--- ## author: Sue Barry date: D:20260423215256-05'00' --- ## AGENDA ## City Council ## Workshop Meeting April 28, 2026 ## Hadley Conference Room ## 5:30 PM 5:30 PM Redevelopment Opportunities – Background and Site Analysis 6:10 PM Proposed Amendments to the Management of Turf Grass and Vegetation Ordinance ## 6:15 PM Administrator Update ## 6:25 PM Council Topics ## 6:45 PM Adjourn ## COUNCIL MEMORANDUM ## To: Honorable Mayor and City Council ## From: Max Lohse, Planner ## Andrew Gitzlaff, Community Development Director Date: April 28, 2026 ## Subject: Redevelopment Opportunities – Background and Site Analysis ## BACKGROUND As Oakdale continues to mature, the type of development seen in the community is increasingly changing from “greenfield” development to redevelopment, as the community transitions from a “developing suburb” to a “fully developed suburb.” The 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified 19 remaining greenfield development sites; since then, 42% of those sites have been developed or have active proposals. In preparation for the upcoming 2050 Comprehensive Plan, staff have reexamined the redevelopment sites in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, identifying additional sites through an objective process. This analysis is intended to identify individual sites for redevelopment as well as trends for further analysis. The analysis was prepared in-house by Community Development staff with assistance from former Special Projects Manager John Stark using Geographical Information System (GIS) software. This will allow staff to be responsive to inquiries by prospective developers and will provide the City Council with information on which to base any future policies and/or tools specific to the needs of redevelopment. ## Development vs Redevelopment Historically, the City of Oakdale primarily developed as farmers sold sections and quarter-sections of land to developers in the 1960s – 1990s. This was a time when the land was relatively free of structures or problems. Over the past 25 years, remnant “greenfield” sites have remained for the following reasons: •The owners were reluctant to sell or felt there were economic benefits to waiting to sell. •Economic changes caused a stagnation in land planned for future expansion (e.g., 3M/Imation). •Remaining sites were deemed less desirable by the market because of poor accessibility, unusual site dimensions, wetlands, environmental concerns and/or proximity to undesirable uses. As a result of these development patterns, the City became largely developed. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan noted that 7.1% of land in the City was vacant; since then, many of the 517 acres of non-wetland vacant sites have been developed and many of the remaining sites have not been attractive market options. This, and the other factors identified, leaves redevelopment likely to become the predominant form of development in Oakdale’s future. ## Importance of Redevelopment Many communities have articulated their own rationale for the importance of redevelopment. While there is no one set of reasons, the following are typically included: •Revitalizes underused areas – Transform substandard, or underdeveloped properties that would otherwise continue to decline in appearance into active, useful parts of the City. •Stabilize City financials – To keep commercial districts and residential neighborhoods vital and thereby increase commercial tax base, limiting the reliance on residential property taxes. a.More intensive land uses, including medium density residential, high density residential, commercial, and industrial uses, typically have considerably higher property values on a 1 2 per-acre basis, generating more tax revenue for the City. To see this effect in Oakdale, a 3D visualization of the City’s property values is included as an attachment to this memo. Generally, redevelopment projects are more likely to be more intense uses, thus contributing substantially to the City’s tax base. •Strengthens community – Provide options for employers, retailers and service providers that meet the needs of the community. Helps attract and retain residents and businesses, can preserve local identity while adding new energy and relevance. •Supports sustainability – Reuses existing land and infrastructure, resulting in more efficient development. ## Methodology and Identification of Redevelopment Sites In preparation for the 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update process, staff developed a structured and reproducible methodology for redevelopment site selection based on industry standards to support clearer decision-making and reduce speculation when identifying redevelopment sites. From over 11,000 parcels, staff first narrowed candidates by selecting the bottom 20% of parcels by assessed value per acre (separately for residential and nonresidential), while removing greenfield sites and parcels under 0.5 acres. Additional categories for consideration included parcels with mismatches between existing and future land use and commercially zoned properties with residential structures. These methods resulted in 153 eligible sites. ## S taff then evaluated each site using a consistent set of criteria related to