The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-24-25-RAddress: Mayor: 1245 W Highway 96 David Grant It Arden Hills MN 55112 -AEN HILLS Phone: Councilmembers: 651-792-7800 Brenda Holden Regular City Council Emily Rousseau Website: Tena Monson Agenda www.cityofardenhills.org Kurt Weber November 24, 2025 7:00 p.m. City Hall 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.orci/320/Watch- City-Meetings This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website. CALL TO ORDER 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. TCAAP/Rice Creek Commons Update Jessica Jagoe, Interim City Administrator 3. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL This is an opportunity for citizens to respectfully bring to the Council's attention any items which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. Comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes or less. Written documents or other materials should be handed to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council prior to or during the meeting. Council will generally not respond at the same meeting where an issue is initially raised by a member of the public but the Council may refer the issue to staff for further research and possible report or action at a future Council meeting. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES 5. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS 6. STAFF COMMENTS 6.A. Transportation Update David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer Documents: MEMO.PDF 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.A. October 27, 2025 City Council Work Session Documents: 10-27-25-WS.PDF 7.B. October 27, 2025 Regular City Council Documents: 10-27-25-R.PDF 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. 8.A. Motion To Approve Claims And Payroll Joua Yang, Finance Director Pang Silseth, Accounting Analyst Documents: MEMO.PDF 8.B. Motion To Approve City Logo Use Policy Julie Hanson, Assistant to the City Administrator/City Clerk Documents: MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTTACHMENT B.PDF 8.C. Motion To Approve Contract With Aerial Illuminations For A Drone Light Show At The Arden Hills 2026 75th Anniversary Celebration Julie Hanson, Assistant to the City Administrator/City Clerk Documents: MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF 8.D. Motion To Approve 2025-2027 IUOE Local 49 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Amendment For Street And Surface Water Lead Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator Documents: MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF 8.E. Motion To Approve Interim Personnel Policies For Flexible Scheduling And Dress For Your Day Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator Documents: MEMO.PDF 8.F. Motion To Authorize Recruitment Of Street And Surface Water Lead Position Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator Documents: MEMO.PDF 8.G. Motion To Approve Arden Hills Strategic Plan Summary Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator Documents: MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF 8.H. Motion To Approve Agreement For Professional Services For Electrical Inspection Services With Tokle Inspections, Inc. Jake Reilly, Community Development Director Documents: MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF 8.1. Motion To Approve Right Of Entry Acknowledgement And Limited Use Agreement With Rice Creek Watershed District For Floral Park David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer Documents: MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF 9. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Those items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. NEW BUSINESS 11.A. Resolution 2025-072 Approving A Minor Subdivision For 1578 Oak Avenue - Planning Case 25-010 Elena Fransen, Senior Planner Documents: MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF ATTACHMENT I.PDF ATTACHMENT J.PDF ATTACHMENT K.PDF ATTACHMENT L.PDF 11.B. Resolution 2025-073 Approving A Lot Consolidation For 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd And 1624 Lake Johanna Blvd And Resolution 2025-074 Approving Variances For The Subject Property - Planning Case 25-008 Elena Fransen, Senior Planner Documents: MEM PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF ATTACHMENT I.PDF ATTACHMENT J.PDF ATTACHMENT K.PDF ATTACHMENT L.PDF 11.C. Resolution 2025-075 Approving A Site Plan Review And Sign Standard Adjustment For 1103 County Road E - Planning Case 25-012 Elena Fransen, Senior Planner Documents: MEM PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL/STAFF COM NTS ADJOURN STAFF COMMENTS - 6A '!Tt -fi II�)EN_ HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 24, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator FROM: David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Transportation Update Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: A verbal update will be provided at the City Council meeting. Page 1 of 1 M� -ARDEN HILLS Approved: November 24, 2025 [DRAFT CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OCTOBER 27, 2025 IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE EDA MEETING- ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the City Council Work Session at 5:45 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant; Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Tena Monson, Emily Rousseau and Kurt Weber Absent: None Also present: City Administrator Jessica Jagoe, Public Works Director/City Engineer David Swearingen, Community Development Director Jake Reilly and Assistant to the City Administrator/City Clerk Julie Hanson 1. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL None. 2. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES None. 3. AGENDA ITEMS A. Cannabis Distribution Concept Plan Community Development Director Reilly introduced the applicant Brandon Cbampeau with Hempel Real Estate and Chuck Button with Portal Warehousing. Community Development Director Reilly said the land use application is a concept plan review to use approximately half of the building that houses Portal Warehousing and implement a similar model with individual spaces for wholesalers or warehousers. This would be a new use in Minnesota relating to recreational adult use cannabis. This would serve as a wholesaling site for up to two cannabis wholesalers. It is a business to business model where already packaged ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — OCTOBER 27, 2025 2 cannabis products would be distributed to retailers. He noted that the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) have been through several iterations of operations. All cannabis uses in Arden Hills are subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The proposal is for Council to determine if this use is of interest. If the concept plan were to move forward, it would take a half - under -utilized building and make it fully useful building. Council interest will inform the applicants if they should proceed with a full CUP application. The goal would be to have the existing condition of not more than 90% of the space dedicated to warehousing remain the same. Offices would make up the other 10% of the building. Brandon Champeau introduced himself. He said his company acquired the building in January of 2025. It is a strategic partnership with Portal Warehousing. He outlined a previous tenant had a similar business model, but that business was operating at about 30% occupancy in the entire building. When his company acquired the building, that old business left, Portal Warehousing, took half of the building to continue the same type of operations. They have approximately 61,000 feet. They lease to about 60 companies. Portal's business model is to lease small warehouse spaces to companies of all sizes. They support a lot of entrepreneurs and growing companies that can't afford to take out a huge warehouse lease. Portal has been getting inquiries from cannabis tenants who are interested in leasing portions of the building to store product before distributing to retailers. This is new for him. There are banking restrictions at play. He is seeking feedback from Council about if the request is suitable for Arden Hills and he would come back with a formal application after receiving feedback. There will be no production or retail in the space. It is pre -packaged product that will be distributed to retailers. Mayor Grant asked if they are requesting to grow cannabis. Mr. Champeau said no. There would be no production of any kind; only warehousing. This would be already packaged product being stored until it is distributed to retailers. Councilmember Rousseau is in favor of this business, pending the traffic study. She thinks this is in line with other warehousing businesses. Councilmember Holden asked how high the ceilings are in that building. Chuck Button replied that the ceilings are 22 and 20 feet. The walls go up to 10 feet. Councilmember Holden asked how many employees would be employed. Mr. Button said it is believed that each member that comes in will bring in 5-15 staff per company for a warehouse space ranging from 250-2,000 square feet. Employees will need a fob to access the space. It is secured access. Councilmember Holden sought clarification. She thought Mr. Champeau had prepackaged items and Mr. Button has warehouse space. She asked if this is several companies renting small portals with office space and they take what is place in their space. Mr. Champeau said the reason they are asking for up to 50% of the building is that Portal occupies 61,000 square feet today. Within those 61,000 square feet, they lease to smaller companies. They believe they could fill 6,000-10,000 square feet with smaller companies. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — OCTOBER 27, 2025 3 Councilmember Holden wanted to understand the cannabis portion of this business model. She asked if they want to use 61,000 square feet for cannabis storage. Mr. Champeau said they are requesting up to 57,000 square feet. Councilmember Holden asked what will happen in those 57,000 square feet. Mr. Champeau said it will be strictly for warehousing wholesale products. Councilmember Holden asked if it will be wrapped product stacked floor to ceiling. Mr. Champeau confirmed, with an office component for a larger company. Councilmember Holden wanted to know how many people will be employed by users of that 57,000 square feet of cannabis warehousing. Mr. Champeau said his company would act as the landlord and won't have any employees. Councilmember Holden said if we don't know how many total employees there are, it can't be determined how many parking spaces will be needed or if there will be traffic issues. Mr. Champeau said it would be in line with the rest of the building's use of about 90% warehouse and 10% office. Community Development Director Reilly said there would be a requirement for a traffic study based on the final CUP application. That will have a low estimate based on five employees per business entity operating in the warehouse. The traffic study can look at what traffic will be if there are five employees or two entities with five employees each or two entities with 15 employees each. Because there is no end user in mind yet, the specific number of employees is unknown. The proposed maximum number of employees is 30. If Council would like the applicant to consider having three or five users, the maximum would go up by that number. That is one of the items the applicant is hoping to hear from Council. Is there a maximum? Councilmember Holden understands all of that but she is trying to figure out if there is a better use for that area. We want high paying jobs. We want good jobs. If it's a cannabis warehouse, maybe they'll employ 30 people. Community Development Director Reilly confirmed. He said Council can let the applicant know what employment base they are hoping for in this area. Mr. Champeau said they won't propose anything that exceeds what existing parking allows. If a company came to them and said they want to take all 57,000 feet and they have 200 employees, they couldn't do that. The parking would not allow that. Councilmember Weber said he doesn't think this will take up the one sales license that Arden Hills is allowing. He assumes there will be some kind of licensing but it won't allow for the sale of product from this location. He supports this use. He asked how long this 57,000 square feet has sat empty. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — OCTOBER 27, 2025 4 Mr. Champeau said it's been about a year since the previous business left. That business was leasing the space but they weren't able to get occupants to fill the space. Councilmember Weber said that business moved in about three years ago. He believes the space was mostly vacant the entire time. He thinks this would be an excellent use for this space, regardless of the number of employees. It is a corner of the market that will need to be filled. He thinks it's an excellent concept, pending the traffic study. Mayor Grant wants to understand the proposal better. He stated someone will grow and package the product. That product is warehoused here. Then retailers would order product from the warehousers to have the product shipped to their retail stores. This is simply warehousing. Mr. Champeau confirmed. Mayor Grant asked what kind of security would be in place at the facility. Mr. Button said there are multiple layers of security. They have key fob access. Each fob is registered to an employee so they know who enters and leaves the facility at all times. Mayor Grant said the State will determine what security is required and the tenants here will have to comply with that. Councilmember Rousseau asked Staff how many employees are in the Boston Scientific warehouse that is next to this location. City Administrator Jagoe does not know how many employees work at that location. She could reach out to them to find out. Councilmember Rousseau said there is also a pool company in that area. She would like to know how many employees are there. City Administrator Jagoe can find that out. She said warehousing is an allowed use in the Gateway Business District. Councilmember Monson said she supports this. She hopes they will do what ever they have to. She doesn't know what the right number is for number of employees. She doesn't like parking minimums. She asked if that can be remedied by a variance request. Community Development Director Reilly said that is an option. Councilmember Monson noted language in the packet. She wondered if they have to submit 8 land use applications. Community Development Director Reilly said that was his attempt to replicate what has been seen in the past for similar applications. Based on what has been submitted, the only thing they would need to apply for is a CUP. Other applications may be identified, through due diligence. He said this site is existing, non -conforming. That is the reason for the limit of office space vs. warehouse space. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — OCTOBER 27, 2025 5 Councilmember Monson said any job is a good job. She wouldn't expect warehousing to have a huge number of people working there. She is in support of this concept. Councilmember Holden asked if the building is being marketed to cannabis only. Mr. Champeau said there is about 52,000 square feet that they are wanting to fill with a more traditional tenant. Councilmember Holden asked if they anticipate an increase in semi -truck traffic, or would this be smaller vehicles. Mr. Button said he would anticipate sprinter vans and box trucks. There are multiple docks at the location. He said he is from Salt Lake City. The distributing companies there are hiring college educated employees and they pay out at that level. Councilmember Holden would like there to be more than 30 employees. Mr. Button said that estimate is for the cannabis side, there are other companies with more employees. Councilmember Holden said when the former business was in there, they were 90% filled. When the commercial market dropped, a lot of businesses could afford their own space. Councilmember Weber asked if there is local delivery. Mr. Button assumes the members will be delivering to the retail points in the Minneapolis area. Mayor Grant asked if there is a master distributor servicing other businesses in the building. Or is this multiple cannabis distributors in the building. Mr. Champeau said they would be seeking multiple distributors. Mayor Grant said this sounds like a traditional warehouse. He said we won't discriminate against a business based on the product. Mr. Champeau said the reason they are requesting up to 50% is because they don't know how many companies will want to move in here. He wouldn't want to have to keep updating the CUP. Mayor Grant said he remembered the former business was open on the top. That can't be allowed with this type of product. Mr. Button said they have discussed that. Some other facilities have a fence secured across the top so the fire suppression above it still works. That suffices for the State in other cities. They would follow whatever the State guidance is. They will make all necessary improvements to the units to ensure they are secure. Mayor Grant asked if they have done cannabis before. Mr. Button said not cannabis. This is new. They do have some THC products in Orlando. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — OCTOBER 27, 2025 6 Mayor Grant said the businesses coming in will need to follow regulations. They may need to work with tenants to meet state codes. Mr. Button said they will make sure any business is compliant. Councilmember Monson asked if the applicant would need a CUP update every time they change tenants. Community Development Director Reilly said no. Right now they are saying they can have up to two. If they wanted to have three or four or five, they would have to come back to change that condition. Discussion ensued regarding a CUP doesn't restrict the ability to place tenants of any kind. It was clarified that this pertains to the cannabis tenants only. Mr. Champeau wanted to clarify they are not limiting their concept to only two users. They are seeking to allow 57,000 square feet to be allowed for warehousing cannabis. That may be two tenants, it could be eight. Community Development Director Reilly asked Council if they have a number in mind about how many individual business enterprises in that amount of space is too many. Councilmember Weber said there are guidelines. The rules are the rules, no matter how many tenants are in there. The State's intent with the OCM is to normalize cannabis, which will reduce the likelihood of black-market sales and gets rid of the stigma. It shouldn't be treated as a different use because it's cannabis. It is a warehousing use. He wants to see the space used. Councilmember Holden said there was staff at the previous business who accepted packages. Will there be anyone accepting packages for this new use. Mr. Button said the property manager is there to accept packages and deliveries, except when it is something like this. The property manager would contact the employee or owner and have that person come to the receiving area to sign for the delivery. Councilmember Holden asked if the 30 employees discussed earlier would be new employees working in this 57,000 square feet. Mr. Button confirmed. Councilmember Holden said they aren't assuming there will be just one or two. Mr. Button confirmed. He said a big operation like this would be a team of 5-15, factoring in different shifts. Mayor Grant said he understands growers may package their product but don't want to store it. This could be a grower's own distribution warehouse. The grower will have its own customer base. This is a warehousing service. He assumes a grower wouldn't want to grow and store the final product on the same site. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — OCTOBER 27, 2025 7 Councilmember Monson thinks this business is here to adapt to the market and should allow the user to be there in the space size that they need. She doesn't think that is anything the Council can determine. She doesn't have a job target because this is a warehouse. She asked what the applicant needs. Community Development Director Reilly said that the feedback she just provided is exactly what he was looking for. Councilmember Rousseau said she is fine with the free market making the decision on the number of tenants. Councilmember Holden said the traffic study will be based on the number of people coming and going. There will be semi -traffic. She doesn't believe growers are going to be delivering this product in pick up trucks. The number of people will matter when it comes to parking and traffic. There are other businesses around the area that could be approached for a shared parking agreement. Mayor Grant anticipates the deliveries will be small vehicles but with frequent trips. There are probably security requirements for vehicles. He said other states track these deliveries. There are rules about how the product is stored in the vehicle, it must be locked. He doesn't think Council can prescribe the amount of people for this warehouse function. It's permitted in this district. He asked if the applicants got all the information they were seeking. Mr. Champeau said he doesn't have questions. They will provide more detail in the formal application. His intent is to move quickly. There are already groups who are interested in this space. Community Development Director Reilly said Staff will work with the applicant to right -size the traffic study to get accurate information. Mr. Champeau asked if a traffic study will be required as part of this process. He didn't think that would be required if they were storing pens. Community Development Director Reilly confirmed. That is in the City Code. Mayor Grant asked if they would expect to run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Mr. Button said they don't do that now on the occupied side. They usually are done by 9:00. Sometimes people may be there as late as 10:00 and they message the property manager in those cases. Mr. Chapeau said on the vacant side, it will depend on what the tenant needs. B. Affordable Housing Policy Community Development Director Reilly said he is hoping to answer some of the questions Council had at the last work session. He said he has received some additional questions since then ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — OCTOBER 27, 2025 8 and those answers will be built into this conversation, as well. He will provide bigger context and discuss the various tools available. Community Development Director Reilly said when mortgage bankers talk about affordable housing, it means they are looking for anyone to pay no more than 30% of their income. That includes all fees, property taxes, insurance, mortgage insurance, HOA fees and parking fees. Fixed expenses that don't change. Councilmember Holden asked if utilities were included. Community Development Director Reilly said the mortgage companies don't put that in there because you can change how much energy you use. Affordable housing does not generally include utilities. That is different than subsidized housing where someone is getting help paying, then utilities are typically included. Affordable housing is always tied to an area median income (AMI) that includes earned income. The median income in the Twin Cities area is just under $100,000 per year. Arden Hills median income is just under $ 130,000 per year. That is a household income. It doesn't matter if there is one adult or three adults with ten kids. Councilmember Holden said the AMI can be counted differently, sometimes its 7-counties, sometimes it 10-counties. She asked what is being used to calculate this AMI. Community Development Director Reilly said the Arden Hills calculation is just counting Arden Hills. The Twin Cities area calculation is using the 7-county. HUD breaks everything down into affordability ranges. Someone is considered a qualified owner if they make at least 100% of the AMI. That doesn't mean someone can afford a home, but they would qualify. To qualify as true affordable housing, is that housing costs are 30% of the AMI. Community Development Director Reilly said there is potential for Habitat to come into Rice Creek Commons and build a bunch of single-family homes, they would be subsidizing that with several mortgage products, all the way down to something that is affordable. Their focus is only on deeply affordable, so people making 30% of the AMI or below. Community Development Director Reilly said the Shoreview rental, modern 2-bedroom apartment has subsidized affordable units in both of those brand-new buildings. Community Development Director Reilly said there is naturally occurring affordable housing. It's affordable through age or the fact that someone has paid off the mortgage and is only paying property taxes. Community Development Director Reilly said there is a national housing context in crisis. We stopped building homes for too long. Now there are not enough places for people to live. More than 30% of homes are occupied by adults living alone or pairs. No one is building starter homes. Wages haven't kept pace with the cost of inflation or the cost of constructing anything new. Difficulty finding a home that meets the income is an issue nationwide. Community Development Director Reilly said the missing middle products aren't built anymore. These are 4-, 6- and 8-plexes. He provided some information from the Federal Reserve Bank that shows how housing production has ebbed and flowed over time. There was a decline in construction during the crash and we haven't gotten back there yet. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — OCTOBER 27, 2025 9 Community Development Director Reilly provided the projected supply of new homes from Metropolitan Council showing what is required to house the people who already live here. The region is short 120,000 units to meet the goal of 2030. We are currently looking at 2040. Councilmember Monson said this data shows we need more units, but per the presentation, no one is building the type of inventory that we need. Is the City even able to close that gap? We can make policies, but is that enough to incentivize the missing middle development? Community Development Director Reilly said there will be another conversation for this and he will bring answers to that question to the next discussion. The information will be based on the Federal Reserve Bank's evaluation of the Minneapolis 2040 plan and how eliminating single family housing, as a choice for each individual lot for a builder to build on has increased supply. If the supply increases, everyone else's cost goes down. The fundamental answer to the question is yes. There are a lot of things the City can do that don't cost us any money and will generate more supply. Councilmember Monson understands the desire for more units but not everyone wants to live in a large apartment complex. Community Development Director Reilly said if the goal is more supply then we know we can open up options. It may mean some leg work by City Staff to solicit what we need from the people who can provide that product. Community Development Director Reilly shared a graphic showing the housing inventory based on the 2024 American Community Survey 5-year numbers. These are the numbers that are in the System Statement that was issued to the City of Arden Hills from the Mertropolian Council. He said there is a housing study that is associated with Rice Creek Commons. That identifies most of the homes as being greater than 1,500 square feet, meaning they are move -up homes or second homes. Councilmember Monson asked for confirmation that Rice Creek Commons will be mostly move -up homes. Community Development Director Reilly said no. There is a study associated with TCAAP from 2015. That identifies what is in the surrounding area of Arden Hills. Community Development Director Reilly shared graphics that show the affordable homes available as of 2018 in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. He shared a graphic that identifies what is a starter home, what's an apartment and what's aging in place vs. aging in community. There isn't a lot of places to downsize and there is a limited supply of single -level, single-family homes. The smaller homes would be of interest to young families. The school district relies on those families to be successful. He said these are all of the things that are free, other than Staff and consultant time, to help increase the supply of homes. It doesn't matter how affordable the homes are. Just having more places to live makes everyone pay less overall. Community Development Director Reilly shared some of the things we can do that have some potential cost to taxpayers. Staff could go out and talk to people about how to make our existing and new housing stock more affordable. Surrounding communities are using some of these. Land ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — OCTOBER 27, 2025 10 trusts help ensure that people can stay in homes longer or that houses stay affordable longer by taking out the land price. Minnesota has the largest number of land trusts in the country. There are also housing cooperatives. They tend to be geared toward seniors. There are a handful of new entities offering new senior housing cooperatives. They are pre -purchased, up to 75% of the units, within six to eight months. So there is interest in these types of housing. Community Development Director Reilly said we can establish a rental licensing program. That would cut down on staff time spent dealing with nuisance properties and would be at least revenue neutral and possibly revenue generating. He understands that is a bigger conversation. Community Development Director Reilly offered that we can also work directly with employers who can support new home development that is affordable for their workers, should they choose to live in town. Community Development Director Reilly said the most expensive option is to offer financial incentives. There would be a lot of work to do before we are to that point. Community Development Director Reilly explained the home ownership opportunities and rental opportunities. He also showed what surrounding communities are doing to bring affordable housing. Rental licensing can improve the inventory of available housing. The Met Council gives each city a target goal allotment. Our allotment is associated with what happens at Rice Creek Commons. Our Zoning Code update will do a lot. Councilmember Rousseau wonders if seeking relationships with the builders is part of the conversation regarding City -owned land like the old City Hall location and if we can find a partner we could contract with to get the affordable housing units we want. She noted a housing type that she has seen is to have a basement level with a family living on the main level with another housing unit in a third level. She wondered if that is plausible here if an elevator function could be installed. Community Development Director Reilly said that housing type is an option. It would be more of an accessory dwelling component. He knows of a builder that has designed a lift that is a walk in closet that can be converted to a lift. Councilmember Holden said we have so much housing that is for seniors. What will happen when seniors die off and those senior apartments need to transition to regular apartments. Community Development Director said people are living a lot longer than they used to. The reality is senior housing isn't going away. The senior coops tend to start at age 55. He said builders are going away from assisted living and memory care. There is a large population of people who are 55 and older who want to sell their home. That's where a cooperative model fits in. Councilmember Holden is concerned with the lack of ownership. Companies are buying up the inventory and renting them out at unaffordable rates. She said before we can talk about the old City Hall space we need to remember we will need space to store equipment for TCAAP. We don't have any other piece of land to house all the new. She said the affordability tends to be concentrated to the Arden Manor and south of TCAAP and the townhouses. That's a concern. We want kids on the school bus hanging out with kids who have money. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — OCTOBER 27, 2025 11 Councilmember Weber said this is a well written report. The most important aspect is creating policy that can effectively get the affordable housing we want. North Heights was an excellent opportunity to get some affordable units. We missed that chance. Council recessed the Work Session at 6: 58 pm. Council reconvened the Work Session at 7.33 pm. Mayor Grant asked if there is any further Council discussion on the Affordable Housing topic. Councilmember Weber asked if Community Development Director Reilly needed any specific discussion from Council before moving forward. Community Development Director Reilly wanted to speak to Councilmember Holden's point. He said research shows that mixed income communities are the most successful. Concentrations of poverty or lower income aren't inherently bad but if there is a way to solve for that, he wondered what that would look like. His other question is "What's a neighborhood?". Councilmember Holden said the first TCAAP plan, had high value homes, medium value homes and lower income homes. In that ideal model, all of the neighbors interact. Mayor Grant echoed that. He said we had The Hill, The Creek and The Town Center for a reason. Councilmember Monson said Rice Creek Commons continues to have these discussions. The JDA is aligned with having those mixed income communities. We are facing constrictions of financing affordable housing. She said affordable housing isn't necessarily low income. It is 30% of your household income. She said having life cycle housing available can fill the gaps for that missing middle. Low -Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) is a tool that could be used. She said we are tackling a lot of the options through the Zoning changes. We're still too far away to be talking about the HRA and levy impacts. If the goal is to allow for a mix of incomes, then our Zoning Code needs to allow for these mixes of uses. Councilmember Weber said it is important to recognize the level of affordability doesn't necessarily mean deeply affordable or low income. He thinks Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) will go a long way in addressing the mix of housing affordability in different areas with different income levels. We need to free up some of the single-family housing so younger families can move into them. The seniors in our City want to stay here but don't have anywhere to go that doesn't cost $5,000 a month. Mayor Grant asked about LIGTC. He thought that was a 50% or 60% for fifteen or thirty years. Community Development Director Reilly said low income tax credits come in two different percentages. It is hard to get the credits. They tend to be affordable to people at 50% or below of the AMI and often include subsidized units in the deeply affordable level that are often dedicated to people with disabilities. Working with developers who understand how LIHTC projects work is helpful. LIHTC credits come with less than a 1 % risk to the municipality. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — OCTOBER 27, 2025 12 Mayor Grant isn't wild about 30% AMI housing. He thinks it will pose some financial constraints that may be hard to overcome. LIHTC could have some units dedicated but when someone constructs a new building they aren't going to make half the units LIHTC. Councilmember Rousseau is generally in favor of the options in the memo. She would have questions regarding the local religious institutions and the sacred settlements. She thought it could be addressed with ADUs, assuming there are no regulatory concerns. She liked the initiatives that Shoreview is implementing with density bonuses, net gain unit requirements, lot reductions, developer fee deferments and inclusionary housing. Discussion ensued regarding the number of owner occupied parcels. Owner occupied would include single family homes and owned manufactured homes. Apartment homes, age -restricted properties, non -single family homes and manufactured homes that are rented could be a mix of owned or rented. Community Development Director Reilly will update the table in the agenda information for the next meeting. Councilmember Holden said she asked how often people in the buildings were asked to submit their income for LIHTC units. She was told they never provide income information after they move in. She would like to know what the rules are for those credits. Community Development Director Reilly said he has never heard of any place that doesn't require recertification of people living in affordable homes. However, just because a person's income increases does not mean they will be asked to leave. The share of what they are paying will increase. Councilmember Holden said you could have a LIHTC building where 50% of the residents are paying market rate. Community Development Director Reilly confirmed. The purpose of affordable housing is to focus on housing stability first. Residents have a safe place to live and their income can increase until they can pay what the market rate is. That's why HUD's subsidy levels and fair market rents are directly connected. Councilmember Holden asked how successful are inclusionary housing policies or ADUs with reducing affordable housing needs. It wasn't successful in Minneapolis. Community Development Director Reilly said it depends. Are ADUs being produced because they are allowed or is there enough flexibility in the market that people can produce more housing units? He isn't aware of any examples where large expensive homes have been demolished to develop 3, 4, 6 or 8-unit buildings. Minneapolis has changed their review process after some issues. ADUs are still expensive. Just because they are allowed, doesn't mean they'll be produced. It's possible but the homeowners that are interested in them can't afford the mortgage or can't get a home equity loan to get the construction capital. Discussion ensued about how common it is for people to purchase a home for their college age kids and their roommates to live in. One of the best ways to manage that is by having a rental licensing program. That way you can limit the number of corporate entities who own homes. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — OCTOBER 27, 2025 13 Councilmember Weber said the rental licensing discussion should happen at the same time we discuss ADUs. It's all linked, in his mind, to minimize the number of corporate landlords. We want to keep the homes in Arden Hills owner occupied, as much as possible. Councilmember Monson asked Staff how we narrow this down into next steps. Community Development Director Reilly said if we have a list of ten things and there are options on the list that are non-starters, it would be helpful to know that now. He asked Council how they feel about factory -built vs. site -built when talking about single family homes. Council agreed they are okay with factory -built or modular homes as long as they use high quality materials and that they don't all look the same. Councilmember Holden asked how much vacant buildable land is in Arden Hills, not including TCAAP. Being in a land trust is a lot of work. If we don't have ten acres for someone to build on, there doesn't seem to be enough pay back for the amount of Staff time it would take to manage a land trust. Councilmember Monson supports items 1-7 on the list. Mayor Grant said that ADUs may not find widespread adoption in Arden Hills. Councilmember Holden asked what "reduce or eliminate minimum parking" meant and for whom? There is no bus service here so to reduce parking when we know people will have to get to work doesn't work for her. Community Development Director Reilly said eliminating minimum parking requirements allow business owners and developers to determine what is needed. The professionals building structures know their market the best. Requiring parking that is not needed inflates the cost for the builder. Discussion ensued regarding alternative modes of transportation and how a lot of younger people just don't own cars anymore. Mayor Grant said he could support some of the things Mounds View is doing. It would behoove us to maintain the quality of the affordable units we currently have. Community Development Director Reilly said that is an example where a land trust could buy it and rehab it. City Administrator Jagoe said the next topic Community Development Director Reilly will bring forward is ADUs. She asked if Council had any specific direction on density bonus ordinance work. That won't be included in the zoning updates being done by the consultants. She asked if they want to discuss that before starting the ADU discussion. Mayor Grant said it is important to gain an understanding of what is available. It is difficult to offer a density bonus without locations to build density. It doesn't make sense to talk about things that we can't do. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — OCTOBER 27, 2025 14 Councilmember Holden thought there was a list of things other than density bonuses. She would like to see all of the affordable housing options so Council can choose what is best for Arden Hills. Councilmember Weber said regardless of what else we do, having density bonuses gives teeth to the action. It's not something we are required to do. To not do something because we know it's not an option now is incredibly short-sighted. There are a lot of tax-exempt lots that could be available in the future. Councilmember Monson would like density bonuses to be included. She would like to better understand the structure. Developers are opportunistic. They will find the land. Community Development Director Reilly summarized that we need an evaluation of un-utilized land and where things might go, if the market allows. Then once we know that, we want to have a menu of things to choose from, including density bonuses, reduction in park dedication fees or park requirements. That will give us tools to get the best development possible and have it not seem arbitrary. C. Lake Johanna Fire Department Strategic Plan Follow -Up Discussion City Administrator Jagoe said this is a follow up to the presentation the Lake Johanna Fire Department (LJFD) made at the last work session. The fire department provided some supplemental information based on the Council feedback at that discussion. They shared response times for calls when Station 1 is browned out. Discussion ensued regarding how many calls were being tracked. Is it a high or an average? The longest responses were the most extreme cases and the smallest percentage. The numbers accounting for the median and the mean calls was more useful information. Councilmember Holden said she didn't think they provided a lot of the information that Councilmember Monson requested. She was disappointed with that. She said chances are this will pass. She wanted Council direction if Arden Hills should vote in favor or not. Councilmember Monson asked what Councilmember Holden's message has been so far with discussions at the Fire Board. Councilmember Holden said her answer has been no, she wouldn't vote for it. It's an astronomical amount of money. We aren't approving new Public Works positions and we are losing Safer Grants in 2027. We don't have another $1 million for the six additional full time employees (FTEs) they are requesting. We are going to end up taxing residents out of their home and she doesn't want to do that. Discussion ensued regarding how some of the other Cities are in support and the others are still deciding. Councilmember Monson said it's challenging because the data presented is very limited. If it's going to pass anyway maybe we ask for a third party to look at it next time. We may be too little, too late to prevent anything this time around. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — OCTOBER 27, 2025 15 Councilmember Weber said we should ask for an independent audit, anyway. Statistics can look however the presenter wants them to. We were provided some statistics but it didn't answer the questions we wanted to know. He isn't challenging the integrity of what they provided, it just didn't answer our questions. It is worth asking if we can have an independent audit before this decision is made. He would also support saying no. Councilmember Rousseau is in favor of voting yes. However, she thinks they gave us data that tells the story they want to tell. She would have a hard time with them coming back with the same story next year when asking for additional FTEs. Mayor Grant said he requested industry standards and asked if LJFD is meeting those standards. Councilmember Weber remembered seeing something in the information regarding industry standards. They were unachievable. Mayor Grant is leaning towards voting no. He doesn't like to take that position. He thinks this will probably pass anyway, but they are asking for a lot. Maybe we need to make a statement and vote no. He asked Councilmember Holden if she had everything she needed to make that vote. Councilmember Holden confirmed. D. 9 Cities Meeting Update Mayor Grant said the Mayors and City Administrators get together every other month. They discussed how the League of MN Cities does not support the Missing Middle Housing Bill. We will get together with legislators to tell them why. He won't be presenting but wanted Council to know what was happening. E. 751 Anniversary Budget Councilmember Weber said he doesn't like the date selected. He would prefer the event take place on a Saturday, rather than a Friday. Councilmember Holden said the committee all agreed. Councilmember Monson said the committee discussed a lot of options, in depth. We considered multiple days, Friday vs. Saturday, dealing with competing events in neighboring cities, attendance and how we set ourselves apart. The Penny Carnival draws over 400 people. We landed where we needed to land, based on those committee discussions. No date is going to be perfect for everyone. This seems like a nice narrowed approach that the entire committee agreed on. Council agreed to discuss the budget for the event after the next committee meeting. F. EDA Membership City Administrator Jagoe said this item was discussed in 2023, regarding a request to look into the Economic Development Authority (EDA) membership. Per our ordinance the EDA is made up of the mayor and councilmembers. The State Statute language allows for a seven member ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — OCTOBER 27, 2025 16 authority. The 2023 discussion asked if there should be a Planning Commission or Economic Development Commission (EDC) member on the EDA. This was tabled previously and was put back on to our Agenda Planning. Staff is seeking direction if there should be any changes to the EDA membership. Councilmember Holden is in favor of an EDC member being on the EDA. This authority is fundamentally looking at funding and money. She said the Planning Commission doesn't seem to fit but believes an EDC member is appropriate. Councilmember Weber agrees. He would like to see two additional members and he thinks it should be two EDC members. Councilmember Rousseau also wants two additional members. She is okay with it being two EDC members. Mayor Grant said the EDC advises the City Council. He is okay with it remaining the way it is. He's open to adding one EDC member. We would be changing the structure and it may require separate meetings rather than meeting prior to a work session, as we did today. Councilmember Holden said there is turnover on the EDC. She asked how long people stay on that committee. Councilmember Rousseau said, not counting the youth commissioners, there have been three commission members turnover, over the last three years. Council all agreed the EDC youth commissioners would not be eligible to be members of the EDA. City Administrator Jagoe said the authority membership numbers are either three, five or seven. If we are talking about adding only one, would someone from the current authority be removed? Or do we add two, that would get us to seven members. Councilmember Weber thinks letting two members of the EDC serve on the EDA would probably go a long way in reducing any perceived or real turnover. Councilmember Monson wants to add two. She agrees it may lessen turn over and help people get more engaged. Having seven members pushes us into a more organized state of the EDA that has been very light -touch over the past couple of years. City Administrator Jagoe wondered if an EDA member can be an Arden Hills business owner who is a non-resident. The EDC membership allows for a business representative who isn't a resident to serve on that commission. She would have to verify with State Statute. Community Development Director Reilly doesn't believe it is restricted to only resident members. Councilmember Rousseau said Council has requested Finance Director Yang to explore how EDA funds can be utilized. So it is possible that a Planning Commissioner may be a good fit. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — OCTOBER 27, 2025 17 Councilmember Holden said she is for one EDC member. She wants to change it from five to six. Staff stated that it is defined in State Statute as three, five or seven members and can't be changed at the City level. Mayor Grant said we have to go to seven members unless two Councilmember want to drop off. Councilmember Monson thinks we change it to seven. It's approval by the Council. Councilmember Weber said to the earlier comment about meeting times. We can still put it right before the work session. The other authority members can make it in person or digitally. He doesn't see that as a problem. Mayor Grant will look at the EDC membership and come up with two EDA members, subject to Council approval. City Administrator Jagoe said Staff will have to bring forth the ordinance change first. City Code outlines the composition of our commissions and committees. Today it states the EDA is the five City Council members. We'll need to change the ordinance before we can appoint two EDC members. Discussion ensued about the timing when the ordinance language will be brought back. Community Development Director Reilly said he confirmed there is no residential requirement for an EDA. It's all based on what the City's ordinance says. Councilmember Holden wondered why we should change the ordinance. She would prefer it to be Arden Hills residents. Mayor Grant asked if we want a business representative, even if they don't live in the city. Councilmember Weber does question the value of that, somewhat. However, they want their business to thrive. Discussion ensued if the language should outline the membership is two EDC members with a maximum of up to one non-resident. Councilmember Monson said we don't need to be so prescriptive. Let the ordinance say seven members. Can't we just say it's the five Councilmembers plus two EDC members? Mayor Grant can have the authority to pick who he thinks is the best fit, with some flexibility. Mayor Grant said if this council thinks it's important to have a business member, then we'd have to write it in. Councilmember Monson said that is a good point. She would like to see us have a business representative. She just doesn't want us to box ourselves in. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — OCTOBER 27, 2025 18 G. Cannabis Discussion Not Discussed. H. Rice Creek Commons/TCAAP Discussion Not Discussed I. Agenda Planning City Administrator Jagoe said the next agenda will have Affordable Housing and Cannabis. Between those two items, it will take most of the time. She is leaving the second November meeting for final budget discussion, fee schedule discussion. 4. COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS None. ADJOURN Mayor Grant adjourned the City Council Work Session at 8:52 p.m. Jen Estling David Grant Deputy Clerk Mayor o -AR�ENHILLS Approved: November 24, 2025 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2025 7:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL DRAFT Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor David Grant called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Tena Monson, Emily Rousseau and Kurt Weber Absent: None Also present: City Administrator Jessica Jagoe; Public Works Director/City Engineer David Swearingen; Finance Director Joua Yang; Community Development Director Jake Reilly; and Assistant to the City Administrator/City Clerk Julie Hanson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Holden requested Item 8G be pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion as Item 9A. MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the meeting agenda as amended. The motion carried (5-0). 2. TCAAP/RICE CREEK COMMONS UPDATE City Administrator Jagoe stated the Joint Development Authority and neither of the advisory committees have met since the last Council meeting. The next JDA meeting will be on Monday, November 1st. The upcoming sustainability webinar to be hosted by the JDA is scheduled for Thursday, November 13, from Noon to 1 PM. This will be an informational webinar on how clean energy and innovation are advancing the vision of a long-term sustainable development at Rice Creek Commons. A link to register for the webinar will be posted soon on the Rice Creek Commons and City websites. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — OCTOBER 27, 2025 2 Councilmember Holden indicated she was concerned with the impacts a Darcy Waiver would have on the property owner. She discussed how the cost to clean wells was very burdensome and noted she did not want the City to be held responsible if a Darcy Waiver was given to Ryan Companies. City Administrator Jagoe reported she would investigate this matter further and would report back to the Council. Councilmember Monson questioned why Councilmember Holden brought up the Darcy Waiver. Councilmember Holden explained the last time the Council received an update from staff the Council was told Ryan Companies would be applying for permits, which may include a Darcy Waiver. She indicated she would forward the information she researched regarding Darcy Waivers to City staff to be forwarded to the remainder of the City Council. 3. PUBLIC INQUIRIESANFORMATIONAL Gregg Larson, 3377 North Snelling Avenue, stated he has been an advocate for affordable housing in Arden Hills. He explained he has enjoyed reading the staff memos drafted by Jake Reilly and commended him for the quality of the work he was doing on behalf of the City. He appreciated all of the well documented information that was included in these memos and for addressing the type of affordable housing that was currently available in Arden Hills. Andrea Pidde, 1619 Lake Johanna Boulevard, expressed concerns with Planning Case 25-008 for the lot consolidation for the property at 1622 and 1624 Lake Johanna Boulevard. She reported that the property owner has requested seven large variances from City Code. She indicated she was concerned with where snow would be placed for this property, noting she did not want the snow pushed onto her property. She noted there has been no shoreline mitigation in the past. She recommended this matter be addressed prior to the Council considering the variance request. Mayor Grant asked if snow removal was addressed by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Weber stated snow was mentioned during public comment but was not debated by the Planning Commission. Mayor Grant thanked Ms. Pidde for bringing this matter to the Council's attention and reported this Planning Case would be coming to the Council for consideration at the November 24, 2025 City Council meeting. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES None. 5. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS None. 6. STAFF COMMENTS ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — OCTOBER 27, 2025 3 A. Transportation Update Public Works Director Swearingen reported the Lift Station 5 project was moving towards the final phases of construction. He indicated Stowe Avenue and Noble Road were now open for traffic. He stated detour signs have been put in place for County Road E for traffic traveling through the project area. Mayor Grant explained it was his understanding this project had come in under budget ($130,000 to $140,000) as a secondary water line was not required and there was some savings in the area of fire hydrants. Public Works Director Swearingen stated the final numbers had not been presented to him, but he anticipated the project would come in under budget. B. Round Lake Update City Administrator Jagoe stated at the October 13 City Council meeting staff was asked to provide the public with an update on the Round Lake remedial action. She explained in following up with the US Army staff has confirmed that an action plan has been approved and three areas of the lake will be dredged. She noted the dredging would be controlled on the north end of Round Lake and would be transported to Ramsey County property via pipelines routed through storm sewer for handling and treatment. She explained in the pre -design investigation there was a difference in the amount of sediment needed to be removed in some areas of the lake, however there was no additional funds and insufficient time within the contract period to complete this work. She noted only three areas of lake would be dredged at this time and additional work would be completed in the future. She reported this project was slated to begin mid-2026 and would be completed in 2027. Councilmember Weber noted he lived on Round Lake and he had noticed the lake was filling in and that bogs were collecting in the middle. He reported if the original contract moves forward, not all of the sediment will be removed, which means a second contract will be necessary in order to achieve any sort of certification of completion. He stated even though this project would not resolve the concerns entirely, it would assist with addressing some of the sediment in the lake. Mayor Grant reported the sediment would be piped to the TCAAP property and would be trucked to another facility. Councilmember Holden expressed concern with the fact only two or three areas within the lake would be dredged at this time. She explained she asked the Army when they would be applying for additional funding and learned that it would not be anywhere in the near future. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. October 13, 2025, City Council Work Session B. October 13, 2025, Regular City Council ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — OCTOBER 27, 2025 0 MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the October 13, 2025, City Council Work Session meeting minutes as amended and the October 13, 2025, Regular City Council meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried (5-0). 8. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Motion to Approve Consent Agenda Item - Claims and Payroll B. Motion to Approve 2025 3rd Quarter Financials C. Motion to Approve Resolution 2025-067 Accepting the Liability Coverage Limits from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT ) D. Motion to Approve Cancellation of the January 26, February 23 and March 23, 2026 City Council Regular Meetings and Work Sessions E. Motion to Authorize Application for Ramsey County Public Entity Innovation Grant (PEIG) for Municipal Recycling Carts F. Motion to Approve Resolution 2025-068 Authorizing 2026 Ramsey County SCORE Grant Application G. Motion to n pp Payment No. 8 (Final) r7c A4.14en4 Sons, ine. 7/l024 H. Motion to Approve Payment No. 1 and Change Order No. I — New Look Contracting — Lift Station No. 5 Rehabilitation Project I. Motion to Approve Alexandria Troy to Serve as an Arden Hills Board Member on the Twin Cities Gateway Visitors Bureau Board of Directors J. Motion to Approve Resolution 2025-069 — Variance at 3254 Hamline Avenue North — Planning Case 25-011 K. Motion to Approve Contract for Impound Services with Companion Animal Control LLC MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Weber seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as amended and to authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried (5-0). 9. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS A. Motion to Approve Payment No. 8 (Final) — S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. — 2024 PMP Street and Utility Improvements Project Councilmember Holden indicated the City had $3 million budgeted for this project and there was almost $500,000 left over. She asked how these additional funds would show in the budget for 2025. Finance Director Yang explained the $500,000 in savings would show in the Enterprise Fund. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Rousseau seconded a motion to Approve Payment No. 8 (Final) — S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. — 2024 PMP Street and Utility Improvements Project. The motion carried (5-0). ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — OCTOBER 27, 2025 5 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 11. NEW BUSINESS None. 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Rousseau explained the EDC held a business gathering at Flaherty's last week. Councilmember Rousseau encouraged residents to drive safely and watch out for kids on Halloween, which was Friday, October 31. Councilmember Holden thanked the Gathering Place for hosting a community trunk or treat event. Councilmember Holden discussed the steps the City had been making to improve its parks. She commented on the two pavilions that had been built at Perry and Cummings Parks, as well as better irrigation at Perry Park. She noted a small dog park had also been constructed at Hazelnut Park in the ice rink. Councilmember Monson thanked Councilmember Weber for attending the Fire Department Relief Association meeting on her behalf. Councilmember Monson reported organics collection should begin in Arden Hills the second half of 2026. Mayor Grant thanked Councilmember Weber for attending the Fire Department Relief Association meeting on behalf of the City. Mayor Grant thanked Alexandria Troy for being willing to serve on the Twin Cities Gateway Visitor Bureau Board of Directors on behalf of the City of Arden Hills. Mayor Grant explained residents could recycle organics at this time by bringing them to the New Brighton Public Works Facility or by dropping their organics off at the compost site. Councilmember Weber commented the trustee would be stepping down from the Fire Relief Board and new representation would be sought. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — OCTOBER 27, 2025 6 ADJOURN MOTION: Mayor Grant moved and Councilmember Rousseau seconded a motion to adiourn. The motion carried (5-0). Mayor Grant adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Julie Hanson City Clerk David Grant Mayor CONSENT ITEM 8A ,fiIZEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 24, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator FROM: Joua Yang, Finance Director Pang Silseth, Accounting Analyst SUBJECT: Claims and Payroll Listing Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: N/A N/A Council Should Consider Motion to approve, table or deny the following: • Claims and Payroll Listing All items need a simple majority for action unless otherwise noted. Funding Source: N/A Background Payroll is processed biweekly and accounts payable is processed weekly. Budget Impact N/A 2025 Payroll #24 Paid Claims - 11/01/2025-11/14/2025 (Check Nos. 53792-53823 and ACH Checks) Total Payroll Total Accounts Payable $118,282.22 $118,282.22 $269,282.95 $269,282.95 Total Claims $387,565.17 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PAYROLL # 24 CHECKS DATED: 11/21/25 Biweekly: 11/01/25 - 11/14/25 EMPLOYEE DEDUCTIONS AMT. CITY BENEFIT Payment Method FIT 8,239.34 EFT EFT EFT EFT A/P Check* A/P Check* A/P Check* A/P Check* FICA Oasdi 6,101.72 6,101.72 FICA Medicare 1,427.03 1,427.03 SIT 4,104.05 TOTAL TAXES 1 19,872.141 7,528.75 Health Premium 2,772.93 0.00 Dental Premium 329.74 0.00 FSA Health Care Reimb. 0.00 FSA Dependent Care Reimb. 207.29 TOTAL FLEXIBLE SPENDING 1 3.309.96 0.00 HSA Health Saving 1 1,360.191 0.00 EFT TOTAL HEALTH SAVINGS 1 1,360.191 0.00 EFT EFT A/P Check* EFT EFT A/P Check* A/P Check* A/P Check* A/P Check* A/P Check* ERA 6,605.77 7,622.01 tissionSquare 2,273.30 0.00 entral Pension Fund -Union 1,920.00 IN State Retirement System 900.00 'OTAL RETIREMENT 1 11,699.071 7,622.01 TLAC 22.76 ife/Addl/Dep Life 52.32 0.00 ife/Addl non -tax 23.44 TD/STD Insurance 0.00 ERA Life Insurance 166.12 JOE 49 Dues (Union) 48.00 Total Employee Deductions 36,554.00 Net Payroll 0.00 Direct Deposit 66,454.96 Gross Payroll Tie -Out 103,131.46 Plus City Paid Benefit 15,150.76 TOTAL PAYROLL COST 118,282.22 FICA TIE -OUT Gross Payroll 103,131.46 Less Total FSA 3,309.96 Less Total H.SA 1,360.19 Less Voluntary Ins 46.20 Net P/R Subject to FICA 98,415.11 FICA Oasdi @ 6.20% 6,101.72 FICA Medicare @ 1.45% 1,427.03 EFT Note: Federal and State Payroll Tax obligations are satisfied by means of utilizing the US Bank Easy Tax Deposit Service. Transfers are typically made up to two days after the payroll date. * A/P Checks can be found on the ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Check Approval report. Checks may be paid this week or the following week. Accounts Payable Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date User: pang.silseth Printed: 11/20/2025 10:21 AM �RQEN HIILLS Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount Invoice No Description Reference ACH 0192 GRAINGER INC 11/07/2025 9684063200 Bulbs 434.80 9684544498 supplies 31.71 9684544506 supplies 59.92 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0192: 526.43 ACH 0220 MINNESOTA DEPT OF LABOR & INDU 11/07/2025 ABI0042455X Pressure Vessel Inspection 35.00 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0220: 35.00 ACH 0327 STAPLES INC 11/07/2025 6044205364 supplies 71.59 6045119672 supplies 36.48 6045119672 supplies 50.67 6045227188 credit memo -supplies returned -71.59 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0327: 87.15 ACH 0387 MISSIONSQUARE #302482 11/07/2025 PR 25-23 PR Batch 00100.11.2025 ICMA Employee Percc PR Batch 00100.11.2025 ICM 315.02 PR 25-23 PR Batch 00100.11.2025 ICMA Employee Dedu PR Batch 00100.11.2025 ICM 2,030.00 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0387: 2,345.02 ACH 10481 JESSICAJAGOE 11/07/2025 110325 Mileage Reimbursement 39.06 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 10481: 39.06 ACH 10497 CINTAS CORP 11/07/2025 4247479140 Mats -October 116.25 5298410201 First Aid 68.20 5298410201 First Aid 72.50 ACH 1125 0376853 0376853 0376853 0376853 0376884 0376886 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 10497 BOLTON & MENK INC 11/07/2025 Sewer Televising 2028 PMP MS4 Hydrant Flow Test Plat Review TCAAP JDA PC 25-003 #833 sewer televising TCAAP Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1125: ACH 1363 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICES IN( 11/07/2025 150309 1291 Tiller Lane 256.95 327.00 185.00 4,932.50 1,004.50 1,289.50 12,695.00 20,433.50 592.70 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (11/20/2025 10:21 AM) Page 1 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount Invoice No Description Reference Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1363: 592.70 ACH 5180 THE TESSMAN COMPANY LLC 11/07/2025 S425199-IN field maintnenace supplies 4,248.80 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 5180: 4,248.80 ACH 7025 ON SITE COMPANIES -OSSTC INC 11/07/2025 0001968028 Restrooms 21.31 0001977285 Restrooms 10/25-11/21 882.00 0001982606 Restrooms 10/29 35.00 0001985068 Restrooms 13.48 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 7025: 951.79 ACH 8032 PACE ANALYTICAL FIELD SVC INC 11/07/2025 25123284 September Drinking Water Survey 1,621.50 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 8032: 1,621.50 ACH MNLI MINNESOTA NATIVE LANDSCAPES IT 11/07/2025 56702 Weed Control 10/13/25 350.00 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor MNLI: 350.00 ACH TOII TOKLE INSPECTIONS INC 11/07/2025 110125 October Electrical Inspections 4,775.76 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor TOII: 4,775.76 53792 0131 BEISSWENGERS HOMETOWN HARDY 11/07/2025 2055/6 supplies 107.97 2098/6 supplies 5.38 Total for Check Number 53792: 113.35 53793 10483 CENTRAL PENSION FUND 11/07/2025 401333.1025 October Apprenticeship 384.00 Total for Check Number 53793: 384.00 53794 IDAI IDEAL ADVERTISING INC 11/07/2025 60169 Staff Shirts 535.00 Total for Check Number 53794: 535.00 53795 0495 LAKE JOHANNA FIRE DEPARTMENT 1 11/07/2025 995 Reimb Cap Expense Line 21-22 23,290.31 Total for Check Number 53795: 23,290.31 53796 NSCC NORTH SUBURBAN COMMUNICATIOi 11/07/2025 2025-529 Q3 2025 Contribution 6,493.55 Total for Check Number 53796: 6,493.55 53797 0811 RAMSEY COUNTY 11/07/2025 FLEET-001032 Fuel -September 3,080.45 PRMG-005835 PW Rental Space -December 6,141.69 PRMG-005835 PW Rental Space -December 3,070.83 PRMG-005835 PW Rental Space -December 1,364.82 PRMG-005835 PW Rental Space -December 3,070.85 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (11/20/2025 10:21 AM) Page 2 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount Invoice No Description Reference Total for Check Number 53797: 16,728.64 53798 10495 TENET 11/07/2025 INV-34598 supplies 120.76 INV-35230 marking paint 81.24 INV-35435 supplies 181.14 Total for Check Number 53798: 383.14 53799 10626 ULTIMATE AUTO GLASS MINNESOTA 11/07/2025 IGMN300580 Windshield Repair #85603 50.00 Total for Check Number 53799: 50.00 53800 1161 VALLEY -RICH CO INC 11/07/2025 34997 1291 Tiller Lane 5,386.00 Total for Check Number 53800: 5,386.00 Total for 11/7/2025: 89,627.65 ACH 0234 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC 11/14/2025 W17305 Parts -Elgin Pelican 1,536.79 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0234: 1,536.79 ACH 0243 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL -WASTE WE 11/14/2025 0001196357 Wastewater -December 83,122.72 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0243: 83,122.72 ACH 0285 XCEL ENERGY 11/14/2025 950620642 9/15/25-10/14/25 754.25 950620642 9/15/25-10/14/25 795.15 950620642 9/15/25-10/14/25 239.33 950620642 9/15/25-10/14/25 56.82 950620642 9/15/25-10/14/25 270.13 950620642 9/15/25-10/14/25 1,568.72 950620642 9/15/25-10/14/25 2,288.22 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0285: 5,972.62 ACH 0292 OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY INC 11/14/2025 0003633734 October Rental 43.17 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0292: 43.17 ACH 0320 HEALTH PARTNERS INC 11/14/2025 009595466802 December Insurance 27,073.02 009595466802 December Insurance 1,475.06 ACH 0761 ELECTRIC PUMP INC 034882 LS 914 ACH 0922 NINENORTH 2025-165 Audio/Visual-October Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0320: 11/14/2025 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0761: 11/14/2025 1,381.50 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (11/20/2025 10:21 AM) Page 3 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount Invoice No Description Reference Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0922: 1,381.50 ACH 10363 MINUTE MAKER SECRETARIAL 11/14/2025 M2145 CC Meeting Minutes 10/27 172.00 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 10363: 172.00 ACH 10476 TWIN CITIES COMMERCIAL CLEANEI 11/14/2025 08251641 Janitorial Services -August 1,554.58 11251729 Janitorial Services -November 1,554.58 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 10476: 3,109.16 ACH 10611 INFOSEND INC 11/14/2025 297413 UB Processing -October 807.88 297413 UB Processing -October 807.86 297413 UB Processing -October 807.85 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 10611: 2,423.59 ACH 1125 BOLTON & MENK INC 11/14/2025 0378035 Park Improvement 9/13-10/10 712.00 0378036 Park System Plan -October 6,739.00 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1125: 7,451.00 ACH 1223 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL - MAIN 11/14/2025 4301150 Pest Control -November 90.98 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1223: 90.98 ACH 4889 COMMUNITY FOOTWORKS 11/14/2025 11052025 November Food Care Clinic 414.40 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4889: 414.40 ACH 5173 BADGER METER 11/14/2025 80216168 Beacon & LTE Sery Units 987.20 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 5173: 987.20 ACH 5593 AMERICAN LEGAL PUBLISHING COR 11/14/2025 46038 Ordinance 2025-004 9.00 46039 Ordinance 2025-023 40.50 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 5593: 49.50 ACH 7025 ON SITE COMPANIES -OSSTC INC 11/14/2025 0001935534 Restrooms 8/2-8/29 882.00 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 7025: 882.00 ACH 7501 KELLY & LEMMONS PA 11/14/2025 66509 October Prosecution 4,395.74 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 7501: 4,395.74 ACH 7804 MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS INC 11/14/2025 47727264 Purchase 10/30 81.18 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 7804: 81.18 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (11/20/2025 10:21 AM) Page 4 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount Invoice No Description Reference ACH ALPI ALLEGRA PRINT & IMAGING INC 11/14/2025 176923 October Newsletter 1,782.31 176923 October Newsletter Postage 1,133.83 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor ALPL• 2,916.14 53801 10572 BONFE 11/14/2025 647946883 Met Council I/I-1173 Benton Way 5,000.00 Total for Check Number 53801: 5,000.00 53802 CPF1 CENTRAL PENSION FUND SOURCE A 11/14/2025 184503.1025 October Pension 3,840.00 Total for Check Number 53802: 3,840.00 53803 UB*00804 PETER CERMAK 11/14/2025 Refund Check 001387-000, 1724 Chatham Aver 47.08 Total for Check Number 53803: 47.08 53804 1033 COMCAST 11/14/2025 101030.1125 Service 11/3-12/2 108.35 Total for Check Number 53804: 108.35 53805 UB*00803 MITCHELL ERICKSON 11/14/2025 Refund Check 003511-000, 3382 Lake Johanna 1,114.07 Total for Check Number 53805: 1,114.07 53806 0849 FRA-DOR INC 11/14/2025 2510138 Dirt Purchase 44.00 Total for Check Number 53806: 44.00 53807 0477 GATHERING PLACE LUTHERAN MINI; 11/14/2025 2025 2024-2025 Snowplowing 1,500.00 Total for Check Number 53807: 1,500.00 53808 1119 GERTENS INC 11/14/2025 120360/6 Shrubs/Trees 1,895.00 Total for Check Number 53808: 1,895.00 53809 10595 HEALTHEQUITY 11/14/2025 j50zvbx November Fees 60.35 Total for Check Number 53809: 60.35 53810 UB*00802 KIM-LIEN HIEMENZ 11/14/2025 Refund Check 003156-000, 1700 Valentine Avei 641.76 Total for Check Number 53810: 641.76 53811 1040 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC 11/14/2025 024-028-17 Zoning Code Update -October 5,149.15 Total for Check Number 53811: 5,149.15 53812 INCI IN CONTROL INC 11/14/2025 S-INVO3101 ACSP Q4 534.50 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (11/20/2025 10:21 AM) Page 5 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount Invoice No Description Reference Total for Check Number 53812: 534.50 53813 0390 INT'L UNION OPERATING ENGINEERS 11/14/2025 1200.1125 November Dues 280.00 Total for Check Number 53813: 280.00 53814 UB*00807 DIXON JORDAN 11/14/2025 Refund Check 007152-000, 1505 Edgewater Av 22.25 Total for Check Number 53814: 22.25 53815 UB*00805 CATHERINE LUK 11/14/2025 Refund Check 000899-000, 1531 Briarknoll Cir 1.06 Total for Check Number 53815: 1.06 53816 10286 MINNESOTA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTF 11/14/2025 506279 Drug Screening 123.00 Total for Check Number 53816: 123.00 53817 UB*00806 ALVIN PAULSEN 11/14/2025 Refund Check 013100-000, 1682 Brueberry Lar 90.62 Total for Check Number 53817: 90.62 53818 1208 PREMIUM WATERS INC 11/14/2025 610207-10-25 October Water 35.24 613317-10-25 October Water 56.34 Total for Check Number 53818: 91.58 53819 UB*00808 CARL REYNOLDS 11/14/2025 Refund Check 000700-000, 1112 Amble Drive 577.29 Total for Check Number 53819: 577.29 53820 3099 TRI STATE BOBCAT INC-LITTLE CANS 11/14/2025 E38128 Aereator Rental 402.50 Total for Check Number 53820: 402.50 53821 1161 VALLEY -RICH CO INC 11/14/2025 34825 1473 Arden Oaks 9,950.00 34886 1473 Arden Oaks 1,887.98 Total for Check Number 53821: 11,837.98 53822 10568 VERIZON CONNECT 11/14/2025 604000075670 October Service 334.95 Total for Check Number 53822: 334.95 53823 MNCS MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PAYME1 11/14/2025 102425 Remittance ID: 0015865995 (10/24/2025) 166.12 110725 Remittance ID: 0015865995 (11/7/2025) 166.12 Total for Check Number 53823: 332.24 Total for 11/14/2025: 179,655.30 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (11/20/2025 10:21 AM) Page 6 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount Invoice No Description Reference Report Total (64 checks): 269,282.95 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (11/20/2025 10:21 AM) Page 7 CONSENT ITEM - 8B 'It -ARZEEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 24, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator FROM: Julie Hanson, Assistant to the City Administrator/City Clerk SUBJECT: Approval of City Logo Use Policy Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Motions to approve, table, or deny the following: • The Council should consider approval of a City Logo Use Policy. Discussion At the September 8, 2025 work session, the City Council considered establishing guidelines and creating a formal policy regarding the use of the City's logo (Attachment A). The Council was provided with a sample of the City of Anoka's policy which establishes procedures and provides guidelines related to use of their logo by both a for -profit organization and a non-profit organization. Following discussion and review of the sample policy, Council directed staff to mirror the City of Anoka's policy as it conveys the same messaging and guidelines that the City of Arden Hills supports regarding use of our logo. Budget Impact N/A A ttnehmPnt Attachment A: September 8 Work Session Memo Attachment B: Draft City Logo Use Policy Page 1 of 1 Attachment A A - -ARPEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 8, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator FROM: Julie Hanson, Assistant to the City Administrator/City Clerk SUBJECT: City Logo Use Policy Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Council should consider providing feedback and direction regarding establishing guidelines and/or a formal policy related to use of the City's logo. Background At City Council work sessions in June and July 2025, a concern was expressed about the City's logo potentially being used on door-to-door solicitation materials, and a comment was made about the Lion's Club using the City's logo in its promotional materials for a Lion's-hosted Community Picnic, respectively. In addition, the Council had also previously received comment from a resident expressing concern over use of the City's logo on Rainbow Tree Care's informational materials related to Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) treatments. Based on these concerns, it was requested that the use of the City's logo be added to the list of future work session topics for discussion. Staff reached out to 12 cities, which included those adjacent to Arden Hills, regarding whether or not they have either process guidelines or a formal policy in place. Of those that replied, none have a formal, written policy but indicated that they more so adhere to a consistent practice. Arden Hills traditionally has allowed for the use of the City logo when the City is partnering in some way with a specific event or offering. Examples include efforts such as the Service Line Warranty (SLW) coverage in 2018 wherein the City executed a formal, written agreement with the company (note, the City later revoked its permission for use of our logo on SLW's materials) and Rainbow Tree Care in which the City executes a formal written agreement each spring to provide discounted pricing to our residents for services related to the fight against EAB. The City logo has also been used on the Annual Ribfest promotional materials and in this case, the City does designate a portion of Twin Cities Gateway funds to be used for marketing and promotional materials for such. Page 1 of 3 Other Cities' logo use policies In performing an internet search, staff was able to determine that the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul of course have lengthy, formal policies related to use of their logo. The search also resulted in two "smaller" cities, Anoka and Moorhead, that have written policies that establish acceptable and non -acceptable uses of the City's logo and provide direction on how to request permission to use the City logo. For example, the City of Moorhead's policy states they "may grant explicit permission to use the City logo in a manner other than identified in this Usage Guide. All special circumstances must be requested in advance and approval is not guaranteed. Requests may be directed to ..." The City of Moorhead's policy also includes branding guidelines for the logo's appearance when used, including colors, backgrounds, and acceptable digital formats. The City of Anoka's policy states "Any group, business, or organization requesting the use of the City logo must submit a Request for Non -City Use of Logo form to the City of Anoka for review and approval." The request form is submitted to the City's Communications Manager for review and upon request, the applicant must also provide an example of the promotional item on which the logo shall be used. Anoka's logo use policy sets forth specific guidelines for logo use in general as well as by for -profit and non-profit organizations. Attached as an example for Council review is the City of Anoka's policy (Attachment A). Trademarking a City Logo It can be noted that while the City of Arden Hills doesn't "own" our logo and it is not currently trademarked, the City Attorney states that there are State Statutes applicable to deceptive trade practices outlined in Minn. Stat. 325D.43-45 that apply even if the City doesn't have its logo trademarked. This statute outlines several actions that qualify as deceptive trade practices which include (but aren't limited to) passing off goods of another and representing that goods or services have sponsorship or approval that the user does not have. The City can enforce these rights. There is the option of trademarking the City's logo with the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). Having a federally trademarked logo gives the City protection against unauthorized use — mostly online. Private social media platforms like Facebook/X/Instagram honor federal registration of trademarks and with proof that the City has its logo trademarked, the platform will remove imitation/fraudulent accounts. A federal trademark is good for 10 years and may be renewed every 10 years. The City Attorney estimates the cost for this process is $3,000-$4,000 and would take approximately 6-9 months. The length of time it takes is simply how long it takes things to work through the USPTO office. While the State of Minnesota also has a trademark registration process at a much lower cost ($150- $200), the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) goes as far as to say the State trademark registration is "meaningless" and so while the process is quick and the fee is low, it doesn't do much for a City. That all said and in a nutshell, even if the City's logo isn't trademarked, outside entities are not free to use the City's logo however they want. Page 2 of 3 Discussion Staff is requesting that Council provide direction on if they wish to create a process guideline and/or a formal policy related to use of the Arden Hills City logo. Should Council wish to proceed, staff would recommend modeling the City of Anoka's policy which would be brought forward for approval at a future City Council meeting. Budget Impact Attachments A. Example City of Anoka Logo Policy for Non -City Use Page 3 of 3 'It EN HILLS City Logo Use Policy Attachment B The City of Arden Hills' logo was adopted by the City Council on January 8, 2001. The purpose of this policy is to set forth a guide to be followed by the City of Arden Hills in authorizing the use of the City logo for non -City use. A guiding principle in use of the City logo is to promote the City in a positive and supportive manner. I. Objective It is the objective of this policyto recognize the importance of establishing relationships with the community by allowing the use of the City logo for various groups, businesses, and organizations. This demonstrates the City's dedication and philosophy of working together with appropriate groups for the overall good of the community. II. Eligibility Any group, business, or organization requesting the use of the City logo must submit a Request for Non -City Use of Logo form to the City of Arden Hills for review and approval. III. Procedures The Request for Non -City Use of Logo form shall be submitted to the Senior Communications Coordinatorfor reviewwith final approval being at the discretion of the City Administrator. The Senior Communications Coordinator shall review the Request for Non -City Use of Logo application to ensure it is complete and signed by the applicant. By signing the application, the applicant acknowledges that they will follow the criteria set forth by the City of Arden Hills and will maintain the integrity of our brand. The applicant shall provide to the City of Arden Hills an example (photo or illustration) of the promotional item on which the logo shall be used. Requests may take up to two (2) weeks for approval depending on usage. The City reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to deny the use of its logo to any group, business, or organization for any reason. IV. Guidelines The City of Arden Hills assumes no liability in respect to the applicant's use of the logo. a. The period of time in which the logo will be used must be specified on the application. b. Permission shall terminate immediately should the logo be misused as specified in this policy and determined by the City of Arden Hills. C. The City of Arden Hills logo shall not be used in political campaign messages or other materials of partisan nature in political campaigns. d. Unacceptable non -City uses of the logo include: • Stationery or any paper products not licensed bythe City of Arden Hills • Obscene, graphic, violent, or sexually suggestive uses, materials, or businesses • Uses that would disparage or damage the City of Arden Hills • Use of food items, health -related items, and items related to tobacco, alcohol, low potency/THC edibles and beverages, and cannabis products. e. Applications that may cause confusion between City and private entities are prohibited. f. Use of the City of Arden Hills logo must not be for profit unless exception is made by the City of Arden Hills as set forth in this Policy. For -Profit Organization Use: Use of the City of Arden Hills logo in connection with events or items offered for sale by for - profit organizations may be permitted for use by that for -profit organization following application review, receipt of payment of the associated application fee as outlined in the adopted Fee Schedule, and final approval. The applicant understands final approval constitutes the following circumstances: • The logo may be used for events, merchandise, or promotional purposes as established by the terms of the agreement permitting use of the City of Arden Hills logo for community branding. • The City of Arden Hills will not approve unacceptable items as defined in item "d" under Guidelines of this Policy. • The City of Arden Hills may request feedback on the success of the applicant's marketing campaign as it relates to the use of the logo. Non -Profit Organization Use: Use of the City of Arden Hills logo in connections with events or items offered for sale by non- profit organizations is permitted without payment of a fee for use by that non-profit organization under the following circumstances: • The non-profit organization must be community based and a recognized non- profit organization by the State of Minnesota and must provide proof of such when submitting the application. • Before use of the logo, the non-profit organization must demonstrate that the event and/or sale of merchandise shall be community based and open to participation in, or purchase by, all citizens of or visitors to the City of Arden Hills. Ado pted.by.the.City.Councit. N ove m be r.8028680 CONSENT ITEM - 8C 'It -ARZEEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 24, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator FROM: Julie Hanson, Assistant to the City Administrator/City Clerk SUBJECT: Approval of Aerial Illuminations Contract — 751h Anniversary Drone Light Show Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $12,500 $12,500 2025 TCG Grant Council Should Consider Motions to approve, table, or deny the following: • Approval of a contract with Aerial Illuminations for a drone light show at the July 17, 2026 751h Anniversary event. Discussion The 751h Anniversary Planning Committee is currently planning activities for the Arden Hills 751h anniversary event next summer which will be held at Cummings Park. While the option of having a fireworks display was discussed, we are limited as to a viable location for which fireworks could take place. A member of the Committee suggested a drone light show as an alternative, which is fairly newer technology. Staff reached out to three drone companies for more information and received a response from one, Aerial Illuminations. Note this company recently performed a drone light show for the City of Burnsville. A sample of that show, and others, can be viewed by visiting their website Aerial Illuminations I drone light show. Staff obtained a proposal from Aerial Illuminations (Attachment A), whose representative confirmed that Cummings Park affords ample room to conduct a show. As shown in the proposal, Aerial Illuminations handles every aspect of the drone light show, adhering to strict safety standards and ensuring FAA permitting is obtained and compliance is achieved. Page 1 of 1 Aerial Illuminations has offered a discounted price for the 150 drones show (which is the minimum number of drones used) with an option to increase later to a 200 drones show if the City contracts prior to December 31, 2025. Attached for Council review is a contract with Aerial Illuminations (Attachment B). Staff worked with the City Attorney who has reviewed the initial proposal and vetted the contract, giving approval to present such to the City Council. Regarding funding, Al Stauffacher of Twin Cities Gateway Visitors Bureau (TCG) confirmed that TCG grant dollars can be used to fund the drone light show, provided the TCG logo is used and a video is subsequently provided that TCG will include on their website. Sponsorship recognition is another potential option (with certain perimeters) that can help offset costs for production of the show (page 4 of Attachment A references sponsorships/logos). Note the 75th Anniversary Planning Committee will be exploring sponsorships for the event in general as planning efforts continue. Staff is therefore recommending Council consider approval of a contract with Aerial Illuminations for a drone light show to be performed at the Arden Hills 75th Anniversary event on July 17, 2026 beginning at approximately 9:30 pm. Note the contract is for 150 drones at a discounted price of $12,500 with the ability to increase such in 2026 to 200 drones for a discounted price of $15,000 if the City executes the contract by December 31, 2025. Budget Impact Funds in the amount of $12,500 allocated in 2025 from the Twin Cities Gateway Visitors Bureau (TCG) grant have been approved by TCG for this particular use. These TCG 2025 funds must be used prior to December 31, 2025, which allows the City to fulfil the contract with Aerial Illuminations and secure the discounted price as stated above prior to year end. Should the City wish to expand the drone light show after the first of the year, which would incur an additional cost as noted above, Council could consider utilizing funding allocated from future 2026 TCG grant dollars, local sponsorships that the City secures, or by utilizing the $10,000 budgeted for the 75th Anniversary event in 2026 to fund the additional cost. Attachment Attachment A: Aerial Illuminations Proposal Attachment B: Aerial Illuminations Contract Page 2 of 1 JRUNh bHUW ?ROPC)SAL 2026 audience, leaving lasting impressions. Whether you're promoting your brand or creating a magical atmosphere for an event, our drone experiences offer a innovative, next -generational approach of storytelling. With 20+ years of experience in sound and lighting, we expanded into the drone experience industry, providing cutting edge drone shows to cities, music festivals, theme parks, and a plethora of other clients. At Aerial Illuminations, we envision our drones as the future of content delivery systems, allowing for stories to be told at heights never before experienced. ® lightupthesky.com CORE TEAM Niro Senanayake 49 President of Aerial Illuminations 1 Grant Reichardt Director of Business Development Norah Wiest Director of Creative Design •.