On the agenda: North Oaks meeting — ALPR (Nov 16)

CITY OF NORTH OAKS
Regular City Council Meeting City Council Meeting
Monday, November 16, 2026
7:00 PM, City Council Chambers are at 100 Village Center Drive, Room 150, North Oaks, MN
55127

MEETING AGENDA

Remote Access - One or more members of the City Council may attend the meeting via interactive technology
and others will participate in person in Council Chambers (Community Room, 100 Village Center Drive,
Suite 150, North Oaks, MN) during the meeting. Members of the public are welcome to attend. Any person
wishing to monitor the meeting electronically from a remote location may do so by calling the following
Zoom meeting videoconference number: 1-312-626-6799, Webinar ID: xxx xxx xxxx or by joining the
meeting via the following link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83291706702.

1.

Call to Order

2.

Roll Call

3.

Pledge of Allegiance

4.

Citizen Comments - Members of the public are invited to make comments to the Council during the public
comments section. Up to four minutes shall be allowed for each speaker. No action will be taken by the
Council on items raised during the public comment period unless the item appears as an agenda item for
action.

5.

Approval of Agenda

6.

Consent Agenda - These are items that are considered routine and can be acted upon with one vote.

6a.

Approval of Resolution 1604 Requesting 2027 Score Grant Funds
1604. Requesting 2027 Score Grant Funds.pdf

6b.

Licenses for Approval:
Arborist: YTS Companies LLC
Mechanical: G & H Heating & Air Conditioning; Northern One Hour dba Northern Heating & Air: Super
Heating & Cooling

6c.

Approval of City Council meeting minutes of 10.8.2026
10.8.2026 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft.pdf

6d.

Approval of City Monthly Financials
City Council November 16, 2026

1

EFT:

Checks:

6e.

Approve Resolution 1605 approving 2027 Recycling Fee
1605. Recycling Fee-2027.pdf

6f.

Resolution 1606 Certifying Unpaid Delinquent Utility Charges to the County Auditor to be collected with
other Taxes
1606. Resolution for unpaid utilities 2027.pdf

6g.

Review and possible action on Summary Resolution 1607 on a Zoning Text Amendment to modify the
definition of “Building Height”
2026-11-16 CC Packet Building Height Definition.pdf

6h.

Review and possible action on Summary Resolution 1608 related to a Zoning Map Amendment to update and
replace the existing Zoning Map
2026-10-29-PC packet Zoning Map Amendment.pdf

7.

Petitions, Requests & Communications - Deputy Craig Lydon Report

7a.

Deputy Lydon Public Safety Update

8.

Unfinished Business

8a.

2027 Budget/Levy Discussion Workshop
North Oaks FMP - 11-16-2026.pptx

9.

New Business

9a.

Review and possible action on Summary Resolution 1609 on a Zoning Text Amendment to establish a PI Public/Institutional Zoning District and a Zoning Map amendment to reclassify parcels at 4880 Hodgson
Road, 5000 Hodgson Road, and 5050 Hodgson Road as PI - Public/Institutional
2026-11-16 ZOTA for PI Packet.pdf

9b.

Approval of Resolution 1610 to Canvass / Certify 11.3.2026 Election Results
1610. Canvassing Election Results 2026.pdf
North Oaks - Abstract of Votes Cast in 11.3.2026 Election.pdf

9c.

Discussion and possible action on second amendment to NOHOA sublease for office space
Memo to Council re Second Amendment to Sublease Agreement.pdf
Second Amendment to NOHOA Sublease 11.11.2026.pdf

9d.

Discussion and possible action on amending the East Oaks PDA 13th amendment and clarifying the 12th
amendment
CC Packet-13th Amendment to PDA.pdf

10.

Council Member Reports

11.

City Administrator Report - General updates: Mobile Speed Sign license, Pump house turnover
agreement, City Hall planning, Teal Pond request, NOHOA & NOGC Sewer Agreement, ALPR
installations, infrastructure town hall, Shred Event next Thursday 11/12, Fall brush pick up day 11/18,
Joint Powers Agreement for services from the Emergency Communications Center. Pending PC Agenda: 8
Poplar, 5 Crocus, expanded Sewer Public Hearing.
City Council November 16, 2026

2

12.

City Attorney Reports

13.

Miscellaneous

13a. Monthly City Forester Report
October in Review.pdf

14.

Adjournment - The next meeting of the City Council is Thursday, December 10th, 2026 at 7:00 p.m.

City Council November 16, 2026

3

State of Minnesota)
County of Ramsey) ss
City of North Oaks)
RESOLUTION NUMBER 1604
REQUESTING 2027 SCORE GRANT FUNDS
WHEREAS, the City of North Oaks has in the past applied for and gratefully accepted
SCORE grant funds to assist in the City recycling program, and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to again request that Ramsey County grant North
Oaks a SCORE grant to continue a successful City recycling program.
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of North Oaks hereby requests that Ramsey County
award the City of North Oaks a SCORE grant in the amount of $33,281 in the year 2027.
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL of the City of North Oaks this 16th day of November,
2026.
APPROVED:

________________________
Krista Wolter, Mayor
ATTEST:

_____________________________
Kevin Kress
City Administrator

4

North Oaks City Council
Meeting Minutes
North Oaks City Council Chambers
October 8, 2026
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Wolter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Krista Wolter, Councilors Mark Azman, Andrew Gaspard, Grover Sayre, and
Sara Shah
City Staff Present: City Administrator Kevin Kress, City Attorney Bridget Nason, City Engineer
Jupe Hale
Others Present: NineNorth Videographer Kenny Ronnan
A quorum was declared present.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Wolter led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. CITIZEN COMMENTS
There were no comments at this time.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
City Administrator Kress requested to remove item 9d. from the agenda. This item was a
recommendation from the Planning Commission to perform additional sewer planning. City
Administrator Kress said he and engineering and planning staff need more time to prepare this
item.
MOTION by Shah, seconded by Azman, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion
carried unanimously.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
6a. Approval of Licenses: Mechanical: Air Central; Capital City Heating & Air Conditioning
Inc.; Patton Heating and Air; Stein’s Heating and Cooling Inc.; Twin City Fireplace & Stone Co.
6b. Approval of City of North Oaks Financials: EFT: 1382E-1391E; Checks: 16414-16455
6c. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of 9.10.20206 and 9.21.2026
6d. Approval of Cooperative Services Agreement with the USDA for the 2026-2027 season
6e. Approval of Resolution 1601 authorizing Septic Variance for property located at 3 Thompson
Lane
6f. Approval of Resolution 1602 authorizing Conditional Use permit for land reclamation for
grading in excess of 100 cubic yards for a property at 6 Cherrywood Circle
MOTION by Azman, seconded by Shah, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion
carried unanimously.

5

Minutes of the City Council Meeting

October 8, 2026

7. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
7a. Deputy Lydon – Public Safety Update
Deputy Lydon reported that firefighters were currently responding to an illegal burn near
Meadow Lane and the golf course. The incident is being addressed and is under control.
Residents were reminded that a burning ban was in effect.
A resident photograph and Flock license plate information helped identify a suspect associated
with thefts, trespass and tampering from contractor vehicles near the West Rec and Hill Farm
barn area. The key target is credit card theft. The suspect was arrested in Saint Paul on separate
charges and cited for offenses related to the North Oaks incident. Vehicles associated with the
suspect were being added to a custom alert list. Residents are encouraged to call 911 promptly
about suspicious activity, avoid approaching suspects, and remind contractors to remove wallets
and other valuables from vehicles.
One Flock camera reader has been removed because unstable, marshy ground caused it to tilt.
Reinstallation in a more secure location remains pending.
The deputy reported 29 traffic stops, primarily for speeding. Warnings and citations were issued
based on observed conduct, conditions, driving history, and officer discretion. This is based on
driving conduct, road condition, driver history, and conduct on side of road. He is not seeing
same vehicles with excess speeding. Most stops are adult residents of the City. Council requested
additional context in future reports. Reports and observations of problematic electric bike and
motorcycle activity have declined; contact with parents and school education efforts were
discussed.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. Railroad Crossing Quiet Zone Update
City Engineer Hale reported on discussions with White Bear Township and Ramsey County to
pursue Quiet Zones around the railroad crossings in North Oaks. All three entities expressed
interest in the idea, but funding and cost allocation have yet to be determined. White Bear
Township was also considering concerns involving other railroad crossings in its jurisdiction.
The proposed next step is to meet with the railroad regarding the two crossings affecting North
Oaks and the first two Township crossings to identify required safety improvements and develop
more reliable cost estimates. Hale estimated approximately two days of engineering work, or
roughly $2,400 to $2,500. He emphasized that this was an estimate and that staff would
minimize time spent. Broad price range examples for quiet zone projects in other areas have
ranged from approximately $20,000 to $40,000 per crossing to nearly $500,000, depending on
required improvements.
Resident advocate Art Andrew participated by telephone. He reported obtaining 82 signatures
from 110 nearby Township households and described possible support from the North Oaks
Foundation. He has connected nicely with the White Bear Township Public Works Director and
senses that needs City leadership to connect with them directly. Councilor Sayre confirmed the
North Oaks Foundation’s interest in supporting the project. Andrews cited a prior estimate of

Page |2

6

Minutes of the City Council Meeting

October 8, 2026

less than $25,000 for engineered curb systems at two crossings. These figures represented a
particular treatment and were not confirmed as total project costs. He asked the Council to
investigate ownership and jurisdiction of the East Oaks Road segment toward Centerville Road.
Resident Ilya Berchenko, 2 Island Road, noted that his investigation while installing Flock
readers suggested it was unclear if this parcel was owned by White Bear Township. If it is owned
by North Oaks, the City could pursue the Quiet Zone project on its own rather than needing to
bring in White Bear Township.
Council recommended that City staff pursue a conversation with White Bear Township to
investigate who owns the parcel that grants rights to East Oaks Road/Centerville railroad
crossings. If it is the Township, staff may ask if they would consider vacating the parcel so it can
be turned over to NOHOA and the City could pursue the Quiet Zone issue for these two railroad
crossings on its own.
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9a. Update on Planning Commission Terms expiring, process, and timeframe for applications for
2027
City Administrator Kress reported that Commissioner David Loegering was the only
commissioner whose term was coming up for renewal in January and that he wished to continue.
Council supported retaining him as Planning Commissioner rather than advertising for
applications. Shah noted that the Planning Commission meetings are well run, thorough and
would like to see knowledge kept on the Commission. He will continue for another four-year
term as Commissioner.
9b. Discussion and possible action on amending City Council Annual Calendar for OctoberDecember 2026: City Council meetings
Council considered moving the November regular meeting to combine it with the budget
discussion on Monday, November 16, 2026. An earlier start was discussed, but Council settled
on 7:00 p.m. to accommodate all members.
MOTION by Gaspard, seconded by Azman, to move the November Regular City Council
meeting to Monday, November 16th at 7 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
9c. Discussion and possible action on Setback adjustment proposal from Planning Commission
Planning Commission Chair Dave Cremons presented the Commission’s recommendation to
proceed with drafting an ordinance addressing setbacks and the definition of structures. Work
began earlier in the year in coordination with NOHOA and its Architectural Supervisory
Committee (ASC). The proposal addressed 24 types of improvements and was recommended
unanimously by the Planning Commission on September 24, 2026.
Cremons explained that the existing ordinance generally applies a 30-foot setback to buildings
and broadly defined structures. This creates uncertainty for sidewalks, retaining walls, stairs, fire
pits, sheds, and other improvements. The proposal would retain some 30-foot setbacks, reduce

Page |3

7

Minutes of the City Council Meeting

October 8, 2026

others to 15 feet or other distances, define sheds structures more clearly, and address certain
roadside improvements with a proposed minimum distance of 10 feet from the pavement edge.
Council discussed the need for clear, consistent City and NOHOA requirements while preserving
neighborhood privacy, safety, and flexibility. NOHOA may continue to impose more restrictive
requirements than City minimums. Existing improvements were discussed as generally
grandfathered, subject to applicable rules when changed.
Mayor Wolter raised concerns about smaller and irregular lots in older North Oaks, including
limited locations for pools and playsets and the potential effect on home purchases and
investment. Members discussed distinguishing standards by lot size or zoning district and
avoiding unnecessary barriers to improvements. Administrator Kress described recurring
questions involving pools, garages, sheds, driveways, and retaining walls under the current
blanket setback.
Council also discussed roadside boulders, light fixtures, monuments, and mailbox structures,
including clearance for snowplowing. Members suggested coordinating roadside provisions with
other roadside and vegetation work or considering them separately.
Members discussed a conditional use permit (CUP) mechanism for certain improvements, such
as pools closer to a property line, to allow case-specific review and public input. Commissioner
Loegering spoke in support of better alignment between City and ASC processes while retaining
flexibility for reasonable projects.
The next step would be for City staff to begin drafting the recommendations into ordinance
language. Once drafted, this will go back to the Planning Commission for review and Public
Hearing. The proposal will then be returned to Council for possible amendment, approval, or
referral back. Council directed staff to move forward with drafting the ordinance so the review
process could proceed.
9e. Discussion and possible action on Resolution Authorizing Extension of Existing Lease
Agreement for City Offices.
City Attorney Nason presented a resolution authorizing exercise of the existing five-year renewal
option for City office space. The current lease expires May 31, 2027. The option requires written
notice to the landlord at least 180 days before expiration and execution of a lease amendment
within 30 days of that notice.
Council discussed the need to secure continued office space while staff evaluate a longer-term
City Hall solution. Staff expect to return in November or December with information on options
and next steps.
MOTION by Sayre, seconded by Gaspard, to approve the Resolution 1603 authorizing the
five-year extension of the existing City office lease. Motion carried unanimously.

Page |4

8

Minutes of the City Council Meeting

October 8, 2026

10. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Councilor Azman reported on Fire Department activities: A Saturday 10/10/26 fire prevention
event from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the Lake Johanna Fire Department was announced with the
public welcomed. A recent fire board meeting included budget discussion; the 2027 budget has
already been presented to Council.
Councilor Shah reported on Pleasant Lake Task Force: Contracts with Barr Engineering for
sediment coring and Phase 2 work were reported as signed. Coring was anticipated in late
October or November. NOHOA has expressed general support for sharing costs equally with the
City but requested a memorandum of understanding and has not yet taken a formal vote. Staff
anticipate bringing the agreement back, potentially on a consent agenda. Coordination with
regional water partners and VLAWMO is ongoing, with a request for VLAWMO resource
commitments expected to be considered at its late-October board meeting.
Councilor Gaspard reported on Natural Environment Committee: There is focus on Pleasant
Lake and successful shoreline vegetation work. Homeowners were reminded of shoreline
restoration grants that are available. Joe Coyne was thanked for his work around the lake as a key
part of this initiative.
Community Foundation: Councilmember Sayre reiterated expected fundraising of approximately
$24,000 for railroad-related engineering work.
Mayor report: Mayor Wolter noted that the City was not directing Xcel Energy’s tree trimming
and that inquiries received by the City are referred to NOHOA as they hold the easement rights.
She encouraged Councilmembers to meet with staff about budget questions before the upcoming
budget meeting.
11. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORTS
City Administrator Kress reported that an additional on-call worker for Public Works has been
identified and will be onboarded, bringing available on-call support to Public Works Director
Corey Triemert.
Staff asked whether Council supported offering a second annual brush cleanup in the fall, to
compliment the annual spring event. Residents pay for the brush service at a discounted rate with
a local vendor. Staff also discussed a possible second paper-shredding event, with county grant
funding potentially available for that purpose. Council expressed support for both events. Staff
will explore the brush cleanup and shredding options and report back. No formal motion was
taken.
Attorney Nason had no additional report.

Page |5

9

Minutes of the City Council Meeting

October 8, 2026

6. ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the City Council will be Monday, November 16, 2026 at 7:00 p.m.
MOTION by Azman, seconded by Shah, to adjourn meeting at 8:26 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.

____________________________
Kevin Kress, City Administrator

_____________________________
Krista Wolter, Mayor

Date approved___________

Page |6

10

State of Minnesota)
County of Ramsey) ss
City of North Oaks)
RESOLUTION NUMBER 1605
ESTABLISHING A PER PARCEL CHARGE FOR RECYCLING
WHEREAS, the City of North Oaks has an established recycling program, and
WHEREAS, North Oaks wishes to continue to make this service available to the residents of the
City, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of North Oaks has entered into a Joint Powers Agreement with
Ramsey County to assess individual residential property owners to collect charges for solid waste
management, and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to continue this long-term funding mechanism.
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of North Oaks hereby establishes a City
recycling fee of $200 per residential parcel for the year 2027.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes Ramsey County to place this
charge upon the tax rolls.
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL of the City of North Oaks this 12th day of November, 2026.

APPROVED:

________________________
Krista Wolter, Mayor
ATTEST:

_____________________________
Kevin Kress, City Administrator

11

CITY OF NORTH OAKS
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NUMBER 1606
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING UNPAID DELINQUENT UTILITY CHARGES TO THE COUNTY
AUDITOR TO BE COLLECTED WITH OTHER TAXES
WHEREAS, the City of North Oaks ordinances establish rules, rates, and charges for water and sewer;
and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 444.075 provides that all unpaid water and sewer charges may
be certified to the County Auditor for collection with taxes against property; and
WHEREAS, the responsible party for payment of each delinquent utility bill has been sent a delinquent
notice and intent to certify; and
WHEREAS, an assessment roll has been prepared specifying the amount to be certified against each
specific property as shown below:

PID Number

Amount

Type of Charge

17.30.22.41.0010
05.30.22.21.0005
12.30.23.32.0028
12.30.23.31.0029
16.30.22.21.0014

$2,199.01
$6,211.74
$6,122.76
$1,320.34
$578.02

Unpaid Utility
Unpaid Utility
Unpaid Utility
Unpaid Utility
Unpaid Utility

WHEREAS, the delinquent bills remain unpaid, and the owners and/or their tenants have not worked
out other payment arrangements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of North Oaks that
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 444.075, and North Oaks City Code Section 127.05, the North Oaks
City Council hereby:
1. Determines that there are unpaid delinquent utility balances on City water and sewer accounts in the
amounts listed above.

12

2. Certifies the amounts listed above to the Ramsey County Auditor for collection with other taxes on
the properties identified above.
3. Directs that a copy of this resolution, together with the final assessment rolls listing the unpaid utility
charges shown above, be sent to the Ramsey County Auditor for collection with property taxes
payable in 2027.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of North Oaks this 12th day of November, 2026.
APPROVED:

Krista Wolter, Mayor
ATTEST:
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a Resolution presented to and
adopted by the City Council of the City of North Oaks on November 12, 2026.

By:
Kevin Kress

Title: City Administrator/City Clerk

13

TO:

North Oaks City Council

FROM:

Kendra Lindahl, City Planner
Kevin Kress, City Administrator
Bridget McCauley Nason, City Attorney

DATE:

November 11, 2026

RE:

A Zoning Text Amendment to modify the definition of “Building Height”

Date Application Submitted

N/A

Date Application Determined Complete:

N/A

Planning Commission Meeting Date:

October 29, 2026

City Council Meeting Date:

November 16, 2026

60-day review Date:

N/A

120-day Review Date:

N/A

BACKGROUND
At the July 10, 2025, meeting the City Council approved an ordinance repealing and
replacing the North Oaks City Code. The City Code had been amended numerous times
over the years, but some of those amendments were done by motion rather than formal
adoption of an ordinance amending the City Code, and the purpose of the ordinance
repealing and replacing the code was to ensure that the code included all prior
previously-approved revisions. There was no intent to make any substantive changes to
the City Code during the 2025 process.

As part of the repeal and replace process, the definition for Building Height was adopted
incorrectly, resulting in the inclusion of two different definitions of Building Height. Staff is
proposing to correct that with this amendment to update the definition to return it to the
original intended definition discussed during the recodification process in 2025.

14

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
The Planning Commission held the Public Hearing at the October 29, 2026, meeting. The
Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the Ordinance as drafted.
Proposed Amendments
The proposed zoning text amendment for Building Height is the following with underlined text for the
proposed additions to the City Code and struck through text for the deletions:
BUILDING HEIGHT. The vertical distance from grade as defined herein to the
top ridge of the average height of the highest roof surface.
The current definition for “Building Height” in the Zoning Ordinance (151) is:
BUILDING HEIGHT. The vertical distance from grade as defined herein to the
average height of the highest roof surface.
In the Shoreland Management Overlay Chapter (153) another definition is found and is:
BUILDING HEIGHT. The vertical distance from grade as defined herein to the
highest point on the roof surface.
However, prior to the recodification process the City Code had the following definition,
which was intended to remain unchanged:
BUILDING HEIGHT. The vertical distance from grade as defined herein to the
top ridge of the highest roof surface.
This proposed amendment will update the definitions found in Chapter 151 (Zoning)
Chapter 153 (Shoreland) to match them and will be consistent with the Planning
Commission and City Council recommendation to keep the building height definition
unchanged.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:

Ordinance amending the definition for “Building Height”
Summary Publication Resolution

15

Actions
1. Move to approve the Ordinance approving the Zoning Text Amendment to modify the
definition of “Building Height” as presented.
This requires a 3/5 vote.
2. Move to approve the Resolution approving summary publication of the Ordinance
approving the Zoning Text Amendment to modify the definition of “Building Height” as
presented.
This requires a 4/5 vote.