redevelopment feasibility, including factors like site assembly, wetlands, building coverage, access, land use intensity, and building age/condition. Sites were rated from Very Low to High suitability based on characteristics that either support or negatively impact redevelopment potential. This process allowed staff to systematically compare sites and prioritize those most likely to redevelop under market conditions. A full methodology description is attached for reference. Site ratings include the following: ## Rating Number of Sites ## Very Low Feasibility 50 ## Low Feasibility 55 Medium Feasibility 20 (Consolidated 20 parcels to 13 sites) High Feasibility 28 (Consolidated 28 parcels to 19 sites) Site assessments are available in the attached maps. Key takeaways from the analysis include: •New Opportunities for Commercial Infill – The Oakdale Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, adopted in 2025, resulted in several new changes that make redevelopment projects more feasible. One of the most impactful was the reduction of minimum parking requirements for commercial uses. This change makes it possible for commercial infill projects to occur on commercial lots with low building coverage. With this change in mind, staff identified new redevelopment sites that would not have been feasible in the past without variances. •Geneva Avenue / Highway 120 Corridor – One of the most identifiable geographic patterns was a concentration of redevelopment sites along the Highway 120 corridor. While many of these sites scored relatively low in feasibility, the overall concentration suggests that further exploration of the area may be warranted through a corridor study, especially as the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) progresses with construction plans for the corridor. •Lack of Geographic Concentration – While some geographic patterns exist, it is notable that the identified redevelopment sites are spread throughout the City rather than one area. Several of the most notable geographic patterns, including concentrations in the Glenbrook neighborhood and the 12 th and Geneva area, have previously been identified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and 3 have corresponding small area plans. As a result, future redevelopment in Oakdale may occur on a site-by-site basis rather than through large, coordinated redevelopment areas. ## Challenges of Redevelopment Redevelopment of property involves significant challenges that typically do not affect greenfield sites. Such challenges can include: property costs which includes unwanted buildings and other improvements (which result in property values exceeding the raw land value), the need to demolish structures and other improvements, a higher probability of environmental contamination, the need to buy out tenant leases and/or assist in the relocation of tenants, the replacement or modification of aging public infrastructure, and often a need to fit development into a site that is smaller and/or unusually dimensioned. ## Tools for Redevelopment The first step of redevelopment often includes identifying redevelopment opportunities for further study or consideration in “comprehensive,” “small area,” or “corridor” plans. The City has also updated its zoning and subdivision ordinances to proactively allow more flexibility for redevelopment projects. Planning and Zoning, however, is not effectuated without implementation of such plans. As most of the challenges of redevelopment result in financial issues to resolve, the tools for addressing those challenges are primarily financial in nature. Such tools have been created by local, state, and federal government over the past several decades and can include: ## 1. Economic Development Authority Levy 2. Tax Increment Financing (including pooling) 3. Tax Abatement (by a County and/or City) 4. County Funds (GROW, County LAHA / Statewide Affordable Housing Aid) ## 5. State Brownfield Grants 6. State or Met Council Development Grants (typically only a small component) 7. Transportation projects may also provide funding for, and necessitate the acquisition of, properties in a way that results in potential redevelopment (for example along MN-120 and Highway 36) Historically, the City of Oakdale has utilized several of these tools. At this point staff are not advocating for the use of any specific tools; rather that a deliberate process be undertaken to determine the best course of action for the City as part of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan update, Strategic Plan updates, and other related efforts. ## COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED This Workshop is primarily informational and is intended to provide a high-level understanding of the redevelopment process, the impacts of redevelopment, challenges, opportunity sites, and potential policies and tools that may be available. It is requested that the City Council provide input on the site selection methodology and results in addition to noting anything missing to be further explored in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update. ## Attachments ## Site Selection Methodology ## Map – 3D Visualization of City Property Values Per Acre ## Map – 3D Visualization of Taxes