*.:• On -Site Staffing Plan •• •• Drone Show Crew Members O FAA Certified Part 107 Pilot O FAA Certified Part 107 Pilot ( FAA Certified Part 107 Pilot Our crew members are assigned specific roles to monitor the safety protocols throughout the event, including pre-flight checks, coordination with event staff, and real-time monitoring of airspace conditions. Our team always prioritizes both safety and efficiency to deliver a smooth experience for all attendees. ® lightupthesky.com DRONE SHOW EXPERIENCE INCLUDES: O✓ 12-14 Minute Drone Light Show Q✓ Choreographed Audio Synchronized to Show O✓ 3D Animation Approval Prior to Show O Site Survey, Safety Mitigation Meeting OFull Crew (Pilot, Operations, Crew Members) on Event Day O80-100 Hours of Custom Animation Design VALUE ADDED BY DRONE SHOWS Boost of Ticket Sales a. Aerial Illumination's Drone Shows can become unique selling points differentiating an event and providing potential for increased attendance by adding an incredible spectacle to an already great event. Sponsorship Opportunities a. Aerial Illumination's Drone Shows are fully customizable, allowing companies and brands to take advantage of a next generation premium content and advertising delivery system, flying their logos or messages 400 feet in the sky visible to an audience within a 3-4 mile radius. This capability allows the event or festival to subsidize, or even create a revenue stream, with Aerial Illumination's drone shows by packaging the drone show as a premiere sponsorship add on. Social Media & Organic Marketing a.Aerial Illumination's shows are highly shareable, generating free promotion through attendee photos and videos. b.This extends your festival's reach far beyond attendees, and can significantly boost brand awareness. DESIGN CONCEPT We are eager to propose design examples of differing drone amounts, each tailored to deliver a visually captivating experience. Every scene can be fully customized to your ideas and narrative — bringing your vision to life in the sky. Our technology enables us to paint the sky with over one million vibrant color variations. Each formation is meticulously choreographed, featuring smooth transitions and dynamic animations. Additionally, we create a custom audio track synchronized to the formations in the show. The audio track consists of songs and sound effects that align with each scene, offering an enhanced drone light show experience. Please note the storyboard below is an example. Our designs and drone amounts are fully customizable and will be strategically designed to tell your story; a story that is completely customized to your brand, your event, and your ideas. The possibilities are endless when it comes to design, especially when the sky is your canvas. ® lightupthesky.com SAMPLE STORYBOARDS Sample Storyboard - 200 Drones Please note: A full storyboard contains 12-15 images. Sample Storyboard - 300 Drones Please note: A full storyboard contains 10-12 images. Sample Storyboard - 400 Drones Please note: A full storyboard contains 10-12 images. ® lightupthesky.com DESIGN TIMELINE 1. Storyboarding (Initial 2 weeks) - All revisions can be made at this time at no additional cost. a. Collaborative communication with the client about event, theme, their story, ideas, etc. - Initial survey is filled out, in addition to an in -person or Zoom meeting with Director of Creative Design. b. Design team creates storyboard. c. Storyboard is sent over for approval to client. Client and Director of Design will continue communication regarding changes or approval of the storyboard. 2. 2D Mock Ups (2 weeks After Completion of Storyboard) - Revisions can be made during the first week with 2D mockups. Revisions include drone positioning, drone color, light effect, etc. a. Design team begins programming and designing the storyboard within design software. b.Once design is complete, the design is sent over in a PDF document 2D mockups for approval. 3. 3D Rendering (3 weeks after Completion of 2D Mock Ups) - There is an additional cost to make revisions at this time. a. 3D Rendering of the show will be sent over for approval to ensure all motion and movements within the scenes are correct. 4. Full Show Design Files Created (1 Week Before Show Date) ® lightupthesky.com SAFETY STANDARDS Flight Crew Our dedicated crew committed to providing a spectacular and safe show will consist of the following: 1 Director of Operations 1 Pilot in Command 1 Co -Pilot Visual Observers Restricted Zones We require that show dance space (where our drones will fly during the show performance) must be separated from the audience by a distance equal to the maximum height reached by drone show, which is expected to be 400 feet. This space of separation from the audience is titled as the Restricted Zone. All non crew members are excluded from entering the Restricted Zone. This Restricted Zone allows us to best ensure that we are going above and beyond to keep our guests safe and enjoying an incredible show. Visual Observers will man outer restriction area - monitoring airways and restricting on foot access to area. Area surrounding launch grid must operate as a Pre -Flight Restricted Area- where non crew members are barred from entering. This allows for our team and Pilots to focus on show operations without distraction. If possible, we request that the client assist in providing physical barricades to keep the public from entering the Pre -Flight Restricted Area. Test Simulations All shows are ran through our virtual simulations to confirm show design is optimally safe and allowing our operators to virtually prepare for launch day. ® lightupthesky.com SAFETY STANDARDS Drone System Safety & Mechanics Our drones are made by the leading manufacturer specializing in drone shows, and they are the same drones utilized in world records. They have safely conducted over 1 million flights worldwide in the past year. Drones utilize redundant communication system allowing for safe and stable operations with centimeter level accuracy. Geo Fences operate as a contingency to automatically manage drones in the event of abnormal drone behavior to protect the public. Soft Geo Fence • Upon breaching Soft Geo Fence, drone will commence Return to Home action, returning safely to launch grid without interfering with show choreography. Hard Geo Fence • Upon breaching the Hard Geo Fence, drone will commence a Shutdown Switch - immediately landing. Return -to -Home Remote Pilot in Command can commence RTH or Shutdown Switch at any point of the show. Likewise, Remote Pilot can Hold show in place at any point in show. Ensuring Safe Design All drones operate on pre -made path files that have been meticulously tested for optimal safety standards by our designers. We ensure further assurance of safety by submitting these path files to our manufacturer for rigorous reveiw and confirmation. ® lightupthesky.com SAFETY STANDARDS Drone System Software Aerial Illuminations utilizes the industry leading proprietary drone software utilized in world records and shows worldwide. This software allows for precise tracking, communication, and control of our entire drone fleet. Weather Restrictions and Contingency In the event of rain and/or wind gust speeds exceeding safe operational environments, Aerial Illuminations may decide to delay or postpone the show for safety reasons. In the event that weather is an obstacle in completing a safe show, Aerial Illuminations will reschedule the same drone show at no additional cost on a mutually agreed date within a year of the originally planned show. FAA COMPLIANCE FAA Permitting Aerial Illuminations is fully authorized by the FAA to conduct drone light shows, and will handle any additional permits from the FAA and/or local governing bodies to successfully perform safe drone operations. SOUND REQUIREMENTS Aerial Illuminations strivers to provide an incredible drone show that operates as an audio-visual experience. Due to this, we kindly request to utilize the onsite sound systems in order to thrill the audience with an incredible audio synchronized drone experience. If there is no onsite sound system, Aerial Illuminations will provide options for sound support. ® lightupthesky.com TIMELINE Pre -Event Preparation (1-2 Months Before Show Date) • Finalize contract and initial planning process • Begin storyboard design of the drone show (includes close communication between clients and designers) Final -Event Preparation (Month of Show Date) • Submit and receive any necessary city permits • Ensure full compliance with FAA • Conduct on -site testing prior to launch • Conduct 3D rendering of drone formations, address any creative changes at this time (includes programming of show design animations, including visual and motion effects) • Finalize drone show programming (ensures each drone animation will be executed within safe parameters) ® lightupthesky.com PRICING PLAN 2026 DRONE SHOW Aerial Illuminations offers an all-inclusive pricing plan for 2026 drone shows. The provided quotes below will highlight the pricing of 150, 200, 250, and 300 drone packages. Please note, the prices listed below account for all costs that are incurred for the drone show experience. 150 Drone Show Experience 200 Drone Show Experience $20,000 250 Drone Show Experience $231000 300 Drone Show Experience $25,000 All drone packages include (2) Average of 12-14 Minute Drone Light Show Q80-100 Hours of Custom Animation Design (2) Choreographed Audio Synchronized to Show Q✓ 3D Animation Approval Prior to Show Q✓ Site Survey, Safety Mitigation Meeting QFull Crew (Pilot, Operations, Crew Members) on Event Day ® lightupthesky.com THANK YOU.' Thank you for considering our proposal. We are truly excited about the opportunity to bring your vision to life through our innovative drone show experience. Everyone has a story to be told, and we are here to help share yours in the most spectacular way possible —by illuminating the sky with breathtaking displays that captivate and inspire. We hope to move forward together and create a memorable experience that resonates with your audience. Creating Connections Beyond the Stars ® Website �, Phone [E] E-mail lightupthesky.com 888-444-0888 info@lightupthesky.com 0 Social Media O Location @Aerial Illuminations 5306 Empire Church Road, Groveland FL 34736 Oalightuptheskydrones Oalightuptheskydrones •:� :: AERIALILLUMINnTIONS �• IIIUMINRTIONS66 Aerial Illuminations 5306 Empire Church Road Groveland, FL 34736 Bill To Arden Hills (Client) Attachment B Contract Contract Number: C-250265 Contract Date: October 30th, 2025 Event Info Event: Arden Hills 75th Anniversary Venue: Cummings Park Event Start Date: July 17th, 2026 Event End Date: July 17th, 2026 In exchange for the Drone Show Package, Client agrees to pay Aerial Illuminations the Contract Total. Drone Show Package • 12-14 Minute Drone Light Show • Choreographed Audio Synchronized to Show • 3D Animation Approval Prior to Show • 2D Mockup of Logo Provided for Twin Cities Gateway Sponsor • Site Survey, Safety Mitigation Meeting • Full Crew (Pilot, Operations, Crew Members) on Event Day • 80-100 Hours of Custom Animation Design Payment Process: 33% Deposit is due within 7 days of contract signature to confirm date via wire transfer or check. Final Payment Due 7 days prior to launch date via wire transfer or check. Planning process 60 days minimum (30 days rush) 1. Collaborative communication with the client about event, theme, their story, songs & ideas. Logistic planning, site survey planned during this time. 2. Initial survey is filled out, in addition to an in -person or Zoom meeting with Director of Creative Design. Design team creates storyboard. Storyboard is sent over for approval to client. Client and Director of Design will continue communication regarding changes or approval of the storyboard. 3. 2D Mock Ups (2 weeks After Completion of Storyboard) - Revisions can be made during the first week with 2D mockups. Revisions include drone positioning, drone color, light effect, etc. 4. Design team begins programming and designing the storyboard within design software. Once design is complete, the design is sent over in a PDF document 2D mockups for approval. 5. 3D Rendering (3 weeks after Completion of 2D Mock Ups) - There is an additional cost to make revisions at this time. A 3D Rendering of the show will be sent over for approval to ensure all motion and movements within the scenes are correct. "Optional Drone Quantity Increase Client shall have the option to increase the total number of drones for the scheduled show to two hundred (200) drones for a total contracted price of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000). To exercise this option, Client must provide written notice to Contractor no later than April 31, 2026. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor will issue a revised invoice reflecting the updated drone quantity and pricing. Client may also request an increase beyond two hundred (200) drones, subject to mutual agreement between Client and Contractor on the corresponding pricing and terms. All other terms and conditions of this Agreement shall remain unchanged. $15,000 (Base Cost) - $2,500 Discount = $12,500 150 DRONE SHOW TOTAL $12,500.00 CONTRACT TOTAL $12,500.00 Terms of Service Aerial Illuminations shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations holds necessary licenses, permits, and registrations in the performance of the services of this Agreement. Aerial Illuminations shall follow the most current FAA regulations for the commercial operation of drones Insurance Requirements. Aerial Illuminations, at its expense, shall procure and maintain in force for the duration of this Contract the following minimum insurance coverages: A. General Liability. Aerial Illuminations shall maintain Commercial General Liability Insurance in a minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence; $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The policy shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, products -completed operations, personal injury, advertising injury, and contractually assumed liability. The Client must be endorsed as an additional insured. B. Aviation Liability. Aerial Illuminations shall maintain Aircraft Liability Insurance or Unmanned Aircraft (Drone) Liability Insurance in a minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence; $3,000,000 annual aggregate. This policy shall cover liability for bodily injury and property damage arising out of drone operations and must specifically cover unmanned aerial operation including takeoff, flight, and landing. The Client must be endorsed as an additional insured. Launch area (exclusion zone) shall be a sterile environment for Aerial Illumination crew members only. At no time shall client, or any persons enter the exclusion zone. Services Performed 1. Site Survey will be completed in -person or via digital communications with operations director and lead designer of Aerial Illuminations. Launch location, viewing area and safety parameters will be discussed and mitigated during this time. 2. Storyboard Process: Aerial Illuminations shall create a storyboard of Client approved images. The storyboard contains rough sketches or images, or screen captures of all scenes and action notes, which describe the layout of the animations. Aerial Illuminations shall send the storyboard to the Client for feedback and suggestions. Aerial Illuminations will modify the storyboard in accordance with the Client's feedback. Images and order of shapes can be changed for no additional fee during the storyboard process. Music will also be selected for choreography during the show. Show Programing and Animation: After completion of the storyboard process, Aerial Illuminations shall begin the drone show design and animation process in accordance with the storyboard. After the animation and editing process, Aerial Illuminations shall compile each sequence and render a 3D video to the Client. Adjustments to shapes and images will be completed in accordance with the Client's suggestions. Once final mapping has been completed and approved by the Client, any changes to show design will result in a $3,000 reanimation fee. Final Delivery: Aerial Illuminations will perform the 12-14 minute drone Display(s) at the Client's Event. Crew members including Pilot, Operations, Visual Observers and other personnel will arrive at the event at least 5 hours before show time. The Client shall make the Launch area available as early as 12 hrs prior to launch time. Set up, hover testing and flight paths will be programmed along with other safety aspects such as weather and flight pattern monitoring. Client will always have direct contact with Aerial's operation team member. CANCELLATION; CREDIT: Aerial Illuminations shall determine what weather conditions, safety, or security concerns prohibit the show from proceeding with the drone display(s) at the Client's Event. In the case of severe weather conditions including rain, high winds or other weather related factors, Aerial Illuminations may postpone the Display and agrees to conduct the Display on a mutually agreed upon rain/postponement date that is within one year from the original event date (including the same date the following year). This credit allows the same Displav(s) that were originally created for the Client's Event to be used at the rescheduled date. If the Clientrequests any changes made to the originally created design files, then Aerial Illuminations may charge a fee to recreate designs. Should Aerial Illuminations be unable to perform the Display(s) at the Client's Event due to safety or security concerns, as determined by Aerial Illuminations and the Client, or in the case of cancellation by the Client within 60 days of the Event, Aerial Illuminations shall be entitled to 33% of the contract price for each of the workflow processes completed. For example, if Aerial Illuminations has completed the Show Programming workflow, Aerial Illuminations shall be entitled to 66% of the display price (33% for Storyboard, 33% for Show Programing and Animation). Final delivery is deemed to have occurred upon Aerial Illuminations' arrival at the display location on the display date. Aerial Illuminations Representative Name (Typed): Grant Reichardt Signature: Date: 11/3/25 Arden Hills Representative Name (Typed): Signature: Date: CONSENT ITEM - 8D 'It EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 24, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator SUBJECT: 2025-2027 Collective Bargaining Agreement Amendment — IUOE 49, Street and Surface Water Department Lead Memorandum of Understanding Budgeted Amount: Estimated Amount: Funding Source: $3,322 N/A N/A Council Should Consider Motions to approve, table, or deny the following: • 2025-2027 Collective Bargaining Agreement Amendment with the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 for the Street and Surface Water Department Lead Memorandum of Understanding Background On December 16, 2024, the City Council approved the 2025-2027 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 49. Subsequently on February 10, 2025, the City Council approved an amendment to the CBA to include a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Public Works staffing changes, which included the hiring of two Lead positions within the Department. These department organizational changes were originally presented and discussed with the City Council at the August 19, 2024 work session. As part of the 2026 budget discussions, the City Council has directed staff to move forward with partial implementation of Phase II for hiring of a Street and Surface Water Department Lead position within Public Works. Staff has created an MOU and Job Description for this position that mirrors the other two Lead positions within Public Works. This Lead position is anticipated to start January 1, 2026. The Personnel Committee met and has brought forth a recommendation to proceed with implementation. Page 1 of 2 The proposed CBA amendment includes the addition of a MOU for the Lead Worker — Street and Surface Water Department position. Also, language within all three MOU's was amended to state "that Job Descriptions are available upon request by the employee and retained don file with employer". The new and amended MOD's have been included with this memo as Attachment A. All other existing language within the CBA remains the same. The IUOE Local 49 Business Representative has indicated acceptance of the proposed amended agreement. Budget Impact The budget impact for the addition of this position was factored into the proposed 2026 budget, with an additional for Salaries and Benefits totaling $3,322. Attachments Attachment A: Redlined CBA Memorandum of Understandings Attachment B: Job Description Page 2 of 2 Attachment A Memorandum of Understanding Between The City of Arden Hills And I.O.U.E. Local No. 49 This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will be entered into between the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49 (Union) and the City of Arden Hills (Employer) regarding the new "Lead Worker" position in the Parks Department, effective January 1, 2025. It is hereby understood and agreed to between the parties that the following shall apply: 1. Eligibility and Selection: o Selection will be based on an interview process to ensure candidates possess the necessary qualifications and experience. 2. Supervision: o The Lead Worker will report to and be supervised by the Public Works Superintendent. 3. Position Details: o The role will adhere to the established job description (which will be attaGhed to the MQU is available upon request by Employee and retained on file with Employer). o The wages and classification for the position will be included in Appendix A of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). This Memorandum of Understanding shall be in effect until December 31, 2027. In addition, it is understood that this Memorandum of Understanding may be extended by mutual agreement by both parties. As of January 1, 2025, the Letter may be eliminated at the request of either party. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL No. 49 By: Mayor By: _ Interim City Administrator Date: Date: Memorandum of Understanding Between The City of Arden Hills And I.O.U.E. Local No. 49 This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will be entered into between the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49 (Union) and the City of Arden Hills (Employer) regarding the new "Lead Worker" position in the Utilities (Water, Sanitary Sewer) Department, effective January 1, 2025. It is hereby understood and agreed to between the parties that the following shall apply: 1. Eligibility and Selection: o Selection will be based on an interview process to ensure candidates possess the necessary qualifications and experience. 2. Supervision: o The Lead Worker will report to and be supervised by the Public Works Superintendent. 3. Position Details: o The role will adhere to the established job description (which will be ttaGhe d to the MQUis available upon request by the Employee and retained on file by the Employer). o The wages and classification for the position will be included in Appendix A of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). This Memorandum of Understanding shall be in effect until December 31, 2027. In addition, it is understood that this Memorandum of Understanding may be extended by mutual agreement by both parties. As of January 1, 2025, the Letter may be eliminated at the request of either party. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL No. 49 By: Mayor By: Interim City Administrator Date: Date: Memorandum of Understanding Between The City of Arden Hills And I.O.U.E. Local No. 49 This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will be entered into between the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49 (Union) and the City of Arden Hills (Employer) regarding the new "Lead Worker" position in the Street and Surface Water Department, effective January 1, 2026. It is herebv understood and aareed to between the Darties that the followina shall a 1. Eligibility and Selection: o Selection will be based on an interview Drocess to ensure candidates Dossess the necessary qualifications and experience. 2. Supervision: o The Lead Worker will report to and be supervised by the Public Works Superintendent. 3. Position Details: o The role will adhere to the established lob description (which is available upon request bV Employee and retained on file with Employer). o The wages and classification for the position will be included in Appendix A of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). This Memorandum of Understanding shall be in effect until December 31, 2027. In addition, it is understood that this Memorandum of Understanding may be extended by mutual agreement by both parties. As of January 1, 2026, the Letter may be eliminated at the request of either party. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL No. 49 Mayor City Administrator Date: Date: Attachment B -ARkEN HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS POSITION DESCRIPTION Position Title: Lead Worker — STREETS/ SURFACE WATER Department: Public Works Accountable to: Public Works Superintendent Positions Supervised: Public Works Seasonal Employees Status: Reqular Full Time PRIMARY OBJECTIVES Organizes and leads a crew of workers in street and surface water maintenance activities including prioritizing daily work tasks and implementing long range goals concerning the City's roadway infrastructure and surface water. Leads crews in troubleshooting and performing complex maintenance repairs to the City's roadway's and surface water infrastructure. Performs intermediate skilled trades work maintaining and repairing City streets, sanitary and storm sewers, water systems, buildings, parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, trails, recreational facilities, vehicles, machinery, various other equipment, and related duties as apparent or assigned. Work is performed under the moderate supervision of the Public Works Superintendent. QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS To perform this job successfully, an individual must be able to perform each essential function satisfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skill, and/or ability required. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE POSITION Leads a crew of workers in roadway maintenance activities by prioritizing work tasks, determining work methods, and ensuring proper resources are used. Monitors progress and reviews work output and results to determine if standards are met and takes corrective action as needed. Provides technical guidance to Public Works workers and seasonal staff and participates in training efforts. Assists the Public Works Superintendent in developing work schedules and the Annual Public Works Maintenance Plan. Provides recommendations to the Public Works Superintendent for the hiring of seasonal employees. Works with outside contractors and oversees and directs their work. Dispatches employees during Public Works emergencies as directed by the Superintendent. Enforces safety rules and procedures as outlined in the employee safety manual, OSHA rules and other applicable regulations. Ability to assist with other divisions Lead Worker duties in their absence. Works with City staff to develop short and long term roadway and surface water infrastructure goals. Participates in discussions related to the City's pavement rating system a roadway CIP. Makes recommendations for the preparation of budget items related to the City's roadway infrastructure, including tools and equipment. Assists with purchasing responsibilities by researching product information, making comparisons based on price, quality and specifications, and making recommendations. Ensures proper maintenance and repairs of tools and equipment used to maintain the City's roadway and surface water infrastructure. Coordinates with the Fleet Lead for repairs. Maintains and repairs City streets including blacktop patching, asphalt paving, street sweeping, and debris removal. Performs all the essential functions of a Public Works Worker. Participates in a 24 hour, 7 day on -call rotation providing first response for emergencies that occur during non - staffed hours. EDUCATION and/or EXPERIENCE High school diploma or GED and moderate experience, or equivalent combination of education and experience. Hands on experience of 8 years or more in the streets and surface water maintenance field. Supervisory experience is preferred but not required. KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES Some knowledge of the tools, materials and equipment used in general construction and maintenance work; some knowledge of safety precautions applicable to the duties of the class; ability to understand and follow oral and written instructions; ability to use common hand tools; ability to operate machinery and equipment; ability to perform manual labor for extended periods often under unfavorable weather conditions; ability to establish and maintain an effective working relationship with the public and associates. Must have a basic knowledge of mobile applications and the ability to navigate on a smart phone. PHYSICAL DEMANDS This work requires the regular exertion of up to 25 pounds of force, frequent exertion of up to 50 pounds of force and occasional exertion of over 100 pounds of force; work regularly requires standing, walking, speaking or hearing, using hands to finger, handle or feel, climbing or balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching or crawling, reaching with hands and arms, tasting or smelling, pushing or pulling, lifting and repetitive motions and occasionally requires sitting; work requires close vision, distance vision, ability to adjust focus, depth perception, color perception, night vision and peripheral vision; vocal communication is required for expressing or exchanging ideas by means of the spoken word and conveying detailed or important instructions to others accurately, loudly or quickly; hearing is required to perceive information at normal spoken word levels and to receive detailed information through oral communications and/or to make fine distinctions in sound; work requires preparing and analyzing written or computer data, visual inspection involving small defects and/or small parts, using of measuring devices, assembly or fabrication of parts within arms -length, operating machines, operating motor vehicles or equipment and observing general surroundings and activities; work regularly requires working near moving mechanical parts, exposure to fumes or airborne particles, exposure to outdoor weather conditions and exposure to extreme heat (non -weather), frequently requires exposure to wet, humid conditions (non -weather), exposure to the risk of electrical shock and exposure to vibration and occasionally requires working in high, precarious places, exposure to toxic or caustic chemicals, exposure to extreme cold (non -weather) and exposure to blood -borne pathogens and may be required to wear specialized 2 personal protective equipment; work is generally in a loud noise location (e.g. grounds maintenance, heavy traffic). SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Valid driver's license. Possess or obtain a Class A driver's license within six months. Possess or obtain an MPCA Class SC Wastewater license and MDH Class D Water Operator license within two years. SELECTION GUIDELINES Formal application, rating of education and experience; oral interview and reference check; job related tests may be required. The duties listed above are intended only as illustrations of the various types of work that may be performed. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude them from the position if the work is similar, related or a logical assignment to the position. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY The City of Arden Hills does not discriminate on the basis of handicapped status in the admission or access to or treatment or employment in its programs and activities. 0 CONSENT ITEM - 8E ,!r, -`iIVEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 24, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator SUBJECT: Interim Policies — Flexible Scheduling and Dress for Your Day Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Motions to approve, table, or deny the following: • The proposed interim policies regarding flexible scheduling and dress for your day effective from the date of approval through December 31, 2026. Discussion On September 25, 2023, the City Council approved interim policies relating to flexible scheduling and dress for your day at City Hall through December 31, 2024. On October 28, 2024, these policies were extended another year through December 31, 2025. Since implementation, city staff has utilized both interim policies, and several employees have approved flexible schedules. Department Directors feel this has been successful and there have been no complaints or issues with maintaining city services. Based on this, the Personnel Committee has recommended the interim policies remain in -effect for another year. There are no proposed changes to the interim policies. Next fall, City Staff will review these changes and make a recommendation to the Personnel Committee and City Council on whether or not to make the changes permanent, additional changes, or to remove the policies all together. At any time, either of these interim policies may be revoked by the City Council or City Administrator without prior notice. The language for the interim policies is below: Flexible Scheduling To ensure employee availability and accountability to the public the City serves, all full-time employees (exempt and non-exempt) are to be at work or available to the public and co-workers during the hours of 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., at least four days per week, unless away from the work site for a work -related activity or on approved leave. Employees choosing to work a schedule other than the typical schedule (i.e. City Hall's normal operating hours) must have written approval from their Page 1 of 2 supervisor and Department Head. Alternate schedules may include but are not limited to: eight hour days differing from the normal operating hours, four nine -hour days with one half day, or four ten- hour days. Employees with either a half or full day off according to their flexible schedule should not expect that their day off will be Monday or Friday. Schedules will be approved based on the needs of the City, and not all employees will be eligible to work a schedule other than the normal City Hall operating hours. An employee's supervisor, Department Head, or the City Administrator may cancel any or all flexible scheduling at any time. Dress For Your Day Dress For Your Day policy allows for non -uniformed employees to use their best judgment when deciding what to wear to work every day, with some basic guidelines. The idea is each employee should consider what their workday looks like and dress accordingly. For example, employees are allowed to wear casual clothing on workdays when they do not have meetings with residents or other outside third parties. Employees are still expected to wear clothing appropriate for an office environment, and traditional business attire is always acceptable. There may be days when residents or visitors are expected at City facilities and all staff may be required to forgo Dress For Your Day and be required to wear business causal or business attire. These days will be announced in advance so employees can plan accordingly. In all instances, clothing and appearance must be neat, clean, not ripped, not heavily frayed or worn, and not expose an excessive amount of skin. Employees are allowed to wear jeans clean and free of rips, tears, fraying and not excessively tight or revealing. The following are examples of clothing and shoe choices that are never acceptable, but it is not an exhaustive list. When in doubt, consult with Administration. • Clothing and/or accessories including offensive/inappropriate images or words, including images/words that are discriminatory or sexual • Sweatpants, yoga pants and other exercise apparel • Leggings unless combined with a top that reaches at least mid -thigh • Beach wear • Overalls • Very short skirts • Shirts with writing or large logos (unless City or affiliated business organization logo) • Spaghetti -strap tops or dresses unless covered by a jacket or sweater • Crop tops, tank tops, halter tops or any clothing showing midriffs • Sheer or revealing clothing • Sports jerseys (unless part of a planned employee event) • Flip-flops, house slippers, moccasins, Crocs shoes Budget Impact N/A Attachment N/A Page 2 of 2 CONSENT ITEM - 8F It -fi II��EN_ HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 24, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator SUBJECT: Authorization to Recruit for the Street and Surface Water Lead position Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $3,322 Within Budget Various Funds (Union Agreement) Council Should Consider Motions to approve, table, or deny the following: • Recruit for the Street and Surface Water Lead position. Background As part of the 2026 budget discussions, the City Council has given direction to proceed with Public Works staffing changes which included the hiring of a Street Lead position within the Department. These department organizational changes were originally presented and discussed with the City Council at the August 19, 2024 work session. Primary duties of the Street and Surface Water Lead: • Lead the day-to-day activities • Plan work within their division from week -to -week Implement division tasks outlined in the Public Works Maintenance Plan Quality control Assists in the preparation of the Public Works Maintenance Plan The Lead position will allow for more detailed maintenance/repair information to be prepared for each division to put Public Works in a "proactive" maintenance state and allows them to get away from being "reactive". All Maintenance Workers and Leads are still required to be cross -trained and supplement labor needs in all divisions. The Memorandum of Understanding and pay scale for the Lead position was approved as part of the 2025-2027 Collective Bargaining Agreement Amendment — IUOE 49 under agenda item 8D. Page l of 2 As previously mentioned, this Lead position will not add to the current staffing numbers within the Public Works Department. Rather this position will be internally posted for recruitment to the current Public Works Maintenance employees and essentially transition one Maintenance Worker position to a Lead Maintenance Worker. Anticipated process: -Council approves authorization to begin the internal recruitment process -Staff posts for the position internally -Staff reviews applications and selects interview candidates and selects a finalist -Staff will bring forward a finalist for official Council approval Councilmembers have previously expressed an interest in being part of the interview panel for certain positions at City Hall; currently no Councilmembers are slated to be on the interview panel for this position. Should Council want to designate Councilmembers to attend, they should do so with this authorization (it would need to be pulled from consent and approved). Budget Impact The Lead position is included in the proposed 2026 Budget, with Salary and Benefits adding an additional $3,322 for promotion of a Maintenance Worker to the Lead position, which was approximated to start on January 1st, 2026. Attachments Page 2 of 2 CONSENT ITEM - 8G It -fi II��EN_ HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 24, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator SUBJECT: Arden Hills Strategic Plan Summary Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Motions to approve, table, or deny the following: • Adoption of the City of Arden Hills Strategic Plan Summary Background On May 12, 2025, the City Council approved an agreement with Hue Life for strategic planning services. Three work sessions were held in 2025, facilitated by Hue Life, with City Council and Department Heads, to develop a strategic plan for goal setting, planning, and budgeting purposes. Hue Life was given a focus aimed at organizational strategic planning services that was intended to: Develop a 3-year shared vision of success. Establish clear goals and objectives for the next 2-3 years. Identify Strategic Initiatives for year 1. The City received a strategic plan summary of key findings, objectives, goals and action plans for implementation steps (Attachment A). The City Council is being asked to adopt the City of Arden Hills Strategic Plan Summary. As part of this planning process, Council and staff developed a 2-year timeline for strategic directions and first year action items. Staff will be bringing forth certain action items for further direction on strategic initiatives throughout 2026. Budget Impact N/A Attachments Attachment A — Arden Hills Strategic Plan Summary Page 1 of 1 Attachment A CITY OF ARDEN HILLS -AEN HILLS STRATEGIC PLANNING SUMMARY - Mission Statement To serve Arden Hills residents and businesses by fostering a vibrant, connected and sustainable community. Lake Va Core Values Community Vitality We support thriving neighborhoods and a strong local economy through community - based planning. Responsible Stewardship We maintain assets, manage financial resources wisely and protect our natural environment. Integrity in Service We are committed to transparent, accountable and responsive governance. Cummings Park '� ,ARZENHILLS 3 Year Vision Over the next three years, we envision Arden Hills operating sustainably and meeting the evolving needs of its community. The City Council and Staff have agreed to the following results to be in place by 2028: • Defined Community Identity • Effective and Productive Partnerships • Parks System Plan is Actively Utilized as a Living Document • Constructed Hwy 10 Trail and Financial Commitment to Lake Johanna Blvd Trail • Defined and Addressed Evolving Staff Needs • Effective Financial Stewardship • A High Standard of Critical Public Infrastructure Maintained • Completed Proposed Plans for Development and Maintenance 2 Year Strategic Directions and First Year Actions To achieve the three-year vision of success, the following focused areas of action, also referred to as strategic directions, were established along with specific priorities that will be implemented in year one. Enhancing Our Identity & Strengthening Our Partnerships Goals 2026 Priorities Clear city boundaries, increased business participation and improved communication reach • Expand Adopt a Park (and sponsorship program) • Communication assessment and improvement plan • EDC approved work plan -AIEN HILLS Investing in Natural Environment, Parks, Trails and Recreational Opportunities Goals 2026 Priorities Hw 10 Trail completed,l0-year parks implementation strategy, funding identified for Lake Johanna Blvd Trail, improved invasive species management • Invasive species educational plan • Complete Parks System Plan and project prioritization • Identify parks plan funding opportunities Preparing Our Organization for Potential Service Growth Goals 2026 Priorities Staff equipped with modern • Staff needs assessment complete technology, increased operational • Technology needs assessment efficiency • Explore alternative funding sources -AIEN HILLS Reviewing and Updating Our Policies to Support Community Development Initiatives Goals 2026 Priorities Rice Creek Commons development . Develop ADU policy underway, housing maintenance policy . Identify developers for Rice Creek in place, vacant properties repurposed, Commons data points available for major decisions . Complete Zoning ordinance overhaul • Conduct City owned land discussion • Redevelopment plan for vacant properties • Rental review • Implement encroachment policy -AIEN HILLS CONSENT ITEM - 8H -ARVE_-HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 24, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator FROM: Jake Reilly, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Tokle Inspections, Inc. Electrical Inspection Agreement Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: Council Should Consider Motions to approve, table, or deny the following: Agreement for professional services for electrical inspection services with Tokle Inspections, Inc. Background/Discussion The City Council has historically contracted with Coon Rapids -based Tokle Inspections, Inc. (Tokle) to provide technical and professional assistance in connection with electrical inspection services based on the Minnesota State Building Code. In 2025 Tokle established a new fee schedule, adopted as part of the city's annual fee schedule that better aligns commercial electrical permit rates to be more proportional to the project. Earlier this year, the founder, Pete Tokle, expressed an intent to retire and turn the business and operations over to his son. City staff are satisfied with the service provided by Tokle and wish to enter into a new services agreement with Tokle. Because the city's contract with Tokle was quite dated, the city attorney has provided a new draft contract (Attachment A). Surrounding municipalities have done the same. As described in the November 10 Council Agenda item reviewing the proposed fee schedule for 2026, Tokle has increased pricing for both commercial and residential items which are reasonable increases comparatively to surrounding cities. The city will continue to receive 20% of the permit revenue and Tokle will receive the remaining 80 percent. Attachments Attachment A: Draft professional services contract with Tokle Inspections with exhibits Page l of 1 Attachment A AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and executed this day of , 2025, by and between the City of Arden Hills, 1245 W. Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, ("City") and Tokle Inspections, Inc., 1748 123rd Avenue NW, Coon Rapids, Minnesota 55448 ("Consultant"). WHEREAS, the City has accepted the proposal of the Consultant for certain professional services; and WHEREAS, Consultant desires to perform the services for the City under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual consideration contained herein, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1. SERVICES. a. City agrees to engage Consultant as an independent contractor for the purpose of performing certain professional Services ("Services"), as defined as follows: i. Provide on -site electrical inspection services based on Minnesota State Building Code requirements for each commercial and residential permit submitted to the City. ii. Retain a copy of each commercial and residential electrical permit and all records and correspondence related to each permit. All records maintained by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be available to the City upon request. b. Consultant covenants and agrees to provide the Services to the satisfaction of the City in a timely fashion, subject to Section 7 of this Agreement. c. Consultant agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the Services to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that it has the requisite training, skills, and experience necessary to provide the Services and is appropriately licensed and has obtained all permits from all applicable agencies and governmental entities. 2. PAYMENT. a. City agrees to pay and Consultant agrees to receive and accept payment for Services at eighty percent (80%) of the permit fees as set forth in Exhibits A and B. b. Any changes in the scope of the work of the Services that may result in an increase to the compensation due to the Consultant shall require prior written approval by the authorized representative of the City or by the City Council. The City will not pay additional compensation for Services that do not have prior written authorization. c. Consultant is required to submit itemized bills for Services provided to the City on a monthly basis. Bills submitted shall be paid in the same manner as other claims made to City. 3. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date listed in the initial paragraph of this Agreement and shall continue until terminated pursuant to Section 4 herein. 4. TERMINATION. a. Termination by Either Party. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days' written notice delivered to the other party to the addresses listed in Section 13 of this Agreement. Upon termination under this provision, if there is no default by the Consultant, Consultant shall be paid for Services rendered and reimbursable expenses incurred until the effective date of termination. b. Termination Due to Default. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The non -performing party shall have fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of the termination notice to cure or to submit a plan for cure that is acceptable to the other party. 5. SUBCONTRACTORS. Consultant shall not enter into subcontracts for any of the Services provided for in this Agreement without the express written consent of the City. Consultant shall pay any subcontractor involved in the performance of this Agreement within ten (10) days of the Consultant's receipt of payment by the City for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. 6. STANDARD OF CARE. In performing its Services, Consultant will use that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable members of its profession in the same locality at the time the Services are provided. No warranty, express or implied, is made or intended by Consultant's undertaking herein or its performance of Services. PA 7. DELAY IN PERFORMANCE. Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the nonperforming party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include, but are not limited to, abnormal weather conditions; floods; earthquakes; fire; epidemics; war, riots, and other civil disturbances; strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns, and other labor disturbances; sabotage; judicial restraint; and inability to procure permits, licenses or authorizations from any local, state, or federal agency for any of the supplies, materials, accesses, or services required to be provided by either City or Consultant under this Agreement. If such circumstances occur, the nonperforming party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented from performing, give written notice to the other party describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume performance of this Agreement. Consultant will be entitled to payment for its reasonable additional charges, if any, due to the delay. 8. INDEMNIFICATION. a. Consultant and City each agree to indemnify, and hold harmless each other, its agents and employees, from and against legal liability for all claims, losses, damages, and expenses to the extent such claims, losses, damages, or expenses are caused by its negligent acts, errors, or omissions. In the event claims, losses, damages, or expenses are caused by the joint or concurrent negligence of Consultant and City, they shall be borne by each party in proportion to its own negligence. b. Consultant shall indemnify City against legal liability for damages arising out of claims by Consultant's employees. City shall indemnify Consultant against legal liability for damages arising out of claims by City's employees. 9. INSURANCE. During the performance of the Services under this Agreement, Consultant shall maintain the following insurance: a. General Liability Insurance, with a limit of $2,000,000 for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence. b. Professional Liability Insurance, with a limit of $2,000,000 for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence. c. Workers' Compensation Insurance in accordance with statutory requirements. d. Automobile Liability Insurance, with a combined single limit of $2,000,000. 3 Consultant shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance, which shall include a provision that such insurance shall not be canceled without written notice to the City. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the General Liability Insurance policy. 10. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. Professional documents, drawings, and specifications prepared by the Consultant as part of the Services shall become the property of the City when Consultant has been compensated for all Services rendered, provided, however, that Consultant shall have the unrestricted right to their use. Consultant shall retain its rights in its standard drawing details, specifications, databases, computer software, and other proprietary property. Rights to proprietary intellectual property developed, utilized, or modified in the performance of the Services shall remain the property of the Consultant. 11. NOTICES. Notices shall be communicated to the following addresses: If to City: City of Arden Hills 1245 W. Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Attention: City Administrator Or emailed: JJagoe@cityofardenhills.org If to Consultant: Tokle Inspections, Inc., 1748 123rd Avenue NW Coon Rapids, MN 55448 Attention: Stephen Tokle Or emailed: stevetokleinsp@hotmail.com 12. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS. All services provided by Consultant, its officers, agents and employees pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided as employees of Consultant or as independent contractors of Consultant and not as employees of the City for any purpose. 13. GENERAL PROVISIONS. a. Assignment. This Agreement is not assignable without the mutual written agreement of the parties. b. Waiver. A waiver by either City or Consultant of any breach of this Agreement shall be in writing. Such a waiver shall not affect the waiving parry's rights with respect to any other or further breach. 2 c. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and any action must be venued in Ramsey County District Court. d. Amendments. Any modification or amendment to this Agreement shall require a written agreement signed by both parties. e. Severability. If any term of this Agreement is found be void or invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining terms of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect. f. Data Practices Compliance. All data collected by the City pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. g. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior communications, understandings and agreements relating to the subject matter hereof, whether oral or written. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS BY: David Grant, Mayor By: Julie Hanson, City Clerk Date: W1 TOKLE INSPECTIONS, INC. ("CONSULTANT") Signature: Name: Its: Date: Commercial Electrical Permit: Effective: 1/1/26 $50 ($60) per trip or the fees below, whichever is greater — Solar fees are the same as residential solar fees Description Fee Calculation Permit Fee Valuation $1 to $1,000 $50.00 ($60.00) Per trip Valuation $1,001 to $2,000 $50.00 ($60.00) for the first $1,000 plus $3.25 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000 Valuation $2,001 to $25,000 $82.00 for the first $2,000 plus $14.85 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000 Valuation $25,001 to $50,000 $423.55 for the first $25,000 plus $10.70 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000 Valuation $50,001 to $100,000 $691.05 for the first $50,000 plus $7.45 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000 Valuation $100,001 to $500,000 $1,063.55 for the first $100,000 plus $6 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000 Valuation $500,001 to $1,000,000 $3,463.55 for the first $500,000 plus $5.10 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000 Valuation $1,000,001 and up $6,013.55 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Reinspection fee (in addition to all other fees) $50.00 ($60.00) Investigative fee (working without permit) the fee is doubled Refunds issued only for permits over: $100.00 ($120.00) State Surcharge is .0005 times the project value: $ Total Permit Fee Submitted: $ Minimum fee permits expire in 6 months. Permits over the minimum fee and up to $250.00 ($1,000) expire in 12 months from the filing date. A service charge of $35.00 will be added for all dishonored checks. RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES (SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, APARTMENTS, ASSISTED LIVING, and CONDOMINIUMS) Effective: 1/1/2026 HOMEOWNERS AND CONTRACTORS: Complete an electrical permit form available from the Building Inspections Division. Add $1.00 for State surcharge to total cost of each permit. The fee is the total of the listed fees or the total number of inspection trips x $50.00($60.00), whichever is greater. Residential panel replacement is $110.00 ($125.00), sub panel $50.00 ($75.00). New service or power supply is: 0 to 300 Amp $55.00 ($75.00) 400 Amp $71.00 ($100.00) Add $16.00 ($25.00) for each additional 100 amps Minimum Fee: Minimum permit fee is $50.00 ($60.00) plus $1.00 State surcharge. This is for one inspection only. Minimum fee for rough -in and final inspection is $100.00 ($120.00) plus $1.00 State surcharge. Apartment Buildings Circuits and Feeders 0-100 Amp $9.00 ($12.00) 101-200Amp $15.00($20.00 Add $6.00 ($10.00) for each additional 100 amps Maximum Fee: (Dwelling Fees:) Fee for single family dwelling or townhouse not over 200 amps (and up to 25 circuits)(Additional circuits are $12.00/ea) (Ne may, if 200AFRps)is $200.00 plus(is $225.00 plus) $1.00 State surcharge. Maximum of 2 rough-in's and 1 final inspection. (Failed inspections are an additional $50.00 each)($60.00/each) Fee per unit of an apartment or condominium complex is $90.00 ($110.00). This does not cover service, unit feeders or house panels, (and includes up to 15 circuits per unit) Swimming Pools and Hot Tubs Additions, Remodels or Basement Finishes Residential Accessory Structures Street and Parking Lot Lights Transformers and Generators Retrofit Lighting Sign T-Fansfer-mer ar Drive Low voltage fire alarm, low voltage heating and air conditioning control wiring Residing jobs Re -Inspection Fee in addition to all other fees $100.00 ($120.00) plus circuits at $9.00/each ($12.00/each). This includes 2 inspections. $100.00 ($120.00) this include up to 10 circuits and 2 inspections The Greater of $55.00($75.00) for panel plus $9.00($12.00) per circuit or $100($120.00) for 2 inspections. $5.00($10.00) per each standard $5 up to 10kva, $45($55)11 to 74kva, $60($70) 75kva to 299kva, over 299kva is $165($175) $0.85 cents($1.00) per fixture $1.00 per device $50 ($60.00) $50.00($60.00) Solar fees: Okw to 5kw = $90($100) 5.1 kw to 10kw = $150($165) 10.1 kw to 20kw = $225($245) 20.1 kw to 30kw = $300($330) 30.1 kw to 40kw = $375($410) 40.1 kw and larger is $375($410) plus $25 for each additional 10kw Electronic inspection fee for these items only; furnace, air conditioning, bath fan, fireplace or receptacle for water heater vent is $40. Refunds must be requested in writing. No refunds unless more than the minimum fee. Refunds are minus the cities handling fee. THE PERMIT FEE IS DOUBLED IF THE WORK STARTS BEFORE THE PERMIT IS ISSUED. Minimum fee permits expire in 6 months. Permits over the minimum fee and up to $250($1,000) expire in 1 year. CONSENT ITEM - 8I r -ARPEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 24, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator FROM: David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: Floral Park Berm Outlet Right of Entry Agreement — Rice Creek Watershed District Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Motions to approve, table, or deny the following: Right of Entry Acknowledgement and Limited Use Agreement with Rice Creek Watershed District for the maintenance and repair of the surface water berm located within Floral Park. Background In the 1970's the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) constructed a surface water berm within Floral Park to control flooding and improve water quality within the District. Through inspections, the RCWD staff have determined that the berm requires maintenance and repair. The RCWD has requested that City enter into this Agreement acknowledging the District's Right of Entry for the purpose of inspecting and maintaining the District Facility. Attachments Attachment A — RCWD Right of Entry Agreement Page 1 of 1 Attachment A RIGHT OF ENTRY ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND LIMITED LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered by the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota ("City") and the Rice Creek Watershed District ("District"), effective upon execution by the City as dated below. The City and the District may be collectively referred to as the Parties. RECITALS: A. City is the owner of a parcel of property (Parcel Identification Number 223023340052), commonly known as Floral Park, located off of Floral Drive W within the City (the "Property"). B. The District, pursuant to its authority under Minnesota Statutes, section 103D.730, has constructed a berm located within the Property (the "District Facility"). The District Facility is designed to control flooding and improve water quality throughout the District. C. The District Facility needs maintenance and will need future inspection and maintenance (the "Work"). The Property provides necessary, reasonable, and convenient access to the District Facility to do the Work. D. City and the District have agreed that the District may enter and occupy the Property to complete the Work on the District Facility, as depicted on the attached Exhibit A. E. The District has requested that City enter into this Agreement acknowledging the District's right of entry for the purpose of inspecting and maintaining the District Facility. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City and District agree as follows: AGREEMENT: 1. RIGHT OF ENTRY. The City hereby acknowledges District's right of entry to the Property for the purpose of completing the Work, as depicted on the attached Exhibit A. Further, the City represents that it has the authority to acknowledge the right of entry and no other person may deny such entry. 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement is from the date of execution of the Agreement in perpetuity. Either Party may terminate this Agreement by writing, effective thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice. In the event the City desires to sell or otherwise relinquish ownership of the Property, the City shall inform the District in writing at least ninety (90) days prior to the modification of ownership and shall inform the potential new owner of the Property in writing of this Agreement and the District's interest in the Work at least ninety (90) days before the signing over title to the potential new owner. 3. DISTRICT RETAINS DISCRETION. The District will complete so much of the Work as it deems necessary in its discretion under District policies and as required by Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103D. City agrees that the District is not committing to any ongoing maintenance or other obligations on the Property as a result of completing the Work. It is understood that the District Page 1 of 5 4922-5966-1683, v. 1 and its employees, consultants, and contractors will restore the portions of the Property affected by the Work to a condition as nearly equal as possible to the condition which existed prior. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed on the part of the District as a waiver of common law and statutory immunities, or limits on liability pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. 4. DISTRICT RETAINS STATUTORY RIGHTS. The City acknowledges the District's right of entry pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103D regardless of this Agreement or lack of any agreement. The City acknowledges that the District retains a reasonable right of entry to access the District Facility. The City and the District acknowledge that the purpose of this Agreement is to outline the agreed upon pathway and mechanism for the District to do the Work. 5. COORDINATION WITH CITY. The District acknowledges that the right of entry shall be exercised reasonably. The City acknowledges that the District may enter the Property without notice. The District shall coordinate with the City and its staff to identify and limit the scope of its work to, included but not limited to, the preservation of certain trees or other resources of importance to the City when the right of entry is exercised for the purpose of repairing or maintaining the District Facility. At least 48 hours prior to entry or commencing any work on the Property, the District shall notify Arden Hills Public Works of the intended entry or work. 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REASONABLENESS. The City acknowledges that the entry upon the Property pursuant to this agreement is reasonable and, so long as executed pursuant to this agreement and in a manner consistent with the plan for the Work, shall not create a claim for damages related to the entry. [SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW] Page 2 of 5 4922-5966-1683, v. 1 SIGNATURE PAGE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA Signature: Print Name: Phone Number: Email: RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT Signature: Print Name: Phone Number: �-\ - 39 �? - .30 ? Q Email: E-:k - �' ��l Effective Date: , 20 Page 3 of 5 4922-5966-1683, v. 1 EXHIBIT A Page 4 of 5 4922-5966-1683, v. 1 ra.a 4922-5966-1683, v. 1 Page 5 of 5 NEW BUSINESS -11A ,!Tt EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 24, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator FROM: Elena Fransen, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #25-010 — No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Dan Ashbach Property Location: 1580 Oak Avenue, 1578 Oak Avenue, and 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd Request: Minor Subdivision Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Motion to approve, table, or deny the following: Adoption of Resolution 2025-073 for Planning Case 25-010 to allow a Minor Subdivision for properties located at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd ("Subject Property A"), 1580 Oak Avenue ("Subject Property B") and 1578 Oak Avenue ("Subject Property C"). Dan Ashbach ("The Applicant") proposes adjusting the shared lot lines to split a portion of Subject Property C to be consolidated with Subject Property A. No new lots would be created as part of the Minor Subdivision. Background 1. Site Conditions The subject properties are adjacent properties with shared property lines. Subject Properties B and C are both owned by the Applicant. Subject Properties A and B are developed with single-family residential dwellings. Subject Property C does not have a single-family residential dwelling but there are several improvements on the property, including a detached garage, tennis court, and driveway, all of which are used by the Applicant in association with Subject Property B. Subject Property A, which was developed with no public street frontage, is accessible by way of a driveway easement to Lake Johanna Boulevard. Subject Property B has property frontage on Lake Page 1 of 10 Johanna Boulevard, but the property is accessible from Oak Avenue by a driveway that is located on both Subject Properties B and C. _ 08, the Applicant submitted a land use application to update and expand the detached garage 1 Gated on Subject Property C. The City deemed the application incomplete until the property lines were replatted or subdivided, with the garage being platted on the same lot as the primary structure to which it is accessory. The Applicant withdrew the application and did not pursue the minor subdivision at that time. The existing property lines are shown below in Figure 1. Figure 1. Existing Subject Properties Existing Subject Property C .. Existing Subject Property B ' S Existing Subject Property A NORTH cWHK acid 1 3 2. Overview of Request The Minor Subdivision is requested to allow for the alteration of the property lines between the Subject Properties A and C. The alterations would split a portion of Subject Property C that would then be consolidated with Subject Property A, the result of which is an increase in Subject Property A's lot area and a decrease in Subject Property C's lot area. No future development is included with the request. The proposed Minor Subdivision does not include a proposal to create new lots and would not include new uses on the lots. Although the lot shown as Subject Property C could be sold, and/or subdivided in the future, any such future proposed development would be subject to zoning and building requirements and would undergo further review. The proposed future lot lines and lot areas to be changed are shown below. Page 2 of 10 tligure 2. i—roposea mbjectvroperties 7 mn� M Q --Q--------QR L —Y Proposed 1613 if K. Lake Johanna Blvd 7� swarm F I" V Existing and Proposed 1578 proposed 1580 Oak Avenue Oak Avenue ii 9"qo LAO Figure 3. Lot area impacted by lot line adjustment GRMMW_� WIN; Subject Property C lot area to be added to Subject Property A 4PARK SCALC 0 Page 3 of 10 The Applicant's request is to change the shared lot line between Subject Property A and Subject Property C, resulting in a RR ne adjustment. This change would allocate 43,838 additional square feet to Subject Property A from Subject Property C. The Applicant intends to sell the area from Subject Property C to the neighbor at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, to be combined with the existing lot. As part of the land use application, the property owner of 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd states in a letter that he will purchase the land from the Applicant and combine it with the existing property. He states that there is no plan for improvements to the area. He intends to remove buckthorn and dead trees in the area and may look into building a garage or outbuilding in the future. Any potential accessory structure(s) contemplated in the future would be subject to zoning and building permit application requirements, depending on the proposed size. This request does not create new nor remedies existing legal nonconformities and therefore no variance application is required. The Applicant's initial request included adjusting the lot lines between Subject Property B and Subject Property C. Based on the staff report and review prepared, adjusting the lot lines between Subject Properties B and C would fail to sufficiently correct the existing nonconformities and would create an additional new nonconformity, requiring variances to the Minor Subdivision requirements. In consultation with the City Attorney and the Applicant, the request for the lot line adjustment related to Subject Property B and Subject Property C has been withdrawn from consideration. No changes are proposed for Subject Property B. 3. Site Data All subject properties are zoned R-1 — Single Family Residential District and are guided as Low Density Residential (LDR) in the 2040 Land Use Plan. 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 Lot Size: 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd (Subject Property A): 16,452 SF 1580 Oak Avenue (Subject Property B): 65,481 SF 1578 Oak Avenue Subject Property C : 216,788 SF 4. Approvals The City Council is asked to determine whether a minor subdivision request should be granted. The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the requirements of Chapter 11 — Subdivisions and Chapter 13 — Zoning Code, District Provisions in Section 1320. The Planning Commission recommended approval to the Council at the November 5, 2025, meeting. The applicable requirements and evaluations of the proposed subdivision are addressed in the next section. Page 4 of 10 Plan Evaluation Chapter 11, Subdivisions Regulations Review 1. 1150.04 Division or Consolidation of Platted Lots of Record The application is to divide one or more existing platted lots designated in a subdivision plat on file and of record in the office of the recorder or registrar of titles for the county, into one or more separately described parcels. While the minor subdivision request does not create new lots, the request further divides the subject properties. The Application is subject to compliance with the conditions for Survey, Relation to Zoning Ordinance, Public Welfare, Conformity, and Filing Fee. The application meets the requirements for these conditions except Conformity, which requires that the proposed division shall conform to such other requirements in the Subdivision chapter of the City Code. The proposed adjustment does not bring Subject Property A into full conformance with the Subdivision code as it relates to lot location on a public street. However, the lot line adjustment does not increase any nonconformity beyond the existing nonconformities. Location — Legal, existing nonconforming; no proposed change All lots are required to abut by their full frontage on a public street. Subject Property C has frontage on Oak Avenue and Lake Johanna Boulevard and would be considered a corner lot with the front lot line being along Oak Avenue. The existing Subject Property A does not have any frontage on a public street and is accessible by a driveway easement from Lake Johanna Blvd. The Applicant's request would not change this, nor would it create another lot that would not have full frontage on a public street. Subject Property B has frontage on Lake Johanna Blvd, but the property does not have direct access to this roadway, and the front building line of the principal structure is oriented toward Oak Avenue. Lake Johanna Blvd is a county road and is identified as a community street in the Subdivision code and as a collector street in the Zoning Code. Section 1325.06 of the Zoning Code requires single-family dwellings to provide two (2) off-street parking spaces and all off-street parking spaces shall have access driveways and access directly to public streets. Any residential lot, with frontage on both a local street and a collector street must access the property only from the local street. Based on the code requirements, Subject Property B is required to be accessed from a local street, in this case the requirement is met by the access from Oak Avenue. Size — Meets Requirements All lots are required to meet the minimum lot dimensions and lot area required by the Zoning Code. The minimum lot area in the R-1 District is 14,000 square feet. The minimum lot width is 95 feet and the minimum depth is 130 feet. The subject properties will comply with the minimum lot area, width, and depth in the R-1 District, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 below. Table 1. Lot Area for Subiect Proberties R-1 Existing Proposed Requirements Subject Property A 14,000 square feet 16,452 square feet 60,290 square feet Subject Property C 216,788 square feet 172,950 square feet Page 5 of 10 Table 2. Lot Width and Depth R-1 Requirements Existing Minimums Proposed Minimums Subject 112.5 ft1150 ft 112.5 ft1150 ft Property A 95 feet/130 feet Subject 139.49/348.89 ft 139.49/348.89 ft Property C Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 2. District Provisions (R-1, Single Family Residential Zoning District) — Section 1320.06 Lot Size and Dimensions — Meets Requirements The proposed subject properties will comply with the required lot size and dimensions. Structure Setbacks with Adjusted Lot Lines — Meets Requirements No structural changes are proposed on any subject property. The minimum principal structure setbacks in the R-1 District are 40 feet in the front yard, 30 feet in the rear yard (Principal), a 10- foot minimum in the side yard with both side yards required to add up to a total of 25 feet (Principal), and 10 feet in the rear and side yard (Accessory). The existing principal structure on Subject Property B is shown on the existing survey as having a footrint that goes over the property line into Subject Property C. Based on the consideration of theP ne adjustment for Subject Properties A and C, setback requirements are met, and existing legal nnonconformities will not be changed. Setbacks are evaluated in Table 3 and the adjusted lot lines are shown in the images below. Table 3. Setbacks R-1 Requirements Existing Proposed 20.5 ft (1987 20.5 ft Subject Principal Structures p Variance) —65 ft Property A Front yard — 40 feet �65 ft 10.1 and 166.4 Rear yard — 30 feet 10.1 and 16.4 ft/26.4 ft/176.5 ft Side yard —10 feet ft interior/25 feet total Subject Property C Front yard — 84.7 ft Front yard — 84.7 ft Page 6 of 10 Existing Subject Property A Proposed Subject Property A sw,�.cr w•.,e,°. s.rnw mmm ,, �• or ne mmxe.s. w..+.•sJ cw. r - It i ' 800'30 PS'R IfP.Pd 1 — — — „ — - S30.97'23Y 1�2.P3 — — � — — — "—,• — — _ 1 V q 1 q 1 a 1 P 1 1 rs rr,.s�u°uaxc�a usr�-� --s„nm a. .s.us°xe°.:nr��usr °'_l • ---s,wm a. 1 1 $ •f,t. 1 1 33Y'3D PS R 130.00 i 1 s3T30'PS'R 150.00 « Y� . ; ` �srusuxc° wTMccai:vc ^� '� 11 urEsuuo u.°w TMc us'r,v� � Y Existing Subject Property C Proposed Subject Property C a rrll 1 a i Lot Coverage — Meets Requirements The maximum structure coverage permitted in the R-1 District is 25 percent of the lot area. The minimum landscape lot area is 65 percent. Based on the proposed lot line adjustment, the percentage of structure coverage on Subject Property A would decrease and the percentage of landscaped area would increase. For Subject Property C, the percentage of structure coverage would increase, and the percentage of landscaped area would decrease. All Subject Properties meet the structure and landscape coverage requirements after the proposed subdivision. Accessory Structures — Nonconforming, No proposed change Subject Properties B and C are nonconforming with zoning requirements for accessory structures. On existing Subject Property C, there is a 780 square foot detached garage where there is no principal structure, and the detached garage is not located behind the front building line of a principal structure which are not permitted. Per Section 1325.01, no accessory structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal structure to which it is accessory. Additionally, accessory structures in the R-1 District shall not be located nearer the front lot line than the front yard setback line for the principal structure to which it is accessory. The existing detached garage is therefore an existing nonconformity that will not change. The Applicant owns and uses Subject Properties B and C together and has not pursued development of Property C as a separate residential use. Subject Property B has four existing Page 7 of 10 accessory structures: two sheds, a gazebo, and a pool with an approximate total of 1,356 square feet. The existing accessory structures on Subject Property B do not comply with the code provisions for number of accessory structures and total floor area for accessory structures. These accessory structures also do not comply with the location requirement for accessory structures, as all four are located within the principal structure's front yard as measured to the south property line, the front lot line for the existing Subject Property B. This condition is an existing nonconformity and will not change. Driveway and Residential Access — Legal, existing nonconforming; no proposed change In Section 1325.06 Requirements for Parking, Loading and Circulation, each property which abuts one or more public streets, shall be entitled to at least one access to a public street. Single family uses shall be limited to one (1) access per property. The existing Subject Property A does not abut a public street and is accessible by a driveway easement from Lake Johanna Blvd. The request would not change this existing nonconformity. Subject Property B, which abuts Lake Johanna Boulevard, does not have access along this roadway and instead uses a driveway partially located on Subject Property C for access to Oak Avenue. The request would not change this existing nonconformity. Additional Review Public Works Director/City Engineer The Public Works Director/City Engineer reviewed the plans and offered no additional comments. Ramsey County Public Works The Ramsey County Public Works Department reviewed the submitted plans and offered no additional comments. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission reviewed this application at the November 5, 2025, meeting and offer the following findings of fact for your consideration. The City Council 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. General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a Minor Subdivision to adjust the lot lines between the three existing properties at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue. 2. City Staff received a withdrawal of the portion of the land use application addressing the lot line adjustment for the property addressed as 1580 Oak Avenue. 3. The Subject Properties are located in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 4. The Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the properties as Low Density Residential. 5. 1580 Oak Avenue is nonconforming with the code requirements for street access and accessory structures. 1578 Oak Avenue is nonconforming with code requirements for accessory structures. 6. The proposed Minor Subdivision would not change the existing nonconforming nature of the number, size and location of accessory structures and driveways for 1580 Oak Avenue and 1578 Oak Avenue. Page 8 of 10 7. The proposed Minor Subdivision would not change the existing nonconforming nature of the requirements for street access for 1580 Oak Avenue. 8. The proposed would increase the lot area of 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd. 9. The proposed would not create a new lot of record. 10. The request proposes to use the properties in a reasonable manner for the R-1 Zoning District. 11. The Owner of the platted lot has filed with the zoning administrator a registered land survey of the lot line adjustment. 12. The proposed division will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located. Options and Motion Language The report to the Planning Commission noted that the Applicant had withdrawn the initial request for a lot line adjustment between Subject Properties B and C as part of the Minor Subdivision. The Planning Commission's review was for the lot line adjustment affecting Subject Properties A and C. At that time, they recommended approval with conditions of the application for a Minor Subdivision for 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1578 Oak Avenue by a 6-0 vote. The following are motion language options for the City Council to consider: Approval with Conditions: Move to a Opt Resolution 2025-074 approving Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1578 Oak Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 24, 2025, report to the City Council: 1. The Applicant shall submit to the City a revised survey depicting the legal boundaries as shown on Exhibit A and described in Exhibit B of Resolution 2025- 074 for Subject Property A and Subject Property C prior to recording the Minor Subdivision with Ramsey County. 2. The applicant shall record the minor subdivision with Ramsey County within sixty (60) days of the City's receipt of the revised survey. 