16

CITY OF NORTH OAKS
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 159
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE XV, CHAPTERS 151 AND 153,
REVISING THE DEFINITION OF BUILDING HEIGHT

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH OAKS ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section One. Title XV, Chapter 151 Amendment: Title XV, Chapter 151, Section 151.005
(Definitions) of the North Oaks City Code is hereby amended as follows. The underlined text
shows the proposed additions to the City Code and the struck through text shows the deletions:
BUILDING HEIGHT. The vertical distance from grade as defined herein to the top ridge
of the highest roof surface. the average height of the highest roof surface.
Section Two. Title XV, Chapter 153, Section 153.008 Amendment: Title XV, Chapter
153, Section 153.008(C) (Definitions) of the North Oaks City Code is hereby amended as follows.
The underlined text shows the proposed additions to the City Code and the struck through text
shows the deletions:
BUILDING HEIGHT. The vertical distance from grade as defined herein to the top ridge
of the highest roof surface. the highest point on the roof surface.
Section Three. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its
adoption and publication as provided by law.
Passed in regular session of the City Council on the ____day of _______________, 2026.
CITY OF NORTH OAKS

By: ________________________________
Krista Wolter, Mayor

17

Attested:

By: ________________________________
Kevin Kress
City Administrator/City Clerk
(Published in the Shoreview Press on ________________, 2026)

18

CITY OF NORTH OAKS
RASMEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 1607
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PUBLICATION OF A SUMMARY OF
ORDINANCE NO. 159 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE XV,
CHAPTERS 151 AND 153 REVISING THE DEFINITION OF BUILDING HEIGHT
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2026, at a meeting of the North Oaks City Council, by
majority vote, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 159 which updated the City Code regarding
the definition for Building Height; and
WHEREAS, State law requires that all ordinances adopted be published prior to becoming
effective; and
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of North Oaks has determined that publication of
the title and a summary of Ordinance No. 159 would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect
of the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of North Oaks has reviewed the summary of
Ordinance No. 159 attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of North Oaks has determined that the text of the
summary clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of Ordinance No. 159.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by a vote of at least four-fifths of its members, that
the City Council of the City of North Oaks hereby:
1. Approves the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 159 attached as Exhibit A and
authorizes the publication of the summary shown in Exhibit A in lieu of publication
of the entirety of Ordinance No. 159 in the City’s official newspaper.
2. Directs the City Clerk to ensure that a full and complete printed copy of Ordinance
No. 159 is available for inspection during regular business hours at the office of the
North Oaks City Clerk, by standard mail, or by electronic mail.
3. Directs the City Clerk to file the executed Ordinance No. 159 upon the books and
records of the City along with proof of publication.
This resolution is passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of North Oaks,
Ramsey County, Minnesota this 16th day of November, 2026.

19

CITY OF NORTH OAKS

By:
Krista Wolter
Its: Mayor
Attested:

By:
Kevin Kress
Its: City Administrator/City Clerk
(Published in the Shoreview Press on

, 2026.)

20

EXHIBIT A
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
ORDINANCE NO. 159
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PUBLICATION OF A SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE
NO159, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE XV, CHAPTERS 151 AND 153
REVISING THE DEFINITION OF BUILDING HEIGHT
On November 16, 2026, the City of North Oaks, Ramsey County, Minnesota adopted
Ordinance 159, an ordinance amending City Code Title XV, Chapters 151 and 153 regarding
changes to the definition for building height.
The Ordinance modified the definition to match across sections of the code by measuring
height to the top ridge of the highest roof surface rather than the average height.
It is hereby determined that publication of this title and summary will clearly inform the
public of the intent and effect of Ordinance No. 159, and it is directed that only the above
title and summary of Ordinance No. 159 conforming to Minn. Stat. Sec. 331A.01 be
published, with the following:
NOTICE
A printed copy of the full text of Ordinance No. 159 is available for public inspection by
any person during regular office hours at the office of the North Oaks City Clerk, 100
Village Center Drive, # 230, North Oaks, MN 55127, by standard mail, or by electronic
mail, and at any other public location which the Council designates.

21

TO:

North Oaks Planning Commission

FROM:

Kendra Lindahl, City Planner
Kevin Kress, City Administrator
Bridget McCauley Nason, City Attorney
Jupe Hale and Kate Achenbach, City Engineers

DATE:

October 21, 2026

RE:

PUBLIC HEARING. A Zoning Map Amendment to update and replace the
existing Zoning Map

Date Application Submitted

N/A

Date Application Determined Complete:

N/A

Planning Commission Meeting Date:

October 29, 2026

City Council Meeting Date:

November 16, 2026

60-day review Date:

N/A

120-day Review Date:

N/A

BACKGROUND AND REQUEST
Staff recommends adoption of a new Zoning Map to correct several errors on the current
map. These corrections reflect prior City Council actions that either were incorrectly
mapped or the map simply was not updated after City Council action. The updates
include corrections to the zoning in four neighborhoods:
•
•
•
•

The Pines: Corrected from RMM-PUD to RSM-PUD
North Ski Hill (7 lots): Corrected from RSL to RSM-PUD
The Summits: Corrected from RMM to RSM
Sherwood Trail Development: Corrected from RMM-PUD to RSM PUD

Additionally, the map has been updated to reflect current property boundaries.

22

Attached for reference:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:

Current Zoning Map
Proposed Draft Zoning Map

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing, take public testimony, and
recommend approval of the Zoning Map as presented.

23

AY
CH

W

W ING

F

DR

RCM-PUD

NA
R
WAY

MO N

VD
BL

CH

MO

N

RM

L

D

N

SC

T
EN

LN

N

PH
O

EB

E

LK BLVD

E
CR

ARCH
L

LV

RM

FAR M B

P F
A

A

WILKIN SON

MO
R

A

CT

P

PP

R AP

LE

LN

A RC H

RA

RA

FA

WILKINSON LN

M ON

RMH-PUD

P

City of North Oaks Comprehensive Plan

Ash St
CRESCENT

LN

RAP P
FA R M

PL

E
AC

Wilkinson Lake

RSM-PUD

LN

Deep Lake

RMH-PUD

RSM

R

D

LE

SO

BIR D L N

R

O

FO

RE

CT

L

LN

RD

ST

O

BENT
TREE
CT

R

IO

LE

B EN

TT

Black Lake

B

BLACK
LAKE
CT

O

NORTH
MALLARD
CT

D UCK

M

ST

N

PL

RD

GA

RD
OA
KS

E RD

AL
CH

R LN

DEE

E RI
DG E
EA
GL

LN

AL
IN

RD

R I D GE

CA

EA

RD

LN
ER

DE E
R

LN
D
OO

W
RD

LN
NT

PH

LE

RSL

BL

UE

G OO SE

SUMMIT
VIEW

RD

SUMMIT LANE

D
E R
S HO R
WEST

G IL

FIL

LA

N

RD

LN

RO

BB

FA

RM

North Oaks
Boundary

RD

HE
R

DOVE LN

E
DOV

LN

I-35E

LN

LN

IL

ON
OM
PS

LN

T
AS

W R EN

LN

AS

AN

T L

SU
NS

ET

EA SA

LN

E

N

RD

LA
KE

DG

RD

BA

KS

D

A

R

O

EA
ST

ST

LN

EA

MEADOWLARK LN

G

N
T

C IR
M
F
AR
L

RD

RAV E
N

PIN E
LN

TS

RD

RE D

H

PINE CONE RD

H
RS

E

RD

Highway 96

Shoreland District Boundaries

HAW THORNE CT

L

ROBB FARM R D
MEADOWLARK
LN

A

W LN

HP (Historic Preservation)

SUMMIT
HEIGHTS

LN

LO

SUMMIT
CROSING

LN

LN

AL

N
PI
WH I T E

ER
AT

SW

M

AR

R (Recreation)

HEIG

EW

E

AL

D

SUMMIT RIDGE DR

O

ON

WI L LO W

G

K

LN

RID

SO

RD

RD

Gilfillan Lake

H

CH N
BIR L

TH O M P

RMM

SUMMIT
COURT

R
LA

LI (Limited Industrial)

OL

EDG

B I N LN

E

O

LN

N

R
IN

N

RT

SO

LN

RD

W IL LOW R D

A

TEAL
ISLAND RD

C/S (Commercial/Service)

DEER
HILLS
CT

D

P
OM

EN

EVERGREE N LN

M

PI

TH

T

H

RMH-PUD

ILL

D

R

A

IH

N

LA R D

RD
QU

U R LN

M AL

E

SP

D
PASS R

P

G

K

RD

E

CK

L
E AG

HUMMINGBIRD
HILL

EAST OAKS RD

U

OW

LN

SK

C (Commercial)

IL LS DRI VE

LARCH LN

South
Mallard
Pond

RCM-PUD (Residential-Commercial Mixed-PUD)

DEER
HILLS
CIR

PEARSON
PL

Pond

A RD

I
SK

Teal
Pond

D R
LILY PON

AD
ME

AL
O

SS
PA

KE RD

A

MIN

LN

NT L A

AS
LE

LN

CK

LM

L

N
K L

DU

AS A

FF

LN

LN

S PA RR OW

North
Mallard

RD

EL LN
SQ UI RR

D

P

EA ST OAK S

CHI PM UNK

T

ER

S
EA

NORTH OAKS RD

T
OT

A

RD

P LE

LARKSP U R

V

R

RD

D

R

PLEASANT LAKE RD

EN

RA

E

C EN T E R DR

C/S

HPOI NT RAV
E
CT

EAS T

LA

SO UT

RD

RD

E
AK

RMM-PUD

M A LL A RD RD

PHE ASA NT L N

RI

LN
N
O
D

SH
BU

S KIL

P

RD

P I NE RD

Rd

RSM

E

RD

B

N

IN

LO

U

LN

E A SAN T LAK E

S U

RD

TC H
SC O

son

VEN
RA

dg

SH

LM
IL

N
A

LN

T PL

UE JAY

EVERGRE EN RD

R

SC OTC H PI NE R D

VI
LL
AG

R
D

W ES

Ho

BL

C

E LN
MB I N

E
UC
PR CT

SCOTCH
PINE
CIR

BU FF
A

RSL
SK

LN

S
UE

LU
O

KE

T

SUNSET
LN

C

LA

Y
JA

BL

LN

T

LN

T

N

UE

AY
E J

RE

BL

B LU

SCOTCH
PINE
LN

SCOTCH
PINE
CT

AN

RD

C

RE D PI N
E RD

LEA
S

D

N

HILL FAR
M C
IR

E RG

N

N
M L
FA R
SP R I NG

OO

E
RE
EV

SA
EA

TH

N O RT H M AL L

G

CI R

IL

WES T P

GW

O

ER

FA RM

DO

CC

EV

H

R E D B A RN R D

T
L
U C
PA D S
CA OO
W

RD

PL

N OR

RD

RA

LN

ON

ST

FAR M LN

PIN

RD
E
K

LA

H

R

HI LL

EA

G
RIN

RMH-PUD (Residential Multiple Family High
Density - PUD)

RD

W
D LN

OO
W

RS

SP

R I D GE

SP

NA RD WA
Y
AI

BIRD CT

NIA CT
CA LP UR

G
DO

N

T

I N G MA

RMM-PUD (Residential Multiple Family Medium
Density - PUD)

L

OD

LA
K

T
SAN

P L EA
ES
T

C

W

IL L L N

DW
AL

RD
HA
M
NIN
G
CU
N

PL
Y
LE

LN

TT

MO CKING

HILL
FARM
CT

R

LE
EAG

CO
AL

RA
D

C

E

K

RE

H

RD

RSL

BR

LAWTON LN

¦

RSL

Pleasant Lake

OA KS

MB LN

P D
LR
E

D
E R
AK

LA

RT H

MAY CO

R

RSM

RMM (Residential Multiple Family Medium Density)

N

LN

NO

FO ST E

TREE FARM LN

RSM-PUD (Res. Single Fam. - Med. Density - PUD)

Centerville Rd

RD

D
N

A

KE
EA

t
es

D

N

T LA

L

r
Fo

E FL AG
K
AW

RSM (Residential Single Family - Medium Density)

B LU

H

RSL-PUD (Residential Single Family - PUD)

C ATBIR

CO

AY
OR ES T W

W
AY

SAN

IS

HI LL DR

ST

D F
RE

LN

FA
L

LE A

T BAY L
W ES
N

WEST LAKE DR

HTS

RE

CK

RE
D

RCM-PUD

e
tur
Fu
d
Re

CI R
IRD
TB
CA

D FOR EST L N

ER
P IP
D

LN

N

LO

OVER

RSL-PUD

C AT

SN
O

RD
FO
X
RE D

LN

R

L

OA
KS

EAS T P

IRO
N

NO RTH

ST

LN

SA

RSL (Residential Single Family - Low Density)

LN

P

ES
T
W

RD
ND

LN

EA S
A

N

RD
O
AK
R
C
K
L N B ER
RY

LN

OA K S RD

H
A

EW

NO RTH

AC
K

VI
EA ST

LE LN

BL

T PL

W ES

BL

LN
H
RS

MA
G

N

S

O RIO

LO

TH
RU
SH

BL A
C

L

P

HIGH

N PL

RS O

PETE

AS

D F OX RD

LN

OD

H LN
NU TH ATC

D

PL

O W
RD

RD

ON

Y

KE

W

LA

E

P ETE
RS

P

K
LA

LA KE C T

PL
E

T

RE

L

Charley Lake

LA KE BAY

ST

N
A

O

E

E

S H LN

D

W

TH

IE
IS L A N D V

A N E LN

OS (Open Space)

SO U

DO W

LD
FIN
LN C H

W

ASA N T LAKE RD
PL E

EA

IDG
P A RTR

LN

AR

SH A

PL E A S AN T LA K E R D

E

M

GO

T

W H IT E OA K

LN

R

C

N

G

RD

EA ST

ND R D

W E R WAY

KE CT

EB
I

NT

A
IS L

KE
D RD

ES

A
AS
LE

L

NO

A
YC

H

LN

RD
LA KE

UE
BL

LA

KE

OO D LN

LN

ES

RSL

NK L N

RL

RD
OA K

K
AC

W

E TR

CH
A

LA

U

O

W
AY

NT

BA SSW

A

LA K

LA

LE

NG

Y

RC

I SL

B

LO

LE

FL

CI

ER

LO

AR

IL
D

K RD
OA

K

TH

RMM
W

U

LI
O

U

BL

NE

CH

W
LO
DF
IL

BO

SO

IDE LN

R

RMM-PUD
W

O
E M IR
AN C

SO

KE T R

M AC

KE R D

LN
WISHBONE
US
LN
OC
CR

ICK AD EE LN

RD

CH

CR EE KS

RSM

LA

N G L A KE TR
LO

SU

O
SOUT H L N G

TH

LA

P
EE

H

C

D

IR
C

CIR

A M P RD

D

R

LN

NO
R

G

W

CLE RD

N

IE

UT

LO

V

R
Turtle Lake Rd

Existing Zoning
Districts Map

RD

BU

PRE SERV E T

EN

LN

E

Hodgson Rd

LE

MAP 8

OSP R EY C T

NO RD

R

LE
C IR C

DE EP L A K E R D
RT H

SP

AP

A

PRESERVE
TR

NO

RE D M

Sherwood Rd

Source: City Zoning Map
as of 5 - 10 - 21

24

Wilkinson Lake Blvd

p F ar m

Kestrel C

od Trl
rwo

t

Wilkinson
Lake

Ct

O sprey

N De e

Centerville Rd

en
sc

W ilkinson Ln

Mo
n
S he

e
Cr

B lvd

R ap

a f Wing D r

t Ln

a rc
hW
ay

Le

e Rd
ak
L
p

Sherwood Rd

ir Rd

Ln

W Ba

Ln

R
ks
Oa

d

Dr

E

Or

HP (Historic Preservation)

m

Rd

R

kL
lac

ake

Hil

lF
a rm

Rd

RMH-PUD (Residential Multiple Family High Density- PUD)
RMM

e
Tr

e

n

n

L

ce

W
o

y Pla

RSL

Black Lake

odhill Ln

(Residential Single Family)

RSL-PUD

(Residential Single Family - PUD)

od L

Ra

n

dle

(Residential Multiple Family Medium Density)

RMM-PUD (Residential Multiple Family Medium Density-PUD)

Pleasant Lake

Spring

Lar

Teal
Pond

d

id

RSM-PUD (Residential Single Family - Medium Density - PUD)
Shoreland District Boundary (Overlay)

il l s Dr

Lily Pond Rd

L

l ar

Pop

oo

se

Ln

Rd
ne
Pi

Wh
8

40

CIC No.
325

12

7
3

4

it e

15

18
19

14
20

24

33
32
31 30
29

26

Rd

W Shor
e Rd

Ln

D o ve

Ln

Ln

Highway 96 E

d

nR

r
te

W illow R d

n Ln

Ln

ro

E

illa
Gilf

wa

S

llo w

He

Gilfillan
Lake

Ed g e

n
pso
om
Th

Larkspur Ln

Rd

wa

Highway 96 W

Buffalo Rd

s Rd

ge

Evergreen Ln

R

E Oak

n

G

d

M

Ln

nR

ake Rd
do w
ea

Sk

Blue

ee

L
sant
E Plea

n
iL

er Ln
B a dg

rg r
Eve

Center Dr
ge

Pleasant Lake Rd

South
Mallard
Pond
rd R d

n

Mall
a

kL

eR
ak

Meadowlark Ln

Kn
ol

rH

(Residential Single Family - Medium Density)

n

M in

Mallard

R ed Barn Rd

tL

Sunse

Ln

an

tL

n Rd

Rave

Pine Rd

n Rd

gso

Hod

Highway 96 W

Rd

RSM

Ct

n
sa

Ln

h
Scotc

Vil
la

Do

sh
nb u

D e e r H ills

ch Ln

De
e

lRd

Ridge Rd

ea
Pl

Jay

ill m
Sk

Ln
ter
Ot

W

Columbine Ln

Rd

e
Blu

Red Pine

Pheasant Ln

Ln

Hill Far
m Cir

Ma
ll
Po ard
nd

e Rd
Pin

Eagle

Ln

d
R acc o on R

Ln

D e er

rsh
Ma

ri n
Sp

arm
gF

N Mallard Rd

g
Do

Centerville Rd

wo

gham R
C u nnin
d

ss R d
Duck Pa

Maycomb Ln

(Recreation)

RCM-PUD (Residential-Commercial Mixed-PUD)

Rd

Bent

Tree Farm L

(Limited Industrial)

LI

OS (Open Space)

B

Ln

e
io l

pri

Snows ho e Trl

N

Ov e rhill

W Lake Dr

N Oaks Fa
r

Catb

d F o re

Re

y Ln

on

Ln

(Commercial)

C/S (Commercial/Service)

d Ln

Charley Lake

Fa
lc

H aw k

d

Catb
ir

Iron
wo od

ir
dC

g Ct

Rd

o
ry w o

te R

ay
est W
For
d
Re

Blue Fla

Ln

r
Che

st L n

r Ln

pipe
nd

Ro
Lo

st

V ie w

Oriole Ln

n

Sa

Isla nd Rd

La
ke

Isla
nd

Ln

hL

ir d Ln

Sn

Chickadee L

Haycamp
Rd
ck L
n

n

ce

e
Peterson P
la c

Lake Ct

Hodgson Rd

r

Ma

rs

Rd

x
Fo

Pri v a
ms

ar

es

d
Re

n
Eview L

Ln

w L

d
Cha
rl

C

n

F
ng

Wh ite Oaks

Shad
o

Long

An e
Wildfl
owe
rW
ay

ay
ir W

Pl a

C

kR

i

r
we
flo

owy O

L
wl

e Ln

Hig
h

Black Oa

eC

C

idg
P artr

ild
W

n
mo

rl
ng L ake T

Pondview Trl

us
ro c

S

Cre
e kside Ln

S Lo

Zoning Map
Draft

Deep Lake

n

serve Trl

dC
Nor

S Deep Lake Rd

Pr
e

a
R o bb F

rm

Rd

0

0.12 0.25

9/29/2026

Miles

NORTH

25

City of North Oaks, Minnesota
2027 Budget Review
November 16, 2026

26

Goals
•

2027 Budget Review
 Review notable changes from September meeting
 Receive guidance from City Council on property tax levy changes
 Finalize property tax levy for TNT in December

•

Three Levy Comparisons: Max Levy to Current Levy to 70% Fund Balance
 Tax Levy Breakdown
 General Fund Balances
 Impacts on Median Value Home

2

27

General Fund 2027 Budget Changes
GENERAL FUND SUMMARY

•

Expenditures
 Health Insurance premiums
decreased by $13,374
 Fire Protection budget
decrease from Max by
$35,000
 29% increase from 2026

 $50k for Met Council lobbyist
added
 Excluded from tax levy

•

Decrease levy by $48,374

2027
2027
Max Budget Current Budget

Difference
to Max

REVENUES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

General property tax
Franchise Fees
Intergovernmental
Licenses & Permits
Charges for Services
Fines & Forfeits
Special Assessments
Interest Earnings
Miscellaneous Revenues
TOTAL REVENUE

$

$

3,155,194 $
89,900
15,000
584,050
118,190
5,000
396,415
90,000
25,800
4,479,549 $

3,106,820 $
89,900
15,000
584,050
118,190
5,000
396,415
90,000
25,800
4,431,175 $

(48,374)
(48,374)

1,101,054 $
1,462,253
816,500
320,500
73,000
417,781
180,000
35,087
4,406,175 $

(13,374)
(35,000)
50,000
1,626

EXPENDITURES
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

General Government
Public Safety - Police
Public Safety - Fire
Inspections
Public Works
Recycling
Culture & Recreation
Natural Resources
Debt Service
TOTAL EXPENDITURES

$

$

1,114,428 $
1,462,253
851,500
320,500
23,000
417,781
180,000
35,087
4,404,549 $

21

REVENUES OVER/(UNDER) EXPENDITURES

$

75,000 $

25,000 $

(50,000)

$

(75,000) $
-

(75,000) $
-

-

25

TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES / (USES) $

(75,000) $

(75,000) $

-

26

BEGINNING UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE

$

3,230,820 $

3,230,820 $

-

27

ENDING UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE $

3,230,820 $

3,180,820 $

(50,000)
3

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES / (USES)
22
23
24

Transfers In/(Out)
Sales of Fixed Assets
Bond Proceeds

28

Property Tax Levy Breakdown – Max Levy
Breakdown of Tax Levy

Pay 2026

Max Pay 2027 $ Difference % Difference

1 General Fund Operating Tax Levy

$

2,900,879 $

3,155,194 $

254,315

8.8%

2 Debt Service Levies:
3 $1,855,000 G.O. Bonds, Series 2025A

$

221,560 $

222,180 $

620

0.3%

4 Total Debt Service Levies

$

221,560 $

222,180 $

620

0.3%

$

-

$

75,000 $
$

75,000
-

100.0%

7 Total Special Levies

$

-

$

75,000 $

75,000

100.0%

8 Total Tax Levy

$ 3,122,439 $

3,452,374 $

329,935

10.6%

5 Special Levies
6

City Hall

Changes from 2026
•

General Levy Increase of $254,315 or 8.8% due to Public Safety


Full Public Safety increase of $315,671 offset with other departmental
savings

•

Debt Levy increase of $620 or 0.3%

•

Added $75,000 for City Hall

•

$3,452,374 is the maximum property tax levy
4

29

Property Tax Levy Breakdown - Current
Breakdown of Tax Levy

Pay 2026

FB Pay 2027

$ Difference % Difference

1 General Fund Operating Tax Levy

$

2,900,879 $

3,106,820 $

205,941

7.1%

2 Debt Service Levies:
3 $1,855,000 G.O. Bonds, Series 2025A

$

221,560 $

222,180 $

620

0.3%

4 Total Debt Service Levies

$

221,560 $

222,180 $

620

0.3%

$

-

$

-

$
$

-

0.0%

7 Total Special Levies

$

-

$

-

$

-

0.0%

8 Total Tax Levy

$ 3,122,439 $

5 Special Levies
6

City Hall

3,329,000 $

206,561

6.6%

Changes from Max
•

General Levy Decrease of ($48,374) from Max levy


Overall, still a 6.6% increase in total levy from 2026 due to 29%
increase in Public Safety