Paid Per Acre ## Map – All Identified Potential Redevelopment Sites ## Map – Medium Feasibility Potential Redevelopment Sites ## Map – High Feasibility Potential Redevelopment Sites City of Oakdale ● 1584 Hadley Avenue N, Oakdale, MN 55128 www.oakdalemn.gov ● 651-739-5086 ## SITE SELECTION METHODOLOGY ## INITIAL SELECTION OF ELIGIBLE PARCELS There are more than 11,000 parcels of land within the City of Oakdale. To determine how to narrow these sites for redevelopment evaluation, staff applied the following criteria. ## • Bottom 20% of Assessed Property Value per Acre o To identify redevelopment sites that require lower levels of public assistance, there must be a relatively large gap between what uses and structures are currently onsite and what could be onsite. Property values are a useful tool to help identify these gaps. Generally, parcels with lower property values can signify aging structures, low lot coverage, nonconforming uses, or other attributes that make redevelopment more likely. o Property values on their own, however, are not fully comparable, as larger sites tend to have higher property values. As a result, staff calculated the property value per acre to allow for a standardized, comparable variable. o Nonresidential parcels (e.g., commercial, industrial, etc.) tend to have higher property values than residential parcels. As a result, residential and nonresidential parcels were broken into separate datasets to allow for more accurate comparisons. o The bottom 20% of residential and nonresidential parcels were selected for consideration. o Removal of greenfield sites. o Redevelopment of smaller lots (<0.5 acres) is often not financially feasible. As a result, lots or lot groupings under 0.5 acres were removed from consideration. ## • Existing / Future Land Use Mismatch o The City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies future land uses for every parcel in the City. When the existing and future land uses are not aligned, it is likely that the property may be nonconforming. As a result, staff included parcels with misaligned existing and future land uses for consideration. ## • Commercially Zoned Properties with Existing Residential Structures o The City contains some sites where existing residential structures are zoned for commercial uses. These properties are generally considered nonconforming and are more likely to have aging structures, making them more likely to redevelop. ## ASSESSMENT OF ELIGIBLE PARCELS After applying the criteria above to determine eligible sites, 153 parcels were identified. Staff proceeded by assigning ratings to each parcel based on site characteristics that contribute to redevelopment potential. Parcels were assigned one of the following ratings: Very Low Feasibility, Low Feasibility, Medium Feasibility, and High Feasibility. The following site characteristics were determined to contribute positively to redevelopment potential. • Low Site Assembly Costs – Generally, redevelopment sites that are larger and under single ownership are considered more suitable for redevelopment. If a redevelopment site has multiple owners or tenants, or consists of many relatively small parcels, the cost of acquisition for a developer can be substantially more expensive. Page 2 April 28, 2026 • Fewer Wetlands – Sites with fewer wetlands offer more buildable area, increasing the likelihood of redevelopment. • Low Building Coverage – Building coverage is the ratio of area covered by buildings to the size of the parcel. Low building coverage often presents opportunities for infill development. It should be noted that the Oakdale Zoning and Subdivision Code Update project, completed in 2025, reduced minimum parking requirements significantly, offering new opportunities for infill. • Access and Visibility – Sites with frontage on arterials or collectors and good visibility are generally more attractive for redevelopment, especially for future commercial sites. • Difference Between Existing Land Use and Future Development – Redevelopment generally requires a profit if undertaken by a private developer. The potential for profit is generally higher if the redevelopment is a more intensive land use than the prior use. For example, a small single-family house that is redeveloped as a commercial building is more likely to be pursued by a developer than a small single-family house that is redeveloped as a large single-family house or duplex. • Age and Condition of Existing Structures – Generally, older structures in poor condition are more likely to be redeveloped. • Presence in Other City Plans – Other adopted City plans, including the Glenbrook Small Area Plan and 12 th and Geneva Redevelopment Study, have often explored redevelopment sites in greater detail than this exercise. As a result, sites recommended in these plans were classified as “high suitability” for redevelopment. The following site characteristics were determined to contribute negatively to redevelopment potential. • Institutional Users – Institutional users (e.g., churches, nonprofit organizations, governments, etc.) are typically exempt from property taxes. As a result, these organizations typically have much lower holding costs and are less likely to sell their property. • High Site Assembly