Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-25 PC PacketAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 6, 2025 Planning Commission Regular Meeting 08 -06 -25 PC FINAL.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 25 -008 –1622 Lake Johanna Boulevard And 1624 Lake Johanna Boulevard –Lot Consolidation And Variance Elena Fransen, Senior Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF Planning Case 25 -007 –City Of Arden Hills –Ordinance Amendments To Zoning Code Section 1325.07, Subd. 6.A And City Code Section 410.01, Subd. 3 Regarding The Keeping Of Chickens And Review For The Keeping Of Ducks Elena Fransen, Senior Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair: Joshua Collins (2027) Commissioners: Brad Bjorklund (2025) Steve Erler (2026) Ben Lindau, Vice Chair (2026) Patrick Burlingame (2027) Nancy Jacobson (2027) Jessica Birken (2027) Katie Stromberg - Alternate (2026) SJ Julius -Alternate (2027) Council Liaison: Kurt Weber Planning Commission September 3, 2025 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills. https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -City -Meetings Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 2.A. Documents: 3. 3.A. Documents: 3.B. Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESAugust 6, 2025 Planning Commission Regular Meeting08-06 -25 PC FINAL.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 25 -008 –1622 Lake Johanna Boulevard And 1624 Lake Johanna Boulevard –Lot Consolidation And Variance Elena Fransen, Senior Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF Planning Case 25 -007 –City Of Arden Hills –Ordinance Amendments To Zoning Code Section 1325.07, Subd. 6.A And City Code Section 410.01, Subd. 3 Regarding The Keeping Of Chickens And Review For The Keeping Of Ducks Elena Fransen, Senior Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair:Joshua Collins (2027)Commissioners:Brad Bjorklund (2025)Steve Erler (2026)Ben Lindau, Vice Chair (2026)Patrick Burlingame (2027)Nancy Jacobson (2027)Jessica Birken (2027)Katie Stromberg -Alternate (2026)SJ Julius -Alternate (2027)Council Liaison:Kurt Weber Planning Commission September 3, 2025 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting,strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirableCity in which to live, work, and play.Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills.https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -City -MeetingsAgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.2.A.Documents:3.3.A. Documents: 3.B. Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. Approved: September 3, 2025 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2025 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Collins called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Joshua Collins, Commissioners Jessica Birken, Brad Bjorklund, Patrick Burlingame, Stephen Erler, Nancy Jacobson, and Ben Lindau. Absent: Commissioners Katie Stromberg and SJ Julius. Also present were: City Administrator Jessica Jagoe, Senior Planner Elena Fransen and Council Liaison Kurt Weber. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – AUGUST 6, 2025 Commissioner Erler moved, seconded by Commissioner Lindau, to approve the August 6, 2025, agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 9, 2025 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Lindau moved, seconded by Commissioner Birken, to approve the July 9, 2025, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried 6-0-1 (Commissioner Bjorklund abstained). PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 25-007 – City of Arden Hills – Ordinance Amendments to Zoning Code Section 1325.07, Subd. 6.A and City Code Section 410.01, Subd. 3 regarding the Keeping of Chickens – Public Hearing Senior Planner Fransen stated at the May 12 City Council Work Session, the City Council requested that the ordinance for the keeping of chickens be scheduled for discussion. At the June 9 work session, the Council began the review and discussion on potential amendments to Ordinance 2021-008 for the Keeping of Chickens. The discussion for the Keeping of Chickens ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – August 6, 2025 2 continued at the June 30 Special Work Session. Staff prepared a redlined version of the Keeping of Chickens ordinance with the amendments discussed and generally agreed upon by the Council. At the June 30 Special Work Session, the Council discussed additional items to be incorporated into the redlined ordinance, such as setbacks, number of accessory structures including a coop, fencing/screening, cleaning standards, and leg banding requirements. Senior Planner Fransen explained the City Council’s intent with the revisions to the keeping of chickens ordinance was to keep the code language consistent with best practices. The current ordinance language solely references Recommendations of Municipal Regulation of Urban Chickens. Council discussed several regulations from the University of Minnesota Extension on Raising chickens for eggs. Direction was given to incorporate some of those recommendations into the current ordinance as well as having staff create a handout that refers to both of these resources as part of the City’s licensing requirements for the Keeping of Chickens. The drafted ordinance amendment incorporates these suggested revisions. Senior Planner Fransen provided an overview of the ordinance amendments and offered the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The City of Arden Hills is proposing to amend ordinance language for the keeping of chickens. 2. The proposed ordinance will include amendments to the language of Chapter 13 – Zoning Code of the City Code. 3. Amendments to the Zoning Code regulations require a public hearing prior to action by the City Council. Senior Planner Fransen stated staff recommends approval of, based on the findings of fact and as presented in the August 6, 2025 Report to the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission for Planning Case 25-007 for Ordinance Amendments to Zoning Code Section 1325.07, Subd. 6.A and City Code Section 410.01, Subd. 3 regarding the Keeping of Chickens: 1. Recommend Approval as Written 2. Recommend Approval with Amendments 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Jacobson stated she believed staff and the Council had taken a thorough look at this topic. She indicated she lived on a nonconforming corner lot and suggested language added to the ordinance to address nonconforming lots. Senior Planner Fransen was of the opinion there were elements within the ordinance that would address unique properties and staff would be willing to have conversations with residents on how to address how the ordinance applied to their lot. City Administrator Jagoe reported nonconforming and corner lots would still be eligible for chickens just subject to the ordinance language. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – August 6, 2025 3 Commissioner Jacobson indicated she believed the language surrounding noise and odor was too vague and questioned how the City would enforce these matters. Senior Planner Fransen reported if a complaint was made to the City and there was a violation of any of the conditions, the property owners would be required to come into compliance in 10 days or their license could be revoked. Commissioner Jacobsen inquired if a license was good for one year, would the applicant have to get consent from the neighbors on a yearly basis. Senior Planner Fransen explained chicken keeping licenses were good for two years and with the relicensing, the applicant would have to check in and verify with their neighbors every two years. Commissioner Bjorklund thanked staff for the municipal recommendations on Attachment C. He asked how Falcon Heights was managing chickens in their community. Senior Planner Fransen stated she did not have this specific information, but noted many adjacent communities were allowing chickens. Commissioner Lindau asked what the intention was of Attachment C Page 2. Senior Planner Fransen reported this was a handout for the Commission and would not be included in the ordinance. Commissioner Bjorklund inquired what the cost would be for the chicken keeping license. City Administrator Jagoe indicated the Council would be addressing this matter further when considering the fee schedule under City Code. Commissioner Erler stated he believed the general changes that were made to the ordinance were moving in the right direction. He asked if both sections of the ordinance would be brought to the City Council. Senior Planner Fransen reported this would be the case. Commissioner Erler indicated he would like to see a change made to the neighbor consent information noting no other animal is required to have neighbor consent. He supported the consent requirement going away and that only notice to the neighbors be required. He anticipated any trouble with the chickens would be dealt with through noise or odor complaints. He asked if the City only took action against a property if there was a complaint. Senior Planner Fransen stated the City was complaint based, noting the City did not have a code enforcement department that went door to door. Commissioner Erler inquired if the City had an animal control officer. City Administrator Jagoe reported the City has an animal control officer through the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – August 6, 2025 4 Commissioner Burlingame explained chickens were social birds and he supported the increase in the number of chickens to six and even seven. He suggested residents be allowed to have up to eight chickens through a CUP noting this would align with surrounding cities. He commented the coop size of 20 square feet should not apply to families that only want one or two chickens. He recommended the coop size more closely align with the number of birds a family has. He recommended coops not be placed in front of neighboring windows and that the language regarding cleaning routines be reconsidered. Lastly, he suggested the City limit licenses based on lot sizes or chicken licensing concentration. Commissioner Birken stated she was glad the City Council was reviewing this ordinance. She believed the original ordinance was not workable and overly prescriptive. She agreed 100% neighbor consent was an overreach and indicated she liked the idea of notice instead. She asked if the City was regulating dogs and cats to the same level as chickens. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the Animal Licenses City Code language that pertained to cats and dogs and noted the section did not address cleanliness or disposal of deceased. Chair Collins commented one clarification the Commission may need to consider within this ordinance is if chickens are farm animals or pets. Further discussion ensued regarding how nuisances will be addressed for chickens. Chair Collins opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. Chair Collins invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Lynn Diaz, 1143 Ingerson Road, explained she was happy to see the good changes that had been made to the ordinance. She strongly objected to requiring residents to receive written support from all adjoining properties. She believed this did not make any sense. She supported allowing anyone to have chickens so long as they follow the City’s requirements. She reported dogs were much more likely to affect the neighbors than chickens. She did not want to see the City pitting one neighbor against another. She questioned why the City chose a maximum coop size and believed it would be beneficial for residents to have larger more attractive coops. She explained she would like more information regarding how the pen was defined. She recommended the City further define legitimate complaints and cleaning standards. She suggested there be more allowance to let chickens roam about a backyard, especially for residents that have a six foot fence. She recommended the fee remain at $15 per coop and that the City not charge a fee per chicken, because this may become a hardship. She indicated she knew of other residents that would have comments regarding chickens but they were not aware of this meeting. She suggested the City send out a newsflash or other public notice to residents in order to make them aware of matters like this. There being no additional comment Chair Collins closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Chair Collins asked for language changes from the Commission for the ordinance. Commissioner Birken recommended the ordinance be changed to require neighbor notice instead of consent. She recommended the location and placement of chicken coops be more closely aligned with the beehive placement language. She recommended that a light bulb not be required in the chicken coops but that climate control be regulated by the property owner. She ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – August 6, 2025 5 indicated she would support a chicken coop being located within an accessory garage. She recommended the cleaning standard language be omitted and suggested this matter be addressed by the property owners and the discretion of an animal control officer. She explained she supported chickens roaming on a property and believed it would be inhumane to not allow chickens to forage. Lastly, she supported this ordinance being renamed the poultry keeping ordinance instead of the chicken keeping ordinance. Chair Collins stated he would create a list of suggested conditions and this list could then be reviewed when a motion was on the floor. City Administrator Jagoe clarified that the City does require neighbor notice for beehives. Commissioner Burlingame recommended the hen limit be increased to seven through the issuance of a City license, and that eight hens be allowed with a CUP. He recommended chicken coop size be tiered based on the number of hens a property owner has. He recommended the coop placement be no less than 10 feet from any property line and when feasible, shall be positioned to minimize impacts to neighboring dwellings such as avoiding placement adjacent to windows, patios or frequently occupied spaces on abutting properties. He recommended cleanliness be addressed by noting all premises where chickens are kept shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition to prevent the accumulation of waste and odor and the attraction of rodents. He recommended coop bedding and manure be removed once per week or more in order to maintain sanitary conditions. Commissioner Erler recommended the language under the neighbor consent to require the applicant shall provide written notice to the neighbors immediate adjacent of their intent to keep chickens. Commissioner Lindau commented he did not have anything to add at this time. Commissioner Bjorklund reported he has raised chickens in the country. He commented in order to grow eggs a light source was needed all winter, and most of the spring and fall. He reported this light source was essential for cleaning and general maintenance. He recommended the light bulb be required. He stated chickens are good to 15 degrees Fahrenheit, but below that, an additional heat source is required. He supported residents being allowed to have a six by six shed because this was more multi-purpose and would be easier to take care of. He indicated a coop that was only 25 square feet was too small he recommended coops be allowed to be as large as 36 square feet. He explained he did not support requiring residents to clean out manure on a weekly basis, he believed this was an overreach that was not realistic. He recommended the cleaning language be stricken. Chair Collins reviewed the proposed language changes with the Commission. Commissioner Birken stated she could support the first sentence that addressed coop cleaning to remain as is and recommended the remaining language be stricken as this would allow residents to dictate how they will manage the cleanliness of their coop. Commissioner Bjorklund suggested all of sub point 4 remain in place noting he did not want the City require residents to clean their coops each and every week. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – August 6, 2025 6 Commissioner Burlingame explained he could support striking the language, however he wanted to ensure there was adequate language in place for staff to address odor and nuisance complaints. Commissioner Birken moved and Commissioner Bjorklund seconded a motion to recommend striking paragraph 6, future paragraph 4. City Administrator Jagoe stated another path forward for this ordinance would be to table action in order to allow staff to consider the proposed language changes and recommendations from the Commission. She reported this would ensure the language remained consistent throughout the entire City Code. She asked that the Commission provide staff with a little more direction on what items should be further considered by staff. She understood the number of chickens, tiering, cleaning, and coop size need to be addressed. Commissioner Bjorklund withdrew his second. There was no longer a motion on the floor. Chair Collins asked how the City Council went from three to six chickens. City Administrator Jagoe recalled there was a general consensus from the Council to move to six from three. Chair Collins asked for a consensus vote from the Commission when it comes to the language issues that still need to be addressed within the ordinance. He asked if the Commission supported the neighbor consent language being changed to neighbor notice, which was similar to the language within the bee ordinance. The consensus of the Commission was to support this change. Chair Collins inquired if the Commission supported changing the coop placement language. He recommended this language be simplified to more closely reflect the beehive language. The consensus of the Commission was to support this change. Chair Collins questioned if the Commission supported requiring a light source within the chicken coops. Commissioner Birken recommended staff review other pet enclosure requirements and report back to the Commission on what standards should be in place. The consensus of the Commission was to support this recommendation. Chair Collins asked if the Commission was in favor of allowing a chicken coop in a detached garage. Commissioner Jacobson commented there were auxiliary services that could be accomplished in an accessory detached garage. She believed it was overly prescriptive to state chickens could not be housed in a detached garage. Chair Collins stated he would support allowing chicken coops in an attached or detached garage. Commissioner Lindau supported staff investigating if other cities allow chicken coops in garages. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – August 6, 2025 7 City Administrator Jagoe stated if coops were allowed in garages, the Commission would then have to consider how permits were managed and where the pen or exercise yard was located. She stated she would have to investigate this further if the Commission supported allowing chicken coops in garages. The consensus of the Commission was to direct staff to further investigate the allowance of chicken coops in garages. Further discussion ensued regarding the roaming language and staff noted the intent was to allow chickens to roam in the pen or exercise yard. Chair Collins indicated the Commission was interested in allowing chickens to roam in a supervised manner in the rear yard along with the exercise yard. City Administrator Jagoe explained she would further clarify the roaming language within the ordinance. Chair Collins inquired if the Commission supported renaming the ordinance to the poultry ordinance. City Administrator Jagoe reported it would be staff’s recommendation that this suggestion be passed along to the City Council, but that at this time, the ordinance remain the chicken keeping ordinance. Chair Collins asked if the Commission would support the number of chickens increased. Commissioner Birken explained when chicks are ordered they are shipped live and the minimum order is three. She was of the opinion the maximum number of chickens allowed should be set at seven as proposed by Commissioner Burlingame. The consensus of the Commission was to support a flock size of up to seven chickens. Chair Collins asked how the Commission wanted to address coop size. Commissioner Lindau supported staff investigating what size premade structures were in order to streamline the process for applicants in the future. City Administrator Jagoe reported she would further investigate this matter for the Commission and could report back with coop size recommendations. Chair Collins inquired how the Commission wanted to address coop cleanliness. Commissioner Birken stated she would like staff to provide the Commission with comparable language on how dogs and cat cleanliness is to be addressed by pet owners. Commissioner Burlingame moved and Commissioner Bjorklund seconded a motion to table action on Planning Case 25-007 for the ordinance amendments for the keeping of chickens to allow staff to further investigate matters as directed by the Commission to the September Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – August 6, 2025 8 UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Weber provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. He reported the City Council approved Odds & Ends Use and the Arden Plaza PUD Amendment at their last meeting. He noted he attended an open house meeting last week regarding a sound wall for Boston Scientific near Building 14. Commissioner Erler requested staff provide the Commission with a copy of the letter that was submitted by an adjacent resident regarding the noise coming from Boston Scientific. Senior Planner Fransen indicated she could forward this letter onto the Commissioners. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Commissioner Bjorklund asked when the zoning code amendments would be coming back to the Commission for further consideration. City Administrator Jagoe anticipated this document would be coming back to the Commission for further consideration in October. Commissioner Bjorklund recommended the City have language within the zoning code that sets requirements for affordable housing and that these standards not be set within a policy. He indicated he was also a proponent for accessory dwelling units and would like to see the City pursuing ADU’s. ADJOURN Chair Collins moved, seconded by Commissioner Birken, to adjourn the August 6, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:52 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Page 1 of 14 PC Agenda Item – 3A MEMORANDUM DATE: September 3, 2025 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Elena Fransen, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #25-008 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Tan Nguyen Property Location: 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1624 Lake Johanna Blvd Request: Variance and Lot Consolidation Requested Action Tan Nguyen (“The Applicant”) has requested a Lot Consolidation and Variances from the lot area, lot depth, building area elevation, front yard setback, rear yard setback, Shore impact zone, structure coverage, impervious surface coverage and floor area ratio requirements for future demolition and redevelopment of a single-family residential dwelling on the property located at 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1624 Lake Johanna Blvd (“Subject Property”). The request would include the combination of the two residential parcels which are under the same ownership. To construct the proposal, the Applicant is seeking a lot consolidation and the nine variances based on applicable zoning code definitions and minimum lot standards. 1) Lot Area: The R-1 Zoning District minimum lot area shall be 14,000 square feet. The Applicant is requesting a variance to decrease the required lot area to allow 8,372 square feet following the proposed lot consolidation. The existing lot area of the parcel with the existing single-family dwelling is 4,415 square feet. 2) Lot Depth: The R-1 Zoning District minimum lot depth shall be 85 feet. The Applicant is requesting a variance to decrease the required lot area to allow 49 feet. There are no proposed changes to lot depth and the existing lot depth of the parcel with the existing single-family dwelling is 49 feet. 3) Building Area Elevation: The Subdivision ordinance requires all building areas are a minimum of two (2) feet above the 100-year flood elevation. For Lake Johanna, the 100- year floodplain elevation is 881 feet. The Applicant is requesting a variance to decrease the required building area elevation to allow for a building area elevation of 881 feet. 4) Front Yard Setback: The R-1 Zoning District and Shoreland District minimum front yard setback shall be 40 feet. The Applicant is requesting a variance to decrease the required front yard setback to allow .3 feet from the property line. The existing single-family dwelling encroaches .4 feet into the Right-of-Way. 5) Rear Yard Setback: The R-1 Zoning District minimum rear yard setback shall be 30 feet and the Shoreland District structure minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Level is Page 2 of 14 50 feet. The Applicant is requesting a variance to decrease the rear yard setback and structure setback from Ordinary High Water Level to allow 8.5 feet from the proposed deck and 10.9 feet from the proposed principal structure. The existing single-family dwelling principal structure has a rear yard setback of 9 feet from Ordinary High Water Level. 6) Shore Impact Zone: The Shoreland District further prohibits structures within the Shore Impact Zone, which is the area between Ordinary High Water Level and 50 percent of the structure setback. For Lake Johanna, this is the area 25 feet from Ordinary High Water Level. The Applicant is requesting a variance to allow for building dwelling and deck structures within the Shore Impact Zone. 7) Impervious Surface Coverage: The R-1 Zoning District and the Shoreland District maximum impervious surface coverage shall be 35 percent. The Applicant is requesting a variance to exceed the ordinance requirement for impervious surface coverage to allow 64.26 percent. The currently developed property has an impervious surface coverage of 66.39 percent. 8) Structure Coverage: The R-1 Zoning District maximum structure coverage shall be 25 percent. The Applicant is requesting a variance to increase the structure coverage to allow 49 percent. The currently developed property has a structure coverage of 48 percent. 9) Floor Area Ratio: The R-1 Zoning District maximum floor area ratio shall be .3. The Applicant is requesting a variance to increase the floor area ratio to allow .51. Background 1. Site Conditions The 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd is currently developed with a single-family residential dwelling with an attached garage (1,716 SF). The property was originally developed as a lakeshore cottage in 1939. In 1965, the City approved a request to remodel the cottage at the 1622 property and variances were granted for the remodeling of the structure which exists today. The nature of the variances granted were not identified in applicable building permits. The 1622 and 1624 Lake Johanna Blvd properties are existing platted lots of record that were platted in 1948, after the original cottage was developed on the 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd property. 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd is considered nonconforming with current ordinance requirements for lot area, lot depth, building area elevation, lot coverage, and front yard and rear setbacks for single- family residential properties zoned R-1 as well as residential properties located within the Shoreland District. The dwelling was constructed prior to the platting of the lot and received variances for the remodeling to the structure. The lot area for the 1622 parcel is 4,415 square feet with an existing impervious surface coverage of 2,931 square feet (66.39 percent) and structure coverage of 2,118 square feet (48 percent). The 1624 parcel is undeveloped and has a lot area of 3,957 square feet. The average lot depth for the two parcels is approximately 49 feet. Per the Certificate of Survey submitted with the variance request, the front building line of the existing dwelling encroaches 0.4 feet upon the Right of Way. The distance between the rear building line of the dwelling and approximately 10 feet between the rear building line and the ordinary high water level (OHWL). The submitted surveys show the lot depth and lot area as calculated from the front property line to the water’s edge. Structure setbacks are shown between the structure and the ordinary high water level as required for the Shoreland District. Page 3 of 14 As a nonconforming structure, the dwelling is subject to Section 1350 Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, and Lots, which states that nonconforming buildings shall not be increased, enlarged, altered, intensified, or extended to occupy a greater area or height on the lot on which the building is located, or moved to any other part of the lot on which the building is located in a way that augments its nonconformity. Additions to single-family dwellings that are nonconforming due to setbacks or lot dimensions may be permitted, subject to the provisions in Section 1325.03 Subd. 2. D. The proposed lot consolidation and new dwelling construction would not be permitted by the Subdivision and Zoning Code without variances for lot area, lot depth, building area elevation, front and rear setbacks, structure coverage, Shore impact zone, impervious surface coverage, and floor area ratio. Existing Building Site 2. Site Data 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1624 Lake Johanna Blvd, are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District. The properties are designated for Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Subject Property is the site of a single-family dwelling and the Applicant has applied on behalf of the Property Owner. Surrounding parcels to the north, east, and west are also zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the Future Land Use Plan. 2040 Future Land Use Plan: LDR – Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single-Family Dwelling Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential District Page 4 of 14 Lot Size: 1622: 0.101 acres/4,415 square feet 1624: 0.091 acres/3,957 square feet The Subject Property is located on the north side of Lake Johanna, south of Lake Johanna Blvd. The two lots are riparian lots abutting Lake Johanna and are subject to applicable Shoreland Regulations under Zoning Code Section 1330. The property at 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd is developed with a single-family residential dwelling while the Subject Property at 1624 Lake Johanna Blvd is a vacant lot that is owned by the same property owner. Minnesota Statute has specific rules for shoreland lots. Small shoreland lots created before the adoption of local shoreland ordinances are often not suitable for the size and intensity of contemporary lakeshore development. The nonconforming lot provisions in the shoreland rules (Minnesota Rules 6120.3300 subp. 2(D)) work to bring nonconforming shoreland lots into conformance over time. According to statute, an individual nonconforming lot that is part of a contiguous group of lots under common ownership must be considered a separate parcel for sale or development, if: 1. The lot is at least 66% of lot area and width requirements in Minnesota Rule, part 6120.3300, subp. 2a; 2. The lot is connected to a public sewer or a Type 1 sewage system; 3. The impervious surface does not exceed 25%; and 4. The development is consistent with the comprehensive plan. If the lot does not meet all of these criteria, the lot must be combined with one or more of the contiguous lots so they equal a conforming lot as much as possible. The proposed new development on the Subject Property would not meet criterion number three, as the proposed impervious surface coverage exceeds 25 percent. Therefore, per the state rules, the 1622 lot must be combined with the 1624 Lake Johanna Blvd lot so they equal a conforming lot as much as possible. However, per the City Zoning Code, the proposed lot area after the lots are consolidated would be less than the minimum required lot area established for parcels zoned R-1 and developed as single family residential properties as well as the minimum required lot area established for riparian lots for general development waters. A variance from the City’s requirements is required for the proposed development. 3. Proposed Use The Applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and rebuild a 2,877 square foot single-family dwelling with an attached garage on the Subject Property. To construct the new dwelling with the proposed footprint, the Applicant is requesting to first consolidate the two parcels into one residential parcel. The new dwelling would then be constructed on the consolidated parcel. The Applicant, who is the architect of the proposed dwelling and represents the Property Owner, states that the variances are requested to allow for a new home that will be in keeping with the other lakeshore neighborhood homes. The narrative states that the existing dwelling sustained extensive damage throughout the home recently due to a burst pipe. A contractor was hired to make repairs but they ultimately damaged other parts of the first floor level. Faced with repairing the damage, the Property Owner has chosen to rebuild. As part of the rebuild, he has elected to expand the footprint of the dwelling. Page 5 of 14 The existing dwelling has a basement and contains mechanical equipment and storage, though the Applicant states that it was not adequately built and has moisture issues. Due to flood plain restrictions, a basement would not be allowed as part of the new dwelling design. The proposed dwelling has been designed with no basement and includes other additional storage to accommodate the lost space. The proposed new dwelling includes three levels of living space, an attached three car garage, and a deck that wraps from the west side to the rear of the dwelling. The proposed new dwelling would increase the living space within the dwelling and relocate garage access from the northwest direction of the property to the northeast. The Applicant notes the proposed dwelling includes additional safety features for the Subject Property. The submitted garage design would allow for car access to turn into the driveway with more distance and parking space to significantly improve the safety of vehicles in both directions on Lake Johanna Blvd. The submitted front entry design would also provide pedestrian access to the front door with a wall separating the path of travel from the road. Proposed Redevelopment Building Site The Applicant states that the proposed design is in keeping with a typical single-family home in the area, especially lakeshore properties. The narrative notes that the proposed new dwelling would be an enhancement to the lakeshore neighborhood while providing the Property Owner with safe access to the dwelling through the front entry and driveway and additional storage that is not available in a basement. In the submitted narrative, the Applicant notes that the existing lot depth is a difficulty for the property as it is constrained by the natural barrier of Lake Johanna and the constructed barrier of Lake Johanna Blvd, a Ramsey County Road. With an average depth of 49 feet, it would not be possible to construct a dwelling that could meet the front yard setback of 40 feet or rear yard Page 6 of 14 setback of 30 feet and still be livable. Additional factors include the Shoreland requirements for structure setbacks and the Shore impact zone for riparian lots with frontage on general development waters. For lots under this designation, structures shall be setback 50 feet from the ordinary high water level and development shall be limited within 25 feet from the ordinary high water level. Given the required setbacks and the existing lot depth, there are considerable limitations to the redevelopment of the property. The Applicant also notes that the existing two parcels, 1622 and 1624, are undersized and while the total area would increase once the lots are combined, the new lot would still be below the minimum square footage for a residential lot. The consolidated lot area of 8,372 square feet and the lot coverage requirements for the R-1 Zoning District and Shoreland District present a challenge to how much hardcover and floor area could be developed for a dwelling that is also livable. The proposed new home would not be permitted without variances for lot area, lot depth, building area elevation, impervious surface and structure coverage, front yard and rear yard setbacks, Shore impact zone, and floor area ratio. 