Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-2026 JDA Work Session Agenda Packet Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project JDA WORK SESSION AGENDA Monday, February 2, 2026, 5:30 p.m. at Arden Hills City Hall 1. Roll Call 2. Public Input 3. New Business a. Discuss Infrastructure Updates b. Discuss Hybrid Developer Approach 4. Adjournment Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 2 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 2, 2026 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Directors Mitchell and Jagoe SUBJECT: Public Input The public is invited to provide input. Comments will be limited to three minutes per person. Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 3a MEMORANDUM DATE: February 2, 2026 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: John Mazzitello, Ramsey County Eric Fosmo, Kimley Horn SUBJECT: Discuss Infrastructure Updates At the October 2025 JDA work session, staff presented an infrastructure project update, outlining the overall scope, progress, and key design considerations. During that presentation and work session discussion, JDA members raised several questions and provided feedback that identified areas requiring additional analysis and follow-up by both staff and the project design team. Since that time, staff and the design team have reviewed the comments received, evaluated potential options, and refined elements of the project in response to the JDA’s discussion. This evening, staff will provide an updated presentation on the infrastructure project, beginning with a PowerPoint presentation summarizing project status, and outstanding considerations. As part of this update, staff is returning to two specific topics that generated significant discussion in October: lighting and trail design. These items are being brought back to the JDA for further discussion and direction to ensure alignment with project goals, the TRC, and the overall design intent. In addition to the presentation, a technical memorandum (attached below) has been provided for JDA review. The technical memorandum discusses both the lighting and trail design elements as outlined in the TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC) and provides supporting detail related to the proposed infrastructure improvements. Attachments: • Kimley Horn Memo • Presentation RCC Proposed Amendments - TCAAP Redevelopment Code Date: January 29, 2026 To: John Mazzitello, Larina DeWalt – Ramsey County From: Eric Fosmo, Michael Kirsch – Kimley Horn ___________________________________________________________________ Executive Summary The City of Arden Hills City Council approved the TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC) on July 13, 2015, with the most recent amendment (Amended Ord. 2024-002) approved on April 8, 2024. The TRC establishes requirements for the development of the Rice Creek Commons, including the public infrastructure that will support the development. Section 3.3.d of the TRC summarizes the portions of the TRC (Table 3-3) that the Joint Development Authority (JDA) is authorized to approve ‘Permitted Adjustments’. The Rice Creek Commons (fka TCAAP) Public Infrastructure Improvements team has reviewed the TRC and is requesting an amendment to two (2) design elements where the preferred design alternative will not meet the TRC written code AND Section 3.3.d does not describe them as “Permitted Adjustments”. This memorandum provides a summary of these items and technical background detailing the justification for the requested variance/amendment. Item #1: Multi-Use Trails along Rice Creek Boulevard (fka Spine Road) Introduction Statement: The TRC code recommends a minimum 12-foot width for multi-use trails. Previous designs (2019 plans), Ramsey County standards/precedence, and City standards/precedence point to multi-use trails at a 10-foot width. The Rice Creek Watershed District’s treatment exemption for multi-use trails and sidewalks is also capped at a 10-foot width which is the principal catalyst for the requested amendment. Definitions/Applicable Code: Definitions of sidewalk vs Multi-Use Trail vs Shared Use Path: Shared Use Paths and Multi-Use Trails are interchangeable terminology in the industry and are intended for multimodal uses and serve a variety of non-motorized uses. Sidewalks are intended for the use of pedestrians. (MN Statute 169.01 Subd. 75) Applicable Code 1: City of Arden Hills Code of Ordinances – Section 1380 Attachment #2 Palette of Open Space Types, Table “Typical Characteristics” “g) Multi-use trail along Spine Road or through neighborhoods: Paved trail with frequent gathering spaces and regular landscaping. Standards - Min. Width 12 feet” Proposed Amendment Request: 1. Amendment to “Applicable Code 1” to allow for 10-foot-wide multi-use trails. Justification for this proposed design approach is provided below. Practical Difficulty of meeting TRC: Rice Creek Watershed District Requirements: The Rice Creek Watershed District Rules provide an exception which excludes stormwater treatment volume requirements for any trails that are 10 ft or less that are also bordered by down-gradient vegetation or vegetated filter strip of at least 5 ft (Rule C Stormwater Management, 12 Exceptions (b)). The Rice Creek Boulevard right-of-way contains adequate space for a vegetated filter strip for the project to take advantage of this exception. Construction of 12-foot trails would require the project to apply the regular treatment standards as described Under Rule 6 of the Watershed District Rules for the entirety of the 12-feet of impervious surface created by the trail. The requirement stipulates 1.1-inches of treatment volume over new impervious surfaces. This results in additional 1,100 cubic yards of required stormwater treatment volume. Cost Implications: The construction of the additional trail width results in additional project construction costs for the additional trail width and stormwater treatment volume. Sufficient space does exist within the Natural Resources Corridor to provide the treatment volume; however, it does reduce capacity for future developments within Rice Creek Commons. A summary of those impacts is provided below: Estimated Cost for Additional Trail Width: $500,000 Estimated Cost for Additional Stormwater Treatment: $125,000 Additional Treatment Volume Required: 1,100 CY Acreage needed for Additional Treatment Volume: 0.40 Acres Design Standards/Justification: County Precedence: Ramsey County has a general precedence that shared use paths and trails are built to a standard width of 8ft when running adjacent to County roadways and 10ft where disconnected from adjacent roadways. The adjacent ‘Rice Creek North Regional Trail’ is constructed to a 10-foot width. City Standards: For trail located outside of Rice Creek Commons, the City of Arden Hills standards for multi- use trails call for a minimum 8-foot width. The applicable language within the Arden Hills Public Works Design Manual (Draft), Street Section, Item 19 states: “When trails are proposed, trails shall be constructed of bituminous with a minimum width of 8-feet and minimum thickness of 3-inches with an aggregate base thickness of 6-inches.” MnDOT Guidance and PROWAG Requirements: MnDOT’s Bikeway Facility Design Guide provides recommended multi-use trail widths for various purposes. The manual provides a minimum of 10ft in unconstrained areas for a Two-Way multi-use trail. This width allows for a bicyclist traveling single file to pass someone coming from the opposite direction without conflict, or for two bicyclists to ride comfortably side-by-side, effectively a “two-lane” path (per MnDOT Bikeway Facility Design Guide – see 5-4 for figure 1). Additionally, A 10ft wide shared use path meets the minimum width requirements for Pedestrian Access Route (per ADA and Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)) governed under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Past RCC (fka TCAAP) Precedence: The past design plans, dated 2019, had also planned for 10ft wide multi-use trails throughout the project including all Natural Resource Corridor Trails, Spine Road Trails, and the Re-meander Trail under the future Bridge. See figure 2 for details. Item #2: Street Lighting along Rice Creek Boulevard Introduction Statement: The TRC’s guidance, as currently written, would either direct the design to include no lighting along Rice Creek Boulevard or alternatively, if lighting is provided, it is required to be at a spacing (40-ft) that is much closer than is typical or desirable for this type of road. The requested amendment would enable appropriate spacing of lighting. FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 Definitions/Applicable Code: Applicable Code 2: TRC Section 10.5, Street Lighting “Street lighting should be provided on Spine, Town, Collector and Collector with Trail roads. Refer to Arden Hills Public Works Design Manual for lighting palette. The following standards should apply for pedestrian scale lighting: (a) Vehicular lighting shall be a maximum of thirty feet (30’) in height and pedestrian- oriented lighting a maximum of eighteen feet (18’) in height. (b) Streetlights shall be placed at an average of forty feet (40’) on center, approximately three (3) feet behind the back of curb, aligned with street trees, and where street trees are planted.” Proposed Amendment Request: 1. Amendment to “Applicable Code 2” to provide reasonable and context appropriate light spacing standards per MnDOT Roadway Lighting Design Manual. Practical Difficulty of Meeting TRC: No Lighting along Rice Creek Boulevard: As written, the applicable code appears to allow for an approach where no lighting would be required along Rice Creek Boulevard. However, this approach would not be consistent with best safety practices nor City/County design precedence at the proposed roundabout intersections. The need to provide