Costs – Sites with multiple small parcels, more than one owner, or multiple tenants are often more expensive to acquire and assemble. • Existing High-Intensity Users – Sites that contain existing uses that are more intense in nature (e.g., heavy industrial, light industrial, etc.) generally have less of a profit incentive to redevelop. • More Wetlands – Sites that are covered by more than 50% existing wetlands generally have little buildable area, making it unlikely to develop. • Staff utilized the site characteristics above to rate sites, resulting in the following: ## Rating Number of Sites ## Very Low Feasibility 50 ## Low Feasibility 55 Medium Feasibility 20 (Consolidated 20 parcels to 13 sites) High Feasibility 28 (Consolidated 28 parcels to 19 sites) Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ## Assessed Property Values (2026) Per Acre - West-Facing View ̄ 0 0.7 1.4 0.35 ## Miles ## Legend ## Oakdale Parcels - Assessed ## Value Per Acre (2026) ## Land Use ## Residential - Single Family Residential - 2-4 Units / ## Townhome ## Residential - High-Density ## Multifamily ## Residential - Mixed Use ## Commercial ## Office ## Industrial/Office ## Industrial ## Institutional ## Open Space ## Parks ## Public ## Vacant ## Water ## Wetland Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ## Taxes Paid (2025) Per Acre - West-Facing View ̄ 0 0.7 1.4 0.35 ## Miles ## Legend ## Land Use ## Residential - Single Family Residential - 2-4 Units / Townhome ## Residential - High-Density Multifamily ## Residential - Mixed Use ## Commercial ## Office ## Industrial/Office ## Industrial ## Institutional ## Open Space ## Park & Recreation ## Public ## Vacant ## Water ## Wetland ## W o o d l y n n ## A v e ## E ## G a l l ## A v e ## E l m ## D r ## S u m a c ## R d g ## B e l l a i r e ## A v e ## ManitouRidge ## GolfCourse ## Maplewood ## HeightsPark ## JoyPark ## LakewoodHills ## Park ## WhiteBearLake ## AreaHigh ## School 1 4 t h ## A v e ## E 1 2 t h ## A v e ## E 1 s t ## A v e ## E 7 t h ## S t ## N ## S k i l l m a n ## A v e ## E 1 s t ## S t ## N ## R a d a t z ## A v e 6 t h ## S t ## N 6 t h ## S t ## N 4 t h ## A v e ## E ## C o w e r n ## P l ## E 7 t h ## A v e ## E ## SouthwoodPark ## CaseyLake ## Park ## SilverLakePark ## GoodrichPark ## NorthSt.Paul ## Beaver ## Lake 5 ## B u s h ## A v e ## E ## N o k o m i s ## A v e ## M a r y l a n d ## A v e ## E ## L a r p e n t e u r ## A v e ## E ## UnionCemetery ## HillcrestGolf ## ClubofSt.Paul ## SterlingOaks ## Park ## BeaverLake ## Park ## Hill-Murray ## School ## ThreeM ## Lake 94 ## C o n w a y ## A v e ## E 5 t h ## S t 4 t h ## S t ## E ## A v e n u e ## R ## U p p e r ## A f t o n ## R d ## E ## N ## P a r k ## D r 1 9 t h ## S t ## L a r r y ## H o ## D r ## B u r n s ## A v e ## C a r l t o n ## S t ## N ## M i n n e h a h a ## A v e ## E ## M c ## K n i g h t ## R d ## S ## H u d s o n ## R d ## ConwayPark 120 694 ## W a r n e r ## A v e ## S ## W o o d l a n d ## D r ## I d e a l ## A v e ## N ## H i l t o n ## T r l ## L o n g ## L a k e ## R d ## S t a t e ## H i g h w a y 3 6 ## S t a t e ## H i g h w a y 3 6 ## Lakeview ## Cemetery ## CenturyCollege ## PineSprings ## Lakede ## Montreville ## SilverLake 694 4 0 t h ## S t ## N 4 0 t h ## S t ## N ## G e r s h w i n ## A v e ## N ## G r a n a d a ## A v e ## N ## G r a n a d a ## A v e ## N ## H a d l e y ## A v e ## N 4 5 t h ## S t ## N 4 9 t h ## S t ## N ## H e l m o ## A v e ## N ## U p p e r 3 5 t h ## S t ## N ## U p p e r 3 5 t h ## S t ## N ## H e n r y ## S t ## N 3 6 t h ## S t ## N ## H i l l t o p ## A v e ## N 5 0 t h ## S t ## N ## O l s o n ## L a k e ## T r l 3 4 t h ## S t ## N ## G e n e v a ## A v e ## N ## S t a t e ## H i g h w a y 3 6 ## OakdalePark ## Goosepond ## Park 120 5 1 2 t h ## S t ## N ## H e l m o ## A v e ## N ## H a d l e y ## A v e ## N ## H i l o ## A v e ## N ## H i l o ## A v e ## N ## H e l e n a ## R d ## N ## G r a n a d a ## A v e ## N 2 9 t h ## S t ## N 3 1 s t ## S t ## N 1 1 t h ## S t ## N 3 2 n d ## S t ## N ## H a m l e t ## A v e ## N 2 5 t h ## S t ## N 1 8 t h ## S t ## N ## G e n e v a ## A v e ## N ## RichardWalton ## Park ## Oakdale ## Battle ## Creek ## Lake 494 ## G r e e n w a y ## A v e ## N 4 t h ## S t ## N ## B i e l e n b e r g ## D r ## H e l m o ## A v e ## N ## W e i r ## D r ## H u d s o n ## R d ## H u d s o n ## R d ## H a d l e y ## A v e ## N ## H a l e ## A v e ## N 7 t h ## S t ## N ## L a n d a u ## D r ## H u d s o n ## B l v d ## F a r r e l l ## S t ## N 1 0 t h ## S t ## N ## C e n t u r y ## A v e ## N ## BergenPlaza ## Oakdale ## Elementary ## School ## Landfall 6 8 t h ## S t ## N ## J a s m i n e ## A v e ## N 5 7 t h ## S t ## N ## H i g h l a n d s ## T r l ## N ## S t a t e ## H i g h w a y 3 6 ## LakeJane ## Olson ## Lake ## J a n e ## R d ## N 3 8 t h ## S t ## N 3 9 t h ## S t ## N ## H i l l ## T r l ## N 3 4 t h ## S t ## N ## S t i l l w a t e r ## B l v d ## N ## LakeJaneHills ## Park ## Eagle ## PointLake 1 5 t h ## S t ## N 1 5 t h ## S t ## N 3 1 s t ## S t ## N 2 7 t h ## S t ## N 2 6 t h ## S t ## N ## S t i l l w a t e r ## B l v d ## N ## I n w o o d ## A v e ## N ## H u d s o n ## R d ## H u d s o n ## R d ## J a d e ## T r a i l ## N ## S p r i n g ## H i l l ## D r ## S p