3. Monument stakes shall be installed to demarcate the property lines adjusted for Subject Property A. • Approval as Submitted: Move to adopt Resolution 2025-074 approving Planning Case 25- 010 as submitted for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 24, 2025, report to the City Council. • Denial: Move to deny Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1578 Oak Avenue, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. Table: Move to table Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1578 Oak Avenue, based on the following findings: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on November 13, 2025. Notice was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property 1578 Oak Avenue. At the time the report was prepared, the City had not received public comment regarding this case. Page 9 of 10 Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for the minor subdivision request on September 30, 2025. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City must act on this request by November 28, 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. Applicant Email E. Neighboring Property Owner Narrative F. Proposed Site Survey G. Planning Commission Memo H. Planning Commission Supplemental Memo I. Draft Planning Commission Minutes J. Resolution 2025-072 K. Exhibit B — Legal description(s) L. Presentation Page 10 of 10 Attachment A '2� -ARQEN HILLS 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Telephone (651) 792-7800 Fax (651) 634-5137 www.cityofardenhills.org Planning Case No. 25- Submittal Date Application Completed Date Accepted by Receipt Number Council Decision Council Decision Date 2025 LAND USE APPLICATION Applicant Information Applicant: Address: Telephone No.: z� _ �j�Q Other: Fax No.: Email Address: — - .G,j��l drat Property Information%� Property Owner: Y � �ef' " - e6 ice? / Owner Address: /A Y e- �- A - - 6) Owner Telephone No. 6 3Z &e!�K Other: Address of Property Involved: 2 � h Legal Description: , rftfg �� vl5 in* Property ID No.: 3 Type of Use: �1i�:�j 62t Zone: Type of Request ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Fee: $550 + Escrow: $2,500) ❑ Conditional Use or Interim Use Permit/CUP or IUP Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500) ❑ Preliminary Plat (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $2,500) ❑ Final Plat (Fee: $450 + Escrow: $1,000) ❑ Concept Plan Review (Fee: $300 + Escrow: $750) ❑ Master Planned Unit Development or Master Special Development Plan (Fee: $600 + Escrow: $2,500) ❑ Final Planned Unit Development or Final Special Development Plan (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $2,000) Ll Property Acreage: ❑ Rezoning or TCAAP Regulating Plan Amendment (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $1,500) ❑ Zoning Code or TCAAP Redevelopment Code Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500) ❑ City Code Amendment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,500) ® Lot Split/Minor Subdivision (R-1 and R-2 Districts Only) (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,500) ❑ Variance or Permitted Adjustment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000) ❑ Vacation of Easement or Right -of -Way (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000) ❑ Appeal of Administrative Decision (Fee: $150 + Planned Unit Development Amendment or Special Escrow: $1,000) Development Plan Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: ❑ Land Use Requests - Not Already Specified (Fee: $1,500) $150 + Escrow: $1,000 ❑ Site Plan Review (Fee: $450 + Escrow: $1,500) Pagel of 3 Brief Description of Request (please alsoincludea/typed detailed letter explaining thee gr�oimect): 1,2 *IMPORTANT* • Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-398-3070 for additional information. • The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permit fees that may be required upon approval of a land use application. • All applications will be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of consultant costs associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of application in the form of an escrow to the City. Filing & Information Requirements The City requests that you make a pre -application meeting with the Community Development Director to discuss the application process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the Community Development Director or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the property is required for all applications. A checklist with additional application requirements can be found at www.citvofardenhills.org/landuseapplications. Complete/Incomplete Applications Under Minnesota Statute, Chapter 15.99, cities have 15 business days to review all plans and application materials to ensure they satisfy City requirements. During the 15 day review period, planning staff will provide written comments on the application and may request plan revisions. If the application is determined to be complete, Minnesota State Statute then requires the City to approve or deny the application within 60 days, up to 120 days. If not complete, the City may require plan revisions and/or additional information before the application is scheduled for Planning Commission review and/or City Council action. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the Community Development Director. Payment of Fees and Escrows The undersigned acknowledges that she/he understands that before a land use application can be deemed complete, all required fees and escrows must be paid to the City. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Each separate land use request shall be charged a separate administrative fee and escrow even if submitted on the same application. Costs expended in reviewing and processing an application will be charged against the cash escrow and credited to the City. Charges to the escrow may include planning and engineering staff time, City Attorney and consulting fees, and mailing costs. If, at any time, a required cash escrow is depleted to less than 20 percent of its original amount, the applicant shall deposit additional funds in the cash escrow account as determined by the City. The City may withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and/or rescind prior action until all fees have been paid. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. The escrow may be reduced or increased by the Community Development Director on a project by project basis. Notice of Meeting Attendance In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. Page 2 of 3 Meetina Schedule Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday of each month at 6:30 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. The schedules below are for reference purposes only. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the Community Development Director. 2025 Planning Commission and City Council Schedule (*subject to change) TENTATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday at 6:30 p.m.) TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the fourth Monday at 7:00 p.m.) DEADLINE FOR LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMISSION (1" day of the preceding month) January 8 February 10 December 1 2024 February 5 March 10 January 2 March 5 Aril 14 February 3 April 9 Aril 28 March 3 May 7 May 26* Aril 1 June 4 June 23 May 1 July 9 July 28 June 2 August 6 August 25 July 1 September 3 September 22 August 1 October 8 October 27 September 1 November 5 November 24 October 1 December 3 Januar 12 (2026) November 3 Acknowledgement and Signature I hereby apply for the above consideration and declare that the information and materials submitted with this application are complete and accurate per city code and ordinance requirements. I fully understand that I am responsible for all q st incurre the ity r ed to the processing of this application. Property Owner' -Signature (Required) Date Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date Please contact the Community Development Director at 651-792-7800 if you have any questions regarding this application. Additional copies of this application form are available on the City's website: www.cityofardenhills.org/landuseapplications Page 3 of 3 10/28/2025, 4:12:40 PM 13,600 0 0.03 0.06 0.12 mi 0.05 0.1 0.2 km Ramsey County Ramsey County MN Attachment C From: Dan Ashbach To: Elena Fransen Subject: Fwd: Narrative Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 2:08:59 PM Attachments: image001.pnng ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Dan Hanson <dhansonnegrud.com> Date: Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:54 PM Subject: Narrative To: Dan Ashbach <dan.ashbach(a�gmail.com> BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT NARRATIVE. I, Dan Ashbah, present the accompanying Boundary Line Agreement request for City of Arden Hills Review. I currently own Ramsey County PID No. 33-30-23-11-0001 (Parcel B) and PID No. 34-30-23-22- 0001 (Parcel Q. My neighbor Erik Anderson owns PID No. 33-30-23-11-0035. I intend to sell that portion of Parcel C, directly adjacent to Parcel A, to my neighbor Erik Anderson. This portion will be permanently attached to Parcel A, and a new legal description for the entirety of the property is enclosed in both the Certificate of Survey and electronic word document. Parcel B and Parcel C are both owned by myself and I have used them as one parcel throughout the entirety of my ownership. I have improvements on both parcels that service my enjoyment and my home addressed as 1580 Oak Avenue. I intend to transfer portions of Parcel C, to Parcel B in order to move all improvements on site to one Parcel, that being Parcel B. Once completed, all improvements and impervious surfaces will be located on the proposed Parcel B. Parcel C will not have any impervious surfaces on site. Existing conditions on site start with 3 parcels of land, after line transfers the end results are 3 parcels of land. All 3 proposed parcels meet existing zoning regulations and do not exceed impervious surface regulations. Thank you, Dan Ashbach Daniel S. Hanson P.L.S.#52140 www.egrud.com DIRECT: (651) 361-8241 FAX: (651) 361-8701 ADDRESS: 6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Professional Surveyors The electric data is transmitted for your convenience and is the sole property of E. G. Rud & Sons, Inc. By accepting, the recipient agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend E. G. Rud & Sons, Inc., from and against any and all damages, liabilities, claims, losses and expenses (including attorney's fees) arising from the use of this data. This electronic data is subject to change and updates are the responsibility of the recipient. E. G. Rud & Sons, Inc., is not responsible for updating the data or for compatibility with recipient's hardware and / or software. Please check this file for virus contamination prior to use. Attachment D From: Dan Ashbach To: Jake Reillv Subject: Re: Planning Case for 1580 Oak Avenue Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 8:08:00 AM Good morning Jake. In light of the issues related to structures on the property, I withdraw the east lot line adjustment request. Thanks Dan Ashbach Attachment E From: Erik Anderson To: Elena Fransen Cc: Dan Ashbach Subject: Erik Anderson - Land Purchase from Dan Ashback Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 9:00:16 AM You don't often get email from eanderson@impactconnects.com. Learn why this is important Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Hi Elena, Dan Ashbach let me know that the city wanted to understand what my intended use is for the land that I plan to purchase from him. My intention is to have that parcel merged into my existing homestead. The plan would be to remove some buck thorn and dead trees, and then have it remain woods for the kids to play in. At some point, I may look into building a garage or some type of out building. But no plan for that in the immediate future. Please let me know if you need any more detail from my on intended land use, prior to your meeting tomorrow. Thanks! Erik --- Attachment F ° yr A $�oa m N = " i'gSl.,v-1€ g 57•x2"E5 = a3 ��l a• . `° E a° 5 / / r i i .ate' s Fri®Hi ' � 'Allo o< A. y�'•., �,� - -- if AN I � a '•ffii y....i ® :® p ® i LLJ38 .... ' Z o as if fi QI ssamawaoaxnua) A _ Os ci ''.. a'a - ,� p ......p J',R 3 r- s L 3Jar m ci s \ OB'BZi dI. TT,BS.ON �� \ d� e€ � � � % III .:.� - Nss•lZ 18-tr I 11 \ \ sl � w \ � "� os-' •, xaaHuaKs:om°° o.$� � \ ,21 HN °O-r cct�cctce 5� ccrctttct� g mp, "pE �=E� � \ Y , '�g= :gym �:�` � of e • � � � �' ° a ° 0 0 e� S`�°s°°H ` ls•Lz'1- ----- 12.5 a oa�:�p; am�p� oa aga��a' g .- N a 3 �i ° m .;w„m c ccca;=sa w� y��R'-^yy�p pw2 . wwmmmww.. e2 8t5'3'3Wr:CC°k'� m^ Io^,QG Wugn n w a __ of Ew`- � 't ttectre F� —6 rrreerm �§i IMF. "s 5a $S&a �S: xCD o r LL r z r ova nczE cm'a a � 'S' ��• G� � $ q mN m�° o� m mwm �cM w�Hi�p y 3� m c °1m cSN NGw n�'�Nn GE��'�n„l 7.96.ON ° omwa tn�„ moamoa 00'09T '� u"iS wsk w ^ 29MPH85 "veo SEA �v y�fgo; �U r x s y m w5 mw 5e ns RRwww Q ji O r Co 5w U! O� go F m C c e o _ c i o m a c o a �ZN = W °�Z. �3r mw _k?m a m �E g a ;� 5°� �m o� 3: J>C X zczm$ w wm QaF' ad~� rc $q V Yc E U c C w W3 EuX. 113Qcu = ?z aZzm Z. 82 kW� koamm<° dCz Z. 'oj : �- a e" 2C. fq � C RT/1e sO W Z. 8 Yw� �� $ZWI uiw �wSj Grj ° Jj N Q i m000000Z. Z—W.m omo omo 00 ¢ a m 6d = 0 1q 0� o z y °e F" 05 O1� Q r Q w w Z. �'4� �' m tl 0 �' O y o F O n . o �4 $ _ z� . g dIOJ� Z Z .o oeee lL3 a®YpR ,, LJf �� x m aE a �E �� w a °a �p W i LJ[- 5 j Fo ww mo j W a o Z �LJL JL1ll go u' - m_a ^e .� �zI w 3 a a a s a a S3 n 3 Attachment G PC Agenda Item - 3A ,!Tt -RIPEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 5, 2025 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Elena Fransen, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #25-010 — No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Dan Ashbach Property Location: 1580 Oak Avenue, 1578 Oak Avenue, and 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd Request: Minor Subdivision Requested Action Dan Ashbach ("The Applicant") requests the approval of a Minor Subdivision for properties located at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd ("Subject Property A"), 1580 Oak Avenue ("Subject Property B") and 1578 Oak Avenue ("Subject Property C"). As part of the Minor Subdivision, the Applicant proposes adjusting the shared lot lines, which would result in increased lot areas for Subject Properties A and B and decreased lot area for Subject Property C. No new lots would be created as part of the Minor Subdivision. Background 1. Site Conditions The subject properties are adjacent properties with shared property lines. Subject Properties B and C are both owned by the Applicant. Subject Properties A and B are developed with single-family residential dwellings. Subject Property C does not have a single-family residential dwelling but there are several improvements on the property, including a detached garage, tennis court, and driveway, all of which are used by the Applicant in association with Subject Property B. Subject Property A, which was developed with no public street frontage, is accessible by way of a driveway easement to Lake Johanna Boulevard. Subject Property B has property frontage on Lake Johanna Boulevard, but the property is accessible from Oak Avenue by a driveway that is located on both Subject Properties B and C. In 2008, the Applicant submitted a land use application to update and expand the detached garage located on Subject Property B. The City deemed the application incomplete until the property lines were replatted or subdivided, with the garage being platted on the same lot as the primary structure to which it is accessory. The Applicant withdrew the application and did not pursue the minor subdivision at that time. Page I of 12 The existing property lines are shown below. Existing Subject Properties -- __ --— ===2 Existing Subject Property C ��- fx.+ v ExistIng Subject _ t Properhv B Existing Subject Property A T� NORrH _ 2. Overview of Request The Minor Subdivision is requested to allow for the alteration of the property lines between the subject properties. The alterations would increase the lot area of Subject Properties A and B. Adjusting the lot line would effectively incorporate all improvements associated with Subject Property B and C, including the principal structure, driveway, tennis court, and accessory structures into Subject Property B. The proposal will decrease the lot area of Subject Property C and that property will have no improvements and be considered vacant land. No future development of Subject Property C is included with the request. The proposed Minor Subdivision does not include a proposal to create new lots and would not include new uses on the lots. Although the lot shown as Subject Property C could be sold, and/or subdivided in the future, any such future proposed development would be subject to zoning and building requirements and would undergo further review. The proposed future lot lines and lot areas to be changed are shown below. Page 2 of 12 Proposed Subject Properties Pro posed Subject a po J + Property A J Proposed Subject Property B ......... � `fit �•. ...., . ' t - t � t t Y t `NOR,►, �-------- t Proposed SuUject -�; Property C � Lot area impacted by lot line adjustments 1 Subject Property C Subject Property Cf��, �'• lot area to be added to [Iot area to be added Subject Property a to Subject Property B — is . _.o The Applicant's request includes two objectives, the first of which includes changing the shared lot line between Subject Property A and Subject Property C. This change would allocate 43,838 additional square feet to Subject Property A from Subject Property C. The Applicant intends to sell the area from Subject Property C to the neighbor at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, to be combined Page 3 of 12 with the existing lot. As part of the land use application, the property owner of 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd states in a letter that he will purchase the land from the Applicant and combine it with the existing property. He states that there is no plan for improvements to the area. He intends to remove buckthorn and dead trees in the area and may look into building a garage or out building in the future. Any potential accessory structure(s) contemplated in the future would be subject to zoning and building permit application requirements, depending on the proposed size. The second objective of the proposed Minor Subdivision is to bring Subject Property B more into conformance with zoning requirements by allocating 52,535 additional square feet from Subject Property C to Subject Property B. The Applicant notes that adjusting the property line will provide the required side yard setback for the principal structure on Subject Property B. Staff has identified that in addition to the side yard setback for the principal structure, the proposed will increase the property's conformance with requirements for street access. However, Staff s review of the proposal also identified existing nonconformities, some of which would be increased through the proposal. Subject Property B is nonconforming with Zoning Code requirements for accessory structure location, number, and total floor area. The proposal would not remedy the first nonconformity and would increase the latter two nonconformities. It is staff s finding that after the Minor Subdivision application was deemed complete, and through the drafting of this report and evaluation of the application materials submitted by the Applicant, the proposed would require variances to address nonconformities created by the minor subdivision. For a variance application to be deemed complete, the Applicant is required to address how the application meets the six hardship criteria established in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4. This information has not been submitted as part of this current proposal and would be required in order to have full consideration of the effects of the proposed request. 3. Site Data All subject properties are zoned R-I — Single Family Residential District and are guided as Low Density Residential (LDR) in the 2040 Land Use Plan. 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 Lot Size: 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd (Subject Property A): 16,452 SF 1580 Oak Avenue (Subject Property B): 65,481 SF 1578 Oak Avenue Subject Property C : 216,788 SF 4. Approvals The Planning Commission is asked to determine whether a minor subdivision request should be granted. The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the requirements of Chapter 11 — Subdivisions and Chapter 13 — Zoning Code, District Provisions in Section 1320. As noted in the Overview of the Request, staff identified through the drafting of this report that the proposal should also be evaluated based on the Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4, due to the nonconformities created by the proposal. The proposal does not resolve all existing nonconformities with the subdivision or zoning requirements. Staff s review identifies that the Page 4 of 12 proposal would reduce a street access nonconformity but it does not conform with subdivision requirements for lot location on a public street and also does not conform with Zoning Code requirements for number and size of accessory structures. The proposed would address four nonconforming accessory structures for location while creating a new nonconforming accessory structure for location and increasing the nonconformities of number and size of accessory structures for Subject Property B. The applicable requirements and evaluations of the proposed subdivision are addressed in the next section. Plan Evaluation Chapter 11, Subdivisions Regulations Review 1. 1150.04 Division or Consolidation of Platted Lots of Record The application is to divide one or more existing platted lots designated in a subdivision plat on file and of record in the office of the recorder or registrar of titles for the county, into one or more separately described parcels. While the minor subdivision request does not create new lots, the request further divides the subject properties. The Application is subject to compliance with the conditions for Survey, Relation to Zoning Ordinance, Public Welfare, Conformity, and Filing Fee. The application meets the requirements for these conditions except Conformity, which requires that the proposed division shall conform to such other requirements in the Subdivision chapter of the City Code. The proposed adjustments to the lot lines impacting Subject Properties B and C do not bring Subject Property B into full conformance with the Subdivision code as it relates to lot location on a public street. The proposed also does not bring all subject properties into conformance with the Zoning Code, which is evaluated in the next section. Location - Nonconforming All lots are required to abut by their full frontage on a public street. Subject Property C has frontage on Oak Avenue and Lake Johanna Boulevard and would be considered a corner lot with the front lot line being along Oak Avenue. The existing Subject Property A does not have any frontage on a public street and is accessible by a driveway easement from Lake Johanna Blvd. The Applicant's request would not change this, nor would it create another lot that would not have full frontage on a public street. Subject Property B has frontage on Lake Johanna Blvd but the property does not have direct access to this roadway and the front building line of the principal structure is oriented toward Oak Avenue. Lake Johanna Blvd is a county road and is identified as a community street in the Subdivision code and as a collector street in the Zoning Code. Section 1325.06 of the Zoning Code requires single- family dwellings to provide two (2) off-street parking spaces and all off-street parking spaces shall have access driveways and access directly to public streets. Any residential lot, with frontage on both a local street and a collector street must access the property only from the local street. Based on the code requirements, Subject Property B is required to be accessed from a local street, in this case, Oak Avenue. Double Frontage Lots — Permitted Exception By incorporating the existing driveway into Subject Property B, the property would become a double frontage lot as defined by the Subdivision Code or through lot as defined by the Zoning Code. The Subdivision code states that double frontage lots shall be avoided except where lots back on an arterial or community street. Lake Johanna Boulevard acts as a community street and Page 5 of 12 therefore the proposed will bring the property in line with the zoning requirements for access and would be a permitted exception to the Subdivision requirements. Size — Meets Requirements All lots are required to meet the minimum lot dimensions and lot area required by the Zoning Code. The minimum lot area in the R-1 District is 14,000 square feet. The minimum lot width is 95 feet and the minimum depth is 130 feet. After the proposed lot adjustment, the subject properties will comply with the minimum lot area, width, and depth in the R-1 District, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 below. Table 1. Lot Area for Subject Properties R-1 Existing Proposed Requirements Subject Property A 14,000 square feet 16,452 square feet 60,290 square feet Subject Property B 65,481 square feet 118,016 square feet Subject Prope C 216,788 square feet 120,415 square feet Table 2. Lot Width and Depth R-1 Requirements Existing Proposed Minimums Minimums Subject 112.5 ft1150 ft 112.5 ft1150 ft Property A 95 feet/130 feet Subject 161.3 ft/311.93 ft 192.22 ft/512.04 ft Property B Subject 348.89/220.48 ft 348.89 ft/220.48 ft Property C Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 2. District Provisions (R-1, Single Family Residential Zoning District) — Section 1320.06 Lot Size and Dimensions — Meets Requirements The proposed subject properties will comply with the required lot size and dimensions. Structure Setbacks with Adjusted Lot Lines — Meets Requirements No structural changes are proposed on any subject property. The minimum principal structure setbacks in the R-1 District are 40 feet in the front yard, 30 feet in the rear yard (Principal), a 10- foot minimum in the side yard with both side yards required to add up to a total of 25 feet (Principal), and 10 feet in the rear and side yard (Accessory). The front lot line is the boundary of a lot abutting a street. Existing Subject Property B abuts Lake Johanna Blvd, making the south property line the front lot line.. With the proposed lot line alterations, the property would turn it into a through lot. On a through lot, the determination of whether the street frontage is to be considered a front yard or rear yard shall be subject to the provisions of the code. The existing Subject Property B only has access on Lake Johanna Blvd but given the incorporation of the existing driveway to Oak Avenue into the property, and the Page 6 of 12 orientation of the principal structure on the property, the north property line is evaluated as the updated front lot line for the proposed Subject Property B. The existing principal structure on Subject Property B is shown on the existing survey as having a footprint that goes over the property line into Subject Property C. The Minor Subdivision proposal would adjust the east side property line of Subject Property B, effectively eliminating encroachment of the principal structure to instead establish a 23.2-foot side yard setback. This change brings the structure into compliance with the zoning district setback requirements. Setbacks are evaluated in Table 3 and the adjusted lot lines are shown in the images below. Table 3. Setbacks R-1 Requirements Existing Proposed 20.5 ft 20.5 ft Subject —65 ft —65 ft Property A 10.1 and 16.4 ft/26.4 10.1 and 166.4 Principal Structures ft ft/176.5 ft —138 ft (to South lot —360 ft (to North Front yard — 40 feet Rear yard — 30 feet e) n �110 ft line) North lot lot line) Subject Side yard — 10 feet line) —138 ft (to South Property B interior/25 feet total 95.8 and lot line) encroachment of 6.8 95.8 ft and 23.2 ft/95.8 ft ft/119 ft Subject NA NA Property C Existing Subject Property A Proposed Subject �MQL• tlhMu vwSruYEVT1F fAP SAO.H<RM ��•.en �pea.rc wtai.nrm SgTHSTQW11Rl0fSKfmlaL<i] mM]pnnEV. P✓].<.v-� •` _ 5 1 z 4 M 1 ws.us�u�wcru *�[c<sr� l q 1 11 ` � SBY9D YS A IS0.00 " 1 Z . 11 1 .s re.swm uane.�<<.s. A Page 7 of 12 Existing Subject Property B Proposed Subject Property B � 1 i i , 9` uj � i i \\ i � i , 9` � ► I i �i \\ e�e� i ..::, • +� � i i __ '�� seer i •i , a i w i t Existing Subject Property C Proposed Subject Property C -a Lot Coverage — Meets Requirements The maximum structure coverage permitted in the R-1 District is 25 percent of the lot area. The minimum landscape lot area is 65 percent. All Subject Properties meet the structure and landscape coverage requirements after the proposed subdivision. Accessory Structures — Nonconforming, Variances Required Subject Properties B and C are nonconforming with zoning requirements for accessory structures. On existing Subject Property C, there is a 780 square foot detached garage where there is no principal structure, and the detached garage is not located behind the front building line of a principal structure which are not permitted. Per Section 1325.01, no accessory structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal structure to which it is accessory. Additionally, accessory structures in the R-1 District shall not be located nearer the front lot line than the front yard setback line for the principal structure to which it is accessory. The existing detached garage is therefore nonconforming with these requirements. The Applicant owns and uses Subject Properties B and C together and has not pursued development of Property C as a separate residential use. By adjusting the lot line and incorporating the lot area where the detached garage is located into Subject Property B, the accessory structure Page 8 of 12 could conform with the first requirement as it would be associated with a principal structure. Subject Property C will then follow zoning code requirements for accessory structures. However, the proposal does not remediate the nonconforming location of the structure on Subject Property B as the accessory structure would be closer to the front lot line, which would be the north lot line under the proposal, than the front building line of the principal structure. Additionally, Subject Property B already has four existing accessory structures, two sheds, a gazebo, and a pool with an approximate total of 1,356 square feet. Staff reviewed City records and could not find building permit applications or staff reviews on file for the gazebo or pool, both of which would have triggered the requirement for a building permit. Similarly, there is not a record for a building permit associated with the detached garage on Subject Property C. In addition to the requirements for accessory structures noted for Subject Property C and its associated accessory structure, the accessory structures on Subject Property B are evaluated by the provisions that residential uses are permitted no more than two (2) accessory structures and accessory structures shall not exceed seven hundred and twenty-eight (728) square feet in floor area. Another provision is that under no circumstances shall accessory structures associated with a residential use in the R- 1 district exceed one thousand four hundred and fifty-eight (1,458) square feet without an approved variance. The existing accessory structures on Subject Property B do not comply with the code provisions for number of accessory structures and total floor area for accessory structures. These accessory structures also do not comply with the location requirement for accessory structures, as all four are located within the principal structure's front yard as measured to the south property line, the front lot line for the existing Subject Property B. The designation of the north property line as the front lot line as part of the proposal would resolve the nonconforming location of the accessory structures. However, the proposal would increase the nonconformities of number of accessory structures and accessory structure floor area. The lot line adjustment would result in five accessory structures on Subject Property B for a total of 2,136 square feet of accessory structures. Table 4. Accessory Structures on Subiect Properties C and B Existing Subject Existing Subject Property B Proposed Subject Property B Property C Accessory Structure — Gazebo (front yard) — 400 sf Gazebo (rear yard) — 400 sf 780 sf Two Sheds (front yard)— 156 Two Sheds (rear yard) — 156 sf sf Pool (front yard) — 800 sf Pool (rear yard) — 800 sf Accessory Structure (front yard) — 780 sf Existing total — 780 Existing total - 1,356 square Proposed total - 2,136 square square feet feet feet The proposal will not bring Subject Property B into full conformance with requirements for accessory structures and the property would be less complaint with requirements for the permitted number of accessory structures and the maximum floor area permitted for accessory structures. The request will therefore require a variance to allow for Subject Property B to exceed the permitted number of accessory structures and the permitted square footage of detached structures Page 9 of 12 associated with a residential use. Staff notes that there could be other variances required, subject to the review of variance application materials submitted by the Applicant. Driveway and Residential Access — Nonconforming In Section 1325.06 Requirements for Parking, Loading and Circulation, each property which abuts one or more public streets, shall be entitled to at least one access to a public street. Single family uses shall be limited to one (1) access per property. The existing Subject Property A does not abut a public street and is accessible by a driveway easement from Lake Johanna Blvd. The request would not change this and Subject Property A would remain nonconforming with this standard. Subject Property B, which abuts Lake Johanna Boulevard, does not have access along this roadway and instead uses a driveway partially located on Subject Property C for access to Oak Avenue. As proposed, the Minor Subdivision would incorporate the lot area where the driveway is located into Subject Property B, which addresses street access requirement for the property and brings the property into compliance with the driveway access provision. Further Review As demonstrated, the Minor Subdivision request would require additional requests for variances based on the nonconformities identified through the review of the initial request. For consideration of these variances, the Applicant would need to submit a narrative that addresses the six hardship criteria as outlined in Section 1355.04 Subd. 4 in the Zoning Code. The criteria are included as reference: 1. Purpose and Intent. The variance request shall comply with the purpose and intent provisions of City's Zoning Regulations and with the policies of the City's 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. b) Unique Circumstances. The plight of property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. c) Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 3. Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. 4. Access to Sunlight. Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems shall be considered a practical difficulty. Based on information provided by the Applicant for the proposed minor subdivision, it is staff s assessment based on existing permitting and property ownership records that the Applicant, as the owner of Subject Properties B and C, is responsible for the accessory structures that are present on the two lots. Therefore, the circumstances requiring a variance were created by the landowner which does not meet the Unique Circumstances criteria. Staff has conveyed to the Applicant that they are invited to submit the materials required for a variance request application for full review and evaluation based on the hardship criteria. Additional Review Public Works Director/City Engineer Page 10 of 12 The Public Works Director/City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. Ramsey County Public Works The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the submitted plans and has no additional comments at this time. 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 Minor Subdivision to adjust the lot lines between the three existing properties at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue. 2. The Subject Properties are located in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 3. The Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the properties as Low Density Residential. 4. 1580 Oak Avenue is nonconforming with the code requirements for street access and accessory structures. 1578 Oak Avenue is nonconforming with code requirements for accessory structures. 5. The proposed Minor Subdivision would remedy the street access nonconformity for 1580 Oak Avenue and the accessory structures nonconformity for 1578 Oak Avenue. 6. The proposed would increase the accessory structure nonconformities of 1580 Oak Avenue. 7. The proposed would require a variance for the existing and proposed accessory structure nonconformities. 8. The Applicant has not submitted the required application materials for a variance request. 9. The proposed would increase the lot area of 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1580 Oak Avenue. 10. The proposed would not create a new lot of record. 11. The request proposes to use the properties in a reasonable manner for the R-1 Zoning District. 12. The Owner of the platted lot has filed with the zoning administrator a registered land survey of the lot line adjustment. 13. The proposed division will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located. Options and Motion Language Staff provides the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission may consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. Based on the staff -identified need for a variance application, staff recommends that the Planning Commission move to table the item pending receipt of the required variance application. The staff recommended motion is listed first. Page 11 of 12 • Table: Move to table Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue due to additional information including an variance application being needed in order for the Planning Commission to make a fully informed decision. The following potential recommendations are not recommended by staff: • Recommend Approval with Conditions: Move to recommend approval with conditions of Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission: 1. The Applicant shall record the Minor Subdivision with Ramsey County and a copy shall be provided to the City within sixty (60) days of the City's approval. 2. Monument stakes shall be installed to demarcate the property lines adjusted between Property A, Property B, and Property C. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Move to recommend approval as submitted of Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission. • Recommend Denial: Move to recommend denial Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. Notice Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on October 23, 2025. Notice was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property 1580 Oak Avenue. As of report drafting, the City has not received any public comments regarding this case. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for the minor subdivision request on September 30, 2025. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City must act on this request by November 28, 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. Neighboring Property Owner Narrative E. Proposed Site Survey Page 12 of 12 Attachment H -ARPEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 5, 2025 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Elena Fransen, AICP, Senior Planner Jake Reilly, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Supplemental memo for Planning Case #25-010 Request: Minor Subdivision 1580 Oak Avenue, 1578 Oak Avenue, and 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd Requested Action Dan Ashbach ("The Applicant") requests the approval of a Minor Subdivision for properties located at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd ("Subject Property A"), 1580 Oak Avenue ("Subject Property B") and 1578 Oak Avenue ("Subject Property C"). Following further review during preparation of the materials for the Planning Commission meeting on November 5, 2025, staff and the City Attorney concur that the lot split application that would result in a portion of Subject Property C being subdivided for sale to the owner of Subject Property A, should be considered separately from any application associated with the adjustment of the easterly lot line for Subject Property B. Based on the staff report and review prepared on Friday, October 31, the resulting subdivision and lot line adjustment fails to sufficiently correct the existing legal nonconformities and creates an additional new nonconformity. The application to split a portion of Subject Property C off for sale to the adjoining property (Subject Property A) creates neither new nor remedies any existing legal nonconformities, therefore no variance application is required. A variance application may be required if and when the property owner chooses to submit an application to address lot lines associated with Subject Properties B and C. The updated staff recommendation to the Planning Commission is to consider Mr. Ashbach's withdrawal of the application requesting the lot line adjustment and to proceed with a recommendation to the City Council regarding the lot split. Images reflecting the existing (Figure 1) and future (Figures 2-4) property conditions are shown below. Page 1 of 7 Figure 1. Existing Subject Properties 7:7777!!, R —7.."..7 7. Existing Subject Property C Existing Subject Property B .5W Existing Subject PropertyA NORTH NOTES Figure 2. Future Subject Property A D 14 "A 'A WtST LIMC CP THC [AST 350.0 Rr Olr LCM 1. $LOCK 5. SHAW OAKS AUOIFDDK AS NMIJREa "W7HEEASTLUX - - - - -- - rR ECFJW I L4t; SHADY CM LOT 1, IL= S, SHADY OAKS --r AS MUSLIRED AWhIG THE EA5T Page 2 of 7 Figure 3. Future Subject Property B Figure 4. Future Subject Property C L Im 11 NORTH — — — — — — — — — Cx��C scut 1 Page 3 of 7 1. Site Data All subject properties are zoned R-1 — Single Family Residential District and are guided as Low Density Residential (LDR) in the 2040 Land Use Plan. 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 Lot Size: 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd (Subject Property A): 16,452 SF 1580 Oak Avenue (Subject Property B): 65,481 SF 1578 Oak Avenue (Subject Property Q: 216,788 SF 2. Approvals The Planning Commission is asked to determine whether a minor subdivision request should be granted. The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the requirements of Chapter 11 — Subdivisions and Chapter 13 — Zoning Code, District Provisions in Section 1320. The applicable requirements and evaluations of the proposed subdivision are addressed in the next section. Plan Evaluation Chapter 11, Subdivisions Regulations Review 1. 