intersection lighting does not allow for compliance with the TRC through providing no lighting along Rice Creek Boulevard. Providing Lighting (per TRC) along Rice Creek Boulevard: The applicable code (as provided above) would require streetlights to be installed at an average of 40-foot on center for the length of the Rice Creek Boulevard Corridor. Application of this standard would require the installation of approximately 200 streetlights, estimated to cost $2,000,000. A more context appropriate approach to streetlight spacing (~200-ft) would reduce the number of streetlights to approximately 40 lights, or $400,000 in estimated construction costs. Additional Construction Cost: $1,600,000* *Table 3.3 of the TRC does allow for adjustments to “Applicable Code 2” of up to 10%. Maximizing the permitted adjustment would reduce the required streetlights to 180 lights. In this scenario the additional construction cost is reduced to $1,400,000. In addition to the initial capital investment of installing the streetlights, long-term maintenance and operation costs should also be considered. Maintenance and operations costs would be proportionally (per light) more expensive for the more intensive lighting approach. Design Standards/Justification: Roundabout Lighting: MnDOT and FHWA design guidance recommends that all roundabouts be lit to provide adequate visibility for all modes of transportation during non- daylight hours. This guidance is consistent with past precedence for roundabouts constructed by Ramsey County and the City of Arden Hills. Street Lighting: Street lighting is designed based on various physical factors of the lighting pole, trajectory, and luminaire intensity. The City of Arden Hills Public Works Design Manual (Draft) specifies the light type and design parameter for the lighting to be installed along Rice Creek Boulevard. Application of MnDOT photometrics design guidance, the specified lighting units would have a recommended spacing of approximately 210-240ft. Detailed design of the lighting system would prioritize light locations at intersections and pedestrian crossings. Local Area Precedence: The following corridors/intersections have been constructed with streetlighting within the project vicinity. Design parameters for those systems are provided for reference. Rice Creek Parkway (County Road I to County Road J) Light Type Comparison: Shorter, more decorative luminaire Light Spacing: Approximately 200 feet Speed Limit: 30 mph Snelling Avenue/County Road E Roundabout Light Type Comparison: Similar height and luminaire Light Spacing: Lights at all intersection quadrants, 140-200 feet exiting RAB Speed Limit: 25-35 mph, 45 mph north on Snelling Ave RICE CREEK COMMONS FEBRUARY 2, 2026 PROJECT UPDATE & TRC AMENDMENT DISCUSSION Agenda October Meeting Follow-up Site Preparation/Grading Army Coordination Schedule Update TRC Amendment Discussion October Meeting Follow-up Items Typical Section – Utility Alignments Private Utility/Public Utility Locations District Energy Rice Creek Boulevard Bridge Railing Multi-Use Trail Width TRC Amendment Request Item Street Lighting TRC Amendment Request Item Typical Section - Utilities Private Utility/Public Utility Locations District Energy Rice Creek Blvd – Bridge Railing October meeting inquiry of adding Arden Hills logo to bridge railing Standard “medallion” approach could add City logo into bridge railing Approx. Cost - $5,000 (ornamental railing on south side) Project team needs confirmation from City/JDA and could add detail to bridge plans **Example Detail (Not Arden Hills Logo) Multi-Use Trail Width TRC Code – 12-foot minimum width Amendment Request: Allow 10-foot width Street Lighting TRC Code: Streetlights at 40-foot average spacing Alternatively, no streetlights would be allowed Amendment Request: Allow for context appropriate streetlight spacing Light selection based on Xcel Energy availability “Cobra” Style Luminaire Pole Type “A” Site Preparation/Grading Heat Map Red = Cut; Green = Fill Site Preparation Update Design team has updated site grading from 2018 design to better balance site Includes site preparation for entirety of site Generally, all material remains on site and site is balanced Total earthwork reduced by ~800,000 Cu. Yds Earthwork Costs 50% higher than 2018 Updated design and market cost increases generally balance estimated costs to be in-line with 2023 estimate (and current CIP) U.S. ARMY COORDINATION Coordination with the US Army continues to be challenging and is the critical path item to the project schedule. Design/Approval Needs: TGRS Relocations Monitoring Well Adjustments/Relocations Site K Coordination Ramsey County CED sent letter on 1/16/2026 urging coordination/engagement in alignment with Amended and Restated Quitclaim Deed. Project Schedule Update Final Design Contract Start – July 2024 60% Submittal – February 2025 90% Submittal – January 2026 (excluding TGRS plans) 100% Submittal – August 2026 Bidding/Awarding