r i n g ## H i l l ## D r ## H u d s o n ## B l v d ## N 4 t h ## S t ## N ## J u l e p ## A v e ## N ## J e w e l ## A v e ## N 1 0 t h ## S t ## N 1 0 t h ## S t ## N ## OakMarshGolf ## Club ## Tamarack ## Village 1a 1c 1b 1d 1e 1h 1g 1f 1i 1k 1j 1l 1n 1o 1m ̄ 0 1 2 0.5 ## Miles ## Redevelopment Analysis - All Sites ## Legend ## Redevelopment Sites ## High Feasibility (Single ## Family) ## High Feasibility ## Medium Feasibility ## Low Feasibility ## Very Low Feasibility ## 2040 Comp Plan Site ## City Boundary ## L y d i a ## A v e ## E ## B e l l a i r e ## A v e 7 t h ## A v e ## E 1 7 t h ## A v e ## E ## S t i l l w a t e r ## R d ## E 694 ## H i l t o n ## T r l ## S t a t e ## H i g h w a y 3 6 ## W i l d w o o d ## R d ## CenturyCollege ## PineSprings ## LakeJane ## Lakede ## Montreville 120 36 5 0 t h ## S t ## N ## I n w o o d ## A v e ## N ## I d e a l ## A v e ## N ## S t i l l w a t e r ## B l v d ## N 3 4 t h ## S t ## N ## G e n e v a ## A v e ## N ## G e n e v a ## A v e ## N ## SunfishLake ## Park ## OakdalePark ## LakeElmoPark ## Reserve ## Oakdale 694 94 1 0 t h ## S t ## N ## K e a t s ## A v e ## N ## C e n t u r y ## A v e ## N ## OakMarshGolf ## Club ## Landfall ## S t i l l w a t e r ## B l v d ## N ## IndianHillsGolf ## Club ## ApplewoodHills ## GolfCourse ## Holcombes ## OakPark ## Heights ## Sunfish ## Lake ## Horseshoe ## Lake ## M a n n i n g ## A v e ## N ## L a k e ## E l m o ## A v e ## N ## LakeElmo ## Airport ## Baytown ## LakeElmo 94 ## M a n n i n g ## A v e ## N 1 0 t h ## S t ## N ## StoneridgeGolf ## Club 64 ## H i g h w a y 3 5 ## N ## SalemLutheran ## Church ## Churchill- ## Nelson- ## Slaughter ## S a i n t ## C r o i x ## R i v e r 95 6 t h ## S t ## N ## M i n n e s o t a ## S t ## S ## S a i n t ## C r o i x ## T r l ## N ## Bayport ## Siegel ## Hudson 94 ## Lakeland ## Lakeland ## Shores 3 4 9 11 10 1 12 2 5 6 7 8 13 Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Vantor ## Site NumberName or AddressNotes 15061 Geneva Ave NUnderutilized lot. Possible residential infill opportunity. Opportunity may arise if ROW acquisition for interchange is needed. 24783 Geneva Ave NAging commercial building. More feasible for redevelopment due to single tenant occupancy. 3Northwest of I-694 and 40th St N (0802921340014) Possible residential infill. 3M-owned land that is likely not contaminated. Site constrained by lot shape and proximity to I-694. 4Southwest of I-694 and 40th St N (7297 40th St N and 1702921210004) Possible residential infill. 3M-owned land that is likely not contaminated. Site constrained by lot shape and proximity to I-694. ## 54Front / Imation Campus North ## Parking Lot (1702921140005) Potential infill for office, medical office, or residential. Insufficient visibility for commercial. Rated medium primarily for timeline - this site is very likely to redevelop, but would not do so until all 4Front greenfield sites are gone. 63205 Hadley Ave NUnderutilized parking lot. Reduced minimum parking requirements may allow for commercial infill. 77511 32nd St NExisting 2040 Comprehensive Plan site. Guided for residential or commercial per Oakdale Marketplace PUD amendments (2024). 83240 Ideal Ave NExisting 2040 Comprehensive Plan site. Guided for commercial redevelopment. Favorable location, but challenging lot shape. 96349 & 6479 Stillwater Blvd NSchool bus site is present in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Inclusion of the vacant parcel to the north would strengthen development potential. Potential for low or medium density residential. Rated medium due to existing use being unlikely to cease. 107162 15th St NChallenging economics and large amount of wetlands. Existing development inquiry. Strong location and visibility. 11NW Corner of Hilo Ave N and 15th ## St N Oversized lot with no wetlands. Potential for residential infill. ## 12Parcels between Geneva Ave N ## (MN-120), 14th St N, Gentry Ave N, and north of Duke's. Challenges associated with assembly cost (many small lots). Per 12th and Geneva Redevelopment Study, could potentially be a residential or commercial redevelopment. 136592 Hudson Blvd NExisting nonconforming business. Existing heavier uses are often incentivized to stay. Strengths: site is underutilized, relatively low value per acre, favorable zoning. ## Redevelopment Sites - Medium Feasibility ̄ ## L y d i a ## A v e ## E ## B e l l a i r e ## A v e 7 t h ## A v e ## E 1 7 t h ## A v e ## E ## H o l l o w a y ## A v e ## E ## S t i l l w a t e r ## R d ## E ## M i n n e h a h a ## A v e ## E 36 36 694 ## H i l t o n ## T r l ## S t a t e ## H i g h w a y 3 6 ## W i l d w o o d ## R d ## CenturyCollege ## PineSprings ## LakeJane ## Lakede ## Montreville 120 694 5 0 t h ## S t ## N ## I n w o o d ## A v e ## N ## I d e a l ## A v e ## N ## S t i l l w a t e r ## B l v d ## N 3 4 t h ## S t ## N ## G e n e v a ## A v e ## N ## G e n e v a ## A v e ## N ## S t a t e ## H i g h w a y 3 6 ## SunfishLake ## Park ## OakdalePark ## LakeElmoPark ## Reserve ## Oakdale 694 94 94 1 0 t h ## S t ## N 1 0 t h ## S t ## N 1 0 t h ## S t ## N ## K e a t s ## A v e ## N ## C e n t u r y ## A v e ## N ## OakMarshGolf ## Club ## Landfall ## S t i l l w a t e r ## B l v d ## N ## S t a t e ## H i g h w a y 3 6 ## S t a t e ## H