1150.04 Division or Consolidation of Platted Lots of Record The application is to divide one or more existing platted lots designated in a subdivision plat on file and of record in the office of the recorder or registrar of titles for the county, into one or more separately described parcels. While the minor subdivision request does not create new lots, the request further divides the subject properties. The Application is subject to compliance with the conditions for Survey, Relation to Zoning Ordinance, Public Welfare, Conformity, and Filing Fee. The application meets the requirements for these conditions except Conformity, which requires that the proposed division shall conform to such other requirements in the Subdivision chapter of the City Code. The proposed adjustments do not bring Subject Property B into full conformance with the Subdivision code as it relates to lot location on a public street, however considering the lot split alone, the proposal does not increase any nonconformity beyond the existing nonconformities of Subject Properties B and C. Location - Nonconforming All lots are required to abut by their full frontage on a public street. Subject Property C has frontage on Oak Avenue and Lake Johanna Boulevard and would be considered a corner lot with the front lot line being along Oak Avenue. The existing Subject Property A does not have any frontage on a public street and is accessible by a driveway easement from Lake Johanna Blvd. The Applicant's request would not change this, nor would it create another lot that would not have full frontage on a public street. Subject Property B has frontage on Lake Johanna Blvd but the property does not have direct access to this roadway and the front building line of the principal structure is oriented toward Oak Avenue. Page 4 of 7 Lake Johanna Blvd is a county road and is identified as a community street in the Subdivision code and as a collector street in the Zoning Code. Section 1325.06 of the Zoning Code requires single- family dwellings to provide two (2) off-street parking spaces and all off-street parking spaces shall have access driveways and access directly to public streets. Any residential lot, with frontage on both a local street and a collector street must access the property only from the local street. Based on the code requirements, Subject Property B is required to be accessed from a local street, in this case the requirement is met by the access off Oak Avenue. Size — Meets Requirements All lots are required to meet the minimum lot dimensions and lot area required by the Zoning Code. The minimum lot area in the R-1 District is 14,000 square feet. The minimum lot width is 95 feet and the minimum depth is 130 feet. The subject properties will comply with the minimum lot area, width, and depth in the R-1 District. These conditions are met by the proposed resulting properties A and B. Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 2. District Provisions (R-1, Single Family Residential Zoning District) — Section 1320.06 Lot Size and Dimensions — Meets Requirements The proposed subject properties will comply with the required lot size and dimensions. Structure Setbacks with Adjusted Lot Lines — Meets Requirements No structural changes are proposed on any subject property. The minimum principal structure setbacks in the R-1 District are 40 feet in the front yard, 30 feet in the rear yard (Principal), a 10- foot minimum in the side yard with both side yards required to add up to a total of 25 feet (Principal), and 10 feet in the rear and side yard (Accessory). The existing principal structure on Subject Property B is shown on the existing survey as having a footprint that goes over the property line into Subject Property C. Based on the consideration of the lot split alone, these requirements are met, and existing legal nonconformities will not be changed. Lot Coverage — Meets Requirements The maximum structure coverage permitted in the R-1 District is 25 percent of the lot area. The minimum landscape lot area is 65 percent. All Subject Properties meet the structure and landscape coverage requirements after the proposed subdivision. Accessory Structures — Nonconforming, existing legal Subject Properties B and C are nonconforming with zoning requirements for accessory structures. On existing Subject Property C, there is a 780 square foot detached garage where there is no principal structure, and the detached garage is not located behind the front building line of a principal structure which are not permitted. Per Section 1325.01, no accessory structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal structure to which it is accessory. Additionally, accessory structures in the R-1 District shall not be located nearer the front lot line than the front yard setback line for the principal structure to which it is accessory. The existing detached garage is therefore an existing and legal nonconformity that will not change. The Applicant owns and uses Subject Properties B and C together and has not pursued development of Property C as a separate residential use. Subject Property B has four existing Page 5 of 7 accessory structures: two sheds, a gazebo, and a pool with an approximate total of 1,356 square feet. The existing accessory structures on Subject Property B do not comply with the code provisions for number of accessory structures and total floor area for accessory structures. These accessory structures also do not comply with the location requirement for accessory structures, as all four are located within the principal structure's front yard as measured to the south property line, the front lot line for the existing Subject Property B. This condition is an existing legal nonconformity and will not change. Driveway and Residential Access — Nonconforming In Section 1325.06 Requirements for Parking, Loading and Circulation, each property which abuts one or more public streets, shall be entitled to at least one access to a public street. Single family uses shall be limited to one (1) access per property. The existing Subject Property A does not abut a public street and is accessible by a driveway easement from Lake Johanna Blvd. The request would not change this existing legal nonconformity. Subject Property B, which abuts Lake Johanna Boulevard, does not have access along this roadway and instead uses a driveway partially located on Subject Property C for access to Oak Avenue. The request would not change this existing legal nonconformity 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 Minor Subdivision to adjust the lot lines between the three existing properties at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue. 2. City Staff received a withdrawal of the portion of the land use application addressing the lot line adjustment for the property addressed as 1580 Oak Avenue. 3. The Subject Properties are located in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 4. The Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the properties as Low Density Residential. 5. 1580 Oak Avenue is nonconforming with the code requirements for street access and accessory structures. 1578 Oak Avenue is nonconforming with code requirements for accessory structures. 6. The proposed Minor Subdivision would not change the existing legal nonconforming nature of the number, size and location of accessory structures and driveways for 1580 Oak Avenue and 1578 Oak Avenue. 7. The proposed Minor Subdivision would not change the existing legal nonconforming nature of the requirements for street access for 1580 Oak Avenue. 8. The proposed would increase the lot area of 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd. 9. The proposed would not create a new lot of record. 10. The request proposes to use the properties in a reasonable manner for the R-1 Zoning District. 11. The Owner of the platted lot has filed with the zoning administrator a registered land survey of the lot line adjustment. 12. The proposed division will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located. Page 6 of 7 Options and Motion Language Staff provides the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission may consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. • Based on the findings above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission move to Recommend Approval with Conditions: Move to recommend approval with conditions of Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1580 Oak Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission and as amended by the withdrawal of the portion of the application for the lot line adjustment: 1. The Applicant shall record the Minor Subdivision with Ramsey County and a copy shall be provided to the City within sixty (60) days of the City's approval. 2. Monument stakes shall be installed to demarcate the property lines for Property A, and Property B. • Recommend Approval as Submitted: Move to recommend approval as submitted of Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission and as amended by the withdrawal of the portion of the application for the lot line adjustment. • Recommend Denial: Move to recommend denial of Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for the minor subdivision request on September 30, 2025. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City must act on this request by November 28, 2025 (60 days) unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. Attachments A. Presentation B. Original staff report. Page 7 of 7 � Attachment I �-ARZEN HILLS Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 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 Brad Bjorklund, Patrick Burlingame, Nancy Jacobson, SJ Julius and Ben Lindau. Absent: Commissioners Jessica Birken and Stephen Erler. Also present were: Community Development Director Jacob Reilly, Senior Planner Elena Fransen and Council Liaison Kurt Weber. APPROVAL OF AGENDA — NOVEMBER 5, 2025 Commissioner Bjorklund moved, seconded by Commissioner Lindau, to approve the November 5, 2025, agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 8, 2025 — Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Lindau moved, seconded by Chair Collins, to approve the October 8, 2025, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6- PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 25-010 —1580 Oak Avenue — Minor Subdivision — No Public Hearing Required Senior Planner Fransen stated Dan Ashbach ("The Applicant") requests the approval of a Minor Subdivision for properties located at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd ("Subject Property A"), 1580 Oak Avenue ("Subject Property B") and 1578 Oak Avenue ("Subject Property C"). The subject properties are adjacent properties with shared property lines. Subject Properties B and C are both owned by the Applicant. Subject Properties A and B are developed with single-family ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — November 5, 2025 2 residential dwellings. Subject Property C does not have a single-family residential dwelling but there are several improvements on the property, including a detached garage, tennis court, and driveway, all of which are used by the Applicant in association with Subject Property B. Senior Planner Fransen reported Subject Property A, which was developed with no public street frontage, is accessible by way of a driveway easement to Lake Johanna Boulevard. Subject Property B has property frontage on Lake Johanna Boulevard, but the property is accessible from Oak Avenue by a driveway that is located on both Subject Properties B and C. Senior Planner Fransen explained the Minor Subdivision is requested to allow for the alteration of the property lines between the subject properties A and C. The alterations would increase the lot area of Subject Properties A. The proposal will decrease the lot area of Subject Property C and no future development of Subject Property C is included with the request. The proposed Minor Subdivision does not include a proposal to create new lots and would not include new uses on the lots. Although the lot shown as Subject Property C could be sold, and/or subdivided in the future, any such future proposed development would be subject to zoning and building requirements and would undergo further review. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the Site Data, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a Minor Subdivision to adjust the lot lines between the three existing properties at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue. 2. City Staff received a withdrawal of the portion of the land use application addressing the lot line adjustment for the property addressed as 1580 Oak Avenue. 3. The Subject Properties are located in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 4. The Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the properties as Low Density Residential. 5. 1580 Oak Avenue is nonconforming with the code requirements for street access and accessory structures. 1578 Oak Avenue is nonconforming with code requirements for accessory structures. 6. The proposed Minor Subdivision would not change the existing legal nonconforming nature of the number, size and location of accessory structures and driveways for 1580 Oak Avenue and 1578 Oak Avenue. 7. The proposed Minor Subdivision would not change the existing legal nonconforming nature of the requirements for street access for 1580 Oak Avenue. 8. The proposed would increase the lot area of 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd. 9. The proposed would not create a new lot of record. 10. The request proposes to use the properties in a reasonable manner for the R-1 Zoning District. 11. The Owner of the platted lot has filed with the zoning administrator a registered land survey of the lot line adjustment. 12. The proposed division will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located. Senior Planner Fransen stated staff recommends approval of Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1580 Oak Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — November 5, 2025 3 Planning Commission and as amended by the withdrawal of the portion of the application for the lot line adjustment: 1. The Applicant shall record the Minor Subdivision with Ramsey County and a copy shall be provided to the City within sixty (60) days of the City's approval. 2. Monument stakes shall be installed to demarcate the property lines for Property A, and Property B. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lindau explained he supported the request. Commissioner Jacobson stated there were four lots that have access to the easement. She asked if the City was required to provide public access. She anticipated it would be difficult to get a fire truck to these lots. Senior Planner Fransen reported these properties were serviced by an easement for the driveway. She noted the City was providing utilities and necessary access for the lots. Commissioner Bjorklund inquired if these four lots were served by natural gas, City sanitary sewer and water. Senior Planner Fransen deferred this question to the applicant. Commissioner Julius thanked staff for the detailed presentation and explained she supported the proposed request. Chair Collins indicated there were no changes to the structures which meant the non- conforming portions of the property would be grandfathered in. He noted the only changes that were being made to these lots were where the lot lines would be. Senior Planner Fransen reported this was the case, noting the subdivision code requires lots splits to be reviewed by Planning Commission in order to make a recommendation to the City Council. Chair Collins requested the applicant come forward at this time. Commissioner Bjorklund inquired if there were stakes around Parcel B. Dan Ashbach, 1580 Oak Avenue, noted Parcel B was staked. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — November 5, 2025 4 Community Development Director Reilly stated because stakes were already in place there would be no need to install monuments on Parcel B. Commissioner Burlingame moved and Commissioner Lindau seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1580 Oak Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission and as amended by the withdrawal of the portion of the application for the lot line adjustment and an amended Condition 2, to read "Monument stakes shall be installed to demarcate the property lines for Property A." Commissioner Bjorklund explained he supported the proposed minor subdivision, noting his only concern was with the nonconformities that existed. He stated he understood that these nonconformities would be addressed in the future. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. Planning Case 25-012 — 1103 County Road 3 — Sign Standard Adjustment — No Public Hearing Required Senior Planner Fransen stated the Subject Property is located within Sign District 5, where the maximum wall sign copy area allowed is 80 square feet. The property has two wall signs totaling 80 square feet. The Applicant is seeking flexibility through the Site Plan Review process for a sign standard adjustment for size with the proposed additional wall sign, for a total of 160 square feet of wall signage. The proposed wall sign could not be permitted without an approved sign standard adjustment. Senior Planner Fransen explained with the 2013 approval of Planning Case 12-019, the City entered into a Planned Unit Development Agreement with TAT Properties LLC to allow the reuse of the existing building on the property for 74 residential apartment units and 20,000 square feet of retail space at 1201 County Road E. Planning Case 12-019 established signage requirements for the E Street Flats apartments and the main floor retail tenants. Senior Planner Fransen reported at its March 9, 2015, meeting, the City Council approved Planning Case 13-017 and a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment at 1201 County Road E to construct a building with retail and warehouse uses on the undeveloped two -acre southeast corner of the property. The proposal did not include a request to subdivide the property. Planning Case 13-017 included the proposed construction of a 17,743 square foot building with frontage along County Road E and Lexington Avenue. The building was proposed to be operated by Goodwill Industries as a long-term tenant. A maximum wall sign copy area of 80 square feet is permitted in Sign District 5, where the Subject Property is located. As part of the land use application for Planning Case 13-017, the Applicant proposed a total of 80 square feet of wall signage for the building, to be divided between two, 40 square foot signs. The proposed signs would be installed on the parapets on the south and west sides of the building. No additional signage was included with the proposal. Senior Planner Fransen explained the Goodwill building was constructed and the sign permit applications were submitted and approved with the signage described in the PUD application. On September 12, 2025, the Applicant submitted a sign permit application for an additional 80 square foot wall sign. Based on the previous PUD Amendment approval and the requirements for Attachment J �`iIDEENf HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2025-072 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR 1613 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD, 1578 OAK AVE AND 1580 OAK AVE WHEREAS, City Staff received a complete land use application for a Minor Subdivision from Dan Ashbach ("Applicant"), for the properties located at 1613 Lake Johanna Boulevard (Subject Property A), 1580 Oak Avenue ("Subject Property B") and 1578 Oak Avenue ("Subject Property C"). The Minor Subdivision would allow for a lot line adjustment affecting 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1578 Oak Avenue, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request does not include variances and is subject to the applicable zoning code definitions and minimum lot standards; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by November 28, 2025 (60 days); and WHEREAS, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a Land Use Application Public Policy Notification to notify all property owners within 500 feet of Subject Property when a request for the Planning Commission is to occur related to a land use application that does not require a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the Applicant's request for a Minor Subdivision and, as such, voted 6-0 in favor of recommending approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS: Herby adopts Resolution 2025-074 approving Planning Case 2025-010 for a Minor Subdivision of the subject properties 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue for a lot line adjustment between 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1578 Oak Avenue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council approves Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision on the Subject Properties 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the November 24, 2025 report to the City Council, as amended by the following conditions: The Applicant shall submit to the City a revised survey depicting the legal boundaries as shown on Exhibit A and described in Exhibit B of Subject Property A and Subject Property C prior to recording the Minor Subdivision with Ramsey Page 1 of 3 To view the final document, access adopted Resolutions via Arden Hills Public Laserfiche Weblink by visiting cityofardenhills.org and clicking on Archived Documents under Helpful Links on our main webpage. County. 2. The applicant shall record the minor subdivision with Ramsey County within sixty (60) days of the City's receipt of the revised survey. 3. Monument stakes shall be installed to demarcate the property lines adjusted for Subject Property A. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025. David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: Julie Hanson, City Clerk Page 2 of 3 To view the final document, access adopted Resolutions via Arden Hills Public Laserfiche Weblink by visiting cityofardenhills.org and clicking on Archived Documents under Helpful Links on our main webpage. EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 25O72 Proposed 1578 EXHIBIT "B" TO RESOLUTION NO. 25-072 PARCEL A EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 33-30-23-11-0035 PER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 639380 The Easterly 150 feet of the Northerly 112.5 feet of Lot 3, Block 5, SHADY OAKS ADDITION, as measured along the North and Easterly lines of said Lot 3. PARCEL A PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The Easterly 150 feet of the Northerly 112.5 feet of Lot 3, Block 5, SHADY OAKS ADDITION, as measured along the North and Easterly lines of said Lot 3. AND The West 292.25 feet of the East 525 feet of the South 150 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota. PARCEL B EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 33-30-23-11-0001 PER TRUSTEE'S DEED Doc. No. A04898799 Lot 4, Block 5, SHADY OAKS ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota. PARCEL C EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 34-30-23-22-0001 PER DEED OF DISTRIBUTION Doc. No. A04599794 Lot 5, Block 5, SHADY OAKS ADDITION, EXCEPT the north 150 feet lying East of the West 30 feet subject to easement over the West 30 feet of the North 420 feet thereof. AND The East 525 feet of the South 150 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota. PARCEL C PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5, Block 5, SHADY OAKS ADDITION, EXCEPT the north 150 feet lying East of the West 30 feet subject to easement over the West 30 feet of the North 420 feet thereof. AND The East 232.75 feet of the South 150 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Attachment K Exhibit A PARCEL EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 33-30-23-11-0035 PER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 639380 The Easterly 150 feet of the Northerly 112.5 feet of Lot 3, Block 5, SHADY OAKS ADDITION, as measured along the North and Easterly lines of said Lot 3. PARCEL A PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The Easterly 150 feet of the Northerly 112.5 feet of Lot 3, Block 5, SHADY OAKS ADDITION, as measured along the North and Easterly lines of said Lot 3. AND The West 292.25 feet of the East 525 feet of the South 150 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota. PARCEL B EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 33-30-23-11-0001 PER TRUSTEE'S DEED Doc. No. A04898799 Lot 4, Block 5, SHADY OAKS ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota. PARCEL C EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 34-30-23-22-0001 PER DEED OF DISTRIBUTION Doc. No. A04599794 Lot 5, Block 5, SHADY OAKS ADDITION, EXCEPT the north 150 feet lying East of the West 30 feet subject to easement over the West 30 feet of the North 420 feet thereof. AND The East 525 feet of the South 150 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota. PARCEL C PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5, Block 5, SHADY OAKS ADDITION, EXCEPT the north 150 feet lying East of the West 30 feet subject to easement over the West 30 feet of the North 420 feet thereof. AND The East 232.75 feet of the South 150 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota. f e I � �4y I L D' D' � v � > Q O 1--I o rq ca I11 Li- +� O Q eA N o l�A N � Q o i n WOC EA ro o o bD C ; .� V MO U .Q (1) QJ 5 Q 0 Cr .s ate+ Q N a < = N 0 (n c Q) O i +-' •> V QL _0 .� O —0 V Q)o s o Q U O •cry Q i O o m +� c6 4-j Q o ° °' Q) -0 roO con _ Ln +-+ c6 +-a Q) � U V) U p � o z �� o 0 p Q1-1 z z CL . 0L O V 1 • Qj 4,j n� W QL O 4--j U W ca � 4� - O O c Q C: •— aA a� c V) (N U i U O 41 Z 0 L O O 0 > C C N L > Qu O O Q) O -0 -0 > U fa 0 — r O fa N N fa 73 O a)J U U LO 4- a--+ a) t i fa > ro a1 fa fy O to -0 fa O � _ dA o dA n > C j 0 Q > J m O 4' U - •C: Q1 fa -�e 'O O _0 fa C: fa }' L fa L N (a ' L fa O f6 � � N �' j Q Q --� � C W C O +� a-+ +� vro ro v C O O N C O N �: cn t! t co N N � > t L a% L u � ate' 0 > af Z N � V fa 0 Z Z- 'O U- CO I Q I m U N N 41 Q Q O_ O O O a a a U U U � > Y m Y Y fa fa O fa O D c =3 � 00 v r- v �o O un > un > Q Q v }, O U - vc6 L— ro Q 4J = N N CD N i O U Q v O0 rO 4— O 4- aA L 00 M C: ?� c6 U a- O L —0 Q O Q � N — ON > C N O !Z � QJ }+ i 4-U N u •,ate._ 0 it Q I i" --- j 3 c � � ,'t.aso - N17 o LEA SHI.pv O� �' 36 S G ii §'ggqy� N N no•o�r r_ 0 n ` 2I Cie 1 'I- j � teaaeee` * atop` s tmt S a mm L— Q) 4--j � � v c6 4-j — V I J •U N O - r2 1, � \^1 1 v W CID W � ' A V / I, Oa-J � � v J i1 J Q� 0 C6 �—+ N O f� J ' O N U L —0 ,V ate-+ C cN — � — 3 O cn O � U c6 •O v I . ro I O O Q,1 c6 O i N N i� M O O V O -0 -0 C6 •� _ I ° a UO v U FU • • CLv / m Z5 4- v `~ a- n, W v O 00 o6 �+ 07 Co IZT 00 v 0 Ln • � N Ql N r-I rn M � O � LL Q� v CAC�, Q o cr, 00 r VJ^ v s +1 m v 1 0 N " N 00 � 00 IZT 1ro 0 Ln � � � -I Ql & cl r-I .o Ln • o • cn U 0 o v •> O v rn 0 � �I 4—j 4—j Q U U : •� -� 4-, 0 J Ln � Q 0 0 m Z5 1yoo W W O p cm O � O cn a-j U O Ln � LLI +-j U U 0 0 Ln 4-1 \ Ln ,n � o��, N 2 C f6 O rl N Ln Ln lD Q ro O N4-4_4� o U O � 0 0 4-1 4J LI Q. U d L 4- 0 LL o m Z5 c ryoo •1� Qu E 4.� cc •ice Qj O U O J 0 0 0 0 4 o6 1-101-0 (.o o � m I- 11.10 °J :3 m 0 O 4- ON'> I U Ln L N Q by L N — N E t1A O E v Z X o v m u o 2 rro > > O O V V .O N 4A buo C6 � V V C6 a--+ a-J O O NN CID ro � V � V O N I I I a m u 4-j i 4-j Q Q Q 0 0 0 U U U cn cn cn H n W O 1 O cm O � � � O cn U O � � I 4--j a--j U _U Ln V) 0 0 U W 0 v a � � O z 4- i oQJ a a Ln V Qj v Ln " O m Oo Lnn O V m o U • • �LJ U Q • N c-I m 69 UP skst O L _ a i-+ U A a QJ O � v EE v Q O O m v � °� v .O O o Q v .�, o 4 .i •p �' �> v o LQj � v U U 'v � v 4-J+-J o 0 v .j v QC O C) U v L CL O ro ro �.71 N v i w N O U v F— N E V) ca N v E E O L U CL U v cc N .E Ln v N N v Ln C6 Q) E L C6 Q w r) N Q) O TW Ms;! v O N U a--+ L . -+ 4- O O O 'L z �E v v N (� O O U � N t�A m 0 rf) • � dJ Q i N > C6 a-�+ O ate--+ u z o C° > Q Q N O v E U O _0 v E ca _ c6 U , O W ro Q —0 Ca C6 iJ aJ ate+ Q) 4-j Q -�� — QJ U N ra 4-J >. Q 4-j N O N C6 � O 0 -F a-J .� C6 v �^ U U �_ O O ro z z �Z/) 3 ateJ �,� n ,1 4W)� T J , 1T (/ — O +,-0_O ca 0 c n ) ( O O / V /�� L I ul +-+ O0 N O M U Q Q � 00 c- (1) c6 • — N +-+ 4-J O - _N �O E O O z a� • U N O > O U . — N 37N N V Oon W ��•a� Q = c: •� O O O °'4'u�� Q Ln Ln =�Q0 O o E c6 •� u N.O U U cn +� 2 2 / ) ƒ 2 / 7 3 O 0 § q / \ 0Ln Ln Ln 2 / 0 0 ƒ 2 CA./ 3 u \ \ \ / / cu 0ai E ƒ \ » / k % / £ u / E \ \ : \ $ ai _ 3 ) § / ai E E q LA / 0k $ » m ai m .E a ± E 3 3 / � k � ƒ t ± 1 k G / \ $ S n> > y E y 3LnB 1 � 3 toLn u ai / 3 Ln: / 7 \ 3 \ bn C 2 [ 0 $ d \ 0 0 / ƒ ) k / / 0 \ y�� 2 E a 0� G § \ / / m 2 ai 0 E CL o 7 g = C: f « ai k c m # 5 % g ƒ B E « \ % E e R / ) d ai ° \ ± 5 0 / £ 7 ¢ 0 E m 2 4-1 2 a)> £ e m E n m E ai_3 u / © c to \ > m Q ai _ 2 m ai/ / ° E to E) 2 0 u � u 3 k / \ ° n - k / .0 ® / 3 \ 0@ \ y y 2Ln k / k u �" 0- c m ƒ � y e ƒ / ƒ � 7 k ƒ k ' \4- » $ § \ o R 2 / @ / ƒ Z ( CL / \ ° � # ( E $ u _ .§ ƒ 0 a 2 / \ ( / / ,f > '> I 0 @ 3 0 % > / 0 a % / u / �m *ro / 0 u 0 — k m r% O ) u E- (A 0 s= / = 3 n c a @ o e 0 _ 2 \ 0 4— • u ai / > / / k k k / ) f &-in > ( >- \ & _k ° / � k / < " \ 7 0 (A � � I 2 0 0§/ 0 J \$ fƒ 0 ƒ 2 y [ y < $ < % ¥ j / \ (IJ" f / ? 2>. e ms@ e_0 (11 (1) m e(11 m o 0 .� 0 e, O O G G e R G > G< s G G G s G G � LL / q / G « ¥ 4 » a « » m Qj O N N N }' >- � N_0_0 O }' a--' — p m -0 • cn N � Ln 4-J O N E O D � N Ln cn N `� p � +� N c6 U 0 N > V) qnp • — ca Q >>, ca UD +-+ N U -�e cri J u O O p O — O Q- ca v Q U U O c� 4-j C a- Ln O N rl 4-j O p cn 0-+•1 U 4-ftj p00 0 > Zt CO N U 0 n 4 0N� a > p �. °�' N }' o p 0 +� O� � N CO •N 0� U 0�� i n, > N m O W � N > O — 0- O m _ N X -0 -0 -0 N N c6 . •u v LU :3 -0 v -0 N N i Ln Z3 N 4 n , p� f� •�_ `n •> � � O N VJ 4+ j — O O � v v 1,p cn p U O DC tLON U N N 4-1CL � a O N U QJ '� v •� +�-' Q ca N o f v�� v 0 a O`er O > j� o� a��o o'er °E . +, �, � O u �' O 3 O o OC ° Q u �, 0 N N Lu O N v m +�+ N 4- u U u O � O v O O O Q o N u v O O-I-_ c6 •� > wE v N p v0 p-0 >,+��O N O c � cn i _ �p �2 Ln O CL O N cry 7 L n >` OQ p z r-I Q r-I M O Z M L o �� o `~ � o a v .. N N - v v :� _0 a � a Lf) -0 � 4-1aD o o . o :-, o a p� v .a ' 0�;�, v 4-1 v 4- 0 0 � p C- 0 C) o-0� O v Ln C N r v aQj V Z3v U D C: c c > s > O n� W c � v C- � Z co M CO Qj O 00 00 `Qj j ate, L I v a +, a 04-1 �m �� 0m4° O Co v � v O IV 0 0 o a 9 c O .N 0 D L .O v Q C6 0 00 Ln rl O c-I O Ll N v Ln m t1A CL NEW BUSINESS -11B ,!Tt EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 24, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator 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 Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Motions to approve, table, or deny the following: Adoption of Resolution 2025-073 for Planning Case 25-008 for a lot consolidation on the property located at 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1624 Lake Johanna Blvd (the "Subject Property"). Adoption of Resolution 2025-074 for Planning Case 25-008 for variances for lot area, lot depth, building area elevation, front yard and rear yard setbacks, shore impact zone, permeable surface credit, structure coverage, and floor area ratio for the future demolition and redevelopment of a single-family residential dwelling on the property located at 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1624 Lake Johanna Blvd (the "Subject Property") . Variances Summary 1) Lot Area: Variance to decrease the required lot area to allow 8,372 square feet following the proposed lot consolidation rather than 14,000 square feet as required by code. The existing lot area of the parcel with the existing single- family dwelling is 4,415 square feet. 2) Lot Depth: 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 rather than 130 feet as required by code. Page 1 of 18 3) Building Area Elevation: Variance to decrease the required building area elevation to allow for a building area elevation of 881.1 feet rather than 883.1 feet as required by code. 4) Front Yard Setback: Variance to decrease the required front yard setback to allow 1.9 feet from the property line rather than 40 feet as required by code. The existing single-family dwelling encroaches 4.8 inches (A feet) into the Right -of -Way. 5) Rear Yard Setback: Variance to decrease the rear yard setback and structure setback from Ordinary High Water Level to allow 11.2 feet from the proposed principal structure instead of 50 feet as required by code. The existing single- family dwelling principal structure has an existing setback of 9 feet from Ordinary High Water Level. 6) Shore Impact Zone: Variance to construct a portion of the proposed dwelling 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 and structures are prohibited. The existing dwelling structure is located within the Shore Impact Zone. 7) Permeable Surface Credit: Variance to exceed the ordinance requirement for up to five percent of a lot's required landscaped area to be covered with pervious hard surfaces. 8) Structure Coverage: Variance to exceed the ordinance requirement for the structure coverage to allow 33 percent rather than 25 percent maximum as permitted by code. The currently developed property has a structure coverage of 48 percent. 9) Floor Area Ratio: Variance to exceed the ordinance requirement for floor area ratio to allow .44 rather than .3 maximum as permitted by code. The existing dwelling has a floor area ratio of .65. 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. Page 2 of 18 On the Certificate of Survey submitted with the variance request, the front building line of the existing dwelling encroaches 4.8 inches (.4 feet) upon the Right of Way. The distance between the rear building line of the dwelling and the ordinary high water level (OHWL) is approximately 10 feet. The submitted surveys show the lot depth and lot area as calculated from the front property line to ordinary high water level. Structure setbacks are shown between the structure and the ordinary high water level as required for the Shoreland District. 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, permeable surface credit, and floor area ratio. Existing Building Site .�M9♦�,�"—WOOOHq£p° N E° HOUSE 1 / �. • ° • � �� i . ..° All NB°26 MtXRETE X < • ee2: 60ti I ♦\ 'SO. Sao / d— M4 ti° •BB2,° !A2° EASTNC HOUSE .IpI• • 69�.i �ZD /♦\ M0 BLOCK 1 Ij / \�IPk ♦\ LOT � ♦\ °i9 AnNA159f l`J\� \ �� \♦ , WALE 2.9 ♦ �a A.9 /�eas LOT \♦\ \ men. ryy. ti'� 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 Page 3 of 18 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 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 Boulevard. The two lots are riparian lots abutting Lake Johanna, which is classified as a general developments water, 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. The lots were created prior to the 1989 adoption of State Statute regulating shoreland development. Therefore, Minnesota Rules 6120.3300 for shoreland lots apply. The provisions in the shoreland rules are designed to bring nonconforming shoreland lots into conformance. 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 these criteria, the lot must be combined with one or more of the contiguous lots to improve conditions to be more aligned with statute and local zoning codes. While the lot is connected to a public sewer and a single-family dwelling on this lot is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the proposed project does not meet criteria 1 and 3. For criterion 1, 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd lot has a lot area of 4,415 square feet, which is 29.4 percent of the lot area required for a general development water riparian lot and a lot width of 73.28 feet, which is 97.6 percent of the required lot width. For criterion 3, the existing impervious surface coverage exceeds 25 percent. Combining the two lots is required in state statute. However, the proposed lot area after the lots are consolidated would result in a smaller -than -allowed lot area R-1-zoned parcels developed for single-family residential properties and the minimum required lot area established for riparian lots for general development waters in city code and a variance from the city's requirements is required. 3. Proposed Use 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, permeable surface credit, structure coverage, and floor area ratio requirements for future demolition and redevelopment of a single-family residential dwelling on the subject property. The request would include the combination of the two residential parcels which are under the same ownership. To construct the proposed home, the Applicant is seeking a lot consolidation and nine variances based on applicable zoning code definitions and minimum lot standards. Page 4 of 18 The Applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and build a 4,363 square foot single- family dwelling with an attached garage, with a 2,447 square foot footprint. To construct the new dwelling with the proposed footprint, the Applicant is requesting to consolidate the two parcels into one residential parcel, as required by statute. The new dwelling would 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 build a larger home, triggering the need for variances. The existing dwelling has a basement with mechanical equipment and storage. The Applicant states that the basement was not adequately built and has moisture issues. Flood plain restrictions prevent construction of a new basement and the proposed has been designed with no basement and includes additional storage in the floorplan for mechanical equipment. The proposed new dwelling includes two levels of living space, an attached two -car garage, and a second -level deck on the lake side 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 Boulevard. 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 permeable paving .. °wv --- — — _ _ _ - CF l , }� Proposed dwelling Site LAKE JOHANN "I l I Green — emstin dwelling — —-------- l------------------+- footprint (1,716 square feet) UKE JOHANNA —proposed dwelling EDGE OF WATERLOCATED 0311412025. !I JI ESL ELEVATION = 877.3 FEET footprint (2,447 square feet) ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL = 878.0 FEET _ due - proposed permeable paving Istulg dwelluTg Page 5 of 18 IL SOUTH ELEVATION VO Aj lip 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 Boulevard, a Ramsey County road. With an average lot 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 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. At the September 3, 2025, meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed dwelling, which included three levels of living space, a three -car garage, and decks on the first and third levels. Commissioners commented that a three-story dwelling with an attached three -car garage could result in the property being over -built. Neighbors made similar comments about the perceived impact of the house design. The Planning Commission recommended two additional conditions related to the dwelling's location on the property, lot coverage, and floor area ratio for the City Council to consider. Those recommended conditions are as follows: • As part of the proposed new home development, the Applicant shall not increase the existing nonconforming square footage equivalent that encroaches the shore impact zone of the Subject Property. • For Impervious Surface Coverage, Structure Coverage, and Floor Area Ratio, the Applicant shall not exceed a standard that is calculated by taking the existing nonconforming equivalent for the currently developed 1622 lot and adding to that the equivalent of the square footage that would meet the Zoning Code standards for the neighboring undeveloped lot. Plans submitted to the building department must not exceed that maximum allowable square footage based on the calculation. Given the feedback at the September 3, 2025, meeting, the Applicant incorporated the Planning Commission's recommended conditions into revised plans submitted for the Council meeting. The updated plans reduce the number of levels and garage spaces to two and substitute permeable pavers in place of decks and impervious concrete. The revised plans include an increased rear yard setback and reductions in structure coverage, impervious surface coverage, floor area ratio, and area built within the shore impact zone compared to the proposed plans reviewed by the Planning Page 7 of 18 Commission. The Applicant also submitted an updated narrative to address how the conditions are addressed within the plans. The proposed would not be permitted without variances for lot area, lot depth, building area elevation, structure coverage, front yard and rear yard setbacks, Shore impact zone, and floor area ratio. 4. Approvals The City Council is being asked to determine whether the requests for a lot consolidation and for the nine variances 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. Plan Evaluation Chapter 11, Subdivisions Review The requested lot consolidation, which is necessitated by Minnesota Statute as referenced in the Site Data section, is subject to the City Code 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 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 130 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 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 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. A riparian lot on Lake Johanna, the Subject Property 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. Based on this data, a minimum elevation of 883.1 would be required. Page 8 of 18 The proposed building area is shown to be located outside of Lake Johanna and the proposed survey shows the first -floor elevation is 884 feet and the garage floor elevation is 883.1 feet. These building elevations would meet the provisions of the code. As part of the updated design, the Applicant shared with staff that there is a new request to allow for a three-foot storage crawl space below the first floor of the dwelling, with a described elevation of 881.1 feet. The Applicant discussed a potential crawl space with RCWD staff who confirmed this could be permitted, as long as it is not considered living space. While the proposed first floor and garage floor elevations will meet requirements, a variance is required for the proposed building elevation for the crawl space. A RCWD permit remains a requirement for floodplain alteration as it relates to the new home construction. This has been added as a condition of approval. 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 130 feet. The consolidation of the two lots is statutorily required because of their size limitations and the two lots could not be developed for new residential uses 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 1.9 feet. Rear yard setback would be 11.2 feet from the proposed principal structure, as measured from ordinary high water level. The proposed side yard setbacks as measured from the principal structure are 27 feet to the northeast property line and approximately 44.25 feet to the southwest property line, for a total of 71.25 feet. The side yard setbacks would comply with the requirements for the R-1 District. Table 1 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: Table 1. Setbacks R-1 District Shoreland Overlay Requirements District Existing Proposed Minimum Front 40 feet 40 feet -0.4 feet 1.9, Variance Yard Setback Requested Minimum Rear 30 feet 50 feet (from 9 feet (from 11.2 feet (from OHW); Yard Setback OHW) OHW Variance Requested Minimum Side 10 feet (min)/25 R-1 Requirements 14.9 and 15.4 27 and 44.25 feet Yard Setback feet (total) apply feet (30.3 total) (71.25 total) Page 9 of 18 The updated design for the proposed dwelling includes increased setbacks for the front and rear yard and both side yards. Variances are required for the proposed front yard and rear yard setbacks. Impervious Coverage — Variance Requested In the R-1 District and the Shoreland Overlay District, the maximum impervious surface area permitted without a variance is 35 percent of the property or 2,930.2 square feet of the Subject Property, as calculated based on the proposed lot area of the consolidated lot. The existing impervious area for the 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd parcel is 2,931 square feet which is 35.1 percent of the property. The Applicant is proposing an impervious area of 2,924 square feet and 34.9 percent of the property as calculated based on the lot area of the lots to be consolidated. In the revised plans, the Applicant decreased the footprint of impervious surface coverage on the site by reducing the dwelling and deck footprint and is proposing to use permeable pavers for the patio and the driveway. The proposed permeable pavers would not count as landscaping, though they do not increase the impervious coverage on the lot. The Applicant's request is that the permeable surfaces be considered to meet the requirements for impervious surface coverage. With these modifications, the proposed would reduce the impervious surface coverage across the property by seven (7) square feet. Per the Shoreland Regulations, at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator, up to five (5) percent of a lot's required landscaped area, but not exceeding 700 square feet, may be covered with pervious hard surfaces subject to the approval of a Shoreland Mitigation Plan. Five (5) percent of the proposed consolidated lot's required landscaped area is 272.09 square feet. The proposed permeable patio is 400 square feet and there is also the proposed permeable driveway and pedestrian path to the front entry. As shown, the proposed would exceed this provision and require a variance for additional permeable surface credit. The Applicant provided a shoreland mitigation plan as part of the supplemental narrative for the City Council's consideration. The submitted plan addresses impervious surface coverage and the intent to work with a civil engineer on plans showing how the permeable pavers would absorb the surface water flow directed from the roofs via downspouts and underground drainage pipes. The Department of Natural Resources reviewed the updated plans and recommended a condition related to impervious surface coverage based on the proposed permeable pavers. In the drafted condition, the Applicant shall submit to the DNR a plan showing that rain gutter discharges will be directed away from the lake and into an infiltration basin. The City Council may also consider a condition of approval noting that the Applicant shall provide a plan with sign -off from a civil engineer and that the proposed permeable paver square footage shall not exceed 15 percent of the required landscaped area, which is equal to 816.27 square feet. This percentage could allow for the Applicant to develop the lot with a functional permeable patio and driveway. 