Project – Winter 2026 Start of Construction – Spring 2027* Construction Complete – Fall 2028 *Project Team currently reviewing options for early work package in 2026 Potential 2026 Site Preparation/ Early Work Package Potential scope of early work items: Bridge Preloading Tree Clearing & Grubbing Blanding's Turtle Fencing Sanitary Sewer Outlet Pipe Jacking Xcel Relocations TRC Amendment Item # 1: Multi-Use Trail Width TRC Code – 12-foot minimum width Amendment Request: Allow 10-foot width Practical Difficulty: Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) exemptions for trails is capped at 10-feet 12-foot trail requires stormwater treatment for entirety of trail width Cost/Future Development Impacts Ramsey County Standard – 8-10 feet 10-feet meets all City, County, State, and Federal minimum standards and design precedence TRC Amendment Item #2: Street Lighting TRC Code: Streetlights at 40-foot average spacing Amendment Request: Allow for context appropriate streetlight spacing, Reference MnDOT Roadway Lighting Design Manual Practical Difficulty: 40-foot spacing is cost prohibitive Initial construction and long-term maintenance 40-foot spacing would result in excessive street lighting 150-250 foot spacing more typical City of Arden Hills has selected preferred streetlight type and details Applying MnDOT design standards: 210-240ft average spacing Local Area Examples: Rice Creek Parkway (CR I to CR J): Approx. 200 ft w/ shorter lights County Road E/Snelling Ave RAB: Lights at all quadrants, 140 -200 ft w/ similar lights TRC Amendment: Next Steps Receive JDA feedback on TRC Amendment request items Finalize TRC Amendment request for JDA vote/approval March 2nd JDA Meeting Prepare/submit formal amendment request to City Planning Commission April 8th Planning Commission Meeting City Council formal action on TRC Amendment May 11th City Council Meeting Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 3b MEMORANDUM DATE: February 2, 2026 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Directors Mitchell and Jagoe SUBJECT: Discuss Request for Information Feedback Background At the December work session, the JDA reviewed a summary of responses to the Request for Information and asked staff for more information on a so-called “hybrid” developer approach. Staff and consultants have started to analyze the implications of this approach in comparison to the previous approach of working with a single lead developer for the entire site. This memo builds on previous information provided and identifies next steps if the JDA would like to continue to explore this approach. Hybrid Development Approach Concept The concept of a hybrid developer approach would be to divide the site into development areas and seek development partners through separate competitive solicitation processes for each area based on development expertise. For example, a solicitation for a neighborhood with residential land uses would seek a developer with residential expertise, and a neighborhood with commercial land uses would seek a developer with commercial expertise. It is possible that selected developers would bring on subdevelopers to within development area to complement their expertise and add capacity. The JDA, City, and County may need to play a more active role in coordination amongst developers and other project partners to ensure infrastructure, amenities, and other sitewide items are covered. Ramsey County’s scope and timeline for site preparation and construction of Rice Creek Boulevard would also be important to establish. Development Approach Discussion Below is the summary of RFI responses on development approach from the December JDA agenda packet. It is intended to serve as a starting point for discussion and is not necessarily an exhaustive accounting of all of the factors to consider. Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project The prompt for these responses was: The JDA and project partners are considering either soliciting for a lead developer or dividing the site into outlots or neighborhood parcels and soliciting developers for each area individually. As a developer, which approach would you find more attractive? What do you see as the opportunities or challenges with each approach? • Overall: o Most respondents expressed openness to either configuration and described pros and cons to each. o One strongly preferred a lead developer approach. Another preferred to directly purchase a development parcel but had the ability to work under a lead developer. o One that was open to either configuration recommended considering hybrid approaches such as: ▪ A lead developer for core Town Center areas and separate developers for outlots, such as the single-family neighborhoods and flex office areas. ▪ Starting with a lead developer for core Town Center areas and considering either expanding their scope based on successful performance or alternately soliciting new developers for remaining