i g h w a y 3 6 ## IndianHillsGolf ## Club ## ApplewoodHills ## GolfCourse ## Holcombes ## Greeley ## OakPark ## Heights ## Sunfish ## Lake ## Horseshoe ## Lake ## M a n n i n g ## A v e ## N ## L a k e ## E l m o ## A v e ## N ## LakeElmo ## Airport ## Baytown ## LakeElmo 95 94 ## M a n n i n g ## A v e ## N 1 0 t h ## S t ## N ## StoneridgeGolf ## Club 64 ## H i g h w a y 3 5 ## N ## SalemLutheran ## Church ## Churchill- ## Nelson- ## Slaughter ## S a i n t ## C r o i x ## R i v e r ## S a i n t ## C r o i x ## R i v e r 6 t h ## S t ## N ## M i n n e s o t a ## S t ## S ## S a i n t ## C r o i x ## T r l ## N ## Bayport ## Siegel ## Hudson 94 ## Lakeland ## Lakeland ## Shores ## SF1 8 10 13 12 ## SF2 ## SF3 3 5 1 2 6 7 9 11 14 15 16 4 Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Vantor ## Site ## Number ## Name or AddressNotesSite ## Number ## Name or AddressNotes 15677 Hadley Ave NNew zoning code allows for reduced parking requirements. Potential for commercial infill. Pad site present. 25635 Hadley Ave NNew zoning code allows for reduced parking requirements. Commercial infill opportunity. 35127 Geneva Ave NIdentified in Glenbrook Small Area Plan. 46051-6071 50th St NIdentified in Glenbrook Small Area Plan. 56149 Upper 51st St ## N ## Identified in Glenbrook Small Area Plan 65000 Hadley Ave NChallenges with wetland could be utilized for single family infill or other uses if creative. Likely not enough land for townhomes due to minimum number of units for an HOA to make sense. 7Reflection Auto ## Sales Parking Lot (0702921220002) Underutilized parking lot potential infill. ## 86956-6962 40th St NIn existing Comp Plan. Signficant land available (!12 acres) with wetlands accounted for. Attractive location adMacent to Nature Center. Potential for low-to-medium density residential. 97900 32nd St NUnderutilized parking lot with pad site potential commercial infill. 10East of Granada Ave ## N and 25th St N ## In existing Comp Plan. Creativity required for layout, but ideal for townhomes or cluster single family. More than five acres if all sites are assembled. Potential for park boundary adMustment could lead to win-win for City. 11NE Corner of Hadley ## Ave N and Stillwater ## Blvd N (2002921230034) Low usable size but low assembly cost and high visibility. Options could include townhomes or other residential, small commercial (e.g., caribou / scooters). ## 127287 Stillwater Blvd ## N ## In existing Comp Plan. Potential for institutional or government use. Unlikely to develop as residential unless adMacent use is removed. ## 137491 Stillwater Blvd ## N ## In existing Comp Plan. Potential for low or medium density residential. Neighborhood compatibility concerns. 141267 Geneva Ave NIdentified in 12th and Geneva ## Redevelopment Study and 2040 Comp Plan. 15Bergen PlazaNew zoning code allows for reduced parking requirements. Commercial infill opportunity. 16Norhart Surface ## Parking (3202921430051) High density allowed by right under ## HS-PUD. ## SF1 (Single ## Family) SW Corner of 48th ## St N and Granada ## Ave N 2.5 acre lot still over 1 acre available after accounting for wetlands. Existing R-2 zoning would allow lot split for additional single family home. Rezoning opens up additional opportunities. ## SF2 (Single ## Family) ## NE Corner of 15th St ## N and Heath Ave N 1.2 acres, currently contains a second driveway. No wetlands present in GIS data. Under R-2 zoning, could be split for single family. Additional options available with rezoning. ## SF3 (Single ## Family) ## SE Corner of 10th St ## N and Glenbrook ## Ave N 1 acre, no wetlands present in GIS data. Under R-2 zoning, could be split for single family. Additional opportunities available with rezoning. ## Redevelopment Sites - High Feasibility ̄ ## COUNCIL MEMORANDUM 1 ## To: Honorable Mayor and City Council ## From: Andrew Gitzlaff, Community Development Director ## Cory Tietz, Public Works Director Date: April 28, 2026 Subject: Proposed Amendments to the Management of Turf Grass and Vegetation Ordinance ## BACKGROUND At the January 27, 2026, Council Workshop, Council reviewed Chapter 24, regulating turf grass and vegetation management. In the current ordinance, non-native turf grass or other vegetation is not allowed to grow higher than 6 inches on average. There are exceptions for alternative landscapes that can be approved administratively by staff. New State laws took effect in July 2023, which allowed managed natural landscapes to be installed and maintained on all private property. At the Workshop, Council directed staff to update the ordinance to comply with State Statute and to raise the maximum height for turf grass to 8 inches, which is consistent with peer cities. Council further asked staff to get input on native planting establishment and maintenance from the Environmental Management Commission (EMC). At the March 16, 2026, EMC meeting, Commissioners suggested removing the requirement for alternate landscapes to be approved by City staff. City staff incorporated this proposed language change in the revised ordinance. In addition to assessing natural landscapes on private property, City staff examined the impact of these landscapes on the boulevard section of the City right-of-way. According to Chapter 24 