4. Approvals The Planning Commission is being asked to determine whether a variance request for the nine noted flexibilities should be granted. The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the requirements of Chapter 11 – Subdivisions, the District Provisions in Section 1320, the Shoreland Regulations in Section 1330, and the Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4. Lake Johanna is classified as a General Development Lake and the Subject Property is subject to applicable provisions for a riparian lot with shoreland on general development waters. Plan Evaluation Chapter 11, Subdivisions Review The requested lot consolidation is subject to the Chapter 11 Subdivision requirements. The Applicant’s lot consolidation request would result in the combination of two existing platted lots of record. No new lots would be created as a result of the lot consolidation. Frontage on a Public Street – Meets Requirement Per Chapter 11, all lots are required to abut by their full frontage on a public street. The two existing lots abut Lake Johanna Boulevard and the proposed consolidated lot would maintain full frontage. Lot Dimensions and Area – Variance Requested All lots are required to meet the minimum lot dimensions and lot area required by the Zoning Code. Section 1320 and Section 1330 requires a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet per single- family dwelling unit and a minimum lot depth of 85 feet. Lots abutting upon a watercourse, drainage way, channel or stream, including wetland or marsh, shall have an additional depth or width as required, to assure house sites that are not subject to flooding. The two existing platted lots of record are well below the minimum lot dimensions and lot area required by the Zoning Code, at 49 feet deep and areas of 4,415 and 3,957 square feet each. The proposed consolidated lot would not meet the required minimum lot dimensions or lot area. The proposed lot depth is approximately 49 feet and the proposed lot area is 8,372 square feet, both of Page 7 of 14 which are below the minimums required in the R-1 Zoning District and Shoreland District. Therefore, a variance is requested for lot depth and area. Building Area Elevation – Variance Requested In addition, for lots abutting upon a watercourse, drainage way, channel or stream, including wetland or marsh, all building areas should be located outside the natural feature and a minimum of two (2) feet above the 100-year flood elevation. With regards to elevation for building areas, the Subdivision ordinance references the 100-year flood elevation and the Subject Property, a riparian lot on Lake Johanna, is subject to the regulatory floodplain for the waterbody. As part of the Rice Creek Watershed District (“RCWD”) review of the proposed plans, a RCWD representative provided the 100-year regulatory floodplain elevation for Lake Johanna, which is 881.1. The proposed building area is shown to be located outside of the natural feature, Lake Johanna, and the survey with the proposed new dwelling shows a minimum elevation of the building area is 881 feet, which is approximately the 100-year regulatory floodplain elevation for Lake Johanna. The proposed elevation does not meet the minimum building area elevation of at least two feet above the 100-year flood elevation. A RCWD representative noted in their review that permitting is required for floodplain alteration as it relates to the new home construction. A variance is required for the proposed building area elevation for the new dwelling. Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1. District Provisions (R-1, Single Family Residential Zoning District) – Section 1320.06 and Shoreland Regulations – Section 1330 Lot Size and Dimensions – Variance Requested The Subject Property after the proposed lot consolidation has a lot area of 8,372 square feet and a minimum depth of 49 feet. Section 1320 and Section 1330 requires a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet per single-family dwelling unit and a minimum lot depth of 85 feet. The consolidation of the two lots is statutorily required because of their size limitations and the two lots could not be developed separately. The Applicant is seeking a variance for the proposed lot size and dimensions. Structure Setbacks – Variance Requested In the R-1 District, the minimum front and rear setback requirements are 40 feet and 30 feet, respectively. The minimum side yard setback in the R-1 District is 10 feet and 25 feet combined. Additionally, Section 1330 – Shoreland Regulations requires a minimum structure setback from ordinary high water level of 50 feet. The current principal structure encroaches 0.4 feet into the Right-of-Way as measured from Lake Johanna Blvd and has a 9-foot setback as measured from ordinary high water level. The proposed new dwelling and attached garage would be located entirely on the Subject Property, with a front yard setback of 0.3 feet. Rear yard setbacks would be 8.5 feet from the proposed deck and 10.9 feet from the proposed principal structure, as measured from ordinary high water level. Variances are required for the proposed front yard and rear yard setbacks. The existing side yard setbacks are 14.9 feet and 15.4 feet, for a combined total of 30.3 feet. The proposed side yard setbacks are 22.1 feet as measured from the principal structure to the northeast property line and 24.7 feet as measured from the deck to the southwest property line, for a total of Page 8 of 14 46.8 feet. The side yard setbacks would comply with the requirements for the R-1 District. The table below provides the minimum district requirements for the R-1 District and Shoreland Overlay District with a preliminary analysis of setbacks for the proposed development: R-1 District Requirements Shoreland Overlay District Existing Proposed Minimum Front Yard Setback 40 feet 40 feet -0.4 0.3, Variance Requested Minimum Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 50 feet (from OHW) 9 feet (from OHW) 8.5 feet (from OHW), Variance Requested Minimum Side Yard Setback 10 feet (min)/25 feet (total) R-1 Requirements apply 14.9 and 15.4 feet 30.3 total 22.1 and 24.7 feet 46.8 total, Meets Requirements Landscaped Area – Variance Requested In the R-1 District and the Shoreland Overlay District, the minimum landscaped area required without a variance is 65 percent of the property or 5,441.8 square feet of the Subject Property, as calculated based on the proposed lot area of the consolidated lot. The existing landscaped area for the 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd parcel is 1,484 square feet which is 33.61 percent of the property. The Applicant is proposing a landscaped area of 2,992 square feet and 35.74 percent of the property as calculated based on the lot area of the lots to be consolidated. A variance is required for the proposed landscaped area. Structure Coverage – Variance Requested The R-1 District allows for a maximum structure coverage of 25 percent of the lot area. This would allow for up to 2,093 square feet of structure on the consolidated lot area. The existing structure coverage on the 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd parcel is 2,118 square feet for 48 percent of the property. The Applicant is proposing a structure coverage of 4,106 square feet, 49 percent of the property based on the consolidated lot area. A variance is required for the proposed structure coverage. Floor Area Ratio – Variance Requested In the R-1 District, the maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 0.3. The Applicant is proposing a FAR of 0.51 or 4,287 square feet on the consolidated lot area of 8,372 square feet. The proposed floor area ratio requires a variance from the R-1 requirements. Building Height – Meets Requirements The maximum building height allowed in the R-1 District is 35 feet, measured as the average height between the eaves and the highest ridge of gable, hip, or gambrel roof. The proposed dwelling would have a maximum height of 32 feet and 7 ¾ inches, which complies with the maximum requirement. 2. Additional Shoreland Regulations – Section 1330 The Applicant’s request is also subject to the Shoreland Regulations for riparian lots on general development waters. Water frontage and Width at building line – Meets Requirements Page 9 of 14 Regulations require a minimum water frontage and width at building line of 75 feet. The proposed water frontage and width at the building line of the new dwelling is greater than 75 feet. The proposed would meet the requirement. Building Area Elevation – Variance Requested Within shoreland districts, the lowest floor must be as high as the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE), which refers to an elevation 1 foot (minimum) above the 100-year flood. This standard applies both in and outside of the Regulatory Floodplain. The 100-year floodplain elevation for Lake Johanna is 881.1 feet as noted by the RCWD review. Per the Shoreland District standard, the required RFPE for the Subject Property is 882.1 feet minimum. The Applicant’s proposed plans show a lowest floor elevation of 881 feet. The Applicant notes that the existing property has a basement that has a lowest floor elevation below the required RFPE. The proposed new dwelling, which does not include a basement, would require a variance for the lowest floor elevation shown in the plans. Shore Impact Zone – Variance Requested In the Shoreland District, properties are subject to requirements for the shore impact zone, which is the land located between ordinary high water level and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback. For riparian properties on Lake Johanna, the shore impact zone is the 25 feet between OHWL and inland. Landings for stairways over 40 square feet in area and uncovered patios may be placed within the required shoreland structure setbacks but shall not be placed within the Shore impact zone. The Applicant’s proposal includes the construction of the new dwelling and deck within the shore impact zone, which is not permitted in the Shoreland Regulations. A variance is required for the proposed to be constructed within the shore impact zone. Shoreland Mitigation Plan – Plan Required As part of the Shoreland Regulations, a shoreland mitigation plan must be submitted for residential development that requires land use approval including, but not limited to, variances and subdivisions. The plan shall be designed to mitigate the adverse effects land development has on water quality and the lake environment. The mitigation plan shall be signed by the property owner, approved by the Zoning Administrator, and a Mitigation Affidavit recorded with the Register of Deeds prior to the commencement of development activity. Furthermore, mitigation plans shall be completed within one year of the plan's approval unless otherwise approved by the City. An escrow fee that shall be held for a minimum of two years shall also be submitted. The Applicant has not submitted a shoreland mitigation plan with the lot consolidation and variance land use application. Submission and approval of this plan prior to the issuance of a Building Permit has been drafted as a condition of approval. 3. Variance Review The role of the Planning Commission is to determine and consider how the facts presented to them compare with the city’s articulated standards. The Commission should base their decision on the facts presented and then apply those facts to the legal standards contained in city ordinances and relevant state law. Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While the Planning Commission may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the Page 10 of 14 variance application meets the statutory practical difficulties factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help in addressing these factors, however, unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not form a legitimate basis for a variance decision. The Planning Commission may impose conditions when granting variances as long as the conditions are directly related and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed the front setback limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the effect of the encroachment. Variance Requirements – Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 The Applicants are requesting variances for lot area, lot depth, building area elevation, front yard and rear yard setbacks, shore impact zone, impervious surface coverage, structure coverage, and floor area ratio to demolish and reconstruct a single-family dwelling on the property located at 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1624 Lake Johanna Blvd. The Planning Commission will need to make a determination utilizing the following variance findings and criteria on whether there are practical difficulties with complying with the zoning regulations. If the Applicant does not meet all the factors of the statutory test, then a variance should not be granted. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 1. Purpose and Intent. The variance request shall comply with the purpose and intent of the provisions of the City’s Zoning Regulations and with the policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The variances for lot dimensions, building area elevation, front yard and rear yard setbacks, building in the shore impact zone, lot coverage, and floor area ratio are requested in order to construct a new single-family dwelling. The subject property’s existing use is as a single- family dwelling and the property is zoned R-1, single-family family residential zoning district. The property is guided for low density residential use in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed single-family residential dwelling land use would comply with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Practical Difficulties. The Applicant for a variance shall establish that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provisions of the Arden Hills Zoning Regulations. The term “Practical Difficulties” as used in the granting of a variance means: a. Reasonable Use. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed use for the property is as a single-family dwelling, which is its current use. The Applicant notes that the lot size does not allow for the construction of a new single- family dwelling as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Variances are requested to allow for the new construction of a single-family dwelling on the property. b. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The Subject Property was developed before the current property owner’s ownership and the substandard lot area and dimensions are existing nonconformities. These nonconformities are unique to the property and not created by the landowner. Page 11 of 14 c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The Applicant states that the new house location is the best approach to protect the public right-of-way, ensure traffic safety, and respect the neighborhood design. It is stated that the proposed design is in keeping with a typical single-family home in the area especially to lakeshore properties and will drastically enhance the lakeshore view. 3. Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. The Applicant states that the variance request is not driven by economic considerations but has more to do with building a lakeshore home for raising a family, which includes space for storage and safe access to the house. 4. Access to Sunlight. Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems shall be considered a practical difficulty. A solar energy system is not proposed. Additional Review Building Official The Building Official has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. A Demolition Permit and Building Permit will be required prior to any demolition or construction activity taking place. Public Works Director/City Engineer The Public Works Director/City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. Public Works permits will be required prior to any land disturbance, utility, or right- of-way work. These permit requirements have been included in the drafted conditions of approval. Ramsey County Public Works The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the plans and has provided comments related to traffic and permitting, noting a request to review a Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) plan once available and that new access and excavation permits will be required. There may be additional permits for water and sanitary services, future connections to the Right-of-Way, and relocations or reconnections of other utilities. The drafted conditions of approval include references for the Applicant to attain the appropriate Ramsey County permits for the proposed construction. Rice Creek Watershed District The Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed the plans and has commented that the proposed construction will require a RCWD permit for floodplain alteration and erosion and sediment control. RCWD permit requirements are noted in the drafted conditions of approval. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Page 12 of 14 The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has been sent the plans and review is underway. Staff has not received comments yet but has included a reference in the drafted conditions of approval that the proposed is subject to DNR review and approval. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a lot consolidation and nine variance requests to the required R-1 Zoning District lot depth, lot area, building area elevation, front yard and rear yard setbacks, shore impact zone, impervious surface coverage, structure coverage, and floor area ratio at the Subject Property. 2. The existing lot area of the 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd parcel is 4,415 square feet. The proposed lot area, after the proposed lot consolidation, is 8,372 square feet. 3. The existing front yard setback for the Subject Property is actually an encroachment of .4 feet. The proposed front yard setback is .3 feet. 4. The existing impervious surface coverage of the existing 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd parcel is 66.39 percent. The proposed impervious surface coverage for the Subject Property is 64.26 percent. 5. The proposed redevelopment would bring the Subject Property closer to conformance with the R-1 district standards for lot area, front yard setback, and impervious surface coverage. 6. The proposed single-family dwelling would not require variances for side yard setbacks or building height. 7. The proposed single-family dwelling on the Subject Property would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-1 Zoning District. Variance Findings: 8. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 9. The variance would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the included references to the City’s housing goal of encouraging redevelopment that is complementary to and enhances the character of the City’s established neighborhoods. 10. A single-family dwelling is a permitted use within the R-1 Zoning District. 11. A single-family dwelling is a reasonable use of the property that would not be allowed under the rules of the Zoning Code without the requested variances. 12. The proposed single-family dwelling would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because the configuration of development on the Subject Property would be consistent and compatible with the neighborhood. 13. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone. Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission should consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. Page 13 of 14 • Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval with conditions of Planning Case 25-008 for a lot consolidation and variances for lot area, lot depth, building area elevation, front yard and rear yard setbacks, shore impact zone, impervious surface coverage, structure coverage, and floor area ratio, to construct a new single-family dwelling at 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the September 3, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission: 1. The Applicant shall record the consolidated lot with Ramsey County prior to the issuance of a Building Permit and a copy shall be provided to the City within 180 days of the City’s approval. 2. A Demolition Permit and a Building Permit shall be issued prior to the commencement of demolition and for the new home construction. 3. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. 4. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the City’s PW/Engineering Division prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. 5. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, MPCA, Rice Creek Watershed District, Ramsey County, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources prior to the start of any site activities. 6. Upon completion of grading and utility work on the site, a grading as-built and utility as-built shall be provided to the City. 7. Final grading, drainage, utility, and site plans shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Director/City Engineer and Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit or other development permits. 8. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site shall be required and maintained by the Applicant during construction to ensure that sediment and storm water does not leave the project site 9. A Tree Preservation Plan shall be required as part of the Building Permit application for the new dwelling. Any tree removal, preservation, and mitigation shall be completed in accordance with City Code Section 1325.055. 10. A Shoreland Mitigation Plan shall be required and shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a Building or Demolition Permit. An escrow fee that shall be held for a minimum of two years shall also be submitted. Mitigation plans shall be completed in accordance with City Code Section 1330.03 Subd. 7. E. within one year of the plan's approval unless otherwise approved by the City. • Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval as submitted of Planning Case 25-008 for a lot consolidation and variances for lot area, lot depth, building area elevation, front yard and rear yard setbacks, shore impact zone, impervious surface coverage, structure coverage, and floor area ratio, to construct a new single-family dwelling at 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, in the September 3, 2025 Report to the Planning Commission. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial Planning Case 25-008 for a lot consolidation and variances for lot area, lot depth, building area elevation, front yard and rear yard setbacks, shore impact zone, impervious surface coverage, structure coverage, and floor area ratio, to construct a new single-family dwelling at 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd, Page 14 of 14 based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. • Table: Motion to table Planning Case 25-008 for a lot consolidation and variances for lot area, lot depth, front yard and rear yard setbacks, impervious surface coverage, structure coverage, and floor area ratio, to construct a new single-family dwelling at 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within 500 feet of the Subject Property on August 22, 2025. A public meeting notice for this planning case was published in the Pioneer Press. Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied, however, after consulting with the City Attorney, staff agree that the best practice is to allow public forum on all variance requests. A public forum allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors. The City has not received any public comments regarding this planning case. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on August 11, 2025. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City must act on this request by October 9, 2025 (60 days) unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60- day review period. Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Applicant Narrative D. Existing Site Survey E. Proposed Site Survey F. Architectural Plans 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd Personal Property Tax Parcels Cities County Offices 8/26/2025, 1:26:27 PM 0 0.06 0.120.03 mi 0 0.1 0.20.05 km 1:3,600 Ramsey County Ramsey County MN Date: July 30, 2025 To: Arden Hills Planning Commission Chair & Commissioners City Hall 1245 W. Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 From: Tan H. Nguyen (architect representing the home owner, Ba Lam) Nguyen Architects, Inc. Subject: Variance application for a new home Ba Lam 1622 & 1624 Lake Johanna Blvd Arden Hills, MN 55112 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, I am the architect representing the home owner, Ba Lam, at the Subject property above, and would like to formally submit a variance request to demolish and construct a new single-family home. Currently, Ba owns two properties adjacent to each other, Lot 3 & Lot 4. He has resided in a single family home in Lot 3 for the last twenty four years and enjoys being part of the Lake Johanna community such as being a member of the Lake Johanna Improvement Society. Recently his home was severely damaged by flooding due to a burst pipe while he was away on vacation. The damage was extensive throughout. Also the contractor that was hired to do the repair participated in a fraudulent manner and damaged other parts of the first floor level without Ba’s consent. In the process of trying to figure out the course of repair vs rebuild, Ba has decided to rebuild instead. There are several reasons that led to that decision, one being a moldy basement. The existing home has a basement but its not adequately built and does have some moisture issues. If would be difficult to fix the basement without an adequate foundation wall. Looking at an addition to the existing home , we determined that a variance is required for most of the same items as a new home variance but it may not even be approved with a property line encroachment. Furthermore, doing an addition would create a home that is not cohesive in regards to design or function since the addition would use more contemporary materials and layout but parts of the home is restricted to the existing conditions. I have seen too many additions to homes that should not have been done and feel it becomes a disservice to the community especially ones that are also seen from the lake. I believe this new home’s character will be in keeping with the other lakeshore neighborhood homes which is why Ba have chosen to rebuild. 3747 Minnehaha Avenue, Ste 203, Minneapolis, MN 55406 phone (612) 644-4369 www.nguyenarchitects.com There are several issues that will require a variance as outline below: 1- Lot 3 and Lot 4 are below minimum lot sizes as required by zoning. So the first request is to combine the two lots into one single lot. This will make the lot size larger but still under the minimum size. 2- Currently, the home which is on Lot 3 (Lot 4 is an empty lot) is not conforming to current zoning ordinances. The north west corner of the home encroaches onto the right of way or Lake Johanna Blvd. The garage door is about 6 feet from the public right of way with cars traveling quite fast. If a car is parking in front of the garage door on the driveway, more than half the vehicle is sticking out onto the right of way. The current home does not meet any of the zoning set backs or watershed flood zone setback. The FAR is approximately 66% which also not in compliant to the zoning standard of 25%. Due to the narrow configuration of the lots, the home will require set back variances on three sides because there is no room to move the house back to meet the set back requirements. 3- Due to the small sizes of both lots even after they both have been combined, a various variances will be requested for ratios such as Lot Coverage by Structure, Landscape Coverage, Setbacks, and Shore Impact Zone. I will address the six criteria for review to the Board in the following paragraphs: 1- Reasonable use of the property. Without the requested variances, the property cannot be reasonably used to construct a typical single-family home consistent with others in the area in particular, the lakeshore frontage properties. The lot size is significantly below the minimum standard therefore, combining the two lots is the best way to increase the lot size. The new home will allow the car access to turn into the driveway with more distance and parking space that will significantly improve the safety of vehicles in both directions. The new home will also change the pedestrian access to the front door with a wall separating the path of travel from the road. The home will also correct an encroachment on the road side property line thus providing additional distance to the vehicles and house. One other difference with the new house design is that it does not have a basement. Due to the flood plain restrictions, no basement is allowed. This is a significant change since the current house does have a basement for mechanical equipment and storage. 2- Unique Circumstances Not Created by the Landowner As you can see from the survey, Lot 3 (4,415 SF) is quite small and well below the standard 14,000 SF required for the typical lot. The home was 3747 Minnehaha Avenue, Ste 203, Minneapolis, MN 55406 phone (612) 644-4369 www.nguyenarchitects.com built prior to Ba Lam’s purchase and was built with the encroachment. Ba has purchased Lot 4 to with the intent to combine both lots to increase the lot square footage as much as possible. The existing Coverage by Structure of the existing home is (1709/ 4415) 38% so it was an existing non- conforming factor and was not created by the Owner. 3- Spirit and Intent of the Ordinance We understand the intent of the ordinances as tools that are used to protect the public right-of-way, ensure traffic safety, and respect the neighborhood design. I believe the new house location is the best approach for the house location to ensure those protection as especially from the Shoreland Impact Zone set back requirements. The new home have balanced the set back requirements as much as the narrow lot allows as well as moving it away from vehicular traffic. As far as design, I believe it completely addresses the design caliber that is required of the modern lakeshore home. I believe the views looking at the home from the lake or public views will be drastically improved and adds design value to Lake Johanna. This also applies to the street side view as seen from approaching vehicles. 4- No Change to Land Use This request will keep the property as a single-family home and will not alter the existing land use designation. 5- Character of the City Will Be Maintained The proposed design is in keeping with a typical single-family home in the area especially to lakeshore properties. The home is a modest three bedrooms for a family of four with a guest bedroom for elderly parents. If compared the home size or FAR ratio if it was built on a conforming lot, this home would be below those requirements. So it is very particular to the narrow lot size. The home complies with the height requirements. As far as character, I believe it will drastically enhance the lakeshore view. The home is modern and will consists of beautiful stone and details and will have ample windows and clean lines. I’m hoping it will become the Gem of the North Bay of Lake Johanna. 6- Variance is not for economic reasons alone The variance request above is not driven by economic considerations but has more to do with wanting to build a lakeshore home for raising a family. As with any family, you would want the vehicle to pull in and out safely into the driveway. You would want enough space for storage for the snow blower, and kids bicycles, cars and additional storage because there is no basement. Spaces such as a safe room for severe weather protection where most homes would just retreat in the basement. You would want a deck that has a views of the beautiful Lake Johanna for that weekend 3747 Minnehaha Avenue, Ste 203, Minneapolis, MN 55406 phone (612) 644-4369 www.nguyenarchitects.com BBQ. So I would say that the variance would allow Ba to have a safe and practical home that is perfect for a family of four. In closing, I would like to thank the Planning Commissioner’s time and resources to look into this variance issue for Ba Lam. Ba has spent many years living in this home prior to the water damage and has built a connection to the Lake Johanna community and is invested in continuing that trend. He would like to further enhance the lakeshore presence and add a home that will improve the Lake Johanna lakeshore as well providing additional safety measures from the road. Sincerely, Tan H. Nguyen, AIA 3747 Minnehaha Avenue, Ste 203, Minneapolis, MN 55406 phone (612) 644-4369 www.nguyenarchitects.com Page 1 of 7 PC Agenda Item – 3B MEMORANDUM DATE: September 3, 2025 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Elena Fransen, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #25-007 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: City of Arden Hills Request: Ordinance Amendments to Zoning Code Section 1325.07, Subd. 6.A and City Code Section 410.01, Subd. 3 regarding the Keeping of Chickens Requested Action •The City of Arden Hills is proposing ordinance language in the Zoning Code to modify language for the keeping of chickens in the residential zoning districts in Section 1325.07 Subd. 6.A, Location for Buildings Housing Farm Animals. The proposed amendment would include revisions to the City Code amending Section 410.01, Subd. 3, Chickens License. The Planning Commission reviewed an earlier draft of this language at the August 6 meeting and tabled the ordinance amendment with recommendations to staff for further revisions. In this review of the ordinance language, the Planning Commission is also asked to review and discuss possible language to allow for the keeping of ducks. Background The City Council has reviewed and discussed the ordinance for the keeping of chickens at several City Council Work Sessions with suggested revisions. Following these work sessions, direction was given to staff to incorporate the recommendations into the ordinance for the Planning Commission to review. The Planning Commission reviewed a draft version of the ordinance amendment for the keeping of chickens at the August 6, 2025 meeting. The Planning Commission discussed multiple amendments to the draft language and tabled the review with direction to staff to review and draft revisions related to: 1. Number of chickens: increase the number permitted to seven (7) 2.Coop size and location: modify language to allow for a larger maximum coop size and be more clear about location requirements Page 2 of 7 3. Climate control: modify language to be less prescriptive 4. Cleanliness and enforcement/license revocation: review language for consistency with other communities and modify to be less prescriptive 5. Roaming of chickens: review language to allow for chickens to move about a fenced area within a backyard 6. Garages: consider updated language to allow for a chicken coop to be interior to a detached garage 7. The neighbor consent policy: provide language to modify policy to neighbor notification At the August 11 Special Work Session, the City Council discussed the keeping of ducks. The