•

Debt Levy remains the same from max at $620 or 0.3% from 2026

•

Special Levy of $75,000 for City Hall removed

•

$3,329,000 would be the final property tax levy
5

30

Property Tax Levy Breakdown – 70% Fund Balance
Breakdown of Tax Levy

Pay 2026

FB Pay 2027

$ Difference

% Difference

1 General Fund Operating Tax Levy

$

2,900,879 $

3,010,323 $

109,444

3.8%

2 Debt Service Levies:
3 $1,855,000 G.O. Bonds, Series 2025A

$

221,560 $

222,180 $

620

0.3%

4 Total Debt Service Levies

$

221,560 $

222,180 $

620

0.3%

$

-

$

-

$
$

-

7 Total Special Levies

$

-

$

-

$

-

8 Total Tax Levy

$

3,122,439 $

5 Special Levies
6

City Hall

3,232,503 $

110,064

3.5%

Changes from Current
•

General Levy decrease of ($144,872) compared to Max


Total tax levy increase of 3.5% from 2026

•

Debt Levy remains the same from max at $620 or 0.3% from 2026

•

Special Levy of $75,000 for City Hall removed

•

$3,232,503 would be the final property tax levy
6

31

General Fund Options
GENERAL FUND
Property Tax Levy
Licenses & Permits *
Franchise Fees / Misc
Interest Earnings
Special Assessments **
Intergovernmental
Total Revenue
Police & Fire
All Other Governmental Spending
Debt Service (Building Lease)
Total Expenses
Transfers to Fire Equipment Fund
Transfers to Other Funds
Total Other Financing Sources / (Uses)
Net Change in Fund Balance
Unassigned General Fund Balance
Median Valued Home (per County)
City taxes on Median Valued Home
Annual Incr / (Decr.) in taxes

Budget
Pay 2026
2,900,879
253,550
216,678
90,000
(11,487)
15,000
3,464,620

Max Budget
Pay 2027
3,155,194
263,550
238,890
90,000
(21,366)
15,000
3,741,268

Current
Pay 2027
3,106,820
263,550
238,890
90,000
(21,366)
15,000
3,692,894

70% FB
Pay 2027
3,010,323
263,550
238,890
90,000
(21,366)
15,000
3,596,397

1,998,082
1,356,735
34,803
3,389,620

2,313,753
1,317,428
35,087
3,666,268

2,278,753
1,354,054
35,087
3,667,894

2,278,753
1,354,054
35,087
3,667,894

(75,000)
(75,000)

(75,000)
(75,000)

(75,000)

(75,000)

(75,000)

(75,000)

-

-

(50,000)

(146,497)

3,180,820

3,084,323

3,230,820
$
$
$

927,850 $
1,288 $
135 $

*Note : Licenses & Permits revenue reduced by Inspections expense
**Note : Special Assessment revenue reduced b y Recycling expense

3,230,820
934,300 $
1,387 $
100 $

934,300 $
1,367 $
79 $

934,300
1,327
39

Key Takeaways
•

•

•

Max Budget


General Fund Balance no
change



$100/year increase on
median valued home

Current Budget


General Fund Balance down
($50,000)



$79/year increase on median
valued home

70% Fund Balance


General Fund Balance down
($146,497)



$39/year increase on median
valued home
7

32

Property Tax Levy History – Current

8

33

Property Tax Levy History – 70% Fund Balance

9

34

General Fund - Current
Key Takeaways
• Assumes a balanced
budget each year
 Revenues assume
2.0% increase / year
 Expenses assume
4.5% increase / year

• Recommend reserves
around 75% to
maintain AAA rating

10

35

General Fund – Current Numbers
General Fund Summary

Budget 2026 Budget 2027

Projected
2028

Projected
2029

Projected
2030

Projected
2031

Projected
2032

Projected
2033

Projected
2034

Projected
2035

Projected
2036

Projected
2037

Revenues
Property Taxes
Levy Adjustment
Intergovernmental
Other Revenues
Total Revenues

$ 3,013,879 $ 3,155,194 $ 3,390,690 $ 3,544,757 $ 3,703,736 $ 3,869,372 $ 4,028,366 $ 4,213,741 $ 4,401,817 $ 4,607,118 $ 4,811,131 $ 5,133,190
(113,000)
15,000
15,000
15,300
15,606
15,918
16,236
16,561
16,892
17,230
17,575
17,926
18,285
1,273,763
1,309,355
1,023,664
1,036,330
1,049,250
1,062,428
1,075,869
1,089,580
1,103,564
1,108,413
1,122,963
1,137,803
$ 4,189,642 $ 4,479,549 $ 4,429,654 $ 4,596,693 $ 4,768,904 $ 4,948,036 $ 5,120,797 $ 5,320,213 $ 5,522,611 $ 5,733,106 $ 5,952,020 $ 6,289,278

Expenses
Current Expenses
Capital Expenses
Total Expenses

$ 4,227,642 $ 4,404,549 $ 4,354,654 $ 4,521,693 $ 4,693,904 $ 4,873,036 $ 5,045,797 $ 5,220,213 $ 5,422,611 $ 5,633,106 $ 5,852,020 $ 6,079,691
$ 4,227,642 $ 4,404,549 $ 4,354,654 $ 4,521,693 $ 4,693,904 $ 4,873,036 $ 5,045,797 $ 5,220,213 $ 5,422,611 $ 5,633,106 $ 5,852,020 $ 6,079,691

Revenues Over / (Under) Expenses

$

(38,000) $

75,000 $

75,000 $

75,000 $

75,000 $

75,000 $

75,000 $

100,000 $

100,000 $

100,000 $

100,000 $

209,588

$

(75,000) $
(75,000) $

(75,000) $
(75,000) $

(75,000) $
(75,000) $

(75,000) $
(75,000) $

(75,000) $
(75,000) $

(75,000) $
(75,000) $

(75,000) $
(75,000) $

(100,000) $
(100,000) $

(100,000) $
(100,000) $

(100,000) $
(100,000) $

(100,000) $
(100,000) $

(100,000)
(100,000)

Other Sources / (Uses)
Transfers In/(Out)
Other
Total Other Sources / (Uses)
Ending General Fund Balance
Ending Unassigned Fund Balance
% of Total Expenses

$

$ 3,356,661 $ 3,356,661 $ 3,356,661 $ 3,356,661 $ 3,356,661 $ 3,356,661 $ 3,356,661 $ 3,356,661 $ 3,356,661 $ 3,356,661 $ 3,356,661 $ 3,466,249
$ 3,230,820 $ 3,230,820 $ 3,230,820 $ 3,230,820 $ 3,230,820 $ 3,230,820 $ 3,230,820 $ 3,230,820 $ 3,230,820 $ 3,230,820 $ 3,230,820 $ 3,340,408
76%

73%

74%

71%

69%

66%

64%

62%

60%

57%

55%

55%

11

36

General Fund – Fund Balance Policy of 70%
Key Takeaways
• May require annual
levy increase or
decrease to maintain
70% fund balance
policy
 Revenues assume
2.0% increase / year
 Expenses assume
4.5% increase / year

12

37

General Fund – 70% Fund Balance Numbers
General Fund Summary

Budget 2026 Budget 2027

Projected
2028

Projected
2029

Projected
2030

Projected
2031

Projected
2032

Projected
2033

Projected
2034

Projected
2035

Projected
2036

Projected
2037

Revenues
Property Taxes
Levy Adjustment
Intergovernmental
Other Revenues
Total Revenues

$ 3,013,879 $ 3,156,820 $ 3,344,044 $ 3,497,880 $ 3,651,879 $ 3,812,360 $ 3,965,995 $ 4,146,031 $ 4,328,648 $ 4,527,903 $ 4,725,629 $ 4,931,562
(113,000)
(146,498)
(71,281)
115,519
119,083
123,868
119,348
120,443
139,965
145,564
151,386
157,442
15,000
15,000
15,300
15,606
15,918
16,236
16,561
16,892
17,230
17,575
17,926
18,285
1,273,763
1,309,355
1,020,002
1,030,886
1,046,693
1,062,848
1,079,387
1,096,081
1,113,076
1,121,424
1,139,613
1,158,238
$ 4,189,642 $ 4,334,678 $ 4,308,065 $ 4,659,891 $ 4,833,573 $ 5,015,314 $ 5,181,290 $ 5,379,447 $ 5,598,919 $ 5,812,466 $ 6,034,555 $ 6,265,527

Expenses
Current Expenses
Capital Expenses
Total Expenses

$ 4,227,642 $ 4,406,175 $ 4,304,346 $ 4,469,372 $ 4,639,490 $ 4,816,445 $ 4,986,942 $ 5,159,004 $ 5,358,954 $ 5,566,902 $ 5,783,169 $ 6,008,085
$ 4,227,642 $ 4,406,175 $ 4,304,346 $ 4,469,372 $ 4,639,490 $ 4,816,445 $ 4,986,942 $ 5,159,004 $ 5,358,954 $ 5,566,902 $ 5,783,169 $ 6,008,085

Revenues Over / (Under) Expenses

$

(38,000) $

(71,498) $

3,719 $

190,519 $

194,083 $

198,868 $

194,348 $

220,443 $

239,965 $

245,564 $

251,386 $

257,442

$

(75,000) $
(75,000) $

(75,000) $
(75,000) $

(75,000) $
(75,000) $

(75,000) $
(75,000) $

(75,000) $
(75,000) $

(75,000) $
(75,000) $

(75,000) $
(75,000) $

(100,000) $
(100,000) $

(100,000) $
(100,000) $

(100,000) $
(100,000) $

(100,000) $
(100,000) $

(100,000)
(100,000)

Other Sources / (Uses)
Transfers In/(Out)
Other
Total Other Sources / (Uses)
Ending General Fund Balance
Ending Unassigned Fund Balance
% of Total Expenses

$

$ 3,356,661 $ 3,210,164 $ 3,138,883 $ 3,254,401 $ 3,373,484 $ 3,497,353 $ 3,616,701 $ 3,737,144 $ 3,877,109 $ 4,022,673 $ 4,174,059 $ 4,331,501
$ 3,230,820 $ 3,084,323 $ 3,013,042 $ 3,128,560 $ 3,247,643 $ 3,371,512 $ 3,490,860 $ 3,611,303 $ 3,751,268 $ 3,896,832 $ 4,048,218 $ 4,205,660
76%

70%

70%

70%

70%

70%

70%

70%

70%

70%

70%

70%

13

38

Impact on Median Valued Home - Current
2027 Tax Impact
• $934,300 median value
 Increase of 0.7% over 2026
 Total tax base increased 1.3%

• City tax of $1,367
 Increase of $79/year or
$7/month

• Futures years assume
2.0%/year market value
increase

14

39

Impact on Median Valued Home – 70% FB Policy
2027 Tax Impact
• $934,300 median value
 Increase of 0.7% over 2026
 Total tax base increased 1.3%

• City tax of $1,327
 Increase of $39/year or
$3/month

• Futures years assume
2.0%/year market value
increase

15

40

Conclusions
•

Current 2027 Tax Levy reduced by $123,374 from September

•

70% Fund Balance Tax Levy would reduce levy by $219,872
 Additional reduction of $96,498

•

Maintaining 70% Fund Balance likely to result in levy increases
starting in 2029

16

41

Q

A
&
17

42

Important Disclosures
Ehlers is the joint marketing name of the following affiliated businesses (collectively, the “Affiliates”): Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
(“EA”), a municipal advisor registered with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) and the Securities and Exchange
Commission (“SEC”); Ehlers Investment Partners, LLC (“EIP”), an SEC registered investment adviser; and Bond Trust Services
Corporation (“BTS”), a holder of a limited banking charter issued by the State of Minnesota.
Where an activity requires registration as a municipal advisor pursuant to Section 15B of the Exchange Act of 1934 (Financial
Management Planning and Debt Issuance & Management), such activity is or will be performed by EA; where an activity requires
registration as an investment adviser pursuant to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Investments and Treasury Management),
such activity is or will be performed by EIP; and where an activity requires licensing as a bank pursuant to applicable state law
(paying agent services shown under Debt Issuance & Management), such activity is or will be performed by BTS. Activities not
requiring registration may be performed by any Affiliate.
This communication does not constitute an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any investment (including without
limitation, any municipal financial product, municipal security, or other security) or agreement with respect to any investment
strategy or program. This communication is offered without charge to clients, friends, and prospective clients of the Affiliates as a
source of general information about the services Ehlers provides. This communication is neither advice nor a recommendation by
any Affiliate to any person with respect to any municipal financial product, municipal security, or other security, as such terms are
defined pursuant to Section 15B of the Exchange Act of 1934 and rules of the MSRB. This communication does not constitute
investment advice by any Affiliate that purports to meet the objectives or needs of any person pursuant to the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940 or applicable state law.

18

43

TO:

North Oaks Planning Commission

FROM:

Kendra Lindahl, City Planner
Kevin Kress, City Administrator
Bridget McCauley Nason, City Attorney
Jupe Hale and Kate Achenbach, City Engineer

DATE:

November 10, 2026

RE:

A Zoning Text Amendment to establish a PI - Public/Institutional Zoning District
and a Zoning Map amendment to reclassify parcels at 4880 Hodgeson Road,
5000 Hodgeson Road, and 5050 Hodgeson Road as PI - Public/Institutional

Date Application Submitted

N/A

Date Application Determined Complete:

N/A

Planning Commission Meeting Date:

September 24, 2026
October 29, 2026

City Council Meeting Date:

November 16, 2026

60-day review Date:

N/A

120-day Review Date:

N/A

BACKGROUND AND REQUEST
At the August 13, 2026 City Council meeting, the North Oaks City Council considered a request
by Peace United Methodist Church for the City to create a Public/Institutional Zoning District.
The Council directed staff to prepare a draft of an Ordinance for a Public/Institutional Zoning
District and an update to the City Zoning Map for consideration by the Planning Commission.
Currently, three properties (two churches and one middle school) operate as institutional uses
within the City of North Oaks. Currently, all three properties are zoned RSM – Residential
Single-Family Medium Density. All three properties have obtained Conditional Use Permits
(CUPs) to operate as public/institutional uses within a residential zoning district. As the
operations of these uses have evolved, numerous other land use approvals have been required,
including CUPs for signage and the operation of day care facilities within the churches. This has
created regulatory challenges because, for example, the RSM District does not permit daycare

44

facilities despite the fact that both churches have had daycare facilities operating in their
buildings for years. The purpose of this Ordinance amendment is to more effectively and
appropriately regulate public and institutional uses within the City.
Peace United Methodist Church has asked the City to consider establishing a “PI –
Public/Institutional” zoning district and rezone Peace United Methodist Church, Incarnation
Lutheran Church, and Chippewa Middle School to PI – Public/Institutional. Peace United
Methodist Church has also requested that standards be included within the PI –
Public/Institutional zoning district to allow for uses such as coffee shops, day care facilities,
fitness studios, and gathering spaces that the Church would like to allow to rent space within
their existing building.
Staff has received a written comment from Mounds View Schools confirming that the district is
comfortable supporting the draft ordinance as written and additional emails from George
Wellock with comments on the draft Ordinance presented at the September and October
Planning Commission meetings.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
A public hearing for this item was held at the September 24, 2026 Planning Commission
meeting. Representatives from Incarnation Lutheran Church and Peace United Methodist
Church spoke in support of the Ordinance update. A neighbor of one of the impacted properties
also spoke and encouraged the Planning Commission to allow more time for additional
neighborhood feedback on the proposed Ordinance. This item was tabled and the public
hearing was continued to the October 29, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission reopened the Public Hearing at the October 29, 2026 meeting. A
representative from Peace United Methodist Church spoke in support of the update and a
resident provided additional feedback on setbacks and building height. After discussion, the
Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Ordinance as drafted.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
The proposed Zoning Text and Map Amendment is provided in Exhibit A and A2.
Staff has prepared an amendment to the City Code to establish a “PI – Public/Institutional”
Zoning District. In order to avoid creating non-conformities for the three parcels, the regulations
established in this district are based on the standards currently established in the RSM –
Residential Single-Family Medium Density District for these institutional uses, which are a
conditional use in the RSM district. However, the draft includes some additional performance

45

standards for landscaping and site lighting based on the CS – Commercial Service District
standards.
This Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendment would rezone the three properties. The intent of
the proposed Ordinance is to more adequately address and regulate the current and proposed
conditions on these properties, including making these uses permitted uses instead of
conditional uses, allowing additional secondary uses and allowing increased building height.
The purpose of the RSM District is “to provide for medium density single-family detached
residential dwellings and directly related complimentary uses compatible with the natural
environment and conforming to the level of services available and to provide the community
facilities as will enhance the quality of the area.” Residential uses are the primary use and other
uses, including institutional uses, are conditional uses.
The purpose of the PI District is to “provide a zoning district specifically for uses oriented to the
general public and semi-public uses. This district is unique in that it generally provides services
to the public rather than the sale of goods. Land in this district may be publicly or privately
owned. Property within this district will be adjacent to an expander or minor expander roadway.”
Institutional uses are the primary uses in this district and other secondary uses, such as a coffee
shop would be conditional uses.
The purpose of the PI District is to allow institutional uses such as churches, schools, and city
halls. As such, those should be permitted in the district. Conditional uses are uses that are not
allowed by right in a zoning district but may be permitted if certain standards are met. A
conditional use in a zoning district should provide specific performance standards for a use,
such as hours of operation and stacking requirements for a drive-through restaurant.
Conditional use permits add cost, time delays and uncertainty to development and should not
be used simply so that standards can be negotiated as part of a development application.
Staff believes it is unlikely for a significant number of properties outside of the three established
properties to be candidates for public or institutional development in the future. Any future
development on a property zoned PI, such as the construction of a new City facility, would be
subject to the standards within the PI District if adopted.
All three of the properties identified above are zoned RSM and are proposed to be rezoned to
PI. A table comparing the proposed standards for the PI District to the existing standards within
the RSM District is included below. Red text is where the standards differ:

Lot Area

RSM District Standards
1 acre

Proposed PI District Standards
Sufficient size to accommodate the use
intended thereon so that all of the

46

RSM District Standards

Front
Setback
Side
Setback,
Interior
Side
Setback,
Corner
Rear
Setback
Building
Height

30 feet
30 feet

30 feet

30 feet

30 feet

30 feet

30 feet

35 feet unless a greater height is
approved by the Zoning Administrator
and increased setbacks are applied along
property lines within 50 feet of the
structure
Floor Area 0.12 on lots where the combined square
Ratio
footage of all buildings exceed 4,000
square feet
Screening
Standards provided in §151.034
and Fencing (Fencing, Screening, Planting Strips, and
Landscaping)
Landscaping No landscaping standard established
and
Buffering

Traffic and
Access
Parking

Proposed PI District Standards
requirements imposed by the Zoning
Ordinance are complied with
30 feet

Site must be served by a road or street of
sufficient capacity to accommodate the
traffic which will be generated
Adequate off-street parking, loading, and
service entrances are provided in
compliance with § 151.028

45 feet unless a greater height is
approved by the Zoning Administrator
and increased setbacks are applied along
property lines within 50 feet of the
structure
Not established

Standards provided in §151.034
(Fencing, Screening, Planting Strips, and
Landscaping)
Proposes a minimum number of plantings
required with new development and
establishes a 20-foot buffer yard
requirement where P/I properties abut
residential properties
Site must be served by an expander or
minor expander roadway
Adequate off-street parking, loading, and
service entrances are provided in
compliance with § 151.028

47

Summary of Proposed Amendments
Uses
Under the PI District, religious institutions (places of assembly), K-12 educational facilities, and
signage are proposed as permitted uses or permitted accessory uses instead of conditional
uses as they are within the RSM District. Daycares are also explicitly listed as a conditional use
in the PI District. These uses have been removed from the RSM District standards because
these uses no longer need to be regulated within the District.
At the request of Peace United Methodist Church, commercial/service-oriented uses (such as
coffee shops, instructional facilities for music or fitness and similar uses) have also been
included as a conditional use. The proposed Ordinance requires that such conditional uses are
located inside a principal structure containing an assembly use and are limited to no more than
25% of the floor area of the principal structure.
Setbacks
A comparison of the impact of a 30-foot, 50-foot, and 100-foot setback on each property is
provided in Exhibit E.
The 30-foot minimum structure setback established in the RSM District has been retained in the
proposed PI District standards. Increasing this setback would make both Peace United
Methodist Church and Incarnation Lutheran Church non-conforming structures, as both
structures are setback 30 feet from their northern property lines.
Some zoning districts, such as the CS District, do require increased setbacks for properties
abutting residential zones. However, staff does not recommend this, as it would also create nonconformities. If the minimum setback were increased to, for example, 50-feet along property
lines abutting residential zoning districts, Peace United Methodist Church would become a nonconforming structure along its north property line. This would create the need for a variance if
the Church were to propose an expansion in-line with its current 30-foot setback to the northern
property line. At this time, staff is unaware of any plans for a proposed expansion, but it is best
practice to avoid creating non-conformities that may complicate future use of a property. To
avoid creating non-conformities, staff recommends maintaining the 30-foot setback requirement
which would allow these structures to continue to conform with the proposed Zoning Ordinance
standards as they do today.

48

Building Height
The proposed PI District standards increase the building height limit from 35 feet, as established
in the RSM District, to 45 feet. Many uses that are typical within a PI District, such as places of
worship and schools, contain spaces such as auditoriums or gymnasiums which require taller
ceilings and building heights. Consistent with the existing provisions within the RSM District,
increased setbacks are required for building heights exceeding the height allowed within the
district.
Incarnation Lutheran Church was granted a conditional use permit in 1985 to allow a 56-foot
building height for an addition. No information was available at the time of this report regarding
the height of the other structures, but it is common for these types of buildings to exceed 35
feet. Staff recommends a 45-foot building height for this new PI district.
Landscaping and Buffering
The PI District proposes landscaping and buffering standards where the RSM District does not
have clearly established standards. The proposed Ordinance includes the same standards as
the CS District for the number of trees and shrubs required for new construction and building
additions within the PI District. Existing sites do not have to bring their landscaping into
compliance, though additional landscaping will be required if a building addition is proposed.
The PI District also includes standards for a 20-foot deep vegetative buffer yard where
properties within the PI District abut residentially zoned properties. A mix of deciduous or
deciduous trees and shrubs are to be required to provide a buffer between new
public/institutional uses and residential properties. This buffer yard requirement applies to new
construction within the district and will not be required for changes in use where a principal
structure already exists.
Traffic and Access
Under the RSM District, religious institutions and educational facilities are required to be served
by a road or street that is a sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by the use.
To clarify this standard, the PI District proposes to require properties to be served by a minor
expander or expander roadway. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Hodgeson Road, Highway
96, Centerville Road, and County Road J as minor expander roadways. This standard ensures
traffic associated with these uses has minimal impact on neighborhood streets.