parcels. • Lead Developer o Cohesion: Single lead developer can facilitate more cohesive design, consistent quality, connection, and placemaking, as well as marketing and branding of the development. o Efficiency and coordination: Lead developer can coordinate phasing of infrastructure and vertical development, reducing inefficiency, conflict, and delays. o Financial capacity: A qualified lead developer would have financial capacity and could manage risk across the development site and timeline. o Reputation: A proven lead developer can attract builders and users. o Reduced JDA burden: Work with a single entity may reduce JDA administrative burden in reviewing and approving development proposals. o Accountability: JDA can potentially more easily hold a single lead developer accountable for achieving development goals, rather than tracking goals across multiple developers. o District energy: District energy implementation may be simpler with one lead developer that can commit individual buildings as customers of the system. “This is a critical strategic decision that will fundamentally shape Rice Creek Commons’ development trajectory. Both approaches have merit, and the optimal choice depends on the JDA’s priorities regarding control, risk allocation, timeline, and community vision implementation.” Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project • Individual Developers o Accelerated timeline: Multiple developers could accelerate development because it may be less complex to negotiate development agreements for smaller development areas, and it could also allow for concurrent development in different areas of the site. o Diverse expertise: Different developers have different expertise; these perspectives and innovations may benefit the development overall. o Risk diversification: If one developer has financial issues or isn’t meeting the JDA vision, development can continue in other areas. o Flexibility: Flexibility for the JDA to adjust requirements, terms, or pricing as lessons are learned and market conditions shift, versus the difficulty of renegotiating and amending an overall development agreement with one lead developer. o Positive competitive forces: Incentive for quality and competitive pricing in housing due to competition within the development. o JDA control: JDA maintains more control over community vision rather than delegating authority to lead developer. o JDA administrative burden: JDA staff would need to play an active long-term role in the development in reviewing development proposals. JDA Factors The JDA would need to further explore how a hybrid development approach may impact its priorities in order to set expectations for developer solicitations. This includes items such as staff capacity and sustainability goals. The JDA may benefit from contracting with a real estate development consultant to advise on the establishment of development areas, phasing of development, real estate market conditions, and other factors. This cost would need to be added to the JDA budget through its regular budget processes and procurement would be based in Ramsey County’s purchasing and contracting guidance. The sustainability design guidelines would apply the same under a hybrid developer approach, with waiver requested considered on a case-by-case basis. Once development areas were established, the JDA may need to determine which areas would be required to connect to a district energy system to set expectations for developer solicitations. City and County Factors Under a lead developer approach, a cooperative agreement would need to be negotiated in parallel with negotiations with the development partner. Under this hybrid approach, the City and County would need to negotiate and decide certain terms for a cooperative agreement prior to soliciting for development partners so that each developer would know the expectations before submitting a proposal. It is expected that the cooperative agreement would include issues surrounding timing, Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project financing, operations, and maintenance of sitewide infrastructure and amenities such as parks, utilities, roads, natural resources corridor, and other common areas. Under a hybrid developer approach, some of these terms would need to be agreed upon in advance to assure the City and County that critical infrastructure is properly accounted for and to set expectations for each development area, and therefore, for each developer. Direction If the JDA would like to pursue to a hybrid developer approach, the next steps would be for the City and County staff to identify and analyze the items needed to be addressed in a cooperative agreement and offer options or solutions for each item to present to the respective parties. Staff estimate they may need 90-120 days to facilitate these conversations with their respective leadership and elected officials. The City and County would then report back to the JDA.