City Council directed staff to bring forth the topic of the keeping of ducks to the Planning Commission for discussion to occur along with the review of ordinance language for chickens. The Planning Commission was asked to provide a recommendation to the City Council on whether the inclusion of ducks should be considered in city ordinances. Staff has revised the draft ordinance language to incorporate the City Council’s directed revisions and the Planning Commission’s recommended revisions related to chickens. Based on the Council’s direction for the Planning Commission to discuss whether ducks should be incorporated in the ordinance language, staff has provided background information gathered from adjacent communities and draft ordinance language to aid in the Planning Commission’s review of this topic. Overview of Ordinance Amendments Staff has prepared a draft ordinance identifying language to be modified for the Planning Commission’s review (Attachment A). The applicable Sections to be modified are as follows: • Section 1325.07 Subd. 6.A, Location for Buildings Housing Farm Animals • Section 410.01, Subd. 3, Chickens License Section 1325.07 Subd. 6.A, Location for Buildings Housing Farm Animals 1) Modify language for the Keeping of Chickens a. Modify coop size and location requirements for the keeping of chickens The Planning Commission previously reviewed several updates to the structure requirements for coops, pens, and exercise yards. Drafted amendments included increasing the minimum required coop size from 12 square feet to 20 square feet, making an exercise yard optional, and keeping a covered and fenced pen as a requirement. For location, the August draft included specific language that the outer limit of the coop and pen shall in no instance be located less than 10 feet from the property line, but the standard that the outer limit shall be closer to the principal dwelling upon the license holder property than any other abutting property remained unchanged. At the August meeting, the Planning Commission made recommendations about the minimum and maximum coop size and the criteria for distance from principal dwellings on abutting properties. Page 3 of 7 It was noted that residents may choose to construct a coop that is greater than 20 square feet based on available prefabricated structures or their specific needs. There were multiple recommendations on this topic, including increasing the maximum coop size to 36 square feet to allow for a 6 foot by 6 foot structure and removing the maximum coop size. Staff reviewed the chicken ordinance language in 10 neighboring cities and found that, two cities have an established maximum coop size, one at 60 square feet and one at 120 square feet. Four out of the 10 cities establish a minimum coop size ranging from 3 to 4 square feet per bird. The UMN Extension resource recommends having a minimum of 3 to 5 square feet of indoor space per bird and the Urban Chickens resource recommends 4 square feet per bird. Staff has revised the drafted language in Subd. 6 A 1.a. to allow for a coop size of up to 36 square feet. The Planning Commission may consider further recommendations on the minimum and maximum coop sizes permitted. The Planning Commission recommended staff update the language related to a chicken keeping area and its proximity to principal dwellings on abutting properties to mirror the language in the ordinance for bee hives. The ordinance for bee hives establishes that they may be no closer than twenty-five (25) feet to an occupied building on another lot and/or any public trail or walkway. Staff has updated the language for coop structures to match the language for bee hives. b. Modify language for climate control requirements In the August draft, the proposed language included striking the specific temperature that would be maintained in a chicken coop. In their review, the Planning Commission recommended further modification to the language to make it less prescriptive to prospective licensees. Staff considered the ordinance language of neighboring communities while drafting revisions to the climate control regulations. Three out of 10 cities reviewed included language for coops to be maintained at a specific temperature whereas the language for seven cities was more general for climate control, referencing standards such as coops shall protect chickens from the weather and coops shall be fully enclosed, wind proof, and have sufficient windows for natural light. Staff has drafted updates to Subd. 6 A 1.f to remove specific requirements for a set temperature and a lightbulb while keeping the reference to a licensee providing a plan for maintaining an adequate temperature. Staff has also updated the language to clarify that the plan is required at the time of the initial application for the keeping of chickens and installation of a chicken coop. The Planning Commission may provide a recommendation for further revisions to this section. c. Modify language for maintaining a nuisance-free area for chickens Similar to the Planning Commission’s recommendation to modify language for climate control, there was a recommendation to modify language for maintaining the chicken keeping environments that is in alignment with City Code language for cats and dogs. The Planning Commission requested that staff draft language for the maintenance of chickens that is in keeping with the requirements for cats and dogs. City Code requires the owner of a cat or dog to be responsible for cleaning up and disposing of animal feces in a sanitary manner. Page 4 of 7 For the Planning Commission’s consideration, staff has drafted language in Subd 6 A. 3, that the licensee shall be responsible for cleaning up the chicken keeping areas and disposing of waste in a sanitary manner. This language is in line with the regulations for cleaning up litter for cats and dogs. Staff has not changed Subd. 6 A. 4 which relates to chickens and chicken keeping areas constituting a nuisance for adjacent properties. The Planning Commission may consider this language and other possible revisions to this requirement. d. Consider language to allow for the roaming of chickens At the August meeting, the Planning Commission commented on the language is Subd. 6 A. 5 which references that roaming chickens would be in violation of the conditions for keeping chickens. Members of the Planning Commission noted that chickens are foragers and there are benefits to allowing chickens to roam in the backyard to eat invasive insects. The Planning Commission made a recommendation for staff to review possible ordinance language that would allow for the roaming of chickens in a fenced area. The City Code language for chickens already includes an exercise yard, defined as a larger fenced area adjacent to chicken coop and pen that provides space for exercise and foraging for bird when supervised. Staff has added in a provision in item Subd. 6 A.2.c. to reference an exercise yard as optional and a space where chickens can roam while supervised by the licensee. Staff has also added language to Subd. 6 A. 5 to clarify that roaming chickens outside of proper enclosures would be in violation of the conditions of this section of the code. e. Consider language to allow for a coop to be interior to a detached garage The current keeping of chickens ordinance does not allow for chickens to be housed in a detached garage or other accessory structure. At the August meeting, the Planning Commission discussed this requirement and made a recommendation for staff to review other ordinances and provide language for the Commission to consider allowing for chickens to be kept within a detached structure, meaning the coop is located within another structure. Staff reviewed ordinance language for 10 other communities and did not find ordinances that allow for chicken coops to be interior to a garage. Seven ordinances specifically prohibit chickens from being kept in a dwelling or a garage. It could also be difficult to apply location and setback requirements to a coop and pen that is enclosed within a structure that was approved for a non- chicken use. The drafted language does not include changes to this provision. Section 410.01, Subd. 3, Chickens License As part of the City Council’s review of the keeping of chickens ordinance, amendment language was also suggested for the City Code section for chicken licenses. At the August meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the City Council’s directed revisions for Section 410 including modifying the license fee, removing the leg banding requirement and updating the resource referenced. Staff has provided further revisions to Section 410 for consideration based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Page 5 of 7 2) Revisions to the Chickens License requirements a. Modify Neighbor Consent requirement to Neighbor Notification requirement It is established in Section 410 that an applicant for a chickens license is required to have neighbor consent from all of the immediately adjacent properties for the issuance of a license. This requirement has remained consistent since the ordinance language was first adopted and the City Council has not given specific direction for new language to alter this requirement. At the August 6 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed this requirement and provided a recommendation to alter the language to align with requirements for the keeping of bees. A resident who intends to have bee hives on their property is required to provide neighbor notice prior to keeping bees. While discussing the neighbor consent language, members of the Planning Commission asked staff if neighbor consent is required when a chickens licensee goes to renew their license after two years. Staff responded at the meeting that neighbor consent is required at both the time of the initial license issuance and at the biannual renewal. However, upon review, staff has determined that this is incorrect, and that neighbor consent is only required when a resident applies for a new chickens license. Staff found during the review of other keeping of chickens ordinances that 3 out of the ten ordinances require neighbor consent for a chickens license, with a minimum required percentage of neighbors consenting ranging from 60 percent to 75 percent. In one other community, a public hearing before the City Council is required and another community notices neighbors and the City Council considers the license application if there are objections. Staff has prepared two options for revisions. The first (Attachment A) includes keeping the neighbor consent requirement but adding a clarifying statement that neighbor consent is required for a new chickens license. The second option (Attachment B) includes revising the neighbor consent requirement to a neighbor notification requirement. The Planning Commission may consider recommending either of these two options for the City Council to consider. b. Increase maximum number of chickens permitted from three (3) hens to seven (7) hens The City Council directed staff to amend the drafted ordinance language to increase the maximum number of chickens permitted from three (3) to six (6). The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed amendment at the August meeting and recommended the number be increased to seven (7). The Planning Commission proposed this change to allow licensees greater flexibility when purchasing additional chicks if they decide to increase the number of chickens they are keeping or if they are in need of replacement chickens. Staff has also included a revision to move the number of chickens permitted by a chicken license from the language in Section 1325.07 Subd. 6 A. to Section 410 to keep the language in the Zoning Code specific to chicken keeping structures. The draft language also includes revisions which the Planning Commission had already reviewed at the August 6 meeting, including removing screening requirements for areas dedicated to the Page 6 of 7 keeping of chickens and establishing a pathway for a homeowner to repurpose a coop into a storage structure. Keeping of Ducks At the August 11 Special Work Session, the City Council directed staff to bring forth the topic of the keeping of ducks to the Planning Commission for discussion to occur with the review of ordinance language for chickens. The Planning Commission was asked to provide a recommendation to the City Council on inclusion of ducks in city ordinance. As preparation for this discussion, staff has reviewed the ordinances of 10 neighboring communities and found that six of these communities specifically allow for the keeping of ducks. Of these communities, five require a permit or license for the keeping of ducks, which is the same requirement for keeping chickens. Staff identified that where the keeping of ducks is permitted, a coop or containment facility is required to provide shelter for the animals. Language for the maintenance of ducks, such as climate control, maintaining clean and sanitary conditions, and follow best practices, was the same as the language for chickens. The five ordinances that allowed for the keeping of ducks did not reference resources specific to the keeping of ducks. In keeping with the ordinance language for other communities, staff has drafted a version of the ordinance language (Attachment C) that includes ducks in the revisions to Section 410 for Chickens License and Section 1325.07 Subd. 6.A, Location for Buildings Housing Farm Animals. Per the revisions, residents could keep a combination of up to seven (7) chickens or ducks and would be required to provide a coop and pen, subject to the coop requirements. The Planning Commission is asked to discuss the topic of keeping ducks and to provide a recommendation to the City Council. Public Hearing An ordinance amendment to the Zoning Code does require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission held the required public hearing for the keeping of chickens ordinance at the August 6, 2025 meeting. The Planning Commission may consider allowing additional public comment based on the updates to the ordinance amendment. Another public hearing will be held as part of the City Council review. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: General Findings: 1. The City of Arden Hills is proposing to amend ordinance language for the keeping of chickens. 2. The proposed ordinance will include amendments to the language of Chapter 13 – Zoning Code of the City Code. Page 7 of 7 3. Amendments to the Zoning Code regulations require a public hearing prior to action by the City Council. 4. The Planning Commission held the required public hearing on August 6, 2025. Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission should consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. • Recommend Approval: Motion to recommend approval as written of Planning Case 25- 007 for Ordinance Amendments to Zoning Code Section 1325.07, Subd. 6.A and City Code Section 410.01, Subd. 3 regarding the Keeping of Chickens, based on the findings of fact and as presented in the September 3, 2025 Report to the Planning Commission. • Recommend Approval with Amendments: Motion to recommend approval with amendments of Planning Case 25-007 for Ordinance Amendments to Zoning Code Section 1325.07, Subd. 6.A and City Code Section 410.01, Subd. 3 regarding the Keeping of Chickens, based on the findings of fact and the September 3, 2025 Report to the Planning Commission with amendments: a specific reason should be included with all amendments. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial Planning Case 25-007 for Ordinance Amendments to Zoning Code Section 1325.07, Subd. 6.A and City Code Section 410.01, Subd. 3 regarding the Keeping of Chickens, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. • Table: Motion to table Planning Case 25-007 for Ordinance Amendments to Zoning Code Section 1325.07, Subd. 6.A and City Code Section 410.01, Subd. 3 regarding the Keeping of Chickens: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice A Zoning Code Amendment requires a public hearing. Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on August 22, 2025. The City has not received any public comments regarding this case. Attachments A) Redline Draft Keeping of Chickens Ordinance Amendment B) Redline Draft Keeping of Chickens Ordinance Amendment – with Neighbor Notification C) Redline Draft Keeping of Chickens Ordinance Amendment – Ducks included 225614v1 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-___ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND PETS, SECTION 410; AND CHAPTER 13, ZONING CODE, SECTION 1325 OF THE ARDEN HILLS CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 4 – Animals and Pets, Section 410 – Licenses, Subsection 410.01, Licenses Required, is hereby amended as follows: 410.00 - Licenses 410.01 License Required. The following animal licenses shall be required within the City of Arden Hills. Subd. 1 Dog/Cat Licenses. All dogs and cats within the City of Arden Hills, except as hereinafter provided, shall be licensed. A. Application. Within thirty (30) days after acquiring possession of a dog or cat which has not been licensed by the City of Arden Hills, the owner of the dog or cat shall make application for a dog or cat license. The application shall be on forms provided by the City of Arden Hills. B. Vaccination. It shall be unlawful for any dog or cat owner to keep or maintain any dog or cat older than six (6) months of age unless it shall have been vaccinated with an anti-rabies vaccine certified to be effective by a licensed veterinarian. No license renewal shall be issued except upon compliance with this section. C. License Fee. The license fee for each dog or cat must be submitted with the application. The fee will be established by City Council Resolution. D. Duration of License. A license shall be issued for a period of time not to exceed the expiration date of the rabies vaccination. No dog or cat license shall be renewed without proof of vaccination. E. Issuance of License. Upon completion of the application form, receipt of the license fee and receipt of the proof of vaccination, the City Administrator shall cause a dog or cat license to be issued to the applicant for a particular dog or cat. 225614v1 F. Receipt and Tags. The City of Arden Hills shall issue a license fee receipt to the applicant along with a metallic dog or cat license tag. The applicant shall permanently affix the tag by a metal fastening device to the collar of the licensed animal in a manner that allows the tag to be easily observed. If a tag is lost, a duplicate may be issued by the City of Arden Hills upon presentation of a receipt showing payment of the initial license fee and upon payment of an additional fee for each duplicate tag. G. Change of Address. An applicant who has obtained a dog or cat license shall notify the City of the applicant's address changes within the corporate limits of the City within ten (10) days of any address change. H. Counterfeit Tags. No person shall counterfeit or attempt to counterfeit dog or cat license tags. I. Transfer of Tags. No person shall transfer a dog or cat tag from one dog or cat to another. J. Exceptions. The following dogs and cats are not required to be licensed: 1. Dogs and cats less than six (6) months of age. 2. Dogs and cats whose owners are temporary visitors within the City for thirty (30) days or less. 3. Dogs and cats which are brought into the City for appearance in an animal show. 4. Dogs being used by law enforcement officers Subd. 2 Wild Animal Licenses. A. General Prohibition. All wild animals except the following are prohibited within the City of Arden Hills: 1. Wild animals brought into the City for entertainment, exhibition or show purposes by persons keeping wild animals for a public zoo. 2. Wild animals which are part of a permanent display sponsored by a bona fide research institution, a veterinary hospital, public zoo or other institution. 