49

Other
Definitions have been added to City Code Chapter 151.005 to define “Educational Facility” and
“Place of Assembly”. This language provides a more concise and encompassing description of
uses such as schools, religious institutions, and other civic, political, and educational gathering
spaces consistent with the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act (RLUIPA).
Staff has prepared an amendment to the Zoning Map to include the PI District. This is included
as Exhibit C.
While drafting the Code amendment, staff identified several references that required updates as
a result of these changes. These updates have been included in this amendment to improve the
accuracy of the Code.
PI Districts in Other Communities
Staff has conducted a review of Public/Intuitional/Civic Districts in seven other municipalities. A
table summarizing these Ordinances is included as Exhibit D for reference. Staff finds that most
Ordinances are similar to what is proposed in the draft ordinance, but the Planning Commission
should review and consider other modifications to the draft ordinance as desired.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit A2:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:

Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance
Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance
Summary Publication Resolution
Draft Zoning Map Exhibit
Comparison Table of PI Districts in Other Communities
Setback Distance Comparison
Emails and Comments from George Wellock
Email from Mounds View Schools Superintendent

50

Actions
Move to approve the following as recommended by the Planning Commission:
1. Ordinance approving the Zoning Text Amendment to create a PI District and Zoning Map
Amendment to rezone 4880 Hodgeson Road, 5000 Hodgeson Road, and 5050 Hodgeson
Road from RSM - Residential Single-Family Medium Density District to PI Public/Institutional District.
This action requires a 3/5 vote.
2. Resolution approving summary publication of the Ordinance approving the Zoning Text
Amendment to create a PI District.
This action requires a 4/5 vote.

51

CITY OF NORTH OAKS
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 161
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE XV, CHAPTER 151, ADDING
DEFINITIONS, ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT, AND
AMENDING RELATED REFERENCES

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH OAKS ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section One. Title XV, Chapter 151 Amendment: Title XV, Chapter 151, Section 151.005
(Definitions) of the North Oaks City Code is hereby amended as follows. The underlined text
shows the proposed additions to the City Code and the struck through text shows the deletions:
EDUCATION FACILITY. A school, including a Montessori school, prekindergarten,
kindergarten, elementary school, middle school, or secondary school as defined in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 120A.05.
PLACE OF ASSEMBLY. A structure or portion of a structure where facilities are provided
primarily for the gathering of people for civic, educational, political, or religious purposes.
Section Two. Title XV, Chapter 151, Section 151.045 Amendment: Title XV, Chapter
151, Section 151.045 (Establishment of districts) of the North Oaks City Code is hereby amended
as follows. The underlined text shows the proposed additions to the City Code and the struck
through text shows the deletions:
(A)

RSL - Residential Single-Family Low Density;

(B)

RSM - Residential Single-Family Medium Density;

(C)

RMM - Residential Multi-Family Medium Density;

(D)

RMH - Residential Multi-Family High Density;

(E)

RCM - Residential Commercial Mixed;

(F)

PRD - Planned Residential Development;

(G)

PUD - Planned Unit Development;

(H)

C - Commercial;

52

(I)

CS - Commercial/Service;

(J)

LI - Limited Industrial;

(K)

PI - Public/Institutional

(LK)

R - Recreation;

(ML) OS - Open Space;
(NM) HP - Historic Preservation; and
(ON) Shoreland.
Section Three. Title XV, Chapter 151, Section 151.050, Subdivision D Amendment: Title
XV, Chapter 151, Section 151.050 (RSL - Residential Single-Family Low Density District),
Subdivision D of the North Oaks City Code is hereby amended as follows. The underlined text
shows the proposed additions to the City Code and the struck through text shows the deletions:
(4)
Non-neon signs and non-neon informational visual communication
devices, except as prohibited in division (D)(1)(d) above, provided that:
Section Four. Title XV, Chapter 151, Section 151.051 Amendment: Title XV, Chapter
151, Section 151.051 (RSM - Residential Single-Family Medium Density District) of the North
Oaks City Code is hereby amended as follows. The underlined text shows the proposed additions
to the City Code and the struck through text shows the deletions:
(D)
Conditional uses. The following conditional uses may be permitted, but only after
securing a conditional use permit in accordance with § 151.076:
(1)
All uses that are permitted conditional uses in the Residential SingleFamily Low Density District in § 151.050(D).; and
(2)
Public and private educational institutions limited to preschool, nursery,
elementary, junior and senior high schools; religious institutions such as churches, chapels,
temples, and synagogues, provided that:
(a)
The architectural appearance and functional plan of the buildings
and site shall be compatible with the adjacent area;
(b)

Screening is provided in compliance with § 151.034;

(c)
Adequate off-street parking, loading, and service entrances are
provided in compliance with § 151.028;

2

53

(d)
All accessory equipment is completely enclosed in a permanent
structure with no outside storage;
(e)
The site of the principal use and related parking is served by a road
or street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated; and
(f)

Section 151.083 is complied with.

(3)
On-Premise Electronic Message Center (EMC) signs accessory to a
permitted use, provided that:
(a)
Such signs shall be integrated into a free-standing monument sign.
The non message center portion of the sign may include the name of the use on the property.
(b)

General provisions:

1.
Location and Orientation. EMC signs are only permitted
for lots that comply with the following standards:
i.
The parcel is a minimum of 3.5 acres in size.
ii.
The parcel has frontage on an arterial or collector
roadways, as designated by the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
iii.
The location and orientation of the sign shall be
placed on the property in a manner that minimizes the visual
impact on adjoining residential properties
2.
Display. The sign message shall be displayed to allow
passing motorists to read the entire copy with minimal distraction. The
minimum display period for any message shall be 8 seconds.
3.

Audio. Audio speakers are prohibited.

4.

No animation, flashing or blinking signs are permitted.

5.

Brightness.
i.
Lighting. Lighting shall be set at a minimum level
for which the sign is intended to be read and shielded to minimize
glare.
ii.
The light level shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles
above ambient light as measured from a pre-set distance depending
on the sign size. Measuring distance shall be determined using the
following equation; the square root of the message center sign area
multiplied by 100. Example: 12 square foot sign √(12x100) = 34.6
feet measuring distance.
iii.
Dimmer Control. The sign must have a dimmer
control that automatically adjusts the sign’s brightness in direct
correlation to ambient light conditions. Said sign shall be equipped
3

54

with photo cell design to measure the ambient light conditions and
adjust the sign brightness as needed so as to be in compliance with
this ordinance.
iv.
No portion of the message may flash, scroll, twirl,
fade in or out in any manner to imitate movement.
v.
Display of messages shall be limited to those
services offered on the property and time/temperature display.
6.

Only one Electronic Message Center Sign is permitted per

lot.
7.

Sign area and size.
i.
One freestanding sign shall be allowed per parcel.
ii.
The sign shall not be larger than 32 square feet.
iii.
No pylon signs are allowed. All freestanding signs
must be ground monuments with a height no greater than 8 feet.
iv.
Monument signs cannot be placed on an earthen
mound or berm which would raise the bottom of the sign more
than 4 feet above the normal ground level. The base for monument
signs shall be built out of matching masonry work for the building
it serves.
v.
All freestanding signs must be set back 15 feet from
the property line.
vi.
Maximum Area. The area of the electronic message
center sign shall be included in the maximum sign area permitted.
The area of the message center shall not exceed 50% of the total
sign area for the sign on which it is displayed or 16 square feet
whichever is less.

8.
Hours of display. The sign shall be turned off and shall not
display messages between the hours of 11:00 pm and 6:00 am.
9.
Landscaping. Landscaping is required around the base of
each sign consisting of a combination of shrubs, flowers, ornamental trees, and/or evergreens
pursuant to a landscape plan approved by the City, with the landscaped area to be no less than 6
times the area of the largest sign face. This landscape plan is not required to be prepared by a
registered landscape architect.
(4)
Non-neon signs and non-neon informational visual communication
devices, provided that:
(a) The height of the sign or device does not exceed the height of the
principal structure or the structure to which it is affixed;
(b) The architectural style and design shall not be so dissimilar to the
surrounding buildings or area so as to adversely impact other land;
4

55

(c) There are no moving or flashing parts and any illumination shall be in
compliance with § 151.031;
(d) The sign or device is permanently fixed to the land or to a building or
structure;
(e) The sign or device is not a billboard and is associated with the
principal use of the land; and
(f) Section 151.083 is complied with.
Section Five. Title XV, Chapter 151, Section 151.052 Amendment: Title XV, Chapter
151, Section 151.052 (RMM - Residential Multi-Family Medium Density District) of the North
Oaks City Code is hereby amended as follows. The underlined text shows the proposed additions
to the City Code and the struck through text shows the deletions:
(D)
Conditional uses. The following conditional uses may be permitted, but only after
securing a conditional use permit in accordance with § 151.076: all uses that are permitted
conditional uses in the Residential Single-Family Medium Density District in § 151.051(D).,
except for Electronic Message Center Signs which are not permitted.
Section Six. Title XV, Chapter 151, Section 151.054 Amendment: Title XV, Chapter 151,
Section 151.054 (RCM - Residential Commercial Mixed District) of the North Oaks City Code is
hereby amended as follows. The underlined text shows the proposed additions to the City Code
and the struck through text shows the deletions:
(D)
Conditional uses. The following conditional uses may be permitted, but only after
securing a conditional use permit in accordance with § 151.076:
(3)
Non-neon signs and non-neon informational visual communication
devices, provided that the requirements established in § 151.050(D)(45) shall apply and govern;
(J)
Signage standards. In addition to the conditional use permit requirements for
signs in § 151.050(D)(45), additional sign standards shall be in conformance with § 151.058(M).
Section Seven. Title XV, Chapter 151, Section 151.057 Amendment: Title XV, Chapter
151, Section 151.057 (C - Commercial District) of the North Oaks City Code is hereby amended
as follows. The underlined text shows the proposed additions to the City Code and the struck
through text shows the deletions:
(D)
Conditional uses. The following conditional uses may be permitted, but only after
securing a conditional use permit in accordance with § 151.076:

5

56

(2)
Non-neon signs and non-neon informational visual communication
devices, provided that the requirements established in § 151.050(D)(45) shall apply and govern;
Section Eight. Title XV, Chapter 151 Amendment: Title XV, Chapter 151 of the North
Oaks City Code is hereby amended as follows. The underlined text shows the proposed additions
to the City Code and the struck through text shows the deletions:
§ 151.060 PI - PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT.
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this district is to provide a zoning district specifically for
uses oriented to the general public and semi-public uses. This district is unique in that it
generally provides services to the public rather than the sale of goods. Land in this district may
be publicly or privately owned. Property within this district will be adjacent to an expander or
minor expander roadway.
(B)

(C)

Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted:
(1)

Civic buildings, such as City Hall, libraries, fire stations, etc.;

(3)

Educational facilities, K-12;

(3)

Essential services;

(4)

Parks and recreation fields; and

(5)

Places of assembly.

Permitted accessory uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted:

(1)
Small buildings or structures, not to exceed five hundred (500) square feet,
directly related to a permitted use or its maintenance; and
(2)
Accessory uses, including signage, incidental and customary to uses
allowed in this Section.
(D)
Conditional uses. The following conditional uses may be permitted, but only after
securing a conditional use permit in accordance with § 151.076:
(1)
Accessory buildings or structures in excess of five hundred (500) square
feet directly related to the performance or maintenance of uses allowed in this Section, provided
that:
(a)

The structure is compatible with the principal structure;

(2)
Commercial retail and service-oriented uses including coffee shops, music
studios, dance/fitness studios, and similar uses, provided that:
6

57

(a)
use allowed in this Section;

The use is located in a principal structure containing an assembly

(b)
More than one commercial or service-oriented use may be
permitted on a single property provided a conditional use permit is obtained for each use;
(c)
The sum of all space dedicated to the above-mentioned
commercial and service-oriented uses may not occupy more than twenty-five percent (25%) of
the total floor area of the principal structure; and
(d)
(3)

The property is accessed from a Minor Expander roadway.

Day care facilities.

(E)
Lot area requirements. The minimum size of the lot, tract, parcel or other division
of land shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the use intended thereon so that all of the
requirements imposed by this chapter shall be complied with.
(F)
Setbacks. All structures (except fences, screening, planting strips, and
landscaping in compliance with §§ 151.033 and 151.034) shall be located a minimum of thirty
(30) feet from property lines, roads, street easements and wetlands.
(1)
Additions which do not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the existing
building footprint area, on buildings or structures lawfully existing upon the effective date of this
chapter, shall be excluded from wetland setback requirements.
(2)
No grading or filling shall be allowed within thirty (30) feet of adjacent lot
lines without prior notification to the adjacent lot owners and approval of the Planning
Commission, except that grading and filling will be allowed if it is within ten (10) feet of a
building.
(G)
Building height. The maximum height of principal structures shall not exceed
forty-five (45) feet unless a greater height is approved by the zoning administrator. The zoning
administrator may administratively approve a building height greater than forty-five (45) feet,
subject to the following standards:
(1)
Any time any portion of a building exceeds forty-five (45) feet in height
and that portion is within fifty (50) feet of an adjacent side or rear lot line, the setback
requirement applicable to that portion of the building relative to that lot line shall be increased by
two (2) feet for each foot in height (or portion thereof) above forty-five (45) feet.
(H)
govern:

Special minimum requirements. The following requirements shall apply and

7

58

(1)
The architectural appearance and functional plan of the buildings and site
shall be compatible with the adjacent area;
(2)

Screening is provided in compliance with § 151.034;

(3)
Adequate off-street parking, loading, and service entrances are provided in
compliance with § 151.028;
(4)
All accessory equipment is completely enclosed in a permanent structure
with no outside storage;
(5)

Landscaping and buffering. The following requirements shall apply and

govern:
(a)
For new construction, the following minimum standards for
landscaping shall be required at the time of construction. For additions to existing buildings,
landscaping shall be provided based on the square footage of the building addition:
Type of Planting

Minimum Quantity per 1,000 Sq.
Ft. of Building

Minimum Size

Overstory Deciduous Trees

2

3 inches diameter

Ornamental Trees

2

2 inches diameter

Coniferous Trees

2

10 feet tall

Major Shrub Plantings

10

5 gallons

(b)
Where a newly constructed public/institutional principal structure
abuts a residentially zoned property, a 20-foot deep vegetative buffer yard consisting of
deciduous or coniferous trees and major shrubs shall be required along the length of the property
line. Deciduous trees intended for screening shall be planted not more than forty feet (40') apart.
Coniferous trees intended for screening shall be planted so that their branches are touching at the
narrowest projected mature canopy width. Shrubs shall be arranged to lessen the visual gaps
between trees.
(6)

Lighting shall be provided in compliance with § 151.058(L)(12);

(7)
The ground level view of all mechanical utilities shall be screened from
contiguous properties and adjacent roads and streets, or designed to be compatible with the
architectural treatment of the principal structure; and
(8)
(I)

All buildings and structures must be served by a central sewer system.

Sign Standards:

8

59

(1)
Building signs. Signs attached to buildings shall be limited to one (1) sign
per face of the building which has a road or street frontage, provided that:
(a)
The size of the sign will be limited to five percent of the wall
surface where the sign is to be located, not including gables, mansard, or parapet extensions of
the wall or eighty (80) square feet, whichever is less; and
(b)
The height of the sign shall not exceed the height of the principal
structure or the structure to which it is affixed.
(2)

Freestanding signs. One (1) freestanding sign shall be allowed per parcel,

provided that:
(a)

The sign shall not be larger than thirty-two (32) square feet;

(b)
No pylon signs are allowed. All freestanding signs must be ground
monuments with a height no greater than eight (8) feet;
(c)
The monument signs cannot be placed on an earthen mound or
berm which would raise the bottom of the sign more than four (4) feet above the normal ground
level. The base for monument signs shall be built out of matching masonry work for the building
it serves;
(d)
Landscaping is required around the base of each sign consisting of
a combination of shrubs, flowers, ornamental trees, and/or evergreens pursuant to a landscape
plan approved by the City, with the landscaped area to be no less than six (6) times the area of
the largest sign face. This landscape plan is not required to be prepared by a registered landscape
architect;
(e)

All freestanding signs must be set back fifteen (15) feet from the

(f)

No illumination shall be visible from any residential land.

lot line;

(3)

Electronic Message Center (EMC) signs shall be permitted, provided that:

(a)
Such signs shall be integrated into a permitted free-standing
monument sign. The non message center portion of the sign may include the name of the use on
the property.
(b)

General provisions:

1.
Location and Orientation. EMC signs are only permitted
for lots that comply with the following standards:
i.

The parcel is a minimum of 3.5 acres in size.

9

60

ii.
The parcel has frontage on an arterial, expander, or
collector roadway, as designated by the City’s Comprehensive
Plan.
iii.
The location and orientation of the sign shall be
placed on the property in a manner that minimizes the visual
impact on adjoining residential properties
2.
Display. The sign message shall be displayed to allow
passing motorists to read the entire copy with minimal distraction. The
minimum display period for any message shall be eight (8) seconds.
3.

Audio. Audio speakers are prohibited.

4.

No animation, flashing or blinking signs are permitted.

5.

Brightness.

i.
Lighting. Lighting shall be set at a minimum level
for which the sign is intended to be read and shielded to minimize
glare.
ii.
The light level shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles
above ambient light as measured from a pre-set distance depending
on the sign size. Measuring distance shall be determined using the
following equation; the square root of the message center sign area
multiplied by one hundred (100). Example: 12 square foot sign
√(12x100) = 34.6 feet measuring distance.
iii.
Dimmer Control. The sign must have a dimmer
control that automatically adjusts the sign’s brightness in direct
correlation to ambient light conditions. Said sign shall be equipped
with photo cell design to measure the ambient light conditions and
adjust the sign brightness as needed so as to be in compliance with
this ordinance.
iv.
No portion of the message may flash, scroll, twirl,
fade in or out in any manner to imitate movement.
v.
Display of messages shall be limited to those
services offered on the property and time/temperature display.
6.

Only one Electronic Message Center Sign is permitted per

lot.

10

61

7.
The area of the electronic message center sign shall be
included in the maximum sign area permitted. The area of the message center shall not exceed
50% of the total sign area for the sign on which it is displayed or sixteen (16) square feet
whichever is less.
8.
Hours of display. The sign shall be turned off and shall not
display messages between the hours of 11:00 pm and 6:00 am.
(4)

Prohibited signs. The following types of signs or sign components shall

be prohibited:
(a)

Roof-top signs;

(b)

Inflatable signs;

(c)

Moving or rotating signs;

(d)

Flashing lights, revolving beacons, or sequential flashers;

(e)

Exposed raceways, ballast boxes, or transformers;

(f)

Noise emitting signs;

(g)

Overhanging or sandwich signs in sidewalk, parking, or traffic

(h)

Awning signs;

(i)

Portable or mobile signs such as trailer signs or semi-trucks; and

(j)

Neon signs.

areas;

Section Nine. Title XV, Chapter 151 Amendment: Title XV, Chapter 151 of the North
Oaks City Code is hereby amended as follows. The underlined text shows the proposed additions
to the City Code and the struck through text shows the deletions:
§ 151.0610 R - RECREATION DISTRICT.
(D)
Conditional uses. The following conditional uses maybe permitted, but only after
securing a conditional use permit in accordance with § 151.076:
(1)
Active recreation areas, not including buildings or structures, but which
may include playgrounds, beaches with or without nonmotorized boat launches, skiing, skating,
team and individual sports areas, provided that:

11

62

(d)
Signs and informational visual communication devices comply
with the provisions of § 151.050(D)(45); and
(2)
Buildings or structures in excess of 500 square feet directly related to the
performance or maintenance of active and passive recreation uses, provided that:
(d)
Signs and information visual communication devices comply with
the provisions of § 151.050(D)(45); and
Section Ten. Title XV, Chapter 151 Amendment: Title XV, Chapter 151 of the North
Oaks City Code is hereby amended as follows. The underlined text shows the proposed additions
to the City Code and the struck through text shows the deletions:
§ 151.0621 OS - OPEN SPACE DISTRICT.
Section Eleven. Title XV, Chapter 151 Amendment: Title XV, Chapter 151 of the North
Oaks City Code is hereby amended as follows. The underlined text shows the proposed additions
to the City Code and the struck through text shows the deletions:
§ 151.0632 HP - HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICT.
(C)
Conditional uses. The following conditional uses may be permitted, but only after
securing a conditional use permit in accordance with § 151.076:
(2)
Non-neon signs and non-neon informational visual communication
devices, except as prohibited in § 151.050(D)(1)(d), provided that:
Section Twelve. Title XV, Chapter 151 Amendment: Title XV, Chapter 151 of the North
Oaks City Code is hereby amended as follows. The underlined text shows the proposed additions
to the City Code and the struck through text shows the deletions:
§ 151.0643 SHORELAND DISTRICT.
Section Thirteen. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon
its adoption and publication as provided by law.

Passed in regular session of the City Council on the 16th day of November, 2026.

12

63

CITY OF NORTH OAKS

By: ________________________________
Krista Wolter, Mayor

Attested:

By: ________________________________
Kevin Kress
City Administrator/City Clerk
(Published in the Shoreview Press on ________________, 2026)

13

64

CITY OF NORTH OAKS
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 162
AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM RSM-RESIDENITAL
SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY TO PI-PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH OAKS ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Rezoning Of Property.
The Official Zoning Map of the City of North Oaks is hereby amended to rezone the real
property identified by Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) 133023240072, 133023220005,
123023330006 from RSM – Residential Single Family Medium Density to PI –
Public/Institutional
fact:

In rezoning the property, the North Oaks City Council makes the following findings of

1.
The proposed changes are consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which
classifies the subject properties as “Institutions” on the 2040 Land Use Plan map.
2.

The rezoning of the parcels is consistent with their current use.