of the City code, owners, lessees, or agents with control over land in the city are allowed to maintain boulevard areas next to their properties with turf grass, native plants, wildflowers, or other beneficial vegetation, provided it does not surpass thirty-two (32) inches in height (excluding trees). Incorporating native plantings, wildflowers, or other beneficial vegetation in boulevard areas can add visual diversity to neighborhoods and promote greater stewardship of these spaces. These alternative landscaping options can also be effective solutions for areas where the boulevard is narrow or has steep grades. Alternatively, Chapter 20 of the City code aims to protect citizens' health, safety, and well-being by ensuring rights-of-way remain free from unnecessary obstructions, which can cause frustration for business owners, commuters, and the public. Allowing alternative landscaping in the boulevard that exceeds the proposed eight (8) inch height limit for turf grass often obstructs sightlines and jeopardizes safe travel at intersections, driveways, crosswalks, and sharp curves. Staff is conducting additional research relating to peer and neighboring cities to aid in the decision making and will send out to Council under separate cover prior to the Workshop. ## COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED It is requested that the City Council review the proposed ordinance amendment and provide feedback through discussion with City staff on whether to remove approval provisions for alternative landscapes and whether to allow alternative landscapes that exceed eight (8) inches in height (excluding trees) in the boulevard portion of the City right-of-way. If permitted in the boulevard, City staff are requesting feedback on whether a staff approval process is warranted for this specific space. Once direction and intent are 2 provided, the amended ordinance will be brought forward for approval at the next regular City Council meeting. ## Attachment Proposed Ordinance No. XXX, Amending the Code of Ordinances for the City of Oakdale, Chapter 24, Relating to Management of Turf Grass and Vegetation, with Tracked Changes 1 ## City of Oakdale ## ORDINANCE NO. XXX ## AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF OAKDALE, CHAPTER 24, RELATING ## TO THE MANAGEMENT OF TURF GRASS AND VEGETATION ## The City Council of the City of Oakdale ordains: SECTION 1. The City of Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 24, Section 24-01 is amended to read as follows: Sec. 24-01. Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any owner, lessee or occupant, or any agent, having control of any land in Oakdale to allow non-native turf grass or other non-native vegetation to grow to a greater height than six (6) eight (8) inches on the average, or any accumulation of dead weeds or turf grass, except for the purpose of composting or brush, or to allow any growth or have in possession noxious weeds, as defined by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 18, Sections 75-91. Noxious weeds are regulated invasive plants and a list of species for Minnesota is maintained by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.: http://www.mda.state.mn.us/weedcontrol. The vegetation shall be of a majority uniform height and cut regularly. The vegetation shall not be allowed to go to seed or be allowed to grow in areas originally intended as a parking surface, roadway, bike path, or sidewalk. Alternate landscape plans, other than turf, shall be approved by the city Planning Director prior to installation and required to be maintained according to approved plans. Native landscape plantings including pollinator habitat, garden, meadow vegetation, prairie or pasture defined by borders or ornamental edging are permitted. SECTION 2. The City of Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 24, Section 24-0 2 is amended to read as follows: Sec. 24-02. Definitions. Native landscape plantings means a planned, intentional, and maintained planting of native or nonnative grasses, wildflowers, forbs, ferns, shrubs, or trees, including but not limited to rain gardens, meadow vegetation, and ornamental plants. Native landscape plantings does not include turf-grass lawns left unattended for the purpose of returning to a natural state. For safety reasons, native plantings are not allowed in the public right-of-way... OR...Any such plantings located within the public right-of-way shall require prior approval by the City (Council, Admin, Engineer???), which shall be approved provided that the plantings comply with City Code and State law. Pollinator Habitat means the same term as advised by a MN Landscape Architect or designer and/or the University of Minnesota Bee Lab. Turf grass means a lawn or area comprised mostly of non-native grasses commonly used in regularly cut lawns or play areas such as but not limited to bluegrass, fescue and ryegrass blends, intended to be maintained at a height of no more than eight (8) inches. Garden means an area which is not turf grass and defined by borders or ornamental edging. Typically containing fruit or fruit trees, vegetables or flowers within a parcel. Pasture means a defined and maintained area on a private parcel that is intentionally established