3. Nonpoisonous snakes, birds kept indoors, hamsters, mice, rabbits, gerbils, white rats, guinea pigs, chinchillas, or lizards and similar small animals capable of being kept in cages continuously. 4. Monkeys trained as personal helpers and kept by handicapped persons. 5. Raptors owned by licensed Falconers holding valid state and federal Falconry permits so long as the conditions of such permits are being satisfied. 6. Wild animals and birds that are part of the natural habitat and environment. B. License Application. Applications for a Wild Animal License shall be submitted on forms provided by the City along with a Certificate of Insurance which indicates that applicant has $200,000 of liability coverage on the Wild Animal and which includes an endorsement indicating that the liability coverage will not be cancelled without twenty (20) days written notice to the City of Arden Hills. C. Investigation. The Animal Control Officer shall review the application, conduct such investigation as the Animal Control Officer deems necessary, and shall prepare a written recommendation regarding the issuance of a Wild Animal License. The City Administrator shall within ten (10) days mail a notice to all property owners within 350 feet of the site on which the Wild Animal will be kept. The notice shall indicate that the City has received an application for a Wild Animal License and shall request comments from such property owners. 225614v1 D. Review. The City Council shall review the application, the Animal Control Officer's recommendations, and the comments from property owners. The City Council may issue a Wild Animal License if it determines that the application is in compliance with the City's regulations. The City Council may attach any reasonable conditions to the issuance of a license as it determines to be necessary in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Arden Hills residents. E. Existing Wild Animals. Anyone keeping a Wild Animal in Arden Hills at the time of the adoption of this regulation shall have ninety (90) days in which to comply with the provisions of this regulation or otherwise remove the Wild Animal from the City. Extensions beyond ninety (90) days may be granted by the City Council for good cause but in no case shall such extension permanently exempt a person from the requirements of this regulation. F. Wild Animal Restrictions. 1. Confinement. No person owning or harboring or having the care or custody of a wild animal shall suffer or permit such animal to go unconfined on the premises of such person. A wild animal is "unconfined" as the term is used in this section if such animal is not securely confined indoors or confined in a secure enclosure suitably sized for the wild animal is confined therein. An "enclosure" is secure within the meaning of this section if it is constructed of heave gauge mesh steel, or other suitable material; consists of a top and sides, with the bottom of such sides fastened along their perimeter to a slab floor of concrete or other suitable material; where no slab floor is provided, the sides must be embedded into the ground no less than one foot; all access points of the enclosure must be locked when the animal is confined therein. The Animal control officer may seize a wild animal that has been declared dangerous that is unconfined. 2. Muzzling. No person owning or harboring, or having the care of a wild animal shall suffer or permit such animal to go beyond the premises of such person unless such animal is securely muzzled and restrained with a chain not exceeding three (3) feet in length, and having a tensile strength sufficient to restrain the animal. Wild animals which are actively participating in recognized local, regional or national trials, training or other such sponsored competition, need not to be muzzled while being transported to or from during such competitions. 3. Summary Destruction. Any person harboring or owning a wild animal that is found to be in violation of the City's Animal Control Regulations may be summarily destroyed. Subd. 3 Chickens License. All chickens within the City of Arden Hills, except as hereinafter provided, shall be licensed. A. Application. Within thirty (30) days after acquiring possession of a chicken which has not been licensed by the City of Arden Hills, the owner of the chicken(s) shall make application for a chickens license. The application shall be on forms provided by the City of Arden Hills. If the Applicant is a renter, the Property Owner signature shall be required on the license application form. B. Neighbor Consent. The Applicant shall be responsible for providing notification to the neighbors immediately adjacent to the property of their intent to keep chickens. This notification will be distributed in the format provided by the City. Neighbor written responses will be returned to the City. Neighbor consent from all of the immediately adjacent properties is required for issuance of the a new license. The failure of a neighboring Property Owner to respond does not constitute consent. 225614v1 C. License Fee. The license fee for each chicken must be submitted with the application. The fee will be established by City Council Resolution. D. Duration of License. A two year license shall be issued. E. Issuance of License. Upon completion of the application form and receipt of the license fee, the City Administrator shall cause a chicken license to be issued to the applicant subject to: (1) Leg banding of all chickens is required. The bands must identify the owner and the owner’s address and telephone number. (1) No more than seven (7) hens shall be housed or kept on any one (1) residential lot with the issuance of a City license. (2) Dead chickens must be disposed of according to the Minnesota Board of Animal Health rules which require chicken carcasses to be disposed of as soon as possible after death, usually within forty-eight (48) to seventy-two (72) hours. Legal forms of chicken carcass disposal include burial, off-site incineration or rendering, or composting. (3) Prior to issuance of a license, the prospective annual license holder certifies as part of the application review that they have read “Keeping of Chickens Informational Handout” “Recommendations for Municipal Regulations for Urban Chickens”. F. The following are prohibited within the City of Arden Hills for chickens: (1) Roosters are prohibited. (2) No breeding of chickens is allowed. (3) Slaughtering of chickens on the property is prohibited. SECTION 2. Chapter 13 – Zoning Code, Section 1325 – General Regulations, Subsection 1325.07 Subd. 6.A – Performance Standards, is hereby amended by adding the underlined language as follows: Subd. 6 Animals. A. Location for Buildings Housing Farm Animals. Any building in which farm animals are kept shall be located a distance of two hundred (200) feet or more from any lot line. Any open structure in which farm animals are kept shall be a distance of four hundred (400) feet or more from any lot line, except for chicken coops and bee hives in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts provided the following requirements are met: Chicken Coops (1) No more than three (3) hens shall be housed or kept on any one (1) residential lot with the issuance of a City license. (21) A separate coop is required to house the chickens. Coops must be constructed and maintained to meet the following minimum requirements: a. A coop with a minimum of 12 20 square feet and no larger than 25 36 square feet is permitted as an accessory structure subject to Section 1325.01. Subd. 4 A. for Size. 225614v1 b. Exemption to Ordinance - A residential property with a detached garage and an accessory structure/shed will be allowed a third accessory structure for keeping chickens. The combined square footage of all three detached structures may not exceed 728 square feet. c. Located in the rear yard. Chicken Coop, pen, and optional exercise yard are not permitted in the front or side yard. d. Setbacks are subject to applicable accessory structure setbacks of the underlying zoning district. In no instance shall the coop be located in front of the rear building line of the principal structure. e. The outer limit of the coop including pen and exercise yard shall in no instance be located less than 10 feet from the property line and may be no closer than twenty-five (25) feet to an occupied building on another lot and/or any public trail or walkway. shall be located closer to the principal dwelling upon the property that is issued a license than any other residential dwelling on an abutting property. f. Climate control – adequate ventilation and/or insulation and an operable lightbulb shall be provided to maintain the coop temperature. between 45 – 85 degrees Fahrenheit. Prior to issuance of an annual new license, the prospective annual license holder must provide a plan for maintaining an adequate temperature in the coop for safety of the fowl or poultry. The plan must address both extreme winter and summer temperature conditions. g. Rodent proof – coop construction, all grain and food, and materials must be adequate to prevent access by rodents. h. Coops shall be constructed and maintained in a workmanlike manner. i. Chickens must not be housed in a residential house or an attached or detached garage. (32) A pen and exercise yard is required. Pen and exercise yard must be constructed and maintained to meet the following minimum standard: a. The pen and exercise yard isshall be located adjacent to the coop and shall be fenced with adequate coverage to keep hens in and predators out of a material that can be easily raked or regularly replaced to reduce odor and flies. b. Minimum size per bird shall be: i. Pen – 10 square feet of floor space c. An exercise yard is optional. This area must be located adjacent to chicken coop and pen and chickens must be supervised by the licensee while in an exercise yard. ii. Exercise yard - 174 square feet (4) Screening shall be installed around the perimeter of the area dedicated for the keeping of chickens in a manner that minimizes view from adjacent parcels. A screening plan shall be approved as part of license application subject to any additional permit requirements for installation. Acceptable forms of screening are a six (6) foot tall solid fence or vegetation that Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i,ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 1" Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5" 225614v1 shall consist of plantings which shall provide for year round screening and installed at a minimum of six (6) feet tall. (5) Chickens must not be housed in a residential house or an attached or detached garage. (36) The licensee shall be responsible for cleaning up the chicken keeping areas and disposing of waste in a sanitary manner. All premises on which hens are kept or maintained shall be kept clean from filth, garbage, and any substances which attract rodents. The coop and its surrounding must be cleaned frequently enough to control odor. Manure shall not be allowed to accumulate in a way that causes an unsanitary condition or causes odors detectible on another property. Failure to comply with these conditions may result in the officer removing chickens from the premises or revoking a chicken license. (7) All grain and food stored for the use of the hens on a premise with a chicken license shall be kept in a rodent proof container. (84) Hens, coop, pen, and optional exercise yard shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance to the occupants of adjacent property. (95) Any violation of the above conditions, (i.e. roaming chickens outside of proper enclosure, uncontrolled odor), if not remedied within 10 days, may result in revocation of the homeowner’s license. (106) If the license holder does not renew their chicken license, and the coop was licensed as an allowed third accessory structure for chickens, the coop/third structure cannot be repurposed for a storage structure and discontinues having chickens, the homeowner shall have 60 days to remove the coop, pen, and exercise yard associated with the keeping of chickens in its entirety. If the coop was licensed as an allowed third accessory structure for chickens, the coop/third structure must be removed and cannot be repurposed for a storage structure. If the homeowner/license holder fails to perform either of the above, the City may enter upon the subject property, remove the coop, pen, and exercise yard from the homeowner’s property, and charge the amount back to the homeowner as an assessment on the property tax roll. If the coop was licensed as an allowed second accessory structure, and the property complies with the accessory structure requirements, the structure may be repurposed for a storage structure. Bee Hives (1) The number of hives on residential lots is not to exceed: i. 1 acre or larger: 8 ii. 1 acre to 3/4 acre: 6 iii. 3/4 acre to 1/2 acre: 4 iv. 1/2 acre or less: 2 (2) The bee hive(s) may not be located in the front yard or a side yard abutting a street. (3) Bee hive(s) may be no closer than twenty-five (25) feet to an occupied building on another lot and/or any public trail or walkway. (4) The hives shall be located at least ten (10) feet from side and rear property lines. Commented [JJ1]: My recommendation is to insert this under required pen language. Roaming chickens was meant to be those that are outside of the coop, pen, or exercise yard. We have a definition of exercise yard so I don’t think need to create a new provision, but rather add a provision about an “A exercise area is optional. This area must be located adjacent to chicken coop and pen and must be supervised by licensee.” Commented [EF2R1]: Updated. 225614v1 (5) Any property owner who keeps bees shall provide and maintain a nearby, designated water source. (6) Prior to installation of the bee hive(s), the property owner shall provide written notice to the neighbors immediately adjacent of their intent to keep bees. B. Number of Animals Allowed. Up to four (4) domestic animals, excluding birds and fish, are permitted in any dwelling unit, but without a residential dog kennel license not more than two (2) may be dogs. Up to three (3) dogs are allowed with a residential dog kennel license. Dog enclosures may be located only in a rear yard in all zoning districts. C. Animals for Research. Animals for research may be kept in appropriate places by conditional use permit. D. Wild Animals. Wild animals are not permitted in any district. Subd. 7 Site Grading. A. Erosion Prevention. Earth surfaces shall be planted or stabilized to prevent erosion. B. Drainage onto Neighboring Property. Finished slopes and grades shall not cause adverse drainage effects on adjoining properties. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. A Summary of this Ordinance will be published in accordance with state statute. PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2025, by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS By _______________________________ David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Julie Hanson, City Clerk 225614v1 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-___ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND PETS, SECTION 410; AND CHAPTER 13, ZONING CODE, SECTION 1325 OF THE ARDEN HILLS CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 4 – Animals and Pets, Section 410 – Licenses, Subsection 410.01, Licenses Required, is hereby amended as follows: 410.00 - Licenses 410.01 License Required. The following animal licenses shall be required within the City of Arden Hills. Subd. 1 Dog/Cat Licenses. All dogs and cats within the City of Arden Hills, except as hereinafter provided, shall be licensed. A. Application. Within thirty (30) days after acquiring possession of a dog or cat which has not been licensed by the City of Arden Hills, the owner of the dog or cat shall make application for a dog or cat license. The application shall be on forms provided by the City of Arden Hills. B. Vaccination. It shall be unlawful for any dog or cat owner to keep or maintain any dog or cat older than six (6) months of age unless it shall have been vaccinated with an anti-rabies vaccine certified to be effective by a licensed veterinarian. No license renewal shall be issued except upon compliance with this section. C. License Fee. The license fee for each dog or cat must be submitted with the application. The fee will be established by City Council Resolution. D. Duration of License. A license shall be issued for a period of time not to exceed the expiration date of the rabies vaccination. No dog or cat license shall be renewed without proof of vaccination. E. Issuance of License. Upon completion of the application form, receipt of the license fee and receipt of the proof of vaccination, the City Administrator shall cause a dog or cat license to be issued to the applicant for a particular dog or cat. 225614v1 F. Receipt and Tags. The City of Arden Hills shall issue a license fee receipt to the applicant along with a metallic dog or cat license tag. The applicant shall permanently affix the tag by a metal fastening device to the collar of the licensed animal in a manner that allows the tag to be easily observed. If a tag is lost, a duplicate may be issued by the City of Arden Hills upon presentation of a receipt showing payment of the initial license fee and upon payment of an additional fee for each duplicate tag. G. Change of Address. An applicant who has obtained a dog or cat license shall notify the City of the applicant's address changes within the corporate limits of the City within ten (10) days of any address change. H. Counterfeit Tags. No person shall counterfeit or attempt to counterfeit dog or cat license tags. I. Transfer of Tags. No person shall transfer a dog or cat tag from one dog or cat to another. J. Exceptions. The following dogs and cats are not required to be licensed: 1. Dogs and cats less than six (6) months of age. 2. Dogs and cats whose owners are temporary visitors within the City for thirty (30) days or less. 3. Dogs and cats which are brought into the City for appearance in an animal show. 4. Dogs being used by law enforcement officers Subd. 2 Wild Animal Licenses. A. General Prohibition. All wild animals except the following are prohibited within the City of Arden Hills: 1. Wild animals brought into the City for entertainment, exhibition or show purposes by persons keeping wild animals for a public zoo. 2. Wild animals which are part of a permanent display sponsored by a bona fide research institution, a veterinary hospital, public zoo or other institution. 3. Nonpoisonous snakes, birds kept indoors, hamsters, mice, rabbits, gerbils, white rats, guinea pigs, chinchillas, or lizards and similar small animals capable of being kept in cages continuously. 4. Monkeys trained as personal helpers and kept by handicapped persons. 5. Raptors owned by licensed Falconers holding valid state and federal Falconry permits so long as the conditions of such permits are being satisfied. 6. Wild animals and birds that are part of the natural habitat and environment. B. License Application. Applications for a Wild Animal License shall be submitted on forms provided by the City along with a Certificate of Insurance which indicates that applicant has $200,000 of liability coverage on the Wild Animal and which includes an endorsement indicating that the liability coverage will not be cancelled without twenty (20) days written notice to the City of Arden Hills. C. Investigation. The Animal Control Officer shall review the application, conduct such investigation as the Animal Control Officer deems necessary, and shall prepare a written recommendation regarding the issuance of a Wild Animal License. The City Administrator shall within ten (10) days mail a notice to all property owners within 350 feet of the site on which the Wild Animal will be kept. The notice shall indicate that the City has received an application for a Wild Animal License and shall request comments from such property owners. 225614v1 D. Review. The City Council shall review the application, the Animal Control Officer's recommendations, and the comments from property owners. The City Council may issue a Wild Animal License if it determines that the application is in compliance with the City's regulations. The City Council may attach any reasonable conditions to the issuance of a license as it determines to be necessary in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Arden Hills residents. E. Existing Wild Animals. Anyone keeping a Wild Animal in Arden Hills at the time of the adoption of this regulation shall have ninety (90) days in which to comply with the provisions of this regulation or otherwise remove the Wild Animal from the City. Extensions beyond ninety (90) days may be granted by the City Council for good cause but in no case shall such extension permanently exempt a person from the requirements of this regulation. F. Wild Animal Restrictions. 1. Confinement. No person owning or harboring or having the care or custody of a wild animal shall suffer or permit such animal to go unconfined on the premises of such person. A wild animal is "unconfined" as the term is used in this section if such animal is not securely confined indoors or confined in a secure enclosure suitably sized for the wild animal is confined therein. An "enclosure" is secure within the meaning of this section if it is constructed of heave gauge mesh steel, or other suitable material; consists of a top and sides, with the bottom of such sides fastened along their perimeter to a slab floor of concrete or other suitable material; where no slab floor is provided, the sides must be embedded into the ground no less than one foot; all access points of the enclosure must be locked when the animal is confined therein. The Animal control officer may seize a wild animal that has been declared dangerous that is unconfined. 2. Muzzling. No person owning or harboring, or having the care of a wild animal shall suffer or permit such animal to go beyond the premises of such person unless such animal is securely muzzled and restrained with a chain not exceeding three (3) feet in length, and having a tensile strength sufficient to restrain the animal. Wild animals which are actively participating in recognized local, regional or national trials, training or other such sponsored competition, need not to be muzzled while being transported to or from during such competitions. 3. Summary Destruction. Any person harboring or owning a wild animal that is found to be in violation of the City's Animal Control Regulations may be summarily destroyed. Subd. 3 Chickens License. All chickens within the City of Arden Hills, except as hereinafter provided, shall be licensed. A. Application. Within thirty (30) days after acquiring possession of a chicken which has not been licensed by the City of Arden Hills, the owner of the chicken(s) shall make application for a chickens license. The application shall be on forms provided by the City of Arden Hills. If the Applicant is a renter, the Property Owner signature shall be required on the license application form. B. Neighbor ConsentNotification. The Applicant shall be responsible for providing written notification to the neighbors immediately adjacent to the property of their intent to keep chickens. This notification will be distributed in the format provided by the City. Neighbor written responses will be returned to the City. Neighbor consent from all of the immediately adjacent properties is required for issuance of the license. The failure of a neighboring Property Owner to respond does not constitute consent. 225614v1 C. License Fee. The license fee for each chicken must be submitted with the application. The fee will be established by City Council Resolution. D. Duration of License. A two year license shall be issued. E. Issuance of License. Upon completion of the application form and receipt of the license fee, the City Administrator shall cause a chicken license to be issued to the applicant subject to: (1) Leg banding of all chickens is required. The bands must identify the owner and the owner’s address and telephone number. (1) No more than seven (7) hens shall be housed or kept on any one (1) residential lot with the issuance of a City license. (2) Dead chickens must be disposed of according to the Minnesota Board of Animal Health rules which require chicken carcasses to be disposed of as soon as possible after death, usually within forty-eight (48) to seventy-two (72) hours. Legal forms of chicken carcass disposal include burial, off-site incineration or rendering, or composting. (3) Prior to issuance of a license, the prospective annual license holder certifies as part of the application review that they have read “Keeping of Chickens Informational Handout” “Recommendations for Municipal Regulations for Urban Chickens”. F. The following are prohibited within the City of Arden Hills for chickens: (1) Roosters are prohibited. (2) No breeding of chickens is allowed. (3) Slaughtering of chickens on the property is prohibited. SECTION 2. Chapter 13 – Zoning Code, Section 1325 – General Regulations, Subsection 1325.07 Subd. 6.A – Performance Standards, is hereby amended by adding the underlined language as follows: Subd. 6 Animals. A. Location for Buildings Housing Farm Animals. Any building in which farm animals are kept shall be located a distance of two hundred (200) feet or more from any lot line. Any open structure in which farm animals are kept shall be a distance of four hundred (400) feet or more from any lot line, except for chicken coops and bee hives in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts provided the following requirements are met: Chicken Coops (1) No more than three (3) hens shall be housed or kept on any one (1) residential lot with the issuance of a City license. (21) A separate coop is required to house the chickens. Coops must be constructed and maintained to meet the following minimum requirements: a. A coop with a minimum of 12 20 square feet and no larger than 25 36 square feet is permitted as an accessory structure subject to Section 1325.01. Subd. 4 A. for Size. 225614v1 b. Exemption to Ordinance - A residential property with a detached garage and an accessory structure/shed will be allowed a third accessory structure for keeping chickens. The combined square footage of all three detached structures may not exceed 728 square feet. c. Located in the rear yard. Chicken Coop, pen, and optional exercise yard are not permitted in the front or side yard. d. Setbacks are subject to applicable accessory structure setbacks of the underlying zoning district. In no instance shall the coop be located in front of the rear building line of the principal structure. e. The outer limit of the coop including pen and exercise yard shall in no instance be located less than 10 feet from the property line and may be no closer than twenty-five (25) feet to an occupied building on another lot and/or any public trail or walkway. shall be located closer to the principal dwelling upon the property that is issued a license than any other residential dwelling on an abutting property. f. Climate control – adequate ventilation and/or insulation and an operable lightbulb shall be provided to maintain the coop temperature. between 45 – 85 degrees Fahrenheit. Prior to issuance of an annual new license, the prospective annual license holder must provide a plan for maintaining an adequate temperature in the coop for safety of the fowl or poultry. The plan must address both extreme winter and summer temperature conditions. g. Rodent proof – coop construction, all grain and food, and materials must be adequate to prevent access by rodents. h. Coops shall be constructed and maintained in a workmanlike manner. i. Chickens must not be housed in a residential house or an attached or detached garage. (32) A pen and exercise yard is required. Pen and exercise yard must be constructed and maintained to meet the following minimum standard: a. The pen and exercise yard isshall be located adjacent to the coop and shall be fenced with adequate coverage to keep hens in and predators out of a material that can be easily raked or regularly replaced to reduce odor and flies. b. Minimum size per bird shall be: i. Pen – 10 square feet of floor space c. An exercise yard is optional. This area must be located adjacent to chicken coop and pen and chickens must be supervised by the licensee while in an exercise yard. ii. Exercise yard - 174 square feet (4) Screening shall be installed around the perimeter of the area dedicated for the keeping of chickens in a manner that minimizes view from adjacent parcels. A screening plan shall be approved as part of license application subject to any additional permit requirements for installation. Acceptable forms of screening are a six (6) foot tall solid fence or vegetation that Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i,ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 1" Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5" 225614v1 shall consist of plantings which shall provide for year round screening and installed at a minimum of six (6) feet tall. (5) Chickens must not be housed in a residential house or an attached or detached garage. (36) The licensee shall be responsible for cleaning up the chicken keeping areas and disposing of waste in a sanitary manner. All premises on which hens are kept or maintained shall be kept clean from filth, garbage, and any substances which attract rodents. The coop and its surrounding must be cleaned frequently enough to control odor. Manure shall not be allowed to accumulate in a way that causes an unsanitary condition or causes odors detectible on another property. Failure to comply with these conditions may result in the officer removing chickens from the premises or revoking a chicken license. (7) All grain and food stored for the use of the hens on a premise with a chicken license shall be kept in a rodent proof container. (84) Hens, coop, pen, and optional exercise yard shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance to the occupants of adjacent property. (95) Any violation of the above conditions, (i.e. roaming chickens outside of proper enclosure, uncontrolled odor), if not remedied within 10 days, may result in revocation of the homeowner’s license. (106) If the license holder does not renew their chicken license, and the coop was licensed as an allowed third accessory structure for chickens, the coop/third structure cannot be repurposed for a storage structure and discontinues having chickens, the homeowner shall have 60 days to remove the coop, pen, and exercise yard associated with the keeping of chickens in its entirety. If the coop was licensed as an allowed third accessory structure for chickens, the coop/third structure must be removed and cannot be repurposed for a storage structure. If the homeowner/license holder fails to perform either of the above, the City may enter upon the subject property, remove the coop, pen, and exercise yard from the homeowner’s property, and charge the amount back to the homeowner as an assessment on the property tax roll. If the coop was licensed as an allowed second accessory structure, and the property complies with the accessory structure requirements, the structure may be repurposed for a storage structure. Bee Hives (1) The number of hives on residential lots is not to exceed: i. 1 acre or larger: 8 ii. 1 acre to 3/4 acre: 6 iii. 3/4 acre to 1/2 acre: 4 iv. 1/2 acre or less: 2 (2) The bee hive(s) may not be located in the front yard or a side yard abutting a street. (3) Bee hive(s) may be no closer than twenty-five (25) feet to an occupied building on another lot and/or any public trail or walkway. (4) The hives shall be located at least ten (10) feet from side and rear property lines. Commented [JJ1]: My recommendation is to insert this under required pen language. Roaming chickens was meant to be those that are outside of the coop, pen, or exercise yard. We have a definition of exercise yard so I don’t think need to create a new provision, but rather add a provision about an “A exercise area is optional. This area must be located adjacent to chicken coop and pen and must be supervised by licensee.” Commented [EF2R1]: Updated. 225614v1 (5) Any property owner who keeps bees shall provide and maintain a nearby, designated water source. (6) Prior to installation of the bee hive(s), the property owner shall provide written notice to the neighbors immediately adjacent of their intent to keep bees. B. Number of Animals Allowed. Up to four (4) domestic animals, excluding birds and fish, are permitted in any dwelling unit, but without a residential dog kennel license not more than two (2) may be dogs. Up to three (3) dogs are allowed with a residential dog kennel license. Dog enclosures may be located only in a rear yard in all zoning districts. C. Animals for Research. Animals for research may be kept in appropriate places by conditional use permit. D. Wild Animals. Wild animals are not permitted in any district. Subd. 7 Site Grading. A. Erosion Prevention. Earth surfaces shall be planted or stabilized to prevent erosion. B. Drainage onto Neighboring Property. Finished slopes and grades shall not cause adverse drainage effects on adjoining properties. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. A Summary of this Ordinance will be published in accordance with state statute. PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2025, by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS By _______________________________ David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Julie Hanson, City Clerk 225614v1 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-___ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND PETS, SECTION 410; AND CHAPTER 13, ZONING CODE, SECTION 1325 OF THE ARDEN HILLS CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 4 – Animals and Pets, Section 410 – Licenses, Subsection 410.01, Licenses Required, is hereby amended as follows: 410.00 - Licenses 410.01 License Required. The following animal licenses shall be required within the City of Arden Hills. Subd. 1 Dog/Cat Licenses. All dogs and cats within the City of Arden Hills, except as hereinafter provided, shall be licensed. A. Application. Within thirty (30) days after acquiring possession of a dog or cat which has not been licensed by the City of Arden Hills, the owner of the dog or cat shall make application for a dog or cat license. The application shall be on forms provided by the City of Arden Hills. B. Vaccination. It shall be unlawful for any dog or cat owner to keep or maintain any dog or cat older than six (6) months of age unless it shall have been vaccinated with an anti-rabies vaccine certified to be effective by a licensed veterinarian. No license renewal shall be issued except upon compliance with this section. C. License Fee. The license fee for each dog or cat must be submitted with the application. The fee will be established by City Council Resolution. D. Duration of License. A license shall be issued for a period of time not to exceed the expiration date of the rabies vaccination. No dog or cat license shall be renewed without proof of vaccination. E. Issuance of License. Upon completion of the application form, receipt of the license fee and receipt of the proof of vaccination, the City Administrator shall cause a dog or cat license to be issued to the applicant for a particular dog or cat. 225614v1 F. Receipt and Tags. The City of Arden Hills shall issue a license fee receipt to the applicant along with a metallic dog or cat license tag. The applicant shall permanently affix the tag by a metal fastening device to the collar of the licensed animal in a manner that allows the tag to be easily observed. If a tag is lost, a duplicate may be issued by the City of Arden Hills upon presentation of a receipt showing payment of the initial license fee and upon payment of an additional fee for each duplicate tag. G. Change of Address. An applicant who has obtained a dog or cat license shall notify the City of the applicant's address changes within the corporate limits of the City within ten (10) days of any address change. H. Counterfeit Tags. No person shall counterfeit or attempt to counterfeit dog or cat license tags. I. Transfer of Tags. No person shall transfer a dog or cat tag from one dog or cat to another. J. Exceptions. The following dogs and cats are not required to be licensed: 1. Dogs and cats less than six (6) months of age. 2. Dogs and cats whose owners are temporary visitors within the City for thirty (30) days or less. 3. Dogs and cats which are brought into the City for appearance in an animal show. 4. Dogs being used by law enforcement officers Subd. 2 Wild Animal Licenses. A. General Prohibition. All wild animals except the following are prohibited within the City of Arden Hills: 1. Wild animals brought into the City for entertainment, exhibition or show purposes by persons keeping wild animals for a public zoo. 2. Wild animals which are part of a permanent display sponsored by a bona fide research institution, a veterinary hospital, public zoo or other institution. 3. Nonpoisonous snakes, birds kept indoors, hamsters, mice, rabbits, gerbils, white rats, guinea pigs, chinchillas, or lizards and similar small animals capable of being kept in cages continuously. 4. Monkeys trained as personal helpers and kept by handicapped persons. 5. Raptors owned by licensed Falconers holding valid state and federal Falconry permits so long as the conditions of such permits are being satisfied. 6. Wild animals and birds that are part of the natural habitat and environment. B. License Application. Applications for a Wild Animal License shall be submitted on forms provided by the City along with a Certificate of Insurance which indicates that applicant has $200,000 of liability coverage on the Wild Animal and which includes an endorsement indicating that the liability coverage will not be cancelled without twenty (20) days written notice to the City of Arden Hills. C. Investigation. The Animal Control Officer shall review the application, conduct such investigation as the Animal Control Officer deems necessary, and shall prepare a written recommendation regarding the issuance of a Wild Animal License. The City Administrator shall within ten (10) days mail a notice to all property owners within 350 feet of the site on which the Wild Animal will be kept. The notice shall indicate that the City has received an application for a Wild Animal License and shall request comments from such property owners. 225614v1 D. Review. The City Council shall review the application, the Animal Control Officer's recommendations, and the comments from property owners. The City Council may issue a Wild Animal License if it determines that the application is in compliance with the City's regulations. The City Council may attach any reasonable conditions to the issuance of a license as it determines to be necessary in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Arden Hills residents. E. Existing Wild Animals. Anyone keeping a Wild Animal in Arden Hills at the time of the adoption of this regulation shall have ninety (90) days in which to comply with the provisions of this regulation or otherwise remove the Wild Animal from the City. Extensions beyond ninety (90) days may be granted by the City Council for good cause but in no case shall such extension permanently exempt a person from the requirements of this regulation. F. Wild Animal Restrictions. 1. Confinement. No person owning or harboring or having the care or custody of a wild animal shall suffer or permit such animal to go unconfined on the premises of such person. A wild animal is "unconfined" as the term is used in this section if such animal is not securely confined indoors or confined in a secure enclosure suitably sized for the wild animal is confined therein. An "enclosure" is secure within the meaning of this section if it is constructed of heave gauge mesh steel, or other suitable material; consists of a top and sides, with the bottom of such sides fastened along their perimeter to a slab floor of concrete or other suitable material; where no slab floor is provided, the sides must be embedded into the ground no less than one foot; all access points of the enclosure must be locked when the animal is confined therein. The Animal control officer may seize a wild animal that has been declared dangerous that is unconfined. 2. Muzzling. No person owning or harboring, or having the care of a wild animal shall suffer or permit such animal to go beyond the premises of such person unless such animal is securely muzzled and restrained with a chain not exceeding three (3) feet in length, and having a tensile strength sufficient to restrain the animal. Wild animals which are actively participating in recognized local, regional or national trials, training or other such sponsored competition, need not to be muzzled while being transported to or from during such competitions. 3. Summary Destruction. Any person harboring or owning a wild animal that is found to be in violation of the City's Animal Control Regulations may be summarily destroyed. Subd. 3 Chickens/Ducks License. All chickens and ducks within the City of Arden Hills, except as hereinafter provided, shall be licensed. A. Application. Within thirty (30) days after acquiring possession of a chicken or a duck which has not been licensed by the City of Arden Hills, the owner of the chicken(s)/duck(s) shall make application for a chickens/ducks license. The application shall be on forms provided by the City of Arden Hills. If the Applicant is a renter, the Property Owner signature shall be required on the license application form. B. Neighbor Consent. The Applicant shall be responsible for providing notification to the neighbors immediately adjacent to the property of their intent to keep chickens and/or ducks. This notification will be distributed in the format provided by the City. Neighbor written responses will be returned to the City. Neighbor consent from all of the immediately adjacent properties is required for issuance of the a new license. The failure of a neighboring Property Owner to respond does not constitute consent. 225614v1 C. License Fee. The license fee for each chicken must be submitted with the application. The fee will be established by City Council Resolution. D. Duration of License. A two year license shall be issued. E. Issuance of License. Upon completion of the application form and receipt of the license fee, the City Administrator shall cause a chicken/duck license to be issued to the applicant subject to: (1) Leg banding of all chickens is required. The bands must identify the owner and the owner’s address and telephone number. (1) No more than seven (7) hens and/or ducks shall be housed or kept on any one (1) residential lot with the issuance of a City license. (2) Dead chickens and ducks must be disposed of according to the Minnesota Board of Animal Health rules which require chicken and duck carcasses to be disposed of as soon as possible after death, usually within forty-eight (48) to seventy-two (72) hours. Legal forms of chicken and duck carcass disposal include burial, off- site incineration or rendering, or composting. (3) Prior to issuance of a license, the prospective annual license holder certifies as part of the application review that they have read “Keeping of Chickens/Ducks Informational Handout” “Recommendations for Municipal Regulations for Urban Chickens”. F. The following are prohibited within the City of Arden Hills for chickens and ducks: (1) Roosters and Drakes are prohibited. (2) No breeding of chickens or ducks is allowed. (3) Slaughtering of chickens or ducks on the property is prohibited. SECTION 2. Chapter 13 – Zoning Code, Section 1325 – General Regulations, Subsection 1325.07 Subd. 6.A – Performance Standards, is hereby amended by adding the underlined language as follows: Subd. 6 Animals. A. Location for Buildings Housing Farm Animals. Any building in which farm animals are kept shall be located a distance of two hundred (200) feet or more from any lot line. Any open structure in which farm animals are kept shall be a distance of four hundred (400) feet or more from any lot line, except for chicken coops and bee hives in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts provided the following requirements are met: Chicken Coops (1) No more than three (3) hens shall be housed or kept on any one (1) residential lot with the issuance of a City license. (21) A separate coop is required to house the chickens and ducks. Coops must be constructed and maintained to meet the following minimum requirements: 225614v1 a. A coop with a minimum of 12 20 square feet and no larger than 25 36 square feet is permitted as an accessory structure subject to Section 1325.01. Subd. 4 A. for Size. b. Exemption to Ordinance - A residential property with a detached garage and an accessory structure/shed will be allowed a third accessory structure for keeping chickens and/or ducks. The combined square footage of all three detached structures may not exceed 728 square feet. c. Located in the rear yard. Chicken Coop, pen, and optional exercise yard are not permitted in the front or side yard. d. Setbacks are subject to applicable accessory structure setbacks of the underlying zoning district. In no instance shall the coop be located in front of the rear building line of the principal structure. e. The outer limit of the coop including pen and exercise yard shall in no instance be located less than 10 feet from the property line and may be no closer than twenty-five (25) feet to an occupied building on another lot and/or any public trail or walkway. shall be located closer to the principal dwelling upon the property that is issued a license than any other residential dwelling on an abutting property. f. Climate control – adequate ventilation and/or insulation and an operable lightbulb shall be provided to maintain the coop temperature. between 45 – 85 degrees Fahrenheit. Prior to issuance of an annual new license, the prospective annual license holder must provide a plan for maintaining an adequate temperature in the coop for safety of the fowl or poultry. The plan must address both extreme winter and summer temperature conditions. g. Rodent proof – coop construction, all grain and food, and materials must be adequate to prevent access by rodents. h. Coops shall be constructed and maintained in a workmanlike manner. i. Chickens and ducks must not be housed in a residential house or an attached or detached garage. (32) A pen and exercise yard is required. Pen and exercise yard must be constructed and maintained to meet the following minimum standard: a. The pen and exercise yard isshall be located adjacent to the coop and shall be fenced with adequate coverage to keep hens and/or ducks in and predators out of a material that can be easily raked or regularly replaced to reduce odor and flies. b. Minimum size per bird shall be: i. Pen – 10 square feet of floor space c. An exercise yard is optional. This area must be located adjacent to coop and pen and chickens and/or ducks must be supervised by the licensee while in an exercise yard. ii. Exercise yard - 174 square feet Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i,ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 1" Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5" 225614v1 (4) Screening shall be installed around the perimeter of the area dedicated for the keeping of chickens in a manner that minimizes view from adjacent parcels. A screening plan shall be approved as part of license application subject to any additional permit requirements for installation. Acceptable forms of screening are a six (6) foot tall solid fence or vegetation that shall consist of plantings which shall provide for year round screening and installed at a minimum of six (6) feet tall. (5) Chickens must not be housed in a residential house or an attached or detached garage. (36) The licensee shall be responsible for cleaning up the chicken and/or duck keeping areas and disposing of waste in a sanitary manner. All premises on which hens are kept or maintained shall be kept clean from filth, garbage, and any substances which attract rodents. The coop and its surrounding must be cleaned frequently enough to control odor. Manure shall not be allowed to accumulate in a way that causes an unsanitary condition or causes odors detectible on another property. Failure to comply with these conditions may result in the officer removing chickens from the premises or revoking a chicken license. (7) All grain and food stored for the use of the hens on a premise with a chicken license shall be kept in a rodent proof container. (84) Hens and/or ducks, coop, pen, and optional exercise yard shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance to the occupants of adjacent property. (95) Any violation of the above conditions, (i.e. roaming chickens or ducks outside of proper enclosure, uncontrolled odor), if not remedied within 10 days, may result in revocation of the homeowner’s license. (106) If the license holder does not renew their chickens/ducks license, and the coop was licensed as an allowed third accessory structure for chickens/ducks, the coop/third structure cannot be repurposed for a storage structure and discontinues having chickens, the homeowner shall have 60 days to remove the coop, pen, and exercise yard associated with the keeping of chickens and/or ducks in its entirety. If the coop was licensed as an allowed third accessory structure for chickens, the coop/third structure must be removed and cannot be repurposed for a storage structure. If the homeowner/license holder fails to perform either of the above, the City may enter upon the subject property, remove the coop, pen, and exercise yard from the homeowner’s property, and charge the amount back to the homeowner as an assessment on the property tax roll. If the coop was licensed as an allowed second accessory structure, and the property complies with the accessory structure requirements, the structure may be repurposed for a storage structure. Bee Hives (1) The number of hives on residential lots is not to exceed: i. 1 acre or larger: 8 ii. 1 acre to 3/4 acre: 6 iii. 3/4 acre to 1/2 acre: 4 iv. 1/2 acre or less: 2 (2) The bee hive(s) may not be located in the front yard or a side yard abutting a street. Commented [JJ1]: My recommendation is to insert this under required pen language. Roaming chickens was meant to be those that are outside of the coop, pen, or exercise yard. We have a definition of exercise yard so I don’t think need to create a new provision, but rather add a provision about an “A exercise area is optional. This area must be located adjacent to chicken coop and pen and must be supervised by licensee.” Commented [EF2R1]: Updated. 225614v1 (3) Bee hive(s) may be no closer than twenty-five (25) feet to an occupied building on another lot and/or any public trail or walkway. (4) The hives shall be located at least ten (10) feet from side and rear property lines. (5) Any property owner who keeps bees shall provide and maintain a nearby, designated water source. (6) Prior to installation of the bee hive(s), the property owner shall provide written notice to the neighbors immediately adjacent of their intent to keep bees. B. Number of Animals Allowed. Up to four (4) domestic animals, excluding birds and fish, are permitted in any dwelling unit, but without a residential dog kennel license not more than two (2) may be dogs. Up to three (3) dogs are allowed with a residential dog kennel license. Dog enclosures may be located only in a rear yard in all zoning districts. C. Animals for Research. Animals for research may be kept in appropriate places by conditional use permit. D. Wild Animals. Wild animals are not permitted in any district. Subd. 7 Site Grading. A. Erosion Prevention. Earth surfaces shall be planted or stabilized to prevent erosion. B. Drainage onto Neighboring Property. Finished slopes and grades shall not cause adverse drainage effects on adjoining properties. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. A Summary of this Ordinance will be published in accordance with state statute. PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2025, by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS By _______________________________ David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Julie Hanson, City Clerk