The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the Official Zoning Map to be amended consistent
with this Ordinance.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its adoption and
publication as provided by law.
Passed in regular session of the City Council on the 16th day of November, 2026.
CITY OF NORTH OAKS

By: ________________________________
Krista Wolter, Mayor

65

Attested:

By: ________________________________
Kevin Kress
City Administrator/City Clerk
(Published in the Shoreview Press on ________________, 2026)

2

66

CITY OF NORTH OAKS
RASMEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 1609
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PUBLICATION OF A SUMMARY OF
ORDINANCE NO. 161, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE XV,
CHAPTER 151, ADDING DEFINITIONS, ESTABLISHING A
PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT, AND AMENDING RELATED REFERENCES
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2026, at a meeting of the North Oaks City Council, by
majority vote, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 161 which amended City Code Title XV
Chapter 151 adding definitions, establishing a Public/Institutional Zoning District, and amending
related references.
WHEREAS, State law requires that all ordinances adopted be published prior to becoming
effective; and
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of North Oaks has determined that publication of
the title and a summary of Ordinance No. 161 would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect
of the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of North Oaks has reviewed the summary of
Ordinance No. 161 attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of North Oaks has determined that the text of the
summary clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of Ordinance No. 161.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by a vote of at least four-fifths of its members, that
the City Council of the City of North Oaks hereby:
1. Approves the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 161 attached as Exhibit A and
authorizes the publication of the summary shown in Exhibit A in lieu of publication
of the entirety of Ordinance No. 161 in the City’s official newspaper.
2. Directs the City Clerk to ensure that a full and complete printed copy of Ordinance
No. 161 is available for inspection during regular business hours at the office of the
North Oaks City Clerk, by standard mail, or by electronic mail.
3. Directs the City Clerk to file the executed Ordinance No. 161 upon the books and
records of the City along with proof of publication.

67

This resolution is passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of North Oaks,
Ramsey County, Minnesota this 16th day of November, 2026.
CITY OF NORTH OAKS

By:
Krista Wolter
Its: Mayor
Attested:

By:
Kevin Kress
Its: City Administrator/City Clerk
(Published in the Shoreview Press on

, 2026.)

68

EXHIBIT A
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
ORDINANCE NO. 161
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PUBLICATION OF A SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE
NO. 161, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE XV, CHAPTER 151, ADDING
DEFINITIONS, ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT, AND
AMENDING RELATED REFERENCES
On November 16, 2026, the City of North Oaks, Ramsey County, Minnesota adopted
Ordinance 161, an Ordinance amending City Code Title XV, Chapter 151, adding definitions,
establishing a Public/Institutional District, and amending references.
The Ordinance establishes a Public/Institutional Zoning District to regulate
public/institutional uses in the City of North Oaks, adds related definitions, and amends
various references within the existing zoning ordinance.
It is hereby determined that publication of this title and summary will clearly inform the
public of the intent and effect of Ordinance No. 161, and it is directed that only the above
title and summary of Ordinance No. 161 conforming to Minn. Stat. Sec. 331A.01 be
published, with the following:
NOTICE
A printed copy of the full text of Ordinance No. 161 is available for public inspection by
any person during regular office hours at the office of the North Oaks City Clerk, 100
Village Center Drive, # 230, North Oaks, MN 55127, by standard mail, or by electronic
mail, and at any other public location which the Council designates.

69

Proposed Zoning

e

d
Ro
a
ak

les

La

ke

ad

ad
Ro
ke

h Lan

e

La

a rs

I r o nw

oo d

La

Proposed
PI - Public/Institutional
District

ne

nt

M

Ro

sa

CHARLEY

Co u

rt

rt

Co u

Fos

Road

Co

Sp
ri

t

ng M

C u nn

ingham

Roa
d
ham
co
t

tC

Road

Water

ou
rt

Sp
ri

Shoreland Overlay
ng M

Hodgson Road

e

nt Lak

eR

oa

d

West Plea
sa

Pine Road

oa

Residential Multiple Family High Density- PUD

d

Residential Multiple Family Medium Density-PUD
Residential Single Family

Scotch Pine Road

Residential Single Family - Medium Density
Residential Single Family - Medium Density - PUD
Public/Institutional

oad
en R

e

Residential Single Family - PUD

ne

Rav

oad

an

t

r
Cou

La

en R

in
sh

Rav

n
Su

City of Shoreview

eL

ce

pru

eS

Blu

y

ne

La

Scotch Pine Road

eR

Ja

y

City of Shoreview

nt Lak

e
Blu

Ja

ce

pru

Residential-Commercial Mixed-PUD

ircle

Residential Multiple Family Medium Density

e
Blu

eS

Blu

rt
Cou

Recreation

Hill F
arm C

Re d

Pine Road

Open Space

Road

West Plea
sa

Limited Industrial

ircle

Raven

Re d

Road

arm C

Historic Preservation

Lawton Lane

Raven

Hill F

Commercial/Service

ane

Lan

Hodgson Road

sh

Lawton Lane

Commercial

ar

L
sh

ar

Al

ning

ley P
lace

ur

Rad

Cun

tt

PLEASANT

Cun

d
Roa
ham

Maycomb Lane

ning

lace
ley P
Rad

Al
co

PLEASANT

lace
ter P

lace
ter P

Fos

ingham

ar

kO

e Court
ak

Tree Farm L ane

Maycomb Lane

C u nn

Ch

tP

sa
lea
tP
W
es

rl e

yL

W
ay

e

Lake

Lake

Tree Farm L ane

er

an

W
es

oo d

ne

Cha

e

I r o nw

La

Hodgson Road

h Lan

ke
R

oa

d

d

Lake Bay

eR

La

a rs

ow

ak

nt

M

Wild
fl

eW
ay

Isl a d Vie w L
n

Bl
ac

d
Ro
a
ak
Bl
ac
kO

sL

ng

Cha

rle

oa

CHARLEY
Lake Bay

Ch
a

e

Lo

ourt
ke C

ng

Hodgson Road

W
ay

cl

r

er

an

Ci

ow

ild
W

eW
ay

Isl a d Vie w L
n

Lo

rl e

a
yL

cl

r

Wild
fl

fl

Ci

flo

ild
W

ce

la

rP

e
ow

lea

ac
Pl

H i gh

r
we

H i gh

Current Zoning

d
oa

hR

s
bu

sh

ad

Ro

Do

ve

Ra

d
oa
nR

d
oa
nR

ve

Ra

n

Do

u
nb

rive

D
nter
Highway 96 West

rive

D
nter

e Ce

e Ce

g
Villa

g
Villa
Highway 96 West

0

0.12

0.25

0.5

Miles

NORTH

9/16/2026
Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

70

City

Plymouth, MN

Lot Area

Front Setback, Principal
Building

Depends on Use. 3 acres
Non- Residential: 50 feet.
for religious institutions. 30
Residential: 50 feet
acres for Junior Highs.

Side Interior Setback,
Principal Building

Side Corner Setback,
Principal Building

Non- Residential: 15 feet.
Residential: 50 feet

Non- Residential: 50 feet.
Residential: 50 feet

Requires
Requires
Increased
Screening/Buffer
Rear Setback, Principal Setback Abutting ing Abutting
Building
Residential
Residential

Non- Residential: 15 feet.
Residential: 50 feet





Maximum
Height,
Principal
Building

45 feet

Red Wing, MN

5,000 square feet

0 feet

5 feet

5 feet

8 feet





96 feet

Lakeville, MN

20,000 square feet

30 feet

Non-Residential: 10 feet.
Residential: 30 feet

30 feet

30 feet





No limit

Little Canada, MN

None

Non-Residential: 30 feet
Residential: 40 feet

Non-Residential: 15 feet
Residential: 40 feet

Non-Residential: 30 feet
Residential: 40 feet

Non-Residential: 20 feet
Residential: 40 feet





36 feet or 3
stories,
whichever is
less

Lino Lakes, MN

1 acre (sewered), 10 acres
50 feet
(unsewered)

10 feet

50 feet

30 feet





45 feet

Schools: 100 feet.
Schools: 100 feet.
Other insitutional uses:
Other insitutional uses: 50
50 feet or the height of
feet or the height of the
the building, whichever is
building, whichever is greater
greater





40 feet or three
stories

Non-Residential: none or
10 feet if windows are
located on the side wall of
an abutting property
Residential: 20 feet

Non-Residential: None
Residential: 20 feet

Non-Residential: 10 feet
Residential: 25 feet





60 feet

30 feet

30 feet

30 feet





45 feet

Wayzata, MN

Depends on Use. 3 acres
for places of assembly.

Schools: 100 feet.
Schools: 50 feet.
Other
Other insitutional uses: 50
insitutional uses: 50 feet or
feet or the height of the
the height of the building,
building, whichever is
whichever is greater
greater

Non-Residential: None
Residential: 20 feet

Roseville, MN

None

Proposed North Oaks,
MN

Sufficient size to allow the
proposed development to
30 feet
comply with Ordinance
provisions

Notes

15 foot buffer yard
required by low
density residential
(doesn't note
increased setback).

71

72

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Kendra Lindahl, AICP
Grace Gerard
FW: September 24 Public Hearing — Public/Institutional Zoning and Neighbor Participation
Monday, September 21, 2026 1:56:29 PM

FYI
Kendra Lindahl, AICP

​

LANDFORM, Principal Planner
Direct: 612.638.0225

From: Kevin Kress <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2026 1:49 PM
To: Nason, Bridget M. <[email protected]>; Kendra Lindahl, AICP
<[email protected]>
Subject: FW: September 24 Public Hearing — Public/Institutional Zoning and Neighbor Participation

From: George Wellock <g
>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2026 1:46 PM
To: Dave Cremons <[email protected]>; Kevin Kress <[email protected]>
Subject: September 24 Public Hearing — Public/Institutional Zoning and Neighbor Participation

Chair Cremons and Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing regarding the September 24 public hearing on the proposed Public/Institutional
zoning district and the proposed rezoning of Peace United Methodist Church, Incarnation
Lutheran Church, and Chippewa Middle School.
I want to begin by emphasizing that I am not opposed to considering a Public/Institutional
district. I understand why the City may conclude that properties functioning as churches and a
school do not fit comfortably within a Residential Single-Family Medium Density zoning
district.
My concern is about the process used to develop the new standards and, particularly, the role
of the residents who live immediately adjacent to these properties.
At the August City Council discussion, considerable attention was appropriately given to the
needs of the institutions, possible community uses, access, parking, and broader community
considerations. What received considerably less discussion was the effect a new zoning district
could have on the residential properties surrounding these sites.
That matters because the current RSM zoning and Conditional Use Permit process provide
mechanisms for reviewing institutional uses in their particular setting. Those reviews can
address such issues as compatibility with neighboring properties, screening, traffic, parking,
73

lighting, noise, signage, hours of operation, outdoor activities, and future expansion.
As a new PI district is written, I believe residents should be able to understand several things
clearly:
Which uses will be permitted by right?
Which uses will continue to require a Conditional Use Permit?
What will happen to conditions contained in the existing CUPs?
Which protections presently associated with RSM zoning and CUP review will be
incorporated into the PI district?
What standards will protect adjoining residential properties from incompatible lighting,
noise, traffic, outdoor activity, signage, future expansion, and inadequate buffering or
screening—particularly where institutional property directly abuts residential
backyards?
Will standards differ depending upon whether a particular institutional property borders
North Oaks residences or residences in another municipality?
I am particularly interested in the City's statement that the proposed PI standards may be
developed using existing RSM standards as a starting point. If so, I would encourage the
Commission to identify explicitly which protections are being carried forward and which are
changing.
I would also encourage the Commission to consider whether the new PI district should contain
a clear buffering standard where institutional property directly abuts residential property.
That could include preservation of existing mature vegetation, supplemental year-round
screening where needed, adequate landscape depth, and maintenance or replacement
requirements. North Oaks already places considerable value on visual separation and
preservation of the residential character of the community. I believe that principle should be
considered carefully when establishing the boundary between a new institutional district and
adjoining homes.
I also want to raise a procedural concern.
The mailed public-hearing notice requested written comments by September 17. The
complete Planning Commission packet was scheduled for publication on September 21, only
three days before the September 24 hearing. That timing meant residents were asked to
submit advance written comments before they had access to the complete material upon
which the Commission would deliberate.
I respectfully ask the Commission to provide residents—particularly residents whose
properties abut the three institutional sites—adequate opportunity to review the actual
proposed ordinance before the Commission makes its recommendation to the City Council.
If important standards or proposed uses become clear only when the September 21 packet is

74

released, I also ask that residents be permitted to submit supplemental comments and, if
necessary, that the Commission keep the public record open long enough for meaningful
review.
There is an additional geographic consideration at Incarnation Lutheran Church. Residential
properties in Shoreview directly abut the church property. Although those residents live
outside North Oaks, they may experience the same land-use effects as residents on the North
Oaks side of the municipal boundary. I encourage the Commission to consider adjoining
properties based upon their physical relationship to the site, not solely the municipal
boundary.
My request is straightforward.
Please involve the people who live next to these properties while the PI standards are being
developed, not only after the standards have largely taken shape.
I would be pleased to participate constructively in that process and to assist in identifying
issues of particular concern to neighboring residential properties.
These standards may govern these sites for decades. It is worth taking the time now to make
sure that institutional needs, community interests, and the reasonable protections of
neighboring homeowners are all considered.
Thank you for your consideration.
George Wellock
North Oaks

75

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Kendra Lindahl, AICP
Grace Gerard
FW: Additional Public Comments for 9/24/2026 Planning Commission Meeting
Sunday, September 27, 2026 8:38:46 PM

FYI
Kendra Lindahl, AICP

​

LANDFORM, Principal Planner
Direct: 612.638.0225

From: Kevin Kress <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2026 1:34 PM
To: Kendra Lindahl, AICP <[email protected]>; Bridget Nason <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Additional Public Comments for 9/24/2026 Planning Commission Meeting

Thanks,
Kevin
Begin forwarded message:
From: George Wellock <g
>
Date: September 26, 2026 at 11:05:55 AM CDT
To: Dave Cremons <[email protected]>, Kevin Kress
<[email protected]>
Subject: Additional Public Comments for 9/24/2026 Planning
Commission Meeting


Good Morning Chair Cremons and Members of the Planning Commission,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to share my view and requests related
to the proposed Zoning changes on Thursday evening. And thank you for leaving
the proposed zoning proposal open until the October meeting for additional
community concerns. Following the meeting, I was pleased to hear the
description of the changes by Kevin Kress and Kendra Lindall. They are wonderful
assets for the City of North Oaks.
During the meeting, there were several additional questions that came to mind.
For example, several of the Planning Commissions raised the question of what
was different between the RSM and P/I ordinance, and that is a very legitimate
item for the Planning Commission to consider. Based on that, I have done a much
more thorough review of the proposals and I have additional comments and
76

requests for the proposed P/I Zoning ordinance. I have added my thoughts below
and I would like them shared with the Planning Commission and the City Council
as you finalize the new ordinance. I would also request that you add these
additional comments to the published Meeting Minutes when they are added to
the North Oaks website.
Additionally, you suggested that I reach out to neighbors to solicit additional
community involvement and I will do that with this new information from my
review. I would like to ask whether there is an abutters list that is available from
the city that would allow me to confirm which addresses are impacted by this
proposed change. I do not want to bother any resident who is not impacted by
these changes.

Purpose and Principle
I actively support the City’s effort to determine whether a separate
Public/Institutional zoning district is a more appropriate way to regulate
properties such as Peace United Methodist Church, Incarnation Lutheran Church,
and Chippewa Middle School.
In fact, I encourage the Planning Commission to use the creation of a new zoning
district as an opportunity to examine carefully how Public/Institutional property
should transition to adjoining residential property.
The proposed PI ordinance is based substantially on standards currently
contained in the RSM district. However, it is more than a change in zoning
terminology. Under the existing RSM structure, educational facilities and religious
institutions are conditional uses. Under the proposed PI ordinance, educational
facilities and places of assembly would become permitted uses. The proposed
ordinance also establishes a 45-foot standard building-height limit and contains
development provisions that differ in several respects from the current RSM
framework. 2026-09-24_PC_Packet_PI_District_Amendment.pdf
Moving an institutional use from conditional to permitted status is important
even when many dimensional standards remain similar. A CUP provides an
opportunity to examine a particular use in its particular surroundings. When the
underlying institutional use becomes permitted, more responsibility necessarily
falls upon the permanent standards written into the zoning ordinance itself.
For that reason, I believe the central question should not be limited to:
“How much of the existing RSM language can be transferred into the new PI
district?”
It should also include:
77

“What standards should North Oaks establish today to protect the long-term
relationship between Public/Institutional property and the residential
properties immediately adjoining it?”
North Oaks already recognizes this planning principle elsewhere in its zoning
code. In the Commercial District, for example, the City does not simply apply the
ordinary 30-foot property-line setback when commercial property meets
residential property. The code establishes a 100-foot setback from a residential
district and incorporates additional Commercial/Service landscaping standards.
North Oaks
I am not suggesting that a Public/Institutional district should automatically receive
the same standards as a Commercial district. Institutional and commercial uses
are different.
The existing North Oaks provisions are useful for another reason: they
demonstrate that the City already recognizes that the boundary between
substantially different land uses may warrant standards specifically designed
for that transition.
That same principle deserves consideration as the PI district is created.
The proposed ordinance currently applies a general 30-foot setback to structures
and parking areas regardless of whether the adjoining property is another
institutional property, a roadway, or a residential backyard. 2026-0924_PC_Packet_PI_District_Amendment.pdf
I believe the Commission should consider whether the PI-to-residential boundary
deserves more deliberate treatment.
That does not necessarily mean selecting a particular setback such as 40, 50, or
60 feet. Nor does it mean that every institutional property must be visually hidden
from every neighboring home.
It means deciding intentionally what constitutes an appropriate transition
between these uses.
That transition could involve some combination of setback, preservation of
mature vegetation, landscaped buffer areas, year-round screening, berming
where appropriate, controls on parking and outdoor activity areas, and
maintenance or replacement requirements.
The ordinance should also be written for the future condition of these
properties, not simply for what exists today.
Buildings can be expanded. Parking areas can be enlarged or repurposed. Mature
vegetation can disappear. New accessory activities can develop. Traffic and
78

outdoor use can change. Zoning standards adopted today may govern those
changes for decades.
For that reason, I suggest the following guiding principle for consideration:
Where Public/Institutional property directly abuts residential property, the
zoning ordinance should provide a deliberate transition between the two land
uses through appropriate setbacks, landscaping, screening, development
standards, and review of higher-impact activities.
The objective should be to provide institutional properties with reasonable
flexibility while also establishing predictable, durable standards for the residential
properties that border them.

Proposed Differences
The following table highlights several areas where the proposed PI district either
differs from the current RSM framework or raises questions that I believe deserve
clarification before adoption.
Issue

Current RSM /
North Oaks
Practice

Proposed PI

Question for Commission

Places of
Churches and
assembly and K–
schools are
12 educational
conditional uses facilities become
permitted uses

If case-by-case CUP review
is reduced, should baseline
residential-edge
protections become
stronger?

30 ft. generally

30 ft. generally

Should PI require a larger
setback where it directly
abuts residential property?

Height

RSM generally
starts at 35 ft.

PI allows 45 ft.
before additional
height provisions
apply

Should taller institutional
buildings receive greater
residential-edge setbacks or
additional review?

Screening

RSM
Is this enough, or should PI
institutional use PI also references contain a specific yearreferences
§151.034
round residential-buffer
§151.034
standard?

Institutional
use

Setback

79

Existing
institutional
PI incorporates
CUP language is §151.058(L)(3)
less explicit

Does that incorporation
mean the stronger
Commercial/Service
residential-buffer provisions
actually apply to PI
property?

PI draft does not
RSM includes
reproduce the
Development
floor-area-ratio
same FAR
intensity
controls
provision

What limits eventual buildout or development
intensity on these large
institutional parcels?

Landscaping

Traffic

Existing RSM
institutional
standard
expressly
considers
roadway
capacity

Current
institutions
Existing CUPs operate under
existing CUP
conditions

That exact
requirement is
not carried into
the PI special
minimum
requirements

Was that omission
intentional, and if so, where
will traffic capacity be
addressed?

Primary
Which existing CUP
institutional uses
conditions survive rezoning,
become
and which no longer apply?
permitted uses

These differences do not necessarily argue against PI zoning, but they show that
the proposal is more than simply a change in zoning terminology and that the
residential edge deserves deliberate consideration.