for the grazing of animals, where such grazing is expressly permitted by applicable 2 law. Vegetation in these areas may exceed eight (8) inches in height. Pasture does not include lawns, turf grass, or unmanaged vegetation on private property, and it is distinct from public open space as defined in Chapter 15. SECTION 3. The City of Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 24, Section 24-03 is renumbered as follows: Sec. 24-032. Duty to Abate. It shall be the duty of any owner, lessee or occupant of any land to cut and remove or cause to be cut and removed all noxious weeds and to maintain the required height of turf grass as often as may be necessary to comply with the provisions of Section 24-01; provided that cutting and removing such noxious weeds and turf grass at least once in every two (2) weeks between May 15 and October 15 shall be deemed to be in compliance with this Chapter. SECTION 4. The City of Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 24, Section 24-0 4 is renumbered as follows: Sec. 24-043. Notice, Abatement by City. The Weed Inspector Building Official or Designee shall serve written notice of any violations to the owner, lessee or occupant or any person having the care or control of any land that is in violation of this Chapter. If the person upon whom the notice is served fails, neglects, or refuses to correct the stated violation within five (5) days after receipt of such notice, or if no person can be found who either is or claims to be the owner of land, the Weed Inspector Building Official or Designee shall bring the land into compliance. The fee for actual cost of any activity required to bring the land into compliance with this Chapter, as outlined in the City’s fee schedule, plus five percent (5%) for inspection and other administrative costs in connection therewith, shall be certified by the City Clerk to the County Auditor, and shall become and be a lien upon the property and shall be added to and become and form part of the taxes next to be assessed and levied upon such lot or land and shall bear interest at the same rate as taxes and shall be collected and enforced by the same officer and in the same manner as taxes. SECTION 5. The City of Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 24, Section 24-0 5 is renumbered as follows: Sec. 24-054. Violations. Any person who shall neglect to cut and remove noxious weeds and turf grass, as directed in this Chapter, or who shall fail, neglect, or refuse to comply with the provisions of any notice herein provided or who shall violate any of the provisions of this Chapter or who shall resist or obstruct the City , or its employees, or City representative in the cutting and removal of weeds, grass, brush and other vegetation, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day on which such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. SECTION 6. The City of Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 24, Section 24-0 6 is renumbered and amended as follows: Sec. 24-065. Care and Maintenance of Boulevards. 3 (a) Purpose. Property owners are responsible to plant and maintain the boulevard areas adjoining their property in a manner which enhances and improves the aesthetic appearance of City streets to provide a more diverse, healthy wildlife habitat in Oakdale and to improve water quality. (b) Plantings Permitted. Owners, lessees, or agents having control of land in Oakdale shall maintain boulevards adjoining their property with turf grass, native landscape plantings, wildflowers, or other beneficial vegetation. To maintain an adequate site line and safe travel within the right-of-way, such plantings, excluding trees, shall not exceed thirty-two (32) inches in height and may not include weeds. The plantings must be regularly maintained. For native landscape plantings, wildflowers, or other beneficial vegetation, such requirement may be met by cutting to a maximum height of eight (8) inches at least once a year. (c) Approval Required. Alternative landscape plans, other than turf grass, shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to installation and are required to be maintained according to approved plans. Such approval will be granted and maintenance shall be accepted provided that the plans and maintenance are in compliance with City Code and State law. (c)(d) City Policy for City-Maintained Boulevards. The City shall establish a policy for maintaining boulevards adjacent to City -owned property. SECTION 7. Incorporation. City staff is authorized and directed to update the table of contents, reformat this ordinance, and to make such other non-substantive changes as are necessary to incorporate the amendments adopted by this ordinance into the City of Oakdale Code of Ordinances. SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its adoption and publication, as provided by law. ## Voting in Favor: Mayor Zabel, Council Members Moore, Morcomb, Severson, and Wrich ## Voting Against: None Adopted this 28 th day of April, 2026 by the Oakdale City Council. ## Kevin Zabel, Mayor ## Attest: ______________________________ ## Sara Ludwig, City Clerk 4 ## Posted: ## Published: Text with strikeout is proposed for deletion. Text with underline is proposed for insertion.