could be constructed at some point in the future that
would benefit the project as there could be a trail section on the other side of Old Highway 10 for
pedestrians trying to walk to downtown Arden Hills or to Roseville.
Councilmember Holden stated the City would not receive any money if the trail segment were
removed, the City would only be receiving park dedication funding. She indicated she was
uncertain what $90,000 would do for the Old Highway 10 trail because this funding would have
to be used to make the PUD better. She explained the City did not know where it sat with the
Safet Routes to School funding and the City may have to come up with the funding someone for
the Old Highway 10 trail. She questioned if the City wanted to get two trails or just the Old
Highway 10 trail.
City Administrator Jagoe clarified that this item would need four votes in order for this item to
be approved.
Councilmember Weber indicated he was not sure why the Council kept discussing the Old
Highway 10 trail. He requested the Mayor call the question.
Mayor Grant requested a roll call vote.
A roll call vote was taken. The motion failed 2-2 (Councilmember Monson
and Councilmember Weber opposed).
City Administrator Jagoe reported if the Council would be making a motion for denial, the
Council would need to state reasons for denial and to direct the City Attorney to draft these
findings for consideration at a future meeting.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—APRIL 28, 2025 14
MOTION: Councilmember Weber moved and Councilmember Monson seconded a
motion to deny Resolution #2025-040—Amending City Resolution 2025-007 to
revise Condition 28 in the conditions of approval of a Master and Final
Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit for Lot 1, Block 1 for
the Arden Heights Addition.
Mayor Grant commented this was a $30 million project that would bring new tax dollars to the
City. He reported North Heights Lutheran Church would like to see this project moving forward.
He indicated he did not know what the right answer was,but it was not to deny the Planning Case.
He explained the Council was now debating a trail or where to put some money and now a $30
million project would be denied.
Councilmember Monson questioned what the implications were for a denial. She indicated she
would be happy to deny this Resolution if it meant the developer had to come back with a
proposal that was more appealing to the City.
City Administrator Jagoe stated if this Resolution were denied, the City Attorney would draft
findings for the City Council to consider at the May 12 City Council meeting. She indicated the
applicant could then come back with a new proposal, but were under the time constraints to file
the final plat. She commented the Council could table action on this item and provide direction to
staff and the applicant to bring something back for Council discussion on May 12.
Councilmember Weber asked if this item were denied, would this terminate the agreement and
the development would not move forward.
City Administrator Jagoe explained if this Resolution were denied the developer has the option
to move forward with the 33 conditions as originally approved by the City Council.
Councilmember Holden recommended the reasons for denial be more clearly stated. She stated
Condition 28 should read: The developer will pay $200,000 towards the 1,373 foot long trail.
Mayor Grant indicated this amendment would be out of order given that Councilmember Weber
was recommending denial.
Councilmember Monson asked if Councilmember Weber was open to receiving a new proposal
from the applicant, if action on this item were tabled. She clarified that this item needed four
votes in order to approve or deny the Resolution. She stated she would prefer to table this item in
order to make the applicant come back to the City Council.
Councilmember Weber inquired what the timeline would be for this item.
City Administrator Jagoe stated the final plat extension is through June 13, 2025.
Mayor Grant stated he would like to hear from the applicant.
Roger Fink, Trident Development, explained he had never been in a situation quite like this
before where he had over committed to a commitment to the City Council and it was made clear
the cost for the trail would be quite this large. He reported he came up with the $90,000 amount
after speaking with a contractor noting this would cover a trail of this length under ideal
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—APRIL 28, 2025 15
conditions. He stated he was open to another proposal, but he has limits on how much his budget
can absorb.
Mayor Grant questioned how much his budget could absorb.
Mr. Fink stated if the Council could agree to a cap he would need to speak to his partners, but he
could agree to $100,000. He did not know if he could absorb a$200,000 expense.
Councilmember Monson requested the Mayor call the question.
A roll call vote was taken. The motion failed 2-2 (Councilmember Holden and
Mayor Grant opposed).
MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a
motion to adopt Resolution #2025-040 — Amending City Resolution 2025-007
to revise Condition 28 in the conditions of approval of a Master and Final
Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit for Lot 1, Block 1 for
the Arden Heights Addition, with costs in excess of $200,000 be incurred by
the Applicant.
Councilmember Weber stated he could support setting the cap at $250,000.
Councilmember Holden called the question.
A roll call vote was taken. The motion failed 3-1 (Councilmember Weber
opposed).
MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a
motion to adopt Resolution #2025-040 — Amending City Resolution 2025-007
to revise Condition 28 in the conditions of approval of a Master and Final
Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit for Lot 1, Block 1 for
the Arden Heights Addition, with costs in in excess of$250,000 be incurred by
the Applicant.
Mayor Grant asked if this item were passed could the applicant come back to the City prior to
filing the Final Plat with another proposal.
City Administrator Jagoe reported this was the case.
Councilmember Holden called the question.
A roll call vote was taken. The motion failed 2-2 (Councilmember Holden and
Mayor Grant opposed).
MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved to table action on this item to the May 12,
2025 City Council meeting. The motion carried (4-0).
12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—APRIL 28, 2025 16
None.
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Weber stated he met with Arden Hills Greening where he discussed buckthorn
removal. He encouraged the public to consider attending a buckthorn workshop on Saturday, May
17, 2025.
Councilmember Holden reported the National Guard held their Norwegian ruck back on
Saturday, April 19. She indicated this event would be held again in 2026.
Councilmember Holden stated the fire department held an appreciation dinner for those retiring
last week. She thanked all of those who served on the fire department for their commitment to the
community.
Councilmember Holden asked if staff had an update on Round Lake.
City Administrator Jagoe reported she would speak with staff and have something posted on the
City's website.
Councilmember Monson stated she would like to see the audio issues in the Council Chambers
addressed.
City Administrator Jagoe reported she was working with Nine North to address the audio
concerns. She explained there was an app that was available to provide audio for the City's
meetings.
Mayor Grant stated he attended the Norwegian foot march on Saturday, April 19. He
commented on the different organizations that were in attendance at this event. He thanked the
military who provided the City with a nice summation on the history of this event.
Mayor Grant reported on Saturday, April 26 he attended the touch a truck event.
ADJOURN
MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a
motion to adjourn. The motion carried (4-0).
Mayor Grant adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Q�!L ,�Vw� r
Julie anson David Grant
City Jerk Mayor