Requests for Clarification and Consideration
I respectfully ask the Planning Commission, City Planner, and City Attorney to
consider the following issues before making a final recommendation on the
proposed PI ordinance.
1. Clarify the meaning of the reference to §151.058(L)(3)
The proposed PI ordinance states that:
“Landscaping and irrigation shall be provided in compliance with §151.058(L)
(3).” 2026-09-24_PC_Packet_PI_District_Amendment.pdf

80

Section 151.058(L)(3) originates in the City's Commercial/Service zoning
provisions and contains considerably more detailed landscaping requirements
than a general requirement for “screening.”
This creates an important drafting question:
Does incorporation of §151.058(L)(3) mean that all of its residential-transition
requirements are intended to apply when PI property directly adjoins
residential property?
If the answer is yes, I suggest that the PI ordinance state that intention expressly
so that property owners, neighboring residents, staff, and future decision-makers
do not have to interpret the relationship between provisions written originally for
Commercial/Service property and a newly created PI district.
If the answer is no, I encourage the Commission to consider creating a specific PIto-residential landscaping and buffering standard.
Either way, the ordinance should make the intended standard clear before
adoption.
2. Consider a specific PI-to-residential setback and buffer
The proposed ordinance establishes a general 30-foot setback for structures and
parking areas. 2026-09-24_PC_Packet_PI_District_Amendment.pdf
I ask the Commission to consider whether the same setback should apply when PI
property directly abuts a residential backyard, or whether that particular
boundary warrants additional separation.
North Oaks already uses enhanced separation elsewhere in its code. For example,
the Commercial District requires a 100-foot structural setback from a residential
district. North Oaks
I am not suggesting that the PI district should use the Commercial District's 100foot requirement. Rather, I ask that the Commission make an intentional
determination as to whether 30 feet is the appropriate residential-edge
standard for PI property, rather than simply carrying that dimension forward
because it presently appears in RSM.
The appropriate solution might involve a greater setback, a dedicated landscape
buffer, or a combination of both.
3. Establish a meaningful year-round screening standard
The proposed ordinance requires screening under §151.034, but I encourage the
Commission to consider whether the PI district should contain a more specific
performance standard for screening where institutional property directly adjoins
residential property. 2026-09-24_PC_Packet_PI_District_Amendment.pdf
81

A useful standard could address:
preservation of existing mature vegetation where practical;
year-round visual screening rather than seasonal screening alone;
evergreen plantings where necessary;
minimum planting size and density;
staggered plantings rather than isolated individual trees;
berming or other methods where appropriate to the site;
screening of parking, service, mechanical, and outdoor activity areas; and
maintenance and replacement of required screening if vegetation dies or is
removed.
The purpose would not necessarily be to conceal an entire institutional property.
It would be to provide meaningful and durable separation between higheractivity portions of an institutional site and adjoining residential homes.
4. Clarify the effect of increased building height and development intensity
The proposed PI district establishes a 45-foot maximum height for principal
structures before additional height provisions apply. 2026-0924_PC_Packet_PI_District_Amendment.pdf
I ask the Commission to consider whether additional height should require
greater separation from residential property and whether significant increases in
building size or intensity should trigger additional review.
The current RSM framework also contains development-intensity controls that do
not appear in the same form in the proposed PI section.
If those controls are intentionally being changed or eliminated, it would be helpful
for the Commission and public to understand:
What provisions will govern the ultimate amount and intensity of future
development on these large institutional parcels?
5. Clarify the status of existing CUP conditions
Each of the three properties currently operates within an RSM district under
Conditional Use Permits, while the proposed PI ordinance would make the
underlying educational and assembly uses permitted uses. The staff report
expressly identifies this transition. 2026-0924_PC_Packet_PI_District_Amendment.pdf
Before rezoning occurs, I believe it is important to explain clearly:

82

which existing CUP conditions remain enforceable;
which conditions would be incorporated into the new regulatory
framework;
which conditions would no longer apply; and
whether future modifications to an existing institutional use would receive
public or administrative review.
This information would help both the institutions and neighboring homeowners
understand what actually changes when the zoning designation changes.
6. Consider review standards for substantial future expansion
Making a church, school, or place of assembly a permitted use does not
necessarily mean that every future expansion of that use must occur without
additional review.
The Commission may wish to consider whether a substantial increase in:
building area;
parking;
outdoor activity;
traffic generation;
hours of operation; or
intensity of use
should trigger site-plan review or another defined review process even though
the underlying institutional use remains permitted.
Such a provision could give institutional property owners predictability while
allowing unusually significant changes to be evaluated in their actual
surroundings.
7. Clarify traffic protections
The existing RSM institutional standards include consideration of whether the
road serving the principal use and related parking has sufficient capacity for the
traffic generated. In the proposed PI special minimum requirements, that same
language does not appear. The proposed PI requirements instead address such
matters as compatibility, screening, parking, landscaping, lighting, mechanical
utilities, and sewer service. 2026-09-24_PC_Packet_PI_District_Amendment.pdf
I ask the Commission to clarify whether omission of the existing traffic-capacity

83

requirement was intentional.
If traffic capacity will continue to be evaluated under another provision of the
Code, identifying that provision would remove uncertainty. If not, the Commission
may wish to consider whether the existing protection should be retained.
8. Apply residential-edge standards consistently across municipal boundaries
Some residential properties in Shoreview directly adjoin the Incarnation Lutheran
Church property.
I do not know whether all of those homeowners have received notice or
participated in the process, and I do not want to assume otherwise.
I do ask the Commission to clarify whether the same PI-to-residential setback,
landscaping, screening, lighting, and compatibility standards will apply to an
adjoining residential property regardless of whether that home is located in North
Oaks or Shoreview.
From a land-use standpoint, the physical relationship between adjoining
properties does not change at the municipal boundary.

Closing Request
I am not asking the Commission to adopt a particular setback number or simply
transfer the Commercial District standards into the new PI district.
I am asking that the residential edge of this new district be treated as a
deliberate planning issue before the ordinance is finalized.
North Oaks already has experience using setbacks, landscaping, screening,
vegetation preservation, lighting controls, and other tools to manage the
transition between different types of land use. The creation of a new
Public/Institutional district provides an opportunity to decide which of those tools
are appropriate here.
The question should not only be whether the proposed PI ordinance
accommodates the institutional properties as they exist today.
It should also ask:
What standards do we want governing the relationship between these
institutional properties and the surrounding residential neighborhoods ten,
twenty, or thirty years from now?
Addressing that question now could provide greater clarity and predictability for
everyone - institutions, residents, City staff, the Planning Commission, and future

84

City Councils.
Thank you for your consideration.
George Wellock
North Oaks

From: George Wellock <
>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2026 1:46 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Kevin Kress
<[email protected]>
Subject: September 24 Public Hearing — Public/Institutional Zoning and Neighbor
Participation
Chair Cremons and Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing regarding the September 24 public hearing on the proposed
Public/Institutional zoning district and the proposed rezoning of Peace United
Methodist Church, Incarnation Lutheran Church, and Chippewa Middle School.
I want to begin by emphasizing that I am not opposed to considering a
Public/Institutional district. I understand why the City may conclude that
properties functioning as churches and a school do not fit comfortably within a
Residential Single-Family Medium Density zoning district.
My concern is about the process used to develop the new standards and,
particularly, the role of the residents who live immediately adjacent to these
properties.
At the August City Council discussion, considerable attention was appropriately
given to the needs of the institutions, possible community uses, access, parking,
and broader community considerations. What received considerably less
discussion was the effect a new zoning district could have on the residential
properties surrounding these sites.
That matters because the current RSM zoning and Conditional Use Permit process
provide mechanisms for reviewing institutional uses in their particular setting.
Those reviews can address such issues as compatibility with neighboring
properties, screening, traffic, parking, lighting, noise, signage, hours of operation,
outdoor activities, and future expansion.
As a new PI district is written, I believe residents should be able to understand
several things clearly:

85

Which uses will be permitted by right?
Which uses will continue to require a Conditional Use Permit?
What will happen to conditions contained in the existing CUPs?
Which protections presently associated with RSM zoning and CUP review
will be incorporated into the PI district?
What standards will protect adjoining residential properties from
incompatible lighting, noise, traffic, outdoor activity, signage, future
expansion, and inadequate buffering or screening—particularly where
institutional property directly abuts residential backyards?
Will standards differ depending upon whether a particular institutional
property borders North Oaks residences or residences in another
municipality?
I am particularly interested in the City's statement that the proposed PI standards
may be developed using existing RSM standards as a starting point. If so, I would
encourage the Commission to identify explicitly which protections are being
carried forward and which are changing.
I would also encourage the Commission to consider whether the new PI district
should contain a clear buffering standard where institutional property directly
abuts residential property. That could include preservation of existing mature
vegetation, supplemental year-round screening where needed, adequate
landscape depth, and maintenance or replacement requirements. North Oaks
already places considerable value on visual separation and preservation of the
residential character of the community. I believe that principle should be
considered carefully when establishing the boundary between a new institutional
district and adjoining homes.
I also want to raise a procedural concern.
The mailed public-hearing notice requested written comments by September 17.
The complete Planning Commission packet was scheduled for publication on
September 21, only three days before the September 24 hearing. That timing
meant residents were asked to submit advance written comments before they
had access to the complete material upon which the Commission would
deliberate.
I respectfully ask the Commission to provide residents—particularly residents
whose properties abut the three institutional sites—adequate opportunity to
review the actual proposed ordinance before the Commission makes its
recommendation to the City Council.
If important standards or proposed uses become clear only when the September

86

21 packet is released, I also ask that residents be permitted to submit
supplemental comments and, if necessary, that the Commission keep the public
record open long enough for meaningful review.
There is an additional geographic consideration at Incarnation Lutheran Church.
Residential properties in Shoreview directly abut the church property. Although
those residents live outside North Oaks, they may experience the same land-use
effects as residents on the North Oaks side of the municipal boundary. I
encourage the Commission to consider adjoining properties based upon their
physical relationship to the site, not solely the municipal boundary.
My request is straightforward.
Please involve the people who live next to these properties while the PI standards
are being developed, not only after the standards have largely taken shape.
I would be pleased to participate constructively in that process and to assist in
identifying issues of particular concern to neighboring residential properties.
These standards may govern these sites for decades. It is worth taking the time
now to make sure that institutional needs, community interests, and the
reasonable protections of neighboring homeowners are all considered.
Thank you for your consideration.
George Wellock
North Oaks

87

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Kevin Kress
Bridget Nason; Kendra Lindahl, AICP; Jupe Hale; Kate Achenbach
Fwd: Public/Institutional Zoning — Residential-Edge Standards and Request for Clarification
Tuesday, October 20, 2026 11:06:49 AM

FYI…
Thanks,
Kevin
Begin forwarded message:
From: George Wellock <[email protected]>
Date: October 20, 2026 at 11:03:31 AM CDT
To: Krista Wolter <[email protected]>, Mark Azman
<[email protected]>, Andrew Gaspard
<[email protected]>, Grover Sayre <[email protected]>,
Sara Shah <[email protected]>, Dave Cremons
<[email protected]>, Kevin Kress <[email protected]>
Subject: Public/Institutional Zoning — Residential-Edge Standards and
Request for Clarification

Mayor Wolter, Members of the City Council, Chair Cremons, Members of the
Planning Commission, and Administrator Kress:
I am writing to follow up on the proposed Public/Institutional zoning district for
Peace United Methodist Church, Incarnation Lutheran Church, and Chippewa
Middle School. I do not see an Agenda for the next time this will be discussed, so I
would like these comments to be entered into the public record for the next time
it appears on either agenda.
I continue to believe that creating a separate zoning district for schools, churches,
and other public or semi-public uses may be a reasonable planning decision for
North Oaks. My concern is not with the concept of PI zoning itself.
My concern is whether the City is using this opportunity to define clearly and
intentionally how Public/Institutional property should transition to adjoining
residential property.
The proposed PI ordinance is based substantially on standards already contained
in the RSM district, but it is more than a change of zoning terminology. Under the
present RSM framework, schools and religious institutions are conditional uses.
Under the proposed PI ordinance, educational facilities and places of assembly

88

would become permitted uses.
That distinction is important.
A Conditional Use Permit provides an opportunity to review a particular use in its
particular setting and to evaluate such issues as compatibility, traffic, screening,
parking, lighting, and effects on neighboring property. When the basic
institutional use becomes permitted, more of that protection must come from
the permanent standards written directly into the zoning ordinance.
For that reason, I believe North Oaks should look beyond simply transferring the
existing 30-foot RSM setback and general screening language into the new
district.
North Oaks already recognizes stronger residential transitions elsewhere
The City's existing Commercial District provides a useful local precedent.
The ordinary commercial setback is 30 feet, but where a commercial structure
adjoins a residential district, the ordinance requires 100 feet of separation. The
Commercial District also incorporates the more detailed Commercial/Service
landscaping, wooded-area preservation, parking, loading, lighting, and related
standards.
The Commercial/Service District goes even further in stating the planning
principle. Its stated purpose provides that the district will be screened from
adjacent city properties and that development should complement the
predominantly residential character of North Oaks.
I am not suggesting that churches and schools should be regulated exactly like
commercial development.
I am suggesting that North Oaks already recognizes an important land-use
principle:
Where substantially different land uses meet, the residential edge may
warrant stronger standards than an ordinary property line.
I believe that principle deserves explicit consideration in the new PI district.
Residential-edge setbacks
The proposed PI ordinance generally requires structures and parking areas to
remain 30 feet from property lines.

89

I respectfully ask whether 30 feet should automatically apply where an
institutional property directly adjoins a residential backyard.
Rather than simply carrying the RSM number forward, I encourage the City to
consider whether a greater PI-to-residential setback — perhaps 40, 50, 60 feet, or
another appropriate distance — should be established after deliberate review.
The specific number is less important to me than the principle that the residential
boundary should be evaluated separately.
Screening and buffering
I also believe that the new PI ordinance should contain a clear residential-edge
buffering standard.
The proposed ordinance requires screening under §151.034 and states that
landscaping and irrigation must comply with §151.058(L)(3).
That cross-reference raises a question that I believe should be resolved before
adoption.
Section 151.058(L)(3) is part of the Commercial/Service zoning provisions and
includes detailed landscaping requirements, including perimeter berm standards
separating commercial and residential uses. The PI draft incorporates that
section, but the underlying language was written specifically in terms of
commercial property.
I therefore respectfully request clarification:
Does the PI ordinance's incorporation of §151.058(L)(3) mean that the
Commercial/Service residential-buffer requirements — including the
landscaped berm provisions — apply where PI property directly abuts
residential property?
If the answer is yes, I suggest the PI ordinance say so explicitly.
If the answer is no, I suggest the PI district contain its own specific PI-toresidential buffering standard.
A meaningful standard could include:
preservation of mature existing vegetation where practical;
a defined landscaped buffer width;
year-round visual screening;
evergreen planting of sufficient size and density;
90

berming where appropriate;
stronger screening around parking, service, mechanical, and outdoor
activity areas;
maintenance requirements; and
mandatory replacement when required screening dies or is removed.
Parking near residential property
North Oaks' Commercial/Service regulations also use greater separation between
parking and residential property than the ordinary 30-foot property-line standard.
That suggests another question worth considering:
Should parking areas within a PI district have a separate setback from adjoining
residential property?
A parking lot can have a very different effect on a neighboring home than lawn,
woodland, or passive open space. It may therefore make sense to regulate the
two differently.
Building height and development intensity
The proposed PI ordinance establishes a standard maximum building height of 45
feet before additional height provisions apply.
The current RSM framework generally begins at a lower height threshold.
I ask the City to consider whether taller institutional buildings should require
greater separation from adjoining homes and whether major future expansions
should receive additional review even when the underlying institutional use is
permitted.
The proposed PI section also does not reproduce the same floor-area-ratio
control found in the current RSM framework.
That raises a broader question:
What provision will control the eventual amount and intensity of development
on these large institutional parcels?
Major development review
The Commercial/Service district provides another useful model because
development is subject to formal site-plan and building-plan review.

91

I believe the City should consider a similar concept for major changes within PI
zoning.
Making a church, school, or place of assembly a permitted use does not
necessarily mean that every substantial future expansion should occur without
additional public review.
The City could establish a trigger for Planning Commission or City Council review
when there is a significant increase in:
building area;
parking;
outdoor activity;
lighting;
traffic generation;
grading or site disturbance; or
overall intensity of use.
That would allow institutions reasonable flexibility while still giving the City and
neighboring residents an opportunity to evaluate major physical changes.
Traffic
The current RSM institutional standard expressly considers whether the road
serving the use and related parking has sufficient capacity for the traffic
generated.
That exact requirement does not appear among the proposed PI special minimum
requirements.
I respectfully ask whether that omission was intentional and, if so, where roadway
capacity will be addressed in the new framework.
Existing CUP conditions
Because the three affected properties currently operate under Conditional Use
Permits, it is also important to understand clearly what happens to those existing
conditions when the primary institutional use becomes permitted.
I ask the City to identify:
which existing CUP conditions remain enforceable;
which are incorporated into the new PI framework;
which no longer apply; and

92

what future changes would trigger new review.
Notice and resident involvement
North Oaks already has a well-established public-notice process for CUPs and
zoning amendments. The City's CUP guidance states that a public hearing is
mandatory and that neighbors within 350 feet are notified.
As PI uses move from conditional to permitted status, I encourage the City to
consider preserving a comparable notice mechanism for major site-plan changes
or substantial expansions.
Otherwise, a neighboring homeowner may receive notice when the zoning district
is created but little or no notice many years later when the physical use of the
property changes significantly.
A suggested guiding principle
I respectfully suggest that the City consider adding a principle along these lines to
the PI framework:
Where Public/Institutional property directly abuts residential
property, the zoning ordinance should provide a deliberate
transition between the two uses through appropriate setbacks,
landscaping, screening, preservation of vegetation, controls on
higher-impact activities, and review of substantial future
development.
I am not asking the City to copy the Commercial District or to adopt a particular
setback number without study.
I am asking that the residential edge of this new zoning district be treated as a
deliberate planning issue rather than simply inheriting the ordinary RSM
property-line standards.
North Oaks already uses these planning tools elsewhere in its code. This seems
like the appropriate time to decide which of them should be adapted to
Public/Institutional property.
The question is not only whether the proposed ordinance works for the three
institutions as they exist today.
It is also:
What rules do we want governing the relationship between these properties
93

and the surrounding residential neighborhoods ten, twenty, or thirty years
from now?
I believe addressing that question now would provide greater clarity and
predictability for the institutions, neighboring residents, City staff, the Planning
Commission, and future City Councils. Please distribute this note to the members
of the Planning Commission as they prepare for the new PI Zoning Regulation.
Thank you for your consideration.
George Wellock
North Oaks

651-558-6671
Sources Referenced
North Oaks City Code, Title XV, Chapter 151 — Land Usage
North Oaks Planning Commission Agenda Packet, November 18, 2024
North Oaks Planning Commission PI District Amendment Packet, September 24,
2026
North Oaks CUP/Variance Instructions, updated October 9, 2025

94

10-25-2026 - Email from George Wellock
CITY OF NORTH OAKS
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA

CITIZEN STRAW-MAN DRAFT

PROPOSED PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL ZONING ORDINANCE
For Planning Commission and City Council Discussion
DISCUSSION DRAFT ONLY - NOT LEGAL ADVICE OR AN OFFICIAL CITY PROPOSAL

This draft is intentionally written in the structure and terminology of the North Oaks zoning code so that
City staff, the Planning Commission, City Attorney, and City Council can react to specific ordinance
language. All provisions should be reviewed by the City Attorney for consistency with Minnesota law,
RLUIPA, the Comprehensive Plan, and other provisions of the North Oaks City Code before adoption.
Purpose of this straw man. The September 2026 City draft appropriately creates a separate PI district and
makes educational facilities and places of assembly permitted uses. This alternative retains that basic approach
but strengthens the permanent standards at boundaries where PI property directly abuts residential property. It
also clarifies screening, setbacks, major-expansion review, traffic, notice, ground-mounted solar and
comparable facilities, and the treatment and audit of existing CUP, parking, landscape, and screening
conditions.
Drafting principle. Where Public/Institutional property directly abuts residential property, the ordinance
should provide a deliberate transition through setbacks, landscaping, year-round screening, preservation of
vegetation, controls on higher-impact activities, and review of substantial future development.

Citizen Straw-Man Draft - Public/Institutional Zoning - October 2026

95

CITY OF NORTH OAKS
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE XV, CHAPTER 151, TO ESTABLISH A
PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT AND RELATED RESIDENTIAL-EDGE
STANDARDS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH OAKS ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section One. Title XV, Chapter 151, Section 151.005 (Definitions) is amended to add the following
definitions:
EDUCATIONAL FACILITY. A school, including a Montessori school, prekindergarten, kindergarten,
elementary school, middle school, or secondary school as defined by Minnesota law.
MAJOR SITE MODIFICATION. A change to a property in the PI District that meets one or more of the
thresholds established in § 151.060(K).
PLACE OF ASSEMBLY. A structure or portion of a structure where facilities are provided primarily for the
gathering of people for civic, educational, political, or religious purposes.
RESIDENTIAL-EDGE BUFFER. A required landscaped and screening area located on PI-zoned property
along a lot line that directly abuts land used or zoned for residential purposes, including residential land in
an adjoining municipality.
YEAR-ROUND SCREENING. Vegetative, topographic, structural, or combined screening designed and
maintained to materially reduce direct views throughout the year, including during leaf-off conditions.
GROUND-MOUNTED SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM. A solar energy system in which one or more solar
collectors, panels, arrays, racks, inverters, transformers, battery cabinets, or related equipment are mounted
on or supported by the ground rather than mounted on a principal or accessory building.
Section Two. Title XV, Chapter 151, Section 151.045 (Establishment of districts) is amended to add:
(K) PI - Public/Institutional.
Section Three. Title XV, Chapter 151, Section 151.051 (RSM - Residential Single-Family Medium Density
District) is amended to remove educational facilities, religious institutions/places of assembly, and institutional
signage from the RSM conditional-use provisions to the extent those properties are rezoned to PI. Existing
CUP conditions shall be governed by Section Five of this ordinance.
Section Four. Title XV, Chapter 151 is amended to add § 151.060 as follows:

§ 151.060 PI - PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT.
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this district is to provide a zoning district specifically for public and semi-public
uses that generally provide civic, educational, religious, recreational, or community services. The district
is intended to provide reasonable flexibility for institutional property while protecting the predominantly
residential character, privacy, natural environment, and adjoining residential properties of North Oaks.
Where PI property directly abuts residential property, development shall provide a deliberate transition
between the uses through setbacks, landscaping, screening, preservation of vegetation, lighting controls,
and review of higher-impact activities.
(B) Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted, subject to all applicable requirements of this
section:
(1) Civic buildings, including City Hall, libraries, fire stations, and similar governmental facilities;
(2) Educational facilities, K-12;
Citizen Straw-Man Draft - Public/Institutional Zoning - October 2026

96

(3) Essential services;
(4) Parks and recreation fields; and
(5) Places of assembly.
(C) Permitted accessory uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted:
(1) Small buildings or structures not exceeding five hundred (500) square feet that are directly related to
a permitted use or its maintenance, provided they meet all residential-edge setback and screening
requirements;
(2) Accessory uses, including signage, incidental and customary to uses allowed in this section; and
(3) Outdoor facilities customarily incidental to a permitted use, provided that any such facility located
within one hundred fifty (150) feet of a residential lot line complies with the residential-edge
standards in subsection (I).
(D) Conditional uses. The following conditional uses may be permitted only after securing a conditional use
permit in accordance with § 151.076:
(1) Accessory buildings or structures in excess of five hundred (500) square feet directly related to the
performance or maintenance of uses allowed in this section, provided the structure is compatible
with the principal structure and adjoining residential area;
(2) Commercial retail and service-oriented uses, including coffee shops, music studios, dance or fitness
studios, instructional facilities, and similar uses, provided that:
(a) The use is located in a principal structure containing a permitted place-of-assembly use;
(b) A separate conditional use permit is obtained for each commercial or service-oriented use;
(c) The aggregate floor area of all such commercial and service-oriented uses does not exceed
twenty-five percent (25%) of the total floor area of the principal structure;
(d) The property is accessed from an arterial, collector, expander, or minor expander roadway
designated by the City; and
(e) Hours, parking, deliveries, lighting, signage, noise, and outdoor activity are compatible with
adjoining residential property.
(3) Day care facilities.
(4) Ground-mounted solar energy systems and comparable ground-mounted energy-generation or
energy-storage facilities, subject to subsection (Q) and all other applicable provisions of City Code.
A roof-mounted solar system accessory to a permitted principal use shall remain subject to the
generally applicable solar-energy provisions of City Code.
(E) Lot area requirements. The lot, tract, parcel, or other division of land shall be of sufficient size to
accommodate the intended use and all required setbacks, parking, buffers, screening, stormwater facilities,
and other requirements of this chapter. No lot shall be considered adequate solely because the existing
improvements fit within the parcel.
(F) Setbacks. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following minimum setbacks apply:
(1) General setback. All structures and parking areas shall be located at least thirty (30) feet from
property lines, roads, street easements, and wetlands, except where a greater setback is required
below.
(2) Residential-edge building setback. A principal building or building addition shall be located at least
sixty (60) feet from a lot line that directly abuts residential property. The Planning Commission may
recommend, and the City Council may approve, a reduced setback not less than forty (40) feet only
upon a finding that existing topography, preserved mature vegetation, berming, or other permanent
site features provide equal or greater protection to the adjoining residence.
Citizen Straw-Man Draft - Public/Institutional Zoning - October 2026

97

(3) Residential-edge parking and activity setback. New or expanded parking, loading, service areas,
refuse areas, outdoor gathering areas, recreation facilities, or regularly used outdoor activity areas
shall be located at least fifty (50) feet from a lot line that directly abuts residential property, unless a
greater setback is required by another provision.
(4) Existing lawful improvements. A lawful structure or parking area existing on the effective date of
this section may remain at its existing setback. An expansion shall not increase the degree of
encroachment into a required residential-edge setback unless approved through the major site
modification process in subsection (K).
(5) Grading and filling. No grading or filling shall occur within fifty (50) feet of a residential lot line
without prior notice to the adjoining owner and approval through site-plan review, except ordinary
maintenance and work within ten (10) feet of an existing building.
(G) Building height. The following height standards apply:
(1) The maximum height of a principal structure shall be thirty-five (35) feet when any portion of the
structure is located within one hundred (100) feet of a residential lot line.
(2) Elsewhere in the PI District, the maximum height of a principal structure shall be forty-five (45)
feet.
(3) A height greater than the applicable limit may be approved only through the major site modification
process in subsection (K), and the approving authority shall consider topography, visibility from
residences, shadowing, screening, building mass, and the additional setback needed to preserve
residential compatibility.
(H) Special minimum requirements. The following requirements apply to all uses in the PI District:
(1) The architectural appearance and functional plan of buildings and the site shall be compatible with
the adjacent area;
(2) Screening shall comply with § 151.034 and the additional residential-edge requirements in
subsection (I);
(3) Adequate off-street parking, loading, and service entrances shall be provided in compliance with §
151.028;
(4) All accessory equipment shall be completely enclosed in a permanent structure or screened from
view from contiguous residential properties, with no outside storage except as specifically
approved;
(5) Landscaping and irrigation shall comply with § 151.058(L)(3). For purposes of this PI District,
every requirement in § 151.058(L)(3) that applies to a commercial-to-residential boundary shall also
apply to a PI-to-residential boundary unless this section establishes a more protective requirement;
(6) Lighting shall comply with § 151.058(L)(12), and no direct source of illumination shall be visible
from residential land;
(7) Ground-level mechanical utilities shall be screened from contiguous properties and adjacent roads
or designed to be compatible with the architectural treatment of the principal structure;
(8) The site and related parking shall be served by roads of sufficient capacity to accommodate the
traffic reasonably expected to be generated by the use, including reasonably foreseeable accessory
and conditional uses;
(9) All buildings and structures shall be served by a central sewer system where required by City Code
or applicable agreement; and
(10) The use shall comply with §§ 151.031, 151.032, 151.034, 151.035, and all other applicable
performance standards.
Citizen Straw-Man Draft - Public/Institutional Zoning - October 2026

98

(I) Residential-edge buffer and screening. Where PI-zoned property directly abuts residential property, the
following standards apply in addition to all other requirements:
(1) A continuous residential-edge buffer at least forty (40) feet in width shall be maintained on the PI
property along the common lot line. The buffer may overlap a required building or parking setback
but shall not be occupied by buildings, parking, loading, refuse areas, or regularly used outdoor
activity areas.
(2) Existing mature trees, woodland, understory vegetation, topography, and natural screening within
the buffer shall be preserved to the maximum extent practical. Removal of vegetation that materially
reduces screening shall require an approved replacement plan.
(3) Where existing vegetation does not provide effective year-round screening, supplemental
landscaping shall be installed. The plan shall include evergreen material of sufficient initial size,
density, and spacing to provide meaningful screening during leaf-off conditions, together with
deciduous trees and shrubs appropriate to the site.
(4) Where reasonably feasible and necessary to achieve effective screening, berming shall be
incorporated. Any PI-to-residential berm required under this subsection shall be treated as satisfying
the commercial-to-residential berm concept incorporated through § 151.058(L)(3).
(5) The landscape plan shall be prepared or certified by a qualified landscape professional when the
project constitutes a major site modification. The City may require review by its forester or
consulting landscape professional.
(6) Required screening shall be maintained in a healthy condition. Dead, diseased, removed, or
ineffective required plantings shall be replaced within the next appropriate planting season.
(7) Fences or walls may supplement but shall not substitute for required vegetation unless the Planning
Commission finds that site conditions make vegetative screening impractical and the alternative
provides equal or greater year-round protection.
(8) The residential-edge buffer shall apply equally where the adjoining residential property is located in
another municipality.
(J) Signs. Signs shall comply with the sign standards otherwise established for the PI District. Any
illuminated or electronic sign shall be located and oriented to minimize visual impact on residential
property, and no illumination from a sign shall be visible from residential land. Electronic message center
signs shall comply with the operational, brightness, display, and hours standards otherwise applicable
under this chapter.
(K) Major site modification review. A permitted use in the PI District remains permitted, but the following
physical or operational changes require site-plan review by the Planning Commission and approval by the
City Council before a building, grading, or land-use permit is issued:
(1) An addition increasing the principal building footprint by more than twenty-five percent (25%)
cumulatively from the effective date of the PI rezoning;
(2) A new principal building;
(3) An increase in building height above the limits in subsection (G);
(4) A new or expanded parking area that increases parking capacity by twenty percent (20%) or more,
or adds twenty (20) or more spaces, whichever is less;
(5) A new or materially expanded outdoor gathering, recreation, service, loading, or activity area within
one hundred fifty (150) feet of residential property;
(6) Removal or material alteration of required residential-edge buffering or screening;

Citizen Straw-Man Draft - Public/Institutional Zoning - October 2026

99

(7) A site change reasonably expected to materially increase traffic, nighttime activity, lighting, noise,
or service/delivery activity affecting adjoining residential property; or
(8) Any other modification that the Zoning Administrator determines may materially affect compliance
with the residential-edge standards of this section. The applicant may appeal such determination as
provided by City Code; and
(9) Any material alteration, expansion, relocation, repowering, equipment replacement that changes
array height or footprint, or modification of required screening associated with an existing groundmounted solar energy system located within two hundred (200) feet of residential property.
(L) Major site modification standards. In reviewing a major site modification, the Planning Commission
and City Council shall consider:
(1) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the PI District;
(2) Compatibility with adjoining land uses and the reasonable use and enjoyment of neighboring
residential property;
(3) Building mass, height, location, and visibility from residential property;
(4) Adequacy of setbacks, buffering, screening, landscaping, and preservation of mature vegetation;
(5) Traffic generation, roadway capacity, parking, circulation, deliveries, and emergency access;
(6) Lighting, noise, signage, hours, outdoor activity, and mechanical/service impacts;
(7) Natural drainage, grading, stormwater, wetlands, topography, and natural-resource protection; and
(8) Whether reasonable conditions are necessary to ensure compliance with this section.
(M) Notice and public participation for major site modifications. The City shall provide notice intended to
give directly affected residents a meaningful opportunity to comment before a major site modification is
approved:
(1) At least ten (10) days before the Planning Commission meeting at which the modification will be
reviewed, notice shall be mailed to the owners of all property within three hundred fifty (350) feet
of the PI parcel and to every property owner whose parcel directly abuts the PI parcel, whether
located in North Oaks or an adjoining municipality.
(2) The notice shall briefly describe the proposed modification, identify where plans may be reviewed,
and state how written comments may be submitted.
(3) The applicant shall make the site plan, landscape plan, lighting plan, and other materials reasonably
necessary to understand residential-edge impacts available to the City sufficiently in advance for
inclusion in the public meeting packet.
(4) The Planning Commission shall receive public comment at the meeting before making its
recommendation. Nothing in this subsection converts a permitted use into a conditional use or
requires a statutory public hearing unless otherwise required by law.
(N) Existing conditional use permits and prior site-specific conditions. Rezoning a property from RSM to PI
shall not, by itself, extinguish conditions contained in an existing conditional use permit, variance, siteplan approval, approved landscape plan, parking plan, screening plan, or other land-use approval. Existing
conditions shall remain enforceable to the extent they regulate site-specific impacts and are not expressly
superseded by this ordinance or formally amended through the process otherwise required by City Code.
Required landscaping, screening, buffering, parking-use limitations, gates, and replacement or
maintenance obligations imposed through a prior approval shall continue to be maintained according to
that approval. Where an existing approval condition and this section regulate the same subject, the more
protective requirement shall govern until the City Council expressly determines otherwise after notice to
affected property owners. This subsection is subject to review and approval by the City Attorney.
Citizen Straw-Man Draft - Public/Institutional Zoning - October 2026

100

(O) Lawful existing improvements and transition to new standards. A lawful structure, parking area, groundmounted solar energy system, or other site improvement existing on the effective date of this section shall
not be required to be reconstructed or relocated solely because it does not meet a newly adopted PI
residential-edge setback, buffer, or screening standard. This protection does not excuse compliance with
screening, landscaping, maintenance, parking-use, or other obligations imposed by a prior CUP, variance,
site-plan approval, landscape plan, or other land-use approval. No alteration, expansion, repowering,
relocation, or other major site modification shall increase the degree of nonconformity without approval
under subsection (K). To the maximum extent reasonably applicable to the portion of the site being
modified, an approved major site modification shall move the property toward compliance with the current
residential-edge standards. Routine maintenance and repair are permitted.
(P) Administrative interpretation. The Zoning Administrator may administer and interpret this section but
may not waive a residential-edge setback, buffer, notice, or major site modification requirement except
through a variance, appeal, or other procedure expressly authorized by City Code.
(Q) Ground-mounted solar energy systems and comparable energy facilities. In addition to all generally
applicable solar-energy requirements in City Code, the following standards apply within the PI District:
(1) Residential-edge setback. A new ground-mounted solar energy system, including panels, racks, inverters,
transformers, battery cabinets, and associated equipment, shall be located at least seventy-five (75) feet
from a lot line that directly abuts residential property. The City Council may approve a reduction to not
less than fifty (50) feet through the CUP process only upon a finding that permanent topography,
preserved mature vegetation, berming, fencing, supplemental landscaping, or a combination thereof
provides equal or greater residential protection.
(2) Year-round screening plan. Where any portion of a ground-mounted solar energy system is visible from
adjoining residential property during leaf-off conditions, the applicant shall submit and implement a sitespecific screening plan designed to materially reduce direct views of the panels, racks, equipment, fencing,
and associated facilities throughout the year.
(3) Screening methods. Screening may include preservation of mature vegetation, evergreen plantings,
deciduous trees and shrubs, berming, opaque fencing, topographic design, or a combination of methods. A
fence alone shall not satisfy this requirement unless the Planning Commission finds that vegetative
screening is impractical and the fence provides equal or greater year-round protection.
(4) Planting quality and maturity. Supplemental plantings shall be of sufficient initial height, caliper, density,
and spacing to provide meaningful screening within a reasonable establishment period. Where evergreens
are used as a primary screening method, the landscape plan shall specify planting size, spacing, expected
mature height, and replacement requirements.
(5) Preservation and maintenance. Existing vegetation relied upon for screening shall be identified on the
approved plan and preserved to the maximum extent practical. Required screening shall be maintained for
the life of the facility. Dead, diseased, removed, or ineffective required plantings shall be replaced within
the next appropriate planting season.
(6) Glare, lighting, and equipment impacts. Solar panels shall be oriented and designed to minimize glare
affecting residential property. Inverters, transformers, battery storage, and other equipment shall comply
with applicable noise, lighting, fire-safety, and screening standards and shall be located to minimize
residential impacts.
(7) Existing systems. A lawful existing ground-mounted solar energy system is governed by subsection (O).
Any material expansion, relocation, repowering, alteration of array height or footprint, or modification of
approved screening shall comply with subsection (K) and, to the maximum extent reasonably applicable to
the modified portion, the standards of this subsection.
Citizen Straw-Man Draft - Public/Institutional Zoning - October 2026

101

(8) Prior approval conditions preserved. Nothing in this subsection limits the City's authority to enforce
landscaping, screening, maintenance, parking-use, or other conditions imposed through an earlier approval
affecting the same property.
Section Five. Transition of existing approvals and site-condition audit. Before final rezoning action for each
parcel proposed to be rezoned to PI, the City Administrator, City Planner, and City Attorney shall prepare a
written inventory of existing CUPs, variances, site-plan approvals, approved landscape and screening plans,
parking plans, sign approvals, solar-energy approvals, and other material land-use conditions. The inventory
shall identify the source and date of each approval; the condition or obligation imposed; whether the condition
remains in effect; whether required landscaping, screening, gates, parking-use limitations, or maintenance
obligations have been satisfied and maintained; which conditions are proposed to be superseded by the PI
ordinance; and which require separate City Council action to amend or terminate. The inventory shall be made
available with the City Council packet before final rezoning action. Where the City cannot locate an
underlying approval or approved plan referenced in a later staff report or resolution, the inventory shall
identify the missing record and the City shall make a reasonable records search before concluding that the
condition no longer applies.
Section Six. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other
provisions that can be given effect without the invalid provision.
Section Seven. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its adoption and
publication as provided by law.
Passed in regular session of the City Council on the ____ day of ____________, 2026.
CITY OF NORTH OAKS
By: ________________________________
Krista Wolter, Mayor
Attested:
By: ________________________________
Kevin Kress, City Administrator/City Clerk

Citizen Straw-Man Draft - Public/Institutional Zoning - October 2026

102

APPENDIX A - POLICY CHOICES EMBEDDED IN THIS STRAW MAN
This appendix is not ordinance text. It identifies the provisions the Planning Commission and City Council
should either accept, modify, or explain why a different approach better protects the public interest.
60-foot residential-edge building setback. The City draft uses 30 feet everywhere. This straw man proposes
60 feet where a PI building directly abuts a residence, with a possible reduction to 40 feet when permanent
natural or constructed screening provides equivalent protection. The purpose is to force an explicit policy
choice rather than inherit the RSM number automatically.
50-foot parking/activity setback. Parking, loading, service, and outdoor gathering areas can affect residences
differently from lawn or passive open space. North Oaks already uses differentiated parking and residentialtransition standards in its commercial zoning.
40-foot residential-edge landscape buffer. This translates the buffering concept already found in North Oaks
Commercial/Service landscaping into explicit PI language and resolves the ambiguity created by merely crossreferencing §151.058(L)(3).
35-foot height near residences; 45 feet elsewhere. The September PI draft would allow 45 feet generally.
This alternative preserves 45 feet away from homes but retains a lower height near residential edges unless
reviewed.
Major site modification review. Permitted status should not mean that a major physical expansion receives
no public-facing review. The review is site-plan review, not a new CUP, and therefore preserves the permitted
use while evaluating major physical change.
350-foot notice for major changes. North Oaks already uses mailed notice concepts in land-use review. This
provision preserves neighbor awareness when a major future site change occurs after the initial PI rezoning.
Existing CUP inventory and survival. The current proposal does not clearly answer what happens to all sitespecific CUP conditions. A parcel-by-parcel inventory prevents accidental loss of protections and gives the
institutions equal clarity.
Ground-mounted solar and comparable facilities. The Incarnation solar review demonstrated that phrases such
as “minimize visual impact” can produce disagreement about how much screening is enough. This straw man
therefore uses a measurable residential-edge setback plus a site-specific year-round screening plan,
maintenance, and replacement requirements. The numbers are policy choices for discussion; the central
principle is that screening should perform during Minnesota leaf-off conditions, not merely during summer.
Existing lawful installations. The draft does not attempt to make newly adopted setbacks retroactive to a
lawfully approved existing solar array or parking area. Instead, it preserves prior screening and landscape
obligations and requires future major alterations or expansions to move toward the new standard. This is
intended to distinguish lawful nonconformity from enforceable conditions already attached to the property.
Approval-history audit before rezoning. Later City staff reports indicate that older Incarnation approvals
included parking, landscaping, and use restrictions. The underlying historic resolutions and landscape plans
should be inventoried before rezoning so that neither the City nor the property owner unintentionally loses
track of site-specific obligations. The same audit principle should apply to every parcel moved into PI.
Cross-boundary treatment. Residential properties in Shoreview that directly abut a PI parcel should receive
the same physical buffering standards and notice for major site modifications because land-use impacts do not
stop at the municipal boundary.

APPENDIX B - NORTH OAKS SOURCES USED AS DRAFTING REFERENCES
September 17, 2026 staff report and draft PI ordinance: North Oaks Planning Commission packet for
September 24, 2026. The draft states that the PI regulations are based on RSM standards; it moves educational
Citizen Straw-Man Draft - Public/Institutional Zoning - October 2026

103

facilities and places of assembly from conditional to permitted uses and includes the proposed 30-foot setback,
45-foot height, screening, landscaping, lighting, and sign provisions.
North Oaks City Code, Title XV, Chapter 151: Current zoning framework, including RSM, Commercial,
Commercial/Service, CUP procedures, screening, parking, landscaping, and performance standards.
North Oaks 2040 Comprehensive Plan: The plan emphasizes preservation of North Oaks' unique residential
character, privacy, natural resources, environmental protection, and citizen involvement, and it recognizes the
relationship between zoning ordinances and long-term community vision.
North Oaks Commercial/Service framework: Used as a local precedent for stronger transition standards,
screening from adjacent properties, landscape buffering, and plan review. This straw man adapts the planning
principle rather than treating institutional uses as commercial uses.
Important legal note. City Attorney review is required before formal introduction, especially for CUP
transition, notice, RLUIPA, administrative review, and nonconforming-use provisions.

Citizen Straw-Man Draft - Public/Institutional Zoning - October 2026

104

10-28-2026 - Email from George Wellock

FIVE REMAINING ISSUES BEFORE PI SHOULD ADVANCE
North Oaks Public/Institutional Zoning — October 29, 2026
I support the creation of a Public/Institutional zoning district. The revised City proposal is
an improvement, particularly because it now includes a residential buffering requirement.
Before the proposal moves to the City Council, however, I believe five important issues still
deserve resolution.

1. Protect Existing Buildings — But Write Better Rules for Future Development
The City proposes retaining a 30-foot setback largely because increasing the setback could
make existing Peace and Incarnation buildings nonconforming.
Existing lawful buildings can and should remain.
But that does not mean every future building, addition, parking area, or outdoor activity
area should automatically receive the same 30-foot standard.
Recommendation: Grandfather existing lawful improvements while establishing
stronger residential-edge standards for future construction and expansion.

2. Make the Residential Buffer Apply to the Residential Edge — Not Only New
Buildings
The revised ordinance creates a 20-foot vegetative buffer, which is an important
improvement.
However, the proposed requirement applies primarily when a new principal institutional
structure is constructed next to residential property. Existing developed sites generally
would not be required to meet the new buffer standard.
Future impacts can also come from:
•

parking expansion;

•

solar or similar installations;

•

outdoor activity areas;

•

removal of mature vegetation; and

•

service or mechanical equipment;

•

major changes to existing sites.

Recommendation: Apply residential-edge protection to significant future site changes,
not only construction of a new principal building.

105

3. Preserve Meaningful Year-Round Screening
The proposed planting standards are a positive step, including the use of substantial
coniferous trees.
But the ordinance should also protect the screening that already exists.
Recommendation: Add standards requiring:
•

preservation of mature vegetation where practical;

•

meaningful year-round screening;

•

evergreen planting where necessary;

•

maintenance and replacement of required plantings; and

•

review before required or effective residential screening is substantially removed.

4. Require Review of Major Future Changes
Churches and schools would move from conditional uses to permitted uses under PI
zoning.
That change makes sense, but it also eliminates much of the case-by-case review
presently associated with the underlying institutional use.
A permitted church or school should remain permitted. But a major physical expansion
should still receive review.
Recommendation: Establish a defined Major Site Modification process for substantial
changes involving:
•

new buildings or major additions;

•

significant parking expansion;

•

increased building height;

•

new or expanded outdoor activity;

•

substantial changes in traffic, lighting, or service activity;

•

removal of residential buffering; or

•

other changes likely to materially affect adjoining homes.

Planning Commission review should include reasonable notice to nearby residents.

106

5. Determine What Happens to Existing CUP Conditions Before Rezoning
All three properties currently operate under existing land-use approvals and Conditional
Use Permits.
Before those properties are rezoned and their principal institutional uses become
permitted, the City should identify:
•

which existing CUP conditions remain enforceable;

•

which landscape and screening requirements remain in effect;

•

which parking or operating restrictions remain applicable;

•

which conditions would be superseded by PI zoning; and

•

what process would be required to modify or terminate existing conditions.

Recommendation: Prepare a parcel-by-parcel inventory of existing approvals and
conditions before final City Council action.

REQUEST TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The October 29 staff report gives the Commission the option to table the proposal for
further study when the concept is appropriate but parts of the ordinance require additional
work.
I respectfully ask the Commission to use that option.
PI zoning should move forward — but the residential-edge standards should be completed
first.
The objective should be a zoning district that works for the institutions, provides
predictable rules for the City, and protects the residential neighborhoods that directly
adjoin these properties for decades to come.

George Wellock — North Oaks
Source: October 29, 2026 North Oaks Planning Commission packet and proposed PI
ordinance.

107

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Kevin Kress
Bridget Nason; Kendra Lindahl, AICP
Fwd: Existing CUPs
Friday, October 30, 2026 4:33:23 PM

Thanks,
Kevin
Begin forwarded message:
From: George Wellock <[email protected]>
Date: October 30, 2026 at 4:26:08 PM CDT
To: Kevin Kress <[email protected]>, Krista Wolter
<[email protected]>
Subject: Existing CUPs






Good Afternoon Kevin,
As the Public/Institutional zoning proposal moves to the City
Council, I would like to separate one issue from the broader
policy questions I have raised regarding setbacks, residentialedge buffering, and review of major future site changes.
This request concerns the existing Conditional Use Permits and
other land-use approvals currently associated with Peace
United Methodist Church, Incarnation Lutheran Church, and
Chippewa Middle School.
The October 29 Planning Commission staff report notes that all
three properties presently operate as institutional uses under
Conditional Use Permits and that additional approvals have
accumulated over time, including approvals relating to signage,
day care, parking, building height, and other site conditions.
Before these properties are rezoned from RSM to PI and the
principal institutional uses become permitted uses, I believe it
would be helpful for everyone involved to understand clearly
what happens to those existing approvals.

108

That includes not only the City and neighboring residents, but the
institutions themselves.
Each institution has a legitimate interest in knowing which prior
conditions continue to apply, which may no longer be necessary
under the new PI framework, and which may need to be modified
or formally retired. The City likewise benefits from having a
clear record of what remains enforceable, and neighboring
property owners benefit from understanding which protections
continue to govern the sites.
In other words, I believe this is an area where all parties have a
shared interest in clarity.
I am therefore requesting clarification on the following:
1. Which existing CUPs and land-use approvals remain in
effect after rezoning to PI?
2. Which conditions contained in those CUPs remain
enforceable?
3. Which conditions, if any, would be superseded by the
new PI ordinance?
4. Would any existing landscaping, screening, parking-use,
access, operating-hour, signage, traffic, or sitedevelopment conditions continue to run with the
property?
5. If an existing CUP condition is no longer applicable after
rezoning, what formal action is required to amend or
terminate that condition?
6. Does the City maintain a parcel-by-parcel record of the
active CUPs, variances, approved site plans, landscape
plans, parking plans, and other land-use conditions for
each of the three properties?
7. If such an inventory does not currently exist, would the
City consider preparing one before final action on the
rezoning?
I see this as a separate administrative and legal clarification that
could be useful regardless of what setback, buffering, or futurereview standards the Council ultimately adopts.
109

If some older CUP conditions are no longer necessary because
the new PI ordinance addresses those issues more directly, it
would be useful for the institutions and the City to know that.
If other conditions remain important because they address sitespecific matters such as parking, landscaping, screening, building
height, or neighboring-property impacts, it would be equally
useful to know that those obligations continue.
The objective is simply to avoid uncertainty and to make sure
that everyone understands the regulatory starting point as the
properties move into a new zoning district.
I would appreciate it if this request could be shared with the City
Council and, where appropriate, reviewed by the City Planner
and City Attorney before the November 12 meeting.
Thank you for your help in clarifying this issue.
George Wellock
North Oaks

110

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Kevin Kress
Bridget Nason; Kendra Lindahl, AICP
Fwd: Public Institutional Zoning
Thursday, October 1, 2026 3:40:43 PM
image001.png

Thanks,
Kevin
Begin forwarded message:
From: Chris Lennox <[email protected]>
Date: October 1, 2026 at 3:03:55 PM CDT
To: Kevin Kress <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Public Institutional Zoning


Kevin,
Thanks for sharing this with us. Our team has reviewed it and feel comfortable supporting
it as written and have no additional comments. We appreciate the opportunity to review the
information.  
Chris Lennox
Chris Lennox
Superintendent

651-621-6002 | mvpschools.org
[email protected]
4570 Victoria Street North
Shoreview, MN 55126

On Fri, Sep 25, 2026 at 10:27 AM Kevin Kress <[email protected]> wrote:
Chris,

The district should have received a letter from the City indicating we are interested in
changing the zoning for Chippewa Middle School. Currently, the school is in the RSM
district, and we are looking to change the school and the 2 churches to public
institutional. Please review the proposed ordinance change and staff report and let us
know if you have any comments. We are specifically interested in knowing what uses
you think should be “allowed” vs. conditional uses.

111

Thanks,

Kevin Kress
City of North Oaks
City Administrator

112

CITY OF NORTH OAKS
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 1610
RESOLUTION TO CANVASS THE RESULTS
OF THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026 GENERAL ELECTION
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of North Oaks, Minnesota:
That the results of the canvass of votes in the City of North Oaks, Minnesota, where a
General Election was held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026 and the results of said election for local
Council seats are as follows:
Results for Selected Contests in 47104 - North Oaks

BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council finds from said canvass that the following
candidates have received the highest number of votes, and finds that and declares the following
candidates to be elected to serve the following positions for the City of North Oaks:
Mayor (2-year term)
Councilmember (4-year term)
Councilmember (4-year term)

Fritz Johnson
Andrew Gaspard
Riki Banerjee

113

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT THE City Administrator is authorized to sign the
abstract with e-signatures for all City Council members.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of North Oaks this 16th day of November, 2026.

Ayes:

Attest:

Krista Wolter, Mayor

Nays:

Attest:

Kevin Kress, City Administrator

114

Abstract of Votes Cast
In the Precincts of the City of North Oaks
State of Minnesota
at the State General Election
Held Tuesday, November 3, 2026
as compiled from the official returns.

115

Abstract print version 51347, generated 11/5/2026 9:44:12 AM
Summary of Totals
City of North Oaks
Tuesday, November 3, 2026 State General Election

Number of persons registered as of 7 a.m.

4390

Number of persons registered on Election Day

95

Number of accepted regular, military, and overseas absentee ballots and mail ballots

1553

Number of federal office only absentee ballots

6

Number of presidential absentee ballots

0

Total number of persons voting

3532

Summary of Totals
City of North Oaks
Tuesday, November 3, 2026 State General Election

KEY TO PARTY ABBREVIATIONS
NP - Nonpartisan

Mayor (North Oaks)
NP
Fritz Johnson
1829

NP
Krista Wolter
1475

WI
WRITE-IN
8

NP
Riki Banerjee
1705

NP
Mark R. Azman
1088

Council Member (North Oaks) (Elect 2)
NP
Andrew Gaspard
1751

Abstract print version 51347, generated 11/5/2026 9:44:12 AM

NP
Greg Peterson
1172

WI
WRITE-IN
25

Page 1 of 5

116

Detail of Election Results
City of North Oaks
Tuesday, November 3, 2026 State General Election
Precinct

Persons Registered
as of 7 A.M.

Persons Registered
on Election Day

Total Number of
Persons Voting

62 0370 : NORTH OAKS P-1

2051

35

1625

62 0380 : NORTH OAKS P-2

2339

60

1907

City of North Oaks Total:

4390

95

3532

Page 2 of 5

117

Detail of Election Results
City of North Oaks
Tuesday, November 3, 2026 State General Election
Office Title: Mayor (North Oaks)

Precinct

NP
Fritz Johnson

NP
Krista Wolter

WI
WRITE-IN

62 0370 : NORTH OAKS P-1

869

669

5

62 0380 : NORTH OAKS P-2

960

806

3

Total:

1829

1475

8

NP
Andrew Gaspard

NP
Riki Banerjee

NP
Mark R. Azman

NP
Greg Peterson

WI
WRITE-IN

843

821

494

540

11

Office Title: Council Member (North Oaks) (Elect 2)

Precinct
62 0370 : NORTH OAKS P-1
62 0380 : NORTH OAKS P-2

908

884

594

632

14

Total:

1751

1705

1088

1172

25

Page 3 of 5

118

We, the legally constituted canvassing board, certify that we have herein specified the names of the persons receiving votes and the number of votes received by each office voted
on, and have specified the number of votes for and against each question voted on, at the State General Election held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026
As appears by the returns of the election precincts voting in this election, duly returned to, filed, opened, and canvassed, and now remaining on file in the office of the City of North
Oaks Clerk. Witness our official signature at ________________________________ in _________________________ County this _____________ day of ______________, 2026.

____________________________________________________________________________
Member of canvassing board

____________________________________________________________________________
Member of canvassing board

____________________________________________________________________________
Member of canvassing board

____________________________________________________________________________
Member of canvassing board

____________________________________________________________________________
Member of canvassing board

____________________________________________________________________________
Member of canvassing board

____________________________________________________________________________
Member of canvassing board

Page 4 of 5

119

State of Minnesota
City of North Oaks
I, __________________________________________________, Clerk of the City of North Oaks do hereby certify the within and foregoing __________________ pages to be a
full and correct copy of the original abstract and return of the votes cast in the City of North Oaks State General Election held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026.
Witness my hand and official seal of office this ________ day of ________________, 2026.
______________________________________________

Page 5 of 5

120

Bridget M. Nason
Fifth Street Towers
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9245 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
email: [email protected]

TO:

Mayor and Members of the North Oaks City Council

FROM:

Bridget M. Nason, City Attorney

DATE:

November 11, 2026

RE:
Second Amendment to Sublease Agreement with NOHOA
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
The City of North Oaks leases space within the 100 Village Center Drive building for its city office
space (“Leased Premises”). Since 2010, the City has sublet a portion of the Leased Premises to the
North Oaks Home Owners’ Association pursuant to a Sublease Agreement. The Sublease
Agreement, as amended, runs through May 31, 2027, and provides a five-year option to renew the
sublease upon two hundred ten (210) days’ prior written notice to the City. NOHOA has provided
written notice to the City (attached) that it is exercising its option to renew the Sublease Agreement
for that five-year extension term.
The attached Second Amendment to the Sublease Agreement extends the existing sublease through
May 31, 2032, on generally the same terms and conditions of the existing Sublease Agreement,
with the previously-agreed upon increase in base rent. The Second Amendment to the Sublease
Agreement is contingent upon the City entering into a Third Amendment to its existing Lese
Agreement with its landlord. The City Council previously authorized the exercise of the City’s
option to renew its lease for the Leased Premises, written notice that the City is choosing to exercise
its renewal option was sent to the landlord, and the landlord has prepared and submitted a Third
Lease Amendment for execution by the City.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
The Council is asked to consider approval of the attached Second Amendment to Sublease
Agreement with NOHOA.

121

SECOND AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE AGREEMENT
This Second Amendment to Sublease Agreement (this “Amendment”) is dated November 16, 2026, by and between the City of North
Oaks, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“Sublandlord”) and the North Oaks Homeowners Association, Inc., a Minnesota
nonprofit corporation (the “Subtenant”)
BACKGROUND:
A.

North Oaks Village Center LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Landlord”) and Sublandlord entered into a Lease
Agreement dated April 14, 2010, as amended by that First Lease Amendment dated September 15, 2016 and that Second Lease
Amendment dated May 25, 2022 (collectively, the “Master Lease”) for the premises located at 100 Village Center Drive, suites
150, 230 and 240 consisting of approximately 4,288 rentable square feet (the “Premises”), in a building commonly known as
North Oaks Financial Center (the “Building”) providing for an initial term ending May 31, 2022.

B.

Sublandlord and Subtenant entered into a Sublease Agreement, dated April 14, 2010, as amended by that First Amendment to
Sublease Agreement dated May 26, 2022 (collectively, the “Sublease”,) for a portion of the Premises consisting of suite 240 and
an undivided interest in suite 150 and the shared space between suites 230 and 240 (defined in the Sublease as the “Sublease
Premises”) providing for a term ending upon the date of expiration of the initial term of the Master Lease.

C.

Contemporaneously with the execution and delivery of this Amendment, Landlord and Sublandlord have entered into (or will
enter into) a third lease amendment to the Master Lease providing for an extension of the initial term of the Master Lease for 5
years, among other terms and conditions (the “Third Lease Amendment”).

D.

Sublandlord and Subtenant desire to amend and extend the Sublease upon the terms and conditions provided herein.

E.

Sublandlord and Subtenant agree and acknowledge that the Sublease Premises consist of the following areas: (i) Suite 150 (large
shared community room containing 1,326 rentable square feet), (ii) the shared space between Suites 230 and 240 (copier common
area and small shared conference room containing 432 rentable square feet), and (iii) Suite 240 (offices exclusively occupied by
Subtenant containing 1,060 rentable square feet). In addition, under the Master Lease (but not part of the Sublease Premises), the
Premises includes Suite 230 (offices exclusively occupied by Sublandlord containing 1,470 rentable square feet). For purposes
of establishing Base Rent and Operating Expenses under this Sublease, Sublandlord and Subtenant have agreed that Subtenant
shall be responsible for 50% of the aggregate shared space, (.50 x [1,326 + 432]), or 879 rentable square feet, and 45% of the
aggregate exclusive space under the Master Lease, (.45 x [1,060 + 1,470], or 1,138 rentable square feet, for a total of 2,017
rentable square feet.

In consideration of mutual covenants and promises contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1.

Capitalized Terms. Any capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the
Sublease.

2.

Term. This Amendment will extend the Sublease for a period of five (5) years, commencing at 12:00 a.m. on June 1, 2027, and
terminating at 11:59 p.m. on May 31, 2032 (the “Extended Term”). The definition of “Term” in the Sublease is amended to
include the Extended Term.

3.

Annual and Monthly Base Rent. Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 6 of this Amendment and subject to recalculation of
square footage based upon BOMA standard and the Landlord’s calculation of rentable square footage, Base Rent under this
Sublease Agreement shall be based upon 2,017 rentable square feet. The Base Rent during the Extended Term will be as follows:

Term

4.

Per SF

Annual Base Rent

Monthly Base Rent

06/01/27

-

05/31/28

$15.45

$31,162.65

$2,596.89

06/01/28

-

05/31/29

$15.75

$31,767.75

$2,647.31

06/01/29

-

05/31/30

$16.05

$32,372.85

$2,697.74

06/01/30

-

05/31/31

$16.35

$32,977.95

$2,748.16

06/01/31

-

05/31/32

$16.65

$33,583.05

$2,798.59

Operating Expenses. In addition to the rental payments as outlined above, Subtenant will continue to pay its proportionate share

1

122

of “Operating Expenses”, to include common area maintenance costs, insurance and real estate taxes, as provided for in the
Sublease. Base Rent shall be based upon 2,017 rentable square footage. 2026 estimated Operating Expenses are $12.10 per
square foot.
5.

As-Is Condition. Subtenant is accepting the Premises in an “as-is”, “where-is” condition. Sublandlord will not be providing any
improvements, an allowance toward improvements, warranties or rent concessions. Sublandlord shall have the right to make
such improvements to the Sublease Premises as Sublandlord shall determine in Sublandlord’s sole and absolute discretion.
Sublandlord agrees to consult with the Subtenant about improvements.

6.

Authority. Subtenant warrants and represents to Sublandlord that Subtenant has full authority to execute this Amendment.

7.

Not an Offer. The submission of this document for examination does not constitute an option or offer to lease space, or a
reservation of space. This Amendment shall have no binding effect on the parties unless executed by the Sublandlord and the
Subtenant and a fully executed copy is delivered to the Sublandlord and Landlord and Tenant have entered into a Third Lease
Amendment. The Subtenant is solely at risk for any business decisions, purchases made, or contracts entered into, in relation to
this Amendment.

8.

Ratification. Except as modified herein, all other terms, conditions and covenants of the Sublease shall remain in full force and
effect.

9.

Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but
all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Any executed counterpart of this Amendment delivered by facsimile
or other electronic transmission to a party hereto shall constitute an original counterpart of this Amendment, provided that, upon
request, any party returning a signature page electronically or via facsimile also transmit a hardcopy original of the signature page
to the requesting party.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Amendment as of the day and year first written above.

Sublandlord:

Subtenant:

City of North Oaks, Minnesota

North Oaks Homeowners Association, Inc.

By:
Name:
Its:

By:
Name:
Its:

__________________________
__________________________
__________________________

__________________________
__________________________
__________________________

2

123

Bridget M. Nason
Fifth Street Towers
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9245 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
email: [email protected]

TO:

Mayor and Members of the North Oaks City Council

FROM:

Bridget M. Nason, City Attorney

DATE:

November 11, 2026

RE:
13th Amendment to the 1999 East Oaks Planned Development Agreement
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
In 1999, the City of North Oaks and the North Oaks Company entered into the 1999 East Oaks
Planned Development Agreement (Agreement) which governs the development of the East Oaks
Development Area. Since its execution, the Agreement has been amended twelve times, including
in 2020 when the North Oaks Company chose to convert certain permitted commercial development
acres to residential dwelling units in order to develop Site H, the Island Field Site, with a twophased condominium development. The conversion of those commercial acres to dwelling units
and the subsequent allocation of seventy-four (74) dwelling units to the Island Field site are
documented in Resolution No. 1399 and the Eighth Amendment to the Planned Development
Agreement (attached).
The North Oaks Company has now decided that it would like to develop Site B, East Preserve, with
two single-family dwellings. While the Agreement originally contemplated the development of that
site with two single-family dwellings, when the North Oaks Company converted the commercial
acres to dwelling units and the maximum number of dwelling units for the Island Field site was
established, it was contemplated that other remaining development sites would need to be
developed with fewer dwelling units in order to accommodate the density shift to the Island Field
site to ensure that the total number of dwelling units within the East Oaks Development Area remain
within the 673 dwelling unit maximum. To accommodate the development of the East Preserve Site
with two dwelling units, the North Oaks Company has requested that one of the dwelling units
allocated to the Island Field site be re-allocated to the East Preserve site. (See attached letter from
the North Oaks Company).
In order to memorialize this dwelling unit transfer, the attached Thirteenth Amendment to the
Planned Development Agreement has been prepared for council consideration. The Thirteenth
Amendment reduces the total number of dwelling units permitted on the Island Field development
site, and allows the East Preserve development site to be developed with two dwelling units, as was
contemplated in the original 1999 Agreement.

124

REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
The Council is asked to consider approval of the attached Thirteenth Amendment to the Planned
Development Agreement.

2
125

THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT TO
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT FOR EAST OAKS PROJECT (this “Amendment”) is made this _____ day of
________, 2026, between the City of North Oaks (the “City”), a Minnesota Municipal
Corporation, and the North Oaks Company, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the
“Developer”).
WHEREAS, the City and Developer entered into that Master Development Plan and
Planned Unit Development Agreement for East Oaks PUD with an effective date of February 11,
1999 (the “Agreement”), which provided for the development of the Subject Property identified
therein in accordance with the PUD Controls; and
WHEREAS, since its execution, the City and Developer have amended the Agreement a
total of twelve (12) times; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has completed development of the majority of the Subject
Property within the various Development Sites constituting the East Oaks Development Area,
including Phase 1 of the Island Field site, identified as Site H in the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to that 8th Amendment to the Planned Unit Development
Agreement, the PDA was amended to allow the development of the Island Field site in two phases
with a total of 74 dwelling units on the two lots that comprise the Island Field site; however, the
Developer has determined it would like to transfer one of those dwelling units to Site B, the East
Preserve Site, to allow development of that site with a total of two (2) dwelling units, as initially
contemplated in the Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, the City and Developer hereby agreed to the following Minor
Amendments to the Agreement:
1. That Site B, East Preserve, may be developed with two (2) dwelling units; if Site B is
developed with two (2) dwelling units, then the maximum number of dwelling units
allowed on Site H shall be seventy-three (73).
2. That Appendix 1, Section 5 Conversion of Permitted Uses is amended to add the language
shown underlined below:
c. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, if the Developer
elects to forego the Development of the entirety of the remaining 5.73
commercial acres, Developer shall be entitled to a total of twenty-eight (28)
permitted dwelling units which may be constructed on Site H, Island Field in
addition to the permitted thirty-five (35) dwelling units and permitted density
1
126

increase of thirty percent (30%) (which equals 45.5 dwelling units, rounded up
to 46 dwelling units), for a total of seventy-four (74) dwelling units permitted
on Site H. To the extent necessary to allow the construction of a total of seventyfour (74) dwelling units on Site H, all gross density or other density-related
requirements are hereby modified to allow the construction of seventy-four (74)
dwelling units on Site H. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Site B, East
Preserve, is developed with two (2) dwelling units, then the maximum number
of dwelling units allowed on Site H shall be seventy-three (73). As of the date
of execution of the Thirteenth Amendment to the PDA, Phase 1 of the
development of Site H has resulted in the construction of a thirty-five (35) unit
condominium building on Site H, leaving a maximum of thirty-eight (38)
dwelling units allowed to be constructed on the property comprising Site H.
3. That except as amended herein, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect
without further change.
4. That this Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an
original, and that if requested by either party, a duplicate original of this Amendment in
recordable form shall be prepared and executed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk
and by the President of North Oaks Company, LLC, and such Amendment may be
registered with the Registrar of Titles of Ramsey County, Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this Amendment to be effective as of
the 16th day of November, 2026.
NORTH OAKS COMPANY, LLC

CITY OF NORTH OAKS

______________________________

______________________________

By: ___________________________

By: Krista Wolter

Its: ___________________________

Its: Mayor

Dated: ________________________

Dated: _________________________
Attest: ________________________
Kevin Kress
Its: City Administrator/City Clerk
Dated: _____________________
2
127

CITY OF NORTH OAKS
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FIX OF SCRIVNER’S ERROR ON PREVIOUS
AMENDMENT TO THE EAST OAKS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT (PDA)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of North Oaks approved an amendment to the
1999 East Oaks Planned Unit Development Agreement (PDA) on December 11, 2025; and
WHEREAS, that amendment was titled the “Eleventh Amendment to Planned Unit
Development Agreement”; and
PDA;

WHEREAS, that amendment was actually the Twelfth Amendment to the East Oaks

WHEREAS, the Council desires to remedy this scrivener’s error and authorize execution of
the previously-approved amendment to the PDA with that error corrected.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NORTH OAKS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The amendment to the PDA approved by the City Council on December 11, 2025 shall
be renamed the “Twelfth Amendment to Planned Unit Development Agreement,” and
all related references shall be revised within that document.
2. The Mayor and City Administrator/City Clerk are authorized to execute a revised
version of the previously-approved amendment with the corrections noted above.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of North Oaks this 16th day of November, 2026
By: ________________________________
Krista Wolter
Its: Mayor
Attested:
By: ________________________________
Kevin Kress
Its: City Administrator/City Clerk

128

129

130

131

October Month in Review
October 2026

•
•
•
•
•

•

Selected 1400 Seedlings for next year’s Seedling Giveaway.
Solicited vendors for the Fall Brush Pick-up Program
Provided homeowner advice to residents with tree questions 28 Nord Cir, The Pines,
and 107 West Pleasant Lake Rd
We inform residents about Operation Clearview when conducting homeowner calls and
respond to calls with a knock on the door, and if necessary, a doorhanger.
We marked a number of trees of concern along roadways and informed the resident the
tree(s) would need to come down within 30 days. We have marked about 60 of these
trees in the last couple of years.
Submitted oak samples to confirm the presence of the disease in the tree.

Number of Trees Marked in
2026
Oak Wilt

55

Emerald Ash Borer

386

132