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 2,758 square feet, 32.9 percent of the property based on the consolidated lot area. Page 10 of 18 In the revised plans, the Applicant decreased the structure coverage compared to the first version proposed by 1,348 square feet by reducing the size of the dwelling and removing a proposed deck. As proposed, the new dwelling would result in an increase of 640 square feet in structure coverage on the subject property compared to the existing dwelling. 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 existing FAR on the 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd parcel is .65. The Applicant is proposing a FAR of 0.44 or 3,720 square feet on the consolidated lot area of 8,372 square feet. This is an increase of 851 square feet in floor area on the subject property but would also be a reduction from the existing non -conformity on the 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd parcel. A variance is required because the FAR remains in excess of the allowed maximum for R-1 districts. 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 is a two-story structure with a proposed maximum height of 23 feet and 10 1/2 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 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 and meets this 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 RC" review. Per the Shoreland District standard, the required RFPE for the Subject Property is 882.1 feet minimum. The Applicant's proposal includes a lowest floor elevation of 881.1 feet for a three-foot crawl space. The crawl space triggers the requirement for 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. The existing dwelling at 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd is partially located within the shore impact zone. Page 11 of 18 The proposed new dwelling would alter the footprint of the dwelling on the lot and a portion would remain in the shore impact zone. A variance is required for the proposed to be constructed within the shore impact zone. Shoreland Alterations — Drafted Condition of Approval Altering vegetation in the shoreland management area is subject to requirements to prevent erosion into protected waters, to consume nutrients in the soil, and to preserve shoreland aesthetics. It is also subject to review by the DNR. Along with limiting the removal of vegetation and requiring disturbed areas to be restored to prevent soil erosion, there is a provision requiring sufficient vegetative cover to screen cars, dwellings, and other structures when viewed from public waters. The DNR reviewed the updated plans and recommended a condition requiring a shoreline vegetation and screening plan that provides natural habitat with native plantings and screens the new structure by at least 50% as viewed from the water, assuming summer leaf -on conditions. Condition 15 reflects this comment. Shoreland Mitigation Plan — Submitted 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 plan steps 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. In the supplemental narrative, the Applicant addressed the shoreland mitigation plan requirements, stating that the proposed includes architectural mass and reduction of impervious surface coverage to meet the plan requirements. As shown, the proposed new home will use natural materials and colors and will reduce impervious surface coverage with the proposed permeable paving. The permeable paving will be designed by a civil engineer to absorb the surface water flow directed from the roofs via downspouts and underground drainage pipes. Approval of the shoreland mitigation plan prior to the issuance of a Building Permit is a drafted condition of approval. 3. Variance Review The role of the City Council is to determine and consider how the facts presented to them compare with the city's articulated standards. The Council 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 City Council 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 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 City Council 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. Page 12 of 18 Variance Requirements — Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 The Applicant is requesting variances for lot area, lot depth, building area elevation, front yard and rear yard setbacks, shore impact zone, permeable surface credit, 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 City Council will need to make a determination regarding practical difficulties using the following variance findings. 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, structure 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 platted and developed before the current property owner's ownership and prior to the development of state statutes and city code language associated with riparian development. The substandard lot area and dimensions are existing nonconformities. These nonconformities are unique to the property and not created by the landowner. c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The character of the existing neighborhood is a mix of former summer cottages and single- family homes with lake frontage. The Applicant states that the location for the new home offers the safest access to and from the public right of way to ensure traffic safety, and respect the neighborhood design. It is stated that the scale and massing of the proposed Page 13 of 18 design is in keeping with a typical single-family home in the area and is more likely than not to provide a more aesthetic view to the shoreline from the lake. 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 alone. The primary rationale is associated with modern construction and design standards for a suitable and safe single-family home suitable with sufficient space for storage and safe access to and from the house. 4. Access to Sunlight. Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems shall be considered a practical difficulty. This standard is not applicable. Additional Review Building Official The Building Official reviewed the plans and had no comments. A Demolition Permit and Building Permit(s) will be required prior to demolition or construction activity. 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 reviewed the plans and commented on traffic and permitting, noting a request to review a Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) plan once available and that new access and excavation permits are required. The applicant shall be subject to County guidance for residential driveway width which is a maximum of 16 feet and shall show on plans where the asphalt curb will be removed and replaced. 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 obtain the appropriate Ramsey County permits for the proposed construction and driveway work. Rice Creek Watershed District The Rice Creek Watershed District reviewed all plans, including revised plans, and commented that the proposed construction will require a RCWD permit for floodplain alteration and erosion and sediment control. The revised plans include more floodplain fill than previously proposed and the Applicant will need to make sure that they are either below the RCWD's 100 cubic yard threshold or provide compensatory storage for the entirety of the floodplain fill. This comment and RCWD permit requirements are reflected in the drafted conditions of approval. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources reviewed the plans. Comments recognize that the lot is constrained, particularly with respect to lot depth. DNR was pleased to see reductions to Page 14 of 18 the building footprint and the use of permeable pavers in the second version of plans and suggested two additional conditions of approval related to the location of the structure within the shore impact zone and the proposed permeable pavers and impervious surface coverage. Staff notes that the Applicant indicates they will provide additional plans showing surface water flow and the permeable pavers. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 25-008 at the meeting on September 3, 2025, and offers the following findings for consideration: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a lot consolidation and 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, structure coverage, permeable surface credit, 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 represents an encroachment of 4.8 inches (A feet) into the Right -of -Way. The proposed front yard setback is 1.9 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 34.93 percent and includes the use of permeable pavers. 5. The proposed redevelopment would bring the Subject Property closer to conformance with the R-1 district standards for lot area, building area elevation, front yard and rear yard setbacks, structure coverage, impervious surface coverage, and floor area ratio. 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 The Planning Commission reviewed this application at the September 3, 2025, meeting. The Planning Commission discussed and provided comment to the applicant about the size and location of the proposed home. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions of Page 15 of 18 Planning Case 25-008 for a lot consolidation and variances to construct a new single-family dwelling at 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd by a 7-0 vote. The following are motion language options for the City Council to consider for the lot consolidation request. • Approval with Conditions: Motion to adopt Resolution 2025-073, approving Planning Case 25-008 for a lot consolidation at 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 24, 2025, report to the City Council: 1. The Applicant shall provide the Certificate of Survey for the consolidated lot as approved. 2. 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 60 days of the City's approval. Approval as Submitted: Motion to a opt Resolution 2025-073, approving Planning Case 25-008 for a lot consolidation at 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, in the November 24, 2025 report to the City Council. • Denial: Motion to deny Planning Case 25-008 for a lot consolidation at 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd, 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 at 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. For the variance requests, the Planning Commission added two conditions, numbers 13 and 14, related to the variances for development in the shore impact zone, structure coverage, impervious surface coverage, and floor area ratio. Staff added additional conditions based on comments from the RCWD and the DNR for clarity to the Applicant. The following are motion language options for the City Council to consider for request for variances. Approval with Conditions: Motion to a opt Resolution 2025-074, approving Planning Case 25-008 for variances for lot area, lot depth, building area elevation, front yard and rear yard setbacks, shore impact zone, permeable surface credit, 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 November 24, 2025, report to the City Council: 1. A Demolition Permit and a Building Permit shall be issued prior to the commencement of demolition and for the new home construction. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. The Applicant shall provide the City with documentation of RCWD permits associated with Rule E for floodplain alteration and Rule D for erosion and sediment control. Page 16 of 18 6. Applicant shall demonstrate in plans that the proposed development will be below the RCWD's 100 cubic yard threshold for floodplain fill or provide compensatory storage for the entirety of the floodplain fill, subject to RCWD approval. 7. The Applicant shall verify proposed driveway width with Ramsey County and show on plans where asphalt curb will be removed and replaced. 8. Upon completion of grading and utility work on the site, a grading as -built and utility as -built shall be provided to the City. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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 plan actions 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. 13. As part of the proposed new home development, the Applicant shall not increase the existing nonconforming square footage equivalent that encroaches the shore impact zone of the Subject Property. 14. For Impervious Surface Coverage, Structure Coverage, and Floor Area Ratio, the Applicant shall not exceed a standard that is calculated by taking the existing nonconforming equivalent for the currently developed 1622 lot and adding to that the equivalent of the square footage that would meet the Zoning Code standards for the neighboring undeveloped lot. Plans submitted to the building department must not exceed that maximum allowable square footage based on the calculation. 15. The Applicant shall submit a shoreline vegetation and screening plan that provides natural habitat with native plantings and screens the new structure by at least 50% as viewed from the water, assuming summer leaf -on conditions to the DNR and the City. The plan shall be approved by DNR staff. 16. The Applicant shall submit a plan to direct rain gutter discharges away from the lake and into an infiltration basin to the DNR and the City. The plan shall be approved by DNR staff. 17. As part of the building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a plan showing the proposed square footage for the permeable pavers with sign -off from a civil engineer. Proposed square footage for the permeable pavers shall not exceed 15 percent of the consolidated lot's required landscaped area. • Approval as Submitted: Motion to a Opt Resolution 2025-074, approving Planning Case 25-008 for variances for lot area, lot depth, building area elevation, front yard and rear yard setbacks, shore impact zone, permeable surface credit, 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 November 24, 2025 report to the City Council. Page 17 of 18 • Denial: Motion to deny Planning Case 25-008 for variances for lot area, lot depth, building area elevation, front yard and rear yard setbacks, shore impact zone, permeable surface credit, structure coverage, and floor area ratio, to construct a new single-family dwelling at 1622 Lake Johanna Blvd, 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 variances for lot area, lot depth, front yard and rear yard setbacks, structure coverage, permeable surface credit, 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 November 13, 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 received five public comments against this planning case prior to the September 5, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. A resident spoke in opposition to this application at two separate City Council meetings during the open public comment portion of those meetings. As of report drafting, the City had not received additional written public comments regarding this 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 initial timeline for City action had a due date of October 9, 2025 (60 days) unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. Following the Planning Commission review on September 3, 2025, the Applicant requested an extension on the City Council's review of the request. To meet this request, the City provided the Applicant with reasons to extend the deadline for City action an additional 60 days to December 9, 2025 (120 days). Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Applicant Narrative D. Supplemental Narrative E. Existing Site Survey F. Proposed Site Survey G. Architectural Plans H. Planning Commission Memo I. Approved Planning Commission Minutes J. Resolution 2025-073 for Lot Consolidation K. Resolution 2025-074 for Variances L. Presentation Page 18 of 18 Attachment A 1 ' For Office Ise O EN HILLS Planning Case No. 25- Submittal Date 1245 West Highway 96 Application Completed Date Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Accepted by Telephone (651) 792-7800 Receipt Number Fax (651) 634-5137 Council Decision www.cityofardenhills.org Council Decision Date 2025 LAND USE APPLICATION Applicant Information Applicant: TAN H. NGUYEN Address: 3747 MINNEHAHAAVE, STE 203 MPLS, MN 55406 Telephone No.: (612) 644-4369 Other: Fax No.: Email Address: TAN@NGUYENARCHITECTS.COM Proaertv Information Property Owner: BA LAM Owner Address: 1622 & 1624 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD, ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112 Owner Telephone No. (651) 387-8262 Other: Address of Property Involved: 1622 & 1624 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD, ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112 Legal Description: LOT 3 & 4, BLOCK 1, WECKS ADDITION Property ID No.: 333023110016 & 333023110032 Type of Use: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Zone: 1 A/1 B/B44 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE UNIT Property Acreage: 0.101 & 0.091 ACRES Type of Request ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Fee: $550 + Escrow: $2,500) ❑ Conditional Use or Interim Use Permit/CUP or IUP Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500) ❑ Preliminary Plat (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $2,500) ❑ Final Plat (Fee: $450 + Escrow: $1,000) ❑ Concept Plan Review (Fee: $300 + Escrow: $750) ❑ Master Planned Unit Development or Master Special Development Plan (Fee: $600 + Escrow: $2,500) ❑ Final Planned Unit Development or Final Special Development Plan (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $2,000) ❑ Planned Unit Development Amendment or Special Develo ment Plan Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500� ❑ Site Plan Review (Fee: $450 + Escrow: $1,500) ❑ Rezoning or TCAAP Regulating Plan Amendment (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $1,500) ❑ Zoning Code or TCAAP Redevelopment Code Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500) ❑ City Code Amendment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,500) ® Lot Split/Minor Subdivision (R-1 and R-2 Districts Only) (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,500) ® Variance or Permitted Adjustment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000) ❑ Vacation of Easement or Right -of -Way (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000) ❑ Appeal of Administrative Decision (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000) ❑ Land Use Requests — Not Already Specified (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000 Page 1 of 3 Brief Description of Request Wle.ase also include a typed, detailed letter explaining the ro'ect SEE ATTACHED LETTER I *IMPORTANT* • Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-398-3070 for additional information. • The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permit fees that may be required upon approval of a land use application. • All applications will be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of consultant costs associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of application in the form of an escrow to the City. Filing & Information Requirements The City requests that you make a pre -application meeting with the Community Development Director to discuss the application process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the Community Development Director or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the property is required for all applications. A checklist with additional application requirements can be found at www.cityofardenhills.orq/landuseapplications. Complete/Incomplete Applications Under Minnesota Statute, Chapter 15.99, cities have 15 business days to review all plans and application materials to ensure they satisfy City requirements. During the 15 day review period, planning staff will provide written comments on the application and may request plan revisions. If the application is determined to be complete, Minnesota State Statute then requires the City to approve or deny the application within 60 days, up to 120 days. If not complete, the City may require plan revisions and/or additional information before the application is scheduled for Planning Commission review and/or City Council action. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the Community Development Director. Payment of Fees and Escrows The undersigned acknowledges that she/he understands that before a land use application can be deemed complete, all required fees and escrows must be paid to the City. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Each separate land use request shall be charged a separate administrative fee and escrow even if submitted on the same application. Costs expended in reviewing and processing an application will be charged against the cash escrow and credited to the City. Charges to the escrow may include planning and engineering staff time, City Attorney and consulting fees, and mailing costs. If, at any time, a required cash escrow is depleted to less than 20 percent of its original amount, the applicant shall deposit additional funds in the cash escrow account as determined by the City. The City may withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and/or rescind prior action until all fees have been paid. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. The escrow may be reduced or increased by the Community Development Director on a project by project basis. Notice of Meeting Attendance In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. Page 2 of 3 Meeting Schedule Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday of each month at 6:30 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. The schedules below are for reference purposes only. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the Community Development Director. 2025 Planning Commission and City Council Schedule (*subject to change) TENTATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday at 6:30 .m. TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the fourth Monday at 7:00 p.m.) DEADLINE FOR LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMISSION 0 Itday of the preceding month) January 8 February 10 December 1 2024 February 5 March 10 January 2 March 5 Aril 14 February 3 April 9 Aril 28 March 3 May 7 May 26* Aril 1 June 4 June 23 May 1 July 9 July 28 June 2 August 6 August 25 July 1 September 3 September 22 August 1 October 8 October 27 September 1 November 5 November 24 October 1 December 3 January 12 2026 November 3 Acknowledgement and Signature I hereby apply for the above consideration and declare that the information and materials submitted with this application are complete and accurate per city code and ordinance requirements. I fully understand that I am responsible fo�yll costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Signature (Required) Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Ae2t=2`T f4 202,5-- July 29, 2025 Date Please contact the Community Development Director at 651-792-7800 if you have any questions regarding this application. Additional copies of this application form are available on the City's website: www cityofardenhilts orpRanduseapplications Page 3 of 3 8/26/2025, 1:26:27 PM 1:3,600 0 0.03 0.06 0.12 mi Personal Property 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 km Tax Parcels r••—ti �••—•! Cities County Offices Ramsey County Ramsey County MN Attachment C N G U Y E N iDA R C H I T E C T S 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 Attachment D n N G U Y E N A R C H I T E C T S Date: October 20, 2025 To: Arden Hills Planning Zoning & Council Member 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 Council representatives, 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. Please note that this design is significantly different than the first draft that was proposed to the commissioners. Steps have been taken to address the neighbors comments as well as the commissioners comments to reduce the mass and height of the building even though the height was initially conforming. There are other changes besides massing and height and will be noted in the project description. Below are the responses to the Commissioner's request for changes to the original variance application 1- Lot consolidation: This application has been requested and is part of the initial variance application. Upon approval, a record will be submitted to Ramsey County. 2- Demolition permit: Upon approval of the variance and building permit, the general contractor will submit for a demolition permit. 3- The propose building will conform to the city code by submitting for a building permit after the variance. 4- Upon the variance and building permit approval, the general contractor shall submit for a grading permit. 3747 Minnehaha Avenue, Ste 203, Minneapolis, MN 55406 phone (612) 644-4369 www.nguyenarchitects.com 5- Upon approval of the variance, other permits shall be submitted to other agencies. Note that I have reached out to the MPCA, RCWD, Ramsey County, and DNR prior to the variance application. They are aware of the project we are submitting for. The floor elevation was established per the RCWD's height request and is noted in the proposed survey. 6- There will be a grading as -built and utility as -built for the city upon completion. 7- There will be a grading plan submitted for approval by the Public Works Director/ City Engineer. 8- Erosion control and silt fencing will be constructed by the general contractor during construction. 9- There is one maple tree shown on the existing survey in the SE corner. This tree will remain as is and is not affect by the new home. During the initial meeting with the city Commissioners, it was brought up by a neighbor that there are two trees in the NW corner. However, those trees are not on the property but is on the right of way. Even though it is not required to add trees, I will plan on adding 2-3 trees on the site. The location will depend on the landscape plan once the building variance has been approved. Currently, the trees are shown on the proposed site in the NW corner. These trees will be a combination of deciduous and coniferous depending on the landscape plan. Other additional landscape will include native shrubs and plants near the front entry area and sidewalk. 10- The following two items are the proposed Shoreland Mitigation plan items: A- Architectural Mass: The proposed new home will include the use of natural materials and colors such as a stone base and columns, natural color siding colors as well as natural wood accents within certain areas as shown on the proposed elevation. B- Reduction of Impervious Surface Coverage: The proposed new home will reduce the impervious coverage by adding pervious pavers that will be designed by a civil engineer. These pavers will absorb the surface water flow. In addition to the surface water, the pavers will be designed to contain water that will be directed from the roofs via downspouts and underwater drainage pipes that redirects the rain water of the building onto these permeable paver surfaces. These area are shown on the proposed site plan as 1- Permeable Patios, 2- Permeable Driveway, 3- Permeable Paver Sidewalk. 1 1- The proposed new home will not encroach upon the shoreland impact zone beyond the location of the existing home on lot 3. The new home portion that is on lot 4 will be located at the required setback. Therefore, both items will conform to the suggestions of the Commissioners. 3747 Minnehaha Avenue, Ste 203, Minneapolis, MN 55406 phone (612) 644-4369 www.nguyenarchitects.com 12- The design has be modified to address the neighbor's and commissioner's comments in these areas: LOT 3: A- House location in relation to the lake: The new build on lot 3 will not extend beyond the location where the current house is. B- The new house square foot or FAR will not exceed what is currently existing: The new house SF on lot 3 is 2,735 compared to the existing house with 2,869. The new house is a reduction in the FAR by 4.6%. C- The new house lot coverage square foot will not exceed what is currently existing: The new house lot coverage SF is 2,047 compared to 2,765. The new house is a reduction in lot coverage by 26%. D- The new house impervious square foot will not exceed what is currently existing: The new house impervious SF is 2,213 compared to 2,284. The new house is a reduction impervious by 3.1 % LOT 4: A- House location in relation to the lake: The new build on lot 4 will conform to the shoreland setback line as shown on the proposed survey. B- The new house square foot or FAR will conform to the new development FAR: The new house SF is 985 compared to the allowable SF of 1,187. The new house is a below the required standard by 17% C- The new house lot coverage square foot will not exceed the new development standard: The new house lot coverage SF is 718 compared to 989. The new house is below the required standard by 27 0. D- The new house impervious square foot will conform to the new development standard: The new house impervious SF is 718 compared to 1,385. The new house is below the required standard by 48 0. COMBINED LOT 3 & LOT 4: Combined SF for both lots also conforms to the required standards in the areas of FAR, Lot Coverage, and Impervious Surfaces 3747 Minnehaha Avenue, Ste 203, Minneapolis, MN 55406 phone (612) 644-4369 www.nguyenarchitects.com Therefore, I hope the Council will grant this variance application since great steps have been taken to modify the changes to address the neighbors and commissioner's comments. Sincerely, Tan H. Nguyen, AIA 3747 Minnehaha Avenue, Ste 203, Minneapolis, MN 55406 phone (612) 644-4369 www.nguyenarchitects.com IIIH H I I 111-H fig!f- I Attachment E -4 - G SH -_E 'UH .. �00 b �� U uj ,;1�� UI 4 uj F, > �Mg u u 'sSgc � 38 MR- '�INM ��'sH -82E.-g- sooxxx*440< FFui 0 8 = rn z w Lu Z d K F: 5 (D LU Co g LU 0, 1! � ��4i HE I c5 Attachment F w gv N m our� I I I I LLJ �WM H, 10 - - ot 2 . . . M H3 Z: \ .� || AttachmentG | ®r`!/! CID � M:l=;� , \ i :f, !ae !° l��.....■r.. LLI tow ! _ ! i | \\`�\/\§"�\\ oZl::; ± / !; „ z®;!>! ) !!\(! | ,z e#aK�A § !! !B„4! \ ] `° §� \ )! )- .. r [ l §§|!]!|§)|!§! - ;:r§l.z:��:} _ :l=,§ !`!_� ) 6 `� \} �2§4682 !-z— z , )§\\\/ .. . .. e w L !! 1!w .zlw! , §§;|_� -„ ,.w: z, ° z § w \ \ U) ) \ § PO CL 04 , Lo» . f-to . (` §- \ ® r\ ° 2 ( _ . } o _ \ : � \/.{\�� . : 3 0° . Z� i� `� �� W U wW CID}F _ aY °� �� _ Nf o» xssas�ex $ 'sad z o z ¢ E N Q' m gQEL �SSS�� ~ das �U - zF' o I '077�) W w j I f � w z z 'oi, _ a o wog o I� �wo o z o wo w wo �® I x w° 3LL� LL� �' o" w �ji o zi o w fo 0 o �I rca a � -177 �'- °III, s 1 $ i, ies L �I j —_—'H5z°4rav+49 �4505 P'I LL U) LL, H� � � a; i a Q_ O q LL 0 Z CN W U) O O w IL Ix O O LL F- co LL Z J a W F W O IL O of a Z� a� U wW _ o» $ z M CID}F r �J = xssas„ew 's„a o >z Q '_ Q W wa zQfa� a$ 8 E 9g �y a ; a„$ I I I I I I I I I I P.os I I '` z ' I I j I I I I I I I I I I w I I i I w I I � s 0 a'm ems„ LL I I j F z° wo 0 ---- 6 l O I lW O I li 5 j JNn — — — — — — — — — 3LLo 1 =xw x j li �s� zp w I °tea ICI I � I N C II _ € I I I I j I I � I j I j I g I w= a Jm I � I 4 > Z„ a I Q „8 j w I z o I I j �j I j �jJ„ r�F�: �� -y .�<: ,� �''` �:;,,�: a �� ,� �� ',.ti „ ,f� inmll IIIIIIII�u�. ��`4 �afio�fr IIIIC�i ti �n .S, RFI�R....P� 'l `� ,�: II R� F. 4 � 4r I.i� .'f '4 d �� r Iir� �f�� 1 � �� c � , -.. _ ;�L ;. ��. - 1 r, , �1 �k ,;:' : �1 f � j, i z:;°!! LLI,, ic: 10 oZl::! z®;!0. 0�® `§()§)\)§)( !§,,,l•,|; !, 21 • „ LLI LLI LLI } ! > k ° § w !!!(! ! .. | �) Q; ; | � , z ( # - z( . o! zi \ Lu " §; > 2! §! . _! �! . L; ` S( °- z, ^ . �§ ... �� ..w% ~ . 2 . ` 117, § q ; � . Attachment H PC Agenda Item — 3A -ARPEN HILLS 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 1 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 2 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. P-xisttng ,uunaing mate EXOUSE WALLA RFT HOUSE I{{11\ V ♦\ 0910 / V�, \ N9 / 1 SO1C' BR.O " - .0 V h • . BRA ♦ \♦ .!&J, - �.9 �. Pa�, �, FII I .BR'B 'ij S MSnNO HOUSE M1 ♦ w° BLOCK 1 f / �\ LOT s ' ♦ ei9 AwN,115 of � RET, \ 09 \ I.— J�\♦ I I BBlI / _ ROC{Wnll 877.5 �\SQS �J \♦ ♦ � e9��9 / / 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 3 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 4 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. Huildinty Site _ — — —— - l' LAKE iOHANN A BOULCVARD i l - I I _ r-------------- i Proposed "`'" Existing House P '---------- — :__-_ _� �� g House Outline -- 4 Outline N I+�HB � 4— •• I I uaa � � n.OVE i I L J f O I ROOF ---d p. , 1 i I I I MOVE I------ U R l--------------=----------------- Ex DNO MOUE OVINE - = =__--- - 1_ f------_� �-----------�- LAKEJOHANNA EDGE OF WATER LOCATED03I1M2025. ELEVATION = 877.3 FEET - ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL = 878.0 FEET - - 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 5 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 6 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 RC" 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 7 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 Shoreland Existing Proposed Requirements Overlay District Minimum Front 40 feet -0.4 0.3, Variance Yard Setback 40 feet Requested 50 feet (from 9 feet (from 8.5 feet (from Minimum Rear OHW) OHW) OHW), Variance Yard Setback 30 feet Requested R-1 Requirements 14.9 and 15.4 feet 22.1 and 24.7 feet Minimum Side 10 feet (min)/25 apply 30.3 total 46.8 total, Meets Yard Setback feet (total) 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 3/4 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 8 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 9 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. 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 Aiency 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 Page 14 of 14 � Attachment I EN HILLS Approved: October 8, 2025 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 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: Commissioner Katie Stromberg. Also present were: City Administrator Jessica Jagoe, Senior Planner Elena Fransen and Council Liaison Kurt Weber. APPROVAL OF AGENDA — SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Commissioner Erler moved, seconded by Commissioner Birken, to approve the September 3, 2025, agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 6, 2025 — Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Lindau moved, seconded by Commissioner Birken, to approve the August 6, 2025, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 25-008 — 1622 Lake Johanna Boulevard and 1624 Lake Johanna Boulevard — Lot Consolidation and Variance - Public Hearing Not Required Senior Planner Fransen stated 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 Boulevard and 1624 Lake ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — September 3, 2025 2 Johanna Boulevard ("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. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the Site Data, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 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 Boulevard 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 Boulevard 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. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the options available for the Planning Commission for 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 Boulevard: Recommend Approval with Conditions ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — September 3, 2025 3 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. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Erler asked how State Statute applies to this request. Senior Planner Fransen stated the intent of Minnesota State Statute was to allow development and the continuing use of a residential property. She explained the lots would have to be combined in order to allow for the property to meet the City's development requirements. Commissioner Burlingame explained he spoke with staff earlier about previous shoreline properties that had requested variances and what the outcomes were. He stated he received four examples and three out of the four were approved. He noted each of the previous three variances that were approved were requesting far less when it comes to flexibility from the City. Commissioner Birken inquired when the lake last went above the 100 year flood mark. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — September 3, 2025 4 Senior Planner Fransen stated she was uncertain, but could investigate this further. Commissioner Bjorklund explained there was a water gauge on the east side of Tony Schmidt Park Beach that shows the rise and fall of the lake. Commissioner Birken questioned if the properties that have encroached into the shoreline impact zone have been to this degree. Senior Planner Fransen reported the four variance requests that were shared with Commissioner Burlingame did not encroach into the shoreline impact zone. She stated the variances requested were for front yard setbacks or for a non -conforming structure. Commissioner Birken asked how many properties on the lake encroached into the shoreline impact zone. Senior Planner Fransen commented she had not prepared an analysis with this information, but could research this topic further. Commissioner Birken inquired when the City would receive the DNR review. Senior Planner Fransen indicated this review was completed by the DNR and the DNR was not issuing any comments on this application. Commissioner Birken asked if some of the variances being requested were repeats from the last time this property was given a variance. She stated it was her understanding there would be no way to rebuild a house on this lot without variances. Senior Planner Fransen stated the same house could be rebuilt as is without needing variances. Commissioner Birken questioned if a City sidewalk or walking trail would impact this property. Senior Planner Fransen reported the Comprehensive Plan for Parks and Recreation has an identified pathway that would span Lake Johanna Boulevard to the north. She indicated this property was to the south. Commissioner Lindau asked if the lot area/FAR included the lake. Senior Planner Fransen explained the survey documents are measured to the ordinary high water level. Commissioner Bjorklund commented this property is taking two buildable lots from the 1930's that were non -conforming. He indicated since the 1930's shore impact zones have been placed on these lots. He questioned what the rights were of this property owner when it comes to development irrespective of the new zoning ordinances. He stated these lots precede the shoreland ordinance by many decades. He asked what the rights were of the existing property owner, regardless of what the setbacks, impact zones and shoreland impacts were. He explained he would like to learn more from the City Attorney about how the shore impact zone was setting a precedent on property owners. He discussed how permeable pavers could be used on this property to assist with meeting the City's impervious surface requirements. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — September 3, 2025 5 City Administrator Jagoe stated some of the variance requests were reviewed with the City Attorney and it was confirmed the variances would be needed. She reported staff did this due diligence before bringing this item before the Planning Commission. She explained staff also looked closely at State Statute language. She commented because the home was being rebuilt and expanded, the variances were being triggered. Commissioner Jacobson indicated if she were to rebuild her house she would have to follow City requirements or she would have to apply for a variance. Senior Planner Fransen stated this was the case. Commissioner Jacobson understood there were previous requests from homeowners on the lake that wanted boathouses. She explained this request would rebuild a house very close to the lakeshore and questioned if this request would trigger further requests for boathouses or other structures close to the water. Senior Planner Fransen indicated the shoreland regulation section of the zoning code has established criteria for any sort of development of a boathouse. She noted there were variance criteria that would have to be met and a practical difficulty would have to be displayed. She was of the opinion that requests for a boathouse would be different from this request before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Jacobson requested staff speak to the differences between the ordinary high water mark and the 100 year flood plain level. Senior Planner Fransen discussed the differences between the ordinary high water mark and the 100 year flood plain level. She reported the plan evaluation for this request was based on the 100 year flood plain level. Commissioner Jacobson inquired if the edge of the proposed driveway needs a setback from the neighbors to the east. Senior Planner Fransen explained driveways have to be at least five feet from any neighboring driveway and has to be entirely on the proposed property. Commissioner Jacobson asked if the proposed home would impact the viewshed of the neighboring homes. Senior Planner Fransen stated there are different regulations that could address views, but noted the City does not have specific language that states views must be preserved. Commissioner Jacobson indicated she would like to see a diagram that displays how views from surrounding property owners would be impacted by the proposed home. She understood the home to the west was one story and the proposed home was three stories. She discussed how the privacy of the one story home would be impacted by the proposed home. Senior Planner Fransen stated there is not language within the code that addresses building heights and privacy except for the maximum height permitted, which was 35 feet. She noted the proposed home was below 35 feet. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — September 3, 2025 6 Commissioner Jacobson indicated she had not further questions, but expressed concern with how the mass of this home would change the neighborhood. Commissioner Bjorklund asked if curing a non-conformance to some degree was a reason to grant a variance. He reported the applicant brought this up and inquired if this was a realistic statement. City Administrator Jagoe stated a finding of fact could be drafted to read: The reason for granting the variances was to bring the property closer to conforming. Chair Collins commented on how the height of the structure was conforming, but questioned if the building height conformed with the non -conforming portion of City Code. Senior Planner Fransen explained the applicant was proposing to construct a new home and therefore the maximum building height was 35 feet. Chair Collins asked who oversaw and set the shoreland impact delineation. Senior Planner Fransen stated this standard was set by the DNR. Chair Collins understood the DNR has reviewed these plans, but made no comment. He questioned if the DNR would review the plans again when the applicant requests a permit. Senior Planner Fransen commented the DNR did not specify that a permit would be required. She noted City Code would require a shoreland mitigation plan to be completed by the applicant based on DNR requirements. Commissioner Burlingame asked if non -conformities were supposed to be reduced over time and not expanded. He also inquired if variances were to be at a minimum and not a wholesale departure from standards. City Administrator Jagoe stated non -conforming lots often present a challenge in terms of what is the threshold, or number of variances that can be approved. She indicated the Planning Commission will have to weigh if some of the requests could be brought into conformance through design or were there potential character issues with the neighborhood. She reported the request should be considered in keeping with the neighborhood, with the understanding non- conforming lots can be a challenge to build on. Commissioner Lindau commented on the shoreland mitigation plan and asked if this request could be approved without a shoreland mitigation plan in place. Senior Planner Fransen reported the applicant would have to submit a shoreland impact plan and receive plan approval before a building permit could be issued. The applicant would have one year from plan approval to enact the shoreland mitigation plan strategies. Chair Collins invited the applicant forward at this time. Tan Nguyen, architect for the applicant, introduced himself to the Commission. He clarified the elevation the home would be built at is 883 and the house would be built at 884, which would be in conformance with the flood plain requirements. He explained the current home was over the ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — September 3, 2025 7 property line and required a variance for this. He reported some of the FAR was out to the edge of the water. He commented he spoke with the owner about using permeable pavers for the driveway and he anticipated this would be done. Commissioner Birken inquired if any mature trees would be removed from the lot. Mr. Nguyen stated there were no mature trees on the lot. Commissioner Birken asked if any soil tests would be completed on the property to ensure the lot could support the proposed home. Mr. Nguyen explained he would be completing soil borings in order to figure out where the water table was. Commissioner Burlingame pointed out the vacant property had three rather large trees on it. He questioned if a reduction in the plans had been considered in order to reduce the number of variances. Mr. Nguyen stated this would be difficult to do given the size or shape of the lot and the setbacks that were required. He indicated an impractical home could be built that was really skinny and long. Commissioner Erler inquired why the new house could not be built on the previous footprint. Mr. Nguyen explained the previous home encroached on the roadway. He stated he has never built a house that encroaches onto the City right-of-way. He commented on how it was impractical to rebuild a new home with the same exact footprint as the previous home. Commissioner Lindau thanked the applicant for the thoughtful and well -designed plans. Commissioner Bjorklund asked where the mature trees were located. Commissioner Lindau noted there were three mature trees within the right of way on the vacant lot. Mr. Nguyen reported there were no trees on the survey and stated there were no trees in the area where he would be building. Commissioner Jacobson commented it was important to see the lake and asked if the proposed home would impact the neighbors view. Mr. Nguyen explained the majority of the home was two stories, which was the same as the home that was there. He noted the small portion being added to the third story was for the mother in law's guest room. He indicated he would not be able to build a four -bedroom one-story home on this tiny lot with no basement. Commissioner Birken inquired if this would be an investment property or would this be a primary home. Mr. Nguyen reported this would be the primary home for the property owner. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — September 3, 2025 8 Chair Collins thanked Mr. Nguyen for his presentation. He then opened the meeting for public comment. Paula Ludewig, 1626 Lake Johanna Boulevard, explained she lived to the west of the subject property. She noted one tree did go down, but noted there were several other trees on the lot. She feared these trees would be removed and this was a concern to her. She stated she was also concerned with how the drainage from this property would impact her home. She requested the footprint of the proposed home be reconsidered to more closely match the existing home. She discussed how her home shifts on her sandy lot and questioned if the proposed lot could support a three story home. Dianne Pidde, 1619 Lake Johanna Boulevard, reported she sent an email outlining her concerns and the variances that were under consideration. She indicated she has lived in her home since the mid-1970's and was deeply connected to her neighbors and Lake Johanna. She appreciated the need to join the two lots, but she was concerned with how the large structure would impact the environment. She was of the opinion a non -conforming lot should move closer to conformity when being redeveloped and not further away from conformity. She explained she wanted to ensure that the lake was being protected and recommended a home with the same or similar footprint as the existing home be considered for this lot. She was of the opinion the proposed home was out of character for the neighborhood, especially given the size of the lot. She further discussed how her view of the lake and sky would be lost if the new home were constructed. Commissioner Bjorklund asked if Ms. Pidde could support a two story home being built on this lot. Ms. Pidde stated she believed this would be reasonable. Chair Collins closed the meeting for public comment. Commissioner Burlingame reported this was likely the most constrained and visible lot on Lake Johanna. He indicated the applicant has land based hardship, but the relief being requested goes well beyond the minimums used. He expressed concern with the fact the home would be built below flood plain standards. He recommended action on this item be tabled until the Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed this request or only approve the request if the number of variances was reduced and the elevation of the home was increased. He did not support approving the request without having safeguards in place because this would impact the entire Lake Johanna corridor. Commissioner Lindau stated improving that property as shown was welcomed in the City. He explained he appreciated the thoughtfulness of the proposed plans. He understood this was already a non -conforming lot but he had concerns about increasing the amount of impervious surface to 66% and the FAR to .51 with no clear hardship. In addition, he had concerns with the fact no improvements were proposed for the shore impact zone. He discussed how important it was to impact the water quality for Lake Johanna. Commissioner Jacobson indicated this was a non -conforming lot and it would be difficult to meet the City's setbacks. She discussed the history of the lot, noting this property began with a cottage. She understood that some of the requirements for this property could not be met, but was ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — September 3, 2025 9 of the opinion, others could. She did not support taking an existing non -conforming situation and making it even more non -conforming. She stated she would consider tabling this item. Commissioner Birken reported this was a difficult request. She understood the applicant did not have to have this large of a house, especially given the size of the lot, but noted her primary concern was with the shore impact zone. She stated 20% to 30% of the home would be in the shore impact zone. She feared that if this request were approved, the door would be open to allowing future requests for homes to be built into the shoreland impact area by 30%. She indicated this would compromise the water quality and increase erosion. Commissioner Erler commented this was a tough one for him. He stated after weighing the various criteria for the variances, in some cases the proposed design improves the property and in other cases the proposed design would make matters worse. He explained he understood this was an extremely challenging lot and that the property owner had a right to build on the lot. He believed the proposed home design was very well done, but he was of the opinion the home was too large for the lot size and neighborhood. He requested the applicant consider a new plan that was less imposing and while also reducing the non -conformities. Commissioner Bjorklund stated he believed the third story on the home had to be eliminated. He reported this would reduce the home by 642 square feet. He explained he understood the shoreland concerns and noted erosion was a real concern. He recommended permeable pavers be required for the driveway. He recommended action on this item be tabled until some of the concerns being raised by the Commission can be addressed by the applicant. Chair Collins summarized the comments from the Commission noting this request had too many asks and there was concern with how the lake will be impacted by the proposed home. In addition, there were concerns that an approval of this request would set a precedent for future homes to encroach into the shore impact zone. City Administrator Jagoe commented if the Commission was leaning towards tabling action on this item, she requested specific direction be provided to the applicant on what items should be further addressed. She reported the 60 day review period would have to be extended if the Commission were to table action on this item. Chair Collins clarified design changes could be qualified as recommendations to the City Council. City Administrator Jagoe reported this was the case. She indicated staff could review the elevations for the building again, because the numbers the applicant was coming in with were different than the numbers staff had. Councilmember Weber indicated the Planning Commission could also make a recommendation for denial and list the reasons for denial and this information would be passed along to the City Council. He noted this would still get the point across to the City Council. Commissioner Jacobson stated she was struggling with considering any building on this property given the impact that the home would have into the shore impact zone. Chair Collins explained at this time, the Commission would require additional information from the applicant regarding a shoreland mitigation plan, a tree inventory, and FAR guidance. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — September 3, 2025 10 Commissioner Lindau suggested the same FAR be followed for the lot with the non - conformities but recommended the vacant lot follow City Code. He stated this would assist with not setting a precedent from this request. Commissioner Erler discussed how the existing structure already encroaches on the shore impact zone. He suggested the Commission consider how to change or lessen this impact versus increasing the impact. Commissioner Lindau stated the shoreland mitigation plan may address these concerns. Chair Collins indicated he was struggling with the shore impact zone for the two lots and how the Commission could provide guidance on this issue. He recommended the shore impact threshold not be increased further than it was already being impacted by the existing structure. Senior Planner Fransen discussed how the lot consolidation would make the property more conforming when it comes to impervious surface. She suggested a threshold could be set when it comes to FAR, structure coverage, impervious surface and the shore impact zone. Commissioner Birken supported the Commission going through the list of variances one by one. The Commission was in agreement with this suggestion. Commissioner Birken stated there was nothing the Commission could do about the lot area and noted she could support this variance request. She indicated the lot depth was supposed to be 85 feet and the lot only had 49 feet. Senior Planner Fransen stated staff would verify with the applicant the building area elevation as it appears the architect has proposed the home would be built at 883. Commissioner Birken commented the applicant has proposed a front yard setback of four inches. She stated she could support this variance request. She indicated the rear yard setback was supposed to be 30 feet or 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark. She indicated the applicant has requested a variance to decrease this to 8.5 and 10.9 feet. She noted a portion of the building was already at 9 feet. Chair Collins indicated he could support the setback being 9 feet on the existing lot with the understanding the portion of the new structure on the new property complies with the rear yard setback. Commissioner Bjorklund suggested because no mitigation plan was provided by the applicant for the shoreland impact zone, this was reason enough to deny the request. Commissioner Birken stated the matter before the Commission was not about the mitigation plan, but rather was about how much of the building can be put in this area. Chair Collins commented his concern was how this structure would impact the lake and the fact that portion would sit within the shore impact zone. He suggested the same square footage of the existing structure within the shore impact zone is the maximum that would be allowed in the shore impact zone. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — September 3, 2025 11 Commissioner Erler supported this recommendation. Commissioner Lindau suggested the Applicant be allowed to maintain the impervious surface on the existing lot, and that the vacant lot comply with City Code requirements. Senior Planner Fransen recommended the existing impervious coverage for the 1622 Lake Johanna Boulevard be maintained and that the vacant lot at 1624 Lake Johanna Boulevard have a maximum impervious surface coverage ratio of She noted the overall impervious ratio for both lots would not be higher than 51 %. Commissioner Birken questioned how the Commission should address the structure coverage request. Senior Planner Fransen commented using the same math that was used for the impervious surface, the maximum allowed structure coverage would be 37%. City Administrator Jagoe stated if the Commission was leaning on changes for Variances 7, 8 and 9, she asked that staff be allowed to review the survey prior to finalizing the percentages. She suggested a condition be added to read: For impervious surface coverage, structure coverage, and floor area ratio, the Applicant shall not exceed a standard that is calculated by taking the existing nonconforming equivalent for the currently developed 1622 lot and adding to that the equivalent of the square footage that would meet the Zoning Code standards for the undeveloped 1624 lot. That shall be the maximum square footage for each code requirement that would be approved for a future building permit application. Commissioner Jacobson supported this recommendation. Commissioner Bjorklund supported giving guidance to bring this property more closely into conformance while still pointing to the zoning code. Chair Collins asked if the Commission wanted to make a recommendation for approval or denial to the City Council. Commissioner Lindau supported a recommendation for approval with conditions. Commissioner Birken moved and Commissioner Bjorklund seconded a motion to recommend approval 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 Boulevard, 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, and the additional condition that the square foot of the existing structure that was within the shore impact zone was the maximum area allowed to protrude into the zone, and that for impervious surface coverage, structure coverage and floor area ratio, the applicant was not to exceed the existing non -conforming equivalents for the non -conforming parcel at 1622 Lake Johanna Boulevard and meet standards for the property at 1624 Lake Johanna Boulevard. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Chair Collins recessed the Planning Commission meeting at 9:05 p.m. Attachment J �`iIDEENf HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2025-073 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT CONSOLIDATION FOR 1622 LAKE JOHANNA BOULEVARD WHEREAS, City Staff received a complete land use application for a Lot Consolidation and Variance request on August 11, 2025, from Tan Nguyen ("Applicant"), for the property located at 1622 Lake Johanna Boulevard and 1624 Lake Johanna Boulevard ("Subject Property"). The request would allow for the consolidation of the Subject Property into one parcel, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by October 9, 2025 (60 days) and unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period; and WHEREAS, the City provided the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period and extended the review period to December 9, 2025 (120 days) based on the Applicant's requested extension on the City Council's review of the request; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a Land Use Application Public Policy Notification to notify all property owners within 500 feet of Subject Property when a request for the Planning Commission is to occur related to a land use application that does not require a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City's obligation has been met where the Arden Hills Planning Commission reviewed the application on September 3, 2025. All written comments submitted in advance of the meeting were presented to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission considered the Applicant's request for a Lot Consolidation and as such voted 7-0 in favor of recommending approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS: Herby adopts Resolution 2025-073 approving Planning Case 2025-008 for a Lot Consolidation of the Subject Property at 1622 Lake Johanna Boulevard and 1624 Lake Johanna Boulevard to consolidate the two parcels into one parcel. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council approves Planning Case 25-008 for a Lot Consolidation on the Subject Property at 1622 Lake Johanna Boulevard and 1624 Lake Johanna Boulevard, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the November 24, 2025, report to the City Council, as amended by the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall provide the Certificate of Survey for the consolidated lot as approved. 2. 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 60 days of the City's approval. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025. David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: Julie Hanson, City Clerk To view the final document, access adopted Resolutions via Arden Hills Public Laserfzche Weblink by visiting cityofardenhills.org and clicking on Archived Documents under Helpful Links on our main webpage. EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 2025-073 - �m•eriee.mme�ae.egegagge.m.w.oxxx..o• f$a�ffffYa�6�ffpp$�$fi�� _��::FF Rai$ ��6 j 5 y�5yJ4F $F� F @ 8llj- � � fffe� Im miurd:e•geo.eeaemyoA,.n® omn • { g•.r £rrr�rgr" r.ra{ 'bar .+1 99 woe s a ii I 4ff9�A @rr el?{!d;raBR�arreff { Y �0�{e9 N r��g�� $ " 3 � � $$i3�$ �gRrff $ 4 r r p r x„CCCC Si6CGe @lQI �pl r }A 1�`�� ` � {GgpP 4 77 C6SG5r^ rC4� {ff o $ "&r e8� fill rgr�yy d�i g 4j F� 1 m rr ,e r \ F A 8 Hill Attachment K �`iIDEENf HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2025-074 RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FOR 1622 LAKE JOHANNA BOULEVARD WHEREAS, City Staff received a complete land use application for Variance requests on August 11, 2025, from Tan Nguyen ("Applicant"), for the property located at 1622 Lake Johanna Boulevard and 1624 Lake Johanna Boulevard ("Subject Property"). The request would allow for the construction of a new single-family residential dwelling, as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, to construct this proposal, the Applicant is seeking variances based on applicable zoning code definitions and minimum lot standards: 1) Lot Area: Variance to decrease the required lot area to allow 8,372 square feet following the proposed lot consolidation rather than 14,000 square feet as required by code. The existing lot area of the parcel with the existing single- family dwelling is 4,415 square feet; 2) Lot Depth: 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 rather than 130 feet as required by code; 3) Building Area Elevation: Variance to decrease the required building area elevation to allow for a building area elevation of 881.1 feet rather than 883.1 feet as required by code; 4) Front Yard Setback: Variance to decrease the required front yard setback to allow 1.9 feet from the property line rather than 40 feet as required by code. The existing single-family dwelling encroaches 4.8 inches (A feet) into the Right -of -Way; 5) Rear Yard Setback: Variance to decrease the rear yard setback and structure setback from Ordinary High Water Level to allow 11.2 feet from the proposed principal structure instead of 50 feet as required by code. The existing single- family dwelling principal structure has a rear yard setback of 9 feet from Ordinary High Water Level; 6) Shore Impact Zone: Variance to construct a portion of the proposed dwelling 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 and structures are prohibited. The existing dwelling structure is located within the Shore Impact Zone; 7) Permeable Surface Credit: Variance to exceed the ordinance requirement for up to five percent of a lot's required landscaped area to be covered with pervious hard surfaces; 8) Structure Coverage: Variance to exceed the ordinance requirement for the structure coverage to allow 33 percent rather than 25 percent maximum as permitted by code. The currently developed property has a structure coverage of 48 percent; 9) Floor Area Ratio: Variance to exceed the ordinance requirement for floor area ratio to allow .44 rather than .3 maximum as permitted by code. The existing dwelling has a floor area ratio of .65; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by October 9, 2025 (60 days) and unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period; and WHEREAS, the City provided the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period and extended the review period to December 9, 2025 (120 days) based on the Applicant's requested extension on the City Council's review of the request; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a Land Use Application Public Policy Notification to notify all property owners within 500 feet of Subject Property when a request for the Planning Commission is to occur related to a land use application that does not require a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City's obligation has been met where the Arden Hills Planning Commission reviewed the application on September 3, 2025. All written comments submitted in advance of the meeting were presented to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission considered the Applicant's request for Variances and, as such voted 7-0 in favor of recommending approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS: Herby adopts Resolution 2025-074 approving Planning Case 2025-008 for Variances at the Subject Property at 1622 Lake Johanna Boulevard and 1624 Lake Johanna Boulevard for future development with a single-family residential dwelling. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council approves Planning Case 25-008 for Variances on the Subject Property at 1622 Lake Johanna Boulevard and 1624 Lake Johanna Boulevard, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the November 24, 2025, report to the City Council, as amended by the following conditions: 1. A Demolition Permit and a Building Permit shall be issued prior to the commencement of demolition and for the new home construction. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. The Applicant shall verify proposed driveway width with Ramsey County and show on plans where asphalt curb will be removed and replaced. 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 plan actions 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. 11. As part of the proposed new home development, the Applicant shall not increase the existing nonconforming square footage equivalent that encroaches the shore impact zone of the Subject Property. 12. For Impervious Surface Coverage, Structure Coverage, and Floor Area Ratio, the Applicant shall not exceed a standard that is calculated by taking the existing nonconforming equivalent for the currently developed 1622 lot and adding to that the equivalent of the square footage that would meet the Zoning Code standards for the neighboring undeveloped lot. Plans submitted to the building department must not exceed that maximum allowable square footage based on the calculation. 13. The Applicant shall submit a shoreline vegetation and screening plan that provides natural habitat with native plantings and screens the new structure by at least 50% as viewed from the water, assuming summer leaf -on conditions to the DNR and the City. The plan shall be approved by DNR staff. 14. The Applicant shall submit a plan to direct rain gutter discharges away from the lake and into an infiltration basin to the DNR and the City. The plan shall be approved by DNR staff. 15. As part of the building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a plan showing the proposed square footage for the permeable pavers with sign -off from a civil engineer. Proposed square footage for the permeable pavers shall not exceed 15 percent of the consolidated lot's required landscaped area. 16. The Applicant shall provide the City with documentation of RCWD permits associated with Rule E for floodplain alteration and Rule D for erosion and sediment control. 17. Applicant shall demonstrate in plans that the proposed development will be below the RCWD's 100 cubic yard threshold for floodplain fill or provide compensatory storage for the entirety of the floodplain fill, subject to RCWD approval. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025. David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: Julie Hanson, City Clerk To view the final document, access adopted Resolutions via Arden Hills Public Laserfche Weblink by visiting cityofardenhills.org and clicking on Archived Documents under Helpful Links on our main webpage EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 2025-073 - �m•eriee.mme�ae.egegagge.m.w.oxxx..o• f$a�ffffYa�6�ffpp$�$fi�� _��::FF Rai$ ��6 j 5 y�5yJ4F $F� F @ 8llj- � � fffe� Im miurd:e•geo.eeaemyoA,.n® omn • { g•.r £rrr�rgr" r.ra{ 'bar .+1 99 woe s a ii I 4ff9�A @rr el?{!d;raBR�arreff { Y �0�{e9 N r��g�� $ " 3 � � $$i3�$ �gRrff $ 4 r r p r x„CCCC Si6CGe @lQI �pl r }A 1�`�� ` � {GgpP 4 77 C6SG5r^ rC4� {ff o $ "&r e8� fill rgr�yy d�i g 4j F� 1 m rr ,e r \ F A 8 Hill (1) 4J U � � _ M J 4- N i N � )J l,' cn C: N N C V) ro O = v M� N z E N 0 O >. O Z Z O - WO�++ N ULn p U 4� I m O > O J U J m J i W i > O C .� i w v = -0 Q Q O .E 0 E i W N aQ a °I= oJ U 2 a-J O U O Q O > N v m � W N � i `1 U �N Ca ° U Q •— CC1A C6 0 U � U Ca V) � O 4- C6 N 4-J O u O +- b.p N L ro m = 00 O � m up `� L+- N u a) m 0 n U c-I rl i ...� 0 00 V% �--� N_ r-i Zt 4-� r-� � V +, u O oo O p tv0 0 � � a) = Ln v � uz i l) � N O O N O � 00 00 + v +- O O O N rl) `- O O > coy N I O 4- O Ln 4- O M � a1 L N � E E v E E E E E O U Ln 0 a) v L- N L co a-J N O z , mr- Ln i r fn U U N � C to ! { C t to m _ O —� C N N N i x m C r-1 R W ! L t 4 } OJ ' I i ---1 C r� 1 a p zai i m r ` L L� j 1 J r � z a—+ UO •X N � —0 O =3 C: U O •� a—+ N O E Q N O U O `� O j O C6 a--' ate-+ O U cn UO — O 4—' O U O U • o 'I x O O J LL F- n� (W� O QL O 1-1 CL O n� W n� rW^ `� 1 O QL O QL- n� W Qu cc 0 W z CL of E Qj a v Qj O 0•. ►v 9 d Lot Depth -49 feet m Q) � � U � I I Ln W O O UO U > �A v) N � 3 v co Y Y L V .O N n -A U M C cI l0 I� O +� � 00 Q 00 Q fj jl 1 Q,----' I; II a I f II ^` W Ir a, M '-1 z 2 1(t _0 Y O 4- O N � L >0 M O Y O > 00 O N 00 N I w t I �- I I I II !M7 I —�-I SI I < aLL ^ I12 Z W a� i 1 `.i M °o i .I '•I Y Z5 I I; • r ,v � r ' / .D a �j � W _ N u 0 a f0 1 Il I' I' li E fl r W 1 QD . f+ f O \ 1 O rc m � � O ---, p •cam U • > �� W _� O ( V W � � ,a L Ln Q n 0 zi I I LL I',' l ofw 11 oLL W Kp < oW � o 0 I is + ! i + F to o ri ci � r v � m p i A m y 1 C: m= U 3 c r L 1 411 t 'I � � 0 1 I 'I 1 V I O Lu m Q) NW 1� E m - n hW � QD L / O 1 O rc m V C O O .— • cn U O � I U U a--j a--j cn cn l s� <•n Go '1 z s g •a � �� ,T I - I ej...-. N V I' I I j � 1 b < m W 10 0. O2 ' O l Y Z � W O i I I g 3W II OW Y s a, &a; jl I 1 I o S \ _-_____fir o-------- - - i�, U. 0 v O1 fM N 6 v _0 N M Q- N Ln o -O Cl I'1 N N Lr) A C 2 0 0 v o 00 Q M I Cl O N N Z E E Q E M ru M E E vu E c X c X -O fa X ul (6 ul m c C a) m M E N E Ln m ro E N r-I v a m c c m s 0 a Y ' J N • N l0 a1 00 C W Co c O U (D V) I U cn 0 v a 'R v c 0 v in 0 m m r-I 00 00 v o 0 N O N L 2 �- > O c U 0 0 i n N N oo 0 _ N T a) co Z ro 0 INN IZ a a 0 :4%a .rm > 0 i -0 a a-' O � V) _ I • 4- 0 N N t1A O N L O U ' ^ W U L� O 0- E 4- 0 C O a--+ U W L Ln Ln ro p� tr[r y 'Olt 77I i4 z LU w all c z d��i i LL Z: O tn 4ft1 • lz W in v 'U � O — crn O a ' - Q pj pj o� a 0j CD 4 O ul O �_ N �a�a�va�� L.n o � Q p - 4-1 � Ov 0 Ln 4,p �'— p 0� '- 4-, ---j v � Q �O ��o—,ova N � — 0� Q) ^N O v v o c� O o Ln � a1 �-IZa O iz-o-z to j ---j •— ov—Ln,—>, CL von `'°a.o�vLn kn ��°�' _0Q) IJ Q)�� a� v ��F—s�V W a- j C6 +�4-- % .� 0 • � O ._ 4-1 O i v a v 1 0 v Ln QJ•N C34�v 4� O � Qj s �: L.- Ln o a= a v Lnv m a� •- �n a <, 13 Q N a O � •� ' O O � � O a � .� a a--j O cn ` N a Qj Q) v O '` O +� 0- a Qj Q) v ---' L- v ' Q O .�, N i CT s-' O 4) cnLn O 4-1 Lu U � � o •=' y° = v c� o o v 4S •�LnLn s 4-1 a) o v o �� s = -0 � •+ v a i O � cn O O a •— v i 4j un � � v CDO 4 v v aLn � � v a v v p O_ a 4-1 4.; O �o v,°-r3 ,v o i O 1 i U S O � 0J j ON O a Ov 42 Q0- Q)� v c�.o- v E Q)Qj o '� v ,O a i o,o � o n v 4-1 a) �� U v p p m & \_ � CL / U 0 0 0 v a ftsZ v� v -C3 �� O a 4' � a v o, O v a o� m 4-1 v4-1 � o 0 0� 'k � o •�, v 4-1 L(� QJ O "' a� ova � Qj U v� O v U 4-1 O O � 4J ,v 4j � a 4-j v v v s v E 4-1 4-1 O •- a, In .1 v CT. ago +� v � � DC z� a Qj M � i a u v O v 0� 4 Lu vi v Q-vvo,— a) m N � a � � v � i U 9 OLn O c6 �ILn 0 L i Lf) -j� O v Z � � = 4-j a ° � o v •� � O a v I Ln i a 4 Ln v1 4-,� Ln u � .� U O �, a, o Lm- v O °' � s U Ln .-, ._ � a) .� v� u o �, O � S a Ln a O � O Q� O U = � O s N O -0 tn .�, � O _ 4-1 U U cn CT cn �p Ln Q Ln >, Co (� O Ln Ln ' cn 4J O O C6 O c U �> w° Q(a) . s 4- m o' v a - v_ O a'x Q o n, �, v v ° - O v a W a E a ]. o 4- Cr v a°° V) �, = +, o a�s� � - o a � a 0! O Ln s U 4J ° ��v° v o°' v QjQj i 4�Qj a O O a 4- a .o o v a sQj tea., 4. 4� 1 j O v a o o v a v v a O s Oi a a a� v o p° Q a Q1 O p U U i vQJ a � v vs Qs v� Cc s -r3 ° o v 4-_ a v o p U o v �. a v o v 4,�n v ° v a Qj a Q� OJ v W o.� U U U� a a, W i Qj a O •� th p 0 4- • ° y ° Ln - O _ -t:5 Y s v v v C v i a a O Iv ��`►� O a iQ� ova°v•oo aim Y 4- a �v� � Qj ° i v O _ o o a,s ,_,QL c 4� v H aL,) as a v° m' a' S m��o_ wo— at m i- a a 5 s a a-r3 4- o � Qj �' a v � ° i `� O O p �, ° 1 Q O ate►, Ov �O 0! s O 4-1 4-1 Ln 4-1 N a O � O a v �.O � � •�, - v a ass v v a v o O v o a v U- Q a, � N a � � v 4-1 � v N i 0 0 �o z0ut� °' C) a v �`� a U a i i � CA Qj 4-1 •�CCoc v v v z i v s i a � .= .,.,, Q o� � a a Z Qj En L- Qj O4-1 °Ln' a� a • a 4� kn a v a :::b ° QJ ZO O. v ice.., 0 O � z O U v N ,a Ln v v a Ln v v U� C: O +� O O � OCA a ° Qj Qj OC k- � � Ln v Ov Ov `� 0 Qj Q a N N m N ^A ` 4-a ca ca s � U }, aA N cn N O +-+ • +-+ N N U a--+ L Q v a-+ O O O i -0 C6 Ca 4-1 � z 4- v ' L �� any c U .� O v N N p- .— L- 4-� O Q N O Ln U a--+ +� m �. ro aA v O N aA c6 Z3 O O QQ O U 4A O N t�0 Q hA N U N 4-1 O U Q) on f6 N U — U to Q O Q E i Q v .— F O N O � v o� � O � • m O Q, v > Q / �D .O = t Ln Cu o � • ,(3) cr a� ul U N cn � % Lli 4-1 O +J Q Q Lli �O U Q) Lr) ro•`='z O N O U L V U V �-0 ago � N N v }, U �, - E +� +J — U � U v to O a--' O dJ Q Q Q) -0 s° o o� v z� N cn ro +J U cn V ++� � N � co co o �, o 0 cn O N LL o � ca v O �' O 0-o=(CLo.��° O N � .v � N, O — O � '> M N +� Q v .V Q 0 Q +, U— � +_� >. . V (N a--� _0 LU � >� ' cn +-- ' N ca c6 U � ro 0 Q) aA �' Ln N X ca Q Q Ol N 0 M W O ca � N O p a1 U U � � c:Ln � +, - U w 0-0 N 'E w +, C N O N U Q) 4-- N cn 0 - E N Q1 1 m N O O E�� o � N Q N C6 � • C6 a--+ N N ,0 N v C6 — � 4-f � a) " �D�E =L o � N � — O O 'ate O ;:; -C •Q ca O Z U Q v O E u O c6 ' - 0 cn � .� N Q CO ca � -0 Q� s c6 — O Q c O •> � O o .o ca a) ro . � ' .� O � .N o > o .o E O ° r1 E _ � O 1 r V Q.)Uo(3)U-_0 �� -0 O U O U � O �a-o Lr +J U N N N M OU Ln N L 00 O O O N a)Q 0 Ln L O O 0 O L O O O N p Q Q Q � N ao Q s s U N O ~ N s U � O LJ N +' > _ N 00 Vf � OU � fB O L + co +� m > ca c Ln +, a) Q i a) a) a) a) Via; o � sN CL O O — +1 N N > co s +, v +� O Ln a n U N N f0 L L (a L � O Q N N N L E Q 3 Q U Q N L N O > O Ln +-+ E p U p H s N L t —_ s ca O m cB m O O N +-+ �, U > > U N s s O E fB L O s O U L O L Y a ' (n +-+ N as+ (0 p U N U Ln N J v C) L N N Ln 00 L U (�D Q L f0 N 0) Ln i 0 O to O cu > � � +�+ U Cs N N p C L cu a+ M L Q cn fB fB >, in N a N � O c Q +� x U L O L N> c a U f0 > Q w cu O ++ co O s 0- LnL O N a-+ O v to f6 O +, s N =3 O N U O O N O O N N s � N cB > > Ln -0cB aA O V v O J — Q - v O Q) O N C f0 N L N U L .O L a) 0 �..i N (O Q r-I L1 U L C to l]A O f0 v :3 b O Ql p > � au)fB ON -0r4 O Ln Ln >p a) a) cB s s M f0 Lni v >Ln O N (� >-,— a) a) t]A s � L }' 'u O O (B �O N N N O N L O _ s O a+ 0-0 L VJ O L s p s L s E s L s s O U— fB U H H F- cE L s N V c-I N fY L6 l0 I� v O Qv v -0-0 +- = O C: O Q) U N N +� +., C: U _0 O N N N f) N +-+ 'Ul) � v v Q) N v O Q) 0-0 CL O 0- 4-J c6 � O U N _ y ci O i U O O O a _O ate-' N +-+ N U N ate-J +-+ 0 ate+ N 0 N Q vi i O Q a--' U v m vs + Ln N O _0 — O O +�+ v O ++ ° Q) � U N U v= Q) N � E _0 L.. N � � U +_+ a- + ' N N 4A QJ O i }, O ate-+ N 0 i v � �= N �! ate-+ ' � Ln = te O i O (B V � M � CB a--+ � -0 ate-+ � � O can — .N E O 'a-+ � h!J O E � � � , v Q p �p N a� N O U a o +, cn 0 O O N — N °U in D O - ate--+ N O — E N N N N 3 ro U C: i O m m Q% O Q) U v U L ^ n Q) v O +_+ U J +, L 'N 'gin Q)u � 41 � N U OU N a O ate-+ U Q Q-0 i 06 of �o � r- N +� N tw 4 - a) c v v 0 ro cB v c - Q m 00 Q �O 0 ca O > r > 4 N .- ( U Lf -0 m a m E (U> O � c B N � + c6 m O Z3 Q > O N Ln cV .�j }, U O O i N Q j N > >, U v � v J Q p Lj 0 o,,.- M M N O Q° U 0 Iro U O O rri — O > a o r -0 o_0 V)-0 O� CL o u1 4- C O � CL p N +� (UN >' � t O O U a U O N O Z3p U O N O U N N N fV aJ O _� N ° N �O _Z3 O O +., N U-0 — p OC O O t O z m O ul � >Or. 4 NE a Q) O m O p c o U O a cB_ N rz v � �� a-' Z N o O }' U U mO U 0 p� O �' Q co N 4O O N O 4 c�n v O O �_ OJ N Q aJ N O cn +=+ O 0O � � U E N O v U cow Z3 M rq }' p Q Q cB N C O aA 0 O Q) a)�_ O U .� O �� O o O o O O D p ri N o O Q) O Q Q Z O w H i O p p p v m -TZ � -0 O (3.) 1 L Q) _0 U _ 4- C 0-0f6 L }, D 0 (� J U V) t N Ln bn + _ N V) Q) (IJ U-0 M a"' p ON u m- m Ln M > N � 4-Q E O O U aJ a CO .2 N O U O L ca > p m d) O� m O O L L 0 +� 4.1 Ln �-- — p c6 L n V)-0 a1 w m QJ 4- QJ (� L L 00 O O O vi O 4.1 O m 0 _ O N N 00 v M �J ` m•• O> N u1 N Qj N J O- 1 U J C QL1 o Ln a L u 1 N `n O Q trA Ln O N N V p U N +� N lD O N L N to >, O C a O CLO O 4n C U U O ca L C 4-> O Z bA 4- m QJ � Q) tin C N �, O Ln O I w p C Q) L� t)A QJ M V) a O L— -C te va- —O m O O �O C C� t C ._ L E O O U 2 C N_0 VI OD � -0 O > m u > V) >- C O >- 0J -0 QJ 4- > L Q) Q U o >. 'E Ln U 4- N C O C O A p U O o om O QJ N O+ N U C O U It � -0 an O [6 an MaJ � +-� o Q, �, � o L C V)� 0 C N ut CI N L> O a' L- Q1 0 V) N Q1 p a (\�\ QJ N> pE p U N L J L O N Q) Q) > U +� Q> CO O Q 0) Ln O +� +� O U O C cB a-+ O U z O E - ''' a••' O O O a)L Q1 fB Q C M Q N Ln mN }' o p L o i O Qi >. C (n p `n O of +, O cB 'n o C 00 o o O a. O O `n � O• V)O C 1�(Ij O O�� a p L 4-1 �� a--+ � Lr) u� a O O o Q N -i Q) N Qj O c�L6 a ate- vUi N [V Q1 - co 4--' CD-Ql QJ c0 4--+ U -0 k.D v� cn U — ai � O - �O > w co C + 0 c� -0 C >- 4- an U � W 0 `� 0 0- C an a Qj - a N � o aj � = GG G o Q) o a, � mL_ a:� C v L (II 4-1 QJ t]A _0 a + f0 a + QJ L U .�..� cB a- O m C O O _ QJ } o tin M� +' 0 LO QJ a-' ao � f6 > v i a �, vi N 1 I M 41 O 4-1 0- Q) H > r.. O k cr' V)Q) O > O C Q C o L Q) v i 0 41 O _0 O V) pj U On _ Ln U O� U bA } 0 4- �` 41 N> p CD .�� > O _ > u C O> u • LO m N C ,( Q) L c L QI a) QJ QJ (6 QJ O O V) a- U Q i'o V) 4-Q) C Ln N V cd O cUd U N c -0 r_ibo O -- �". cd N th 40. N d O Cd U Ln Q, Q. d" s • s, Q .46 cd cd LtQn O to cqj O Ocn s. rn p O O to N N rl cd Z N. "" cd cd cqj, � N o wun cl o U � °�' o Ln bn Cd . o O to Cd yCd Cd o cd o Qn m cd o �, on i r d 4'- En' cd p cd �j Cd - Eno Qn .4,=� Cd o o o . ~ ascd a� p cd to QO 'n .z: R - . a m °.. O U W O p En toct N 4O l\ QU n un In cncd to RO V O O o� r,� a� a ciO cd bA cd N 9 to cn cd .'" N U " M W) V -- _ m Ito O �". N � � N ,Mcd cd r bA cdQn O to -, cn C O r O cij pq y N $ p V r t cn F-+ cd H w Q x U Qi U O -� N M v� r� oo C� N v v v ct I 'd o r, Qo 2 ua cio In Cd 40. Cd cd N �' N N N 9 . cd y O �p 3 O ram"+ n vUi" cq34°v cqj, U U cd N N N cd O W N�-� O NUS m �: � O N Cd N cd cl03 �� O Lnkr) ^� can Ln Cd Q�+�- vOi r1y OO Cd p n N cd ccd N U J _ y0 OLn y O cdQn U ctj -- ~ P. o N U O p p tb O V "C N N cdct V Cd i 4-4 N w Ln It rn O Q N ¢ � O Qn N Cd N -- cd y � cd U Qn 03 +cq O O 4- U �, O UU bUQ Qn r r �" N � p 03 1 �� ' Cd ^�W v J� i/� N • U U CA O clCA cd"rA O �� cd cd O cn 4+' lam/ O ^p � — >, 'd bA O ' _ p s Ed CA cd -- cd n cd cd N " N , � O U _ O Cl Cd V Ckr) V U Cd O O C6 cl cq O cd N Cd Hcn Qo HQn d°v m N m _0 m C6 O Q) C6 J N rl ca N N N U CB m c CB O m O V) c O U O 00 O N v Ln CB bn so NEW BUSINESS -11C 'It -ARkEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 24, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator FROM: Elena Fransen, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #25-012 — No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Archetype Sign Makers, Inc. Property Location: 1103 County Road E West (Goodwill Industries) Request: Sign Standard Adjustment (Site Plan Review) Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Motion to approve, table, or deny the following: • Adoption of Resolution 2025-075 for Planning Case 25-012 to allow a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process for the property located at 1103 County Road E West ("Subject Property"). Archetype Sign Makers, Inc. ("The Applicant") proposes to install an additional 60-square-foot wall sign on the eastern elevation of the Goodwill Thrift Store building. Background 1. Overview of Request The Subject Property is located within Sign District 5, where the maximum wall sign copy area allowed is 80 square feet. The property has two wall signs totaling 80 square feet. The Applicant is seeking flexibility through the Site Plan Review process for a sign standard adjustment for size with the proposed additional wall sign, for a total of 140 square feet of wall signage. The proposed 60 square foot wall sign could not be permitted without an approved sign standard adjustment. 2. Planning Case Background With the 2013 approval of Planning Case 12-019, the City entered into a Planned Unit Development Agreement with TAT Properties LLC to allow the reuse of the existing building on Page 1 of 8 the property for 74 residential apartment units and 20,000 square feet of retail space at 1201 County Road E. Planning Case 12-019 established signage requirements for the E Street Flats apartments and the main floor retail tenants. At its March 9, 2015, meeting, the City Council approved Planning Case 13-017 and a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment at 1201 County Road E to construct a building with retail and warehouse uses on the undeveloped two -acre southeast corner of the property. The proposal did not include a request to subdivide the property. Planning Case 13-017 included the proposed construction of a 17,743 square foot building with frontage along County Road E and Lexington Avenue. The building was proposed to be operated by Goodwill Industries as a long-term tenant. A maximum wall sign copy area of 80 square feet is permitted in Sign District 5, where the Subject Property is located. As part of the land use application for Planning Case 13-017, the Applicant proposed a total of 80 square feet of wall signage for the building, to be divided between two, 40 square foot signs. The proposed signs would be installed on the parapets on the south and west sides of the building. No additional signage was included with the proposal. The Goodwill building was constructed and the sign permit applications were submitted and approved with the signage described in the PUD application. On September 12, 2025, the Applicant submitted a sign permit application for an additional 80 square foot wall sign. Based on the previous PUD Amendment approval and the requirements for the Subject Property's Sign District, flexibility is required for the proposed signage. Adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area and/or location of a sign may be approved with a Site Plan Review or Planned Unit Development process. The sign flexibility that the Applicant is seeking under this proposal for the Subject Property has been initiated through the Site Plan Review process. 3. Site Data Future Land Use Plan: Commercial Mixed Use Existing Land Use: Multi -family Residential, Community Commercial, Thrift Store Zoning: B-2 General Business District Size (entire property): 8.04 acres (350,078 SF) Size (Portion of Subject Property): 1.77 acres (77,122 SF) 4. Existing Conditions The Applicant submitted the land use application on behalf of Goodwill Industries, which leases the Subject Property. As part of the sign permit application submitted in September 2025 and the Land Use Application, the property owner, TAT Properties LLC, gave approval for the proposed signage. The Subject Property is located in the B-2 General Business Zoning District and is part of Sign District 5 due to its having frontage on Lexington Avenue South of Interstate 694. The Subject Property is guided for Community Mixed Use in the 2040 Land Use Plan. Surrounding properties are located in the B-2 General Business and B-3 Service Business Zoning Districts and include a mix of retail and residential uses. Page 2 of 8 Aerial Map of Subject Proper :,, . st 1 t 1150 �3585 - 1220 � A.. 1210 1'200, JU • _35� hf 8 �F 5 3592+ .1080 ! 4 ' ' 1060: _ 3570. AM �:.� t ; 0030 .. M �r 550 " "5 '30�', Ad Sign District 5, applicable to the Subject Property, allows for wall signage with a maximum sign copy area of 80 square feet. Currently, two 40-square-foot "Goodwill" signs are installed on the southern and western elevation of the 1103 County Road E building, for a total of 80 square feet. With the current signage, the Subject Property has the maximum sign square footage permitted without flexibility. Approvals 1. Site Plan Review The Applicant proposes to install new wall signage on the eastern elevation of the Subject Property. To install additional signage, the Applicant must request flexibility from the City Code, Chapter 12 — Sign Code through the Site Plan Review process. Adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location of a sign or signs established by this Chapter may be approved with a Site Plan Review or a Planned Unit Development process as described for in Section 1320 and 1355 of the Zoning Code. The Applicant's request for flexibility is initiated through the Site Plan Review process due to the nature of the sign standard adjustment and the previous land use approvals for the site. The Site Plan Review process allows for the Applicant's request for up to an additional 60 square feet of wall signage on the east building elevation. The approval of this application would apply to any Page 3 of 8 use of that particular sign to any subsequent user. If the sign is removed or modified by a subsequent user, then the approval ceases. Additionally, the 2015 City approval for the construction of the 17,743 square foot building included signage that met the requirements for Sign District 5. As such, this request is not for additional signage flexibility but rather for initial flexibility from the sign district standards. It is established in Chapter 12 of the City Code that this flexibility can be granted by a Site Plan Review rather than the full Planned Unit Development amendment process, which would require the drafting of a PUD amendment by the city's legal counsel and subsequent approvals from the Developer of the PUD and the City Council. The Applicant is not seeking any other flexibility or changes to the site. Plan Evaluation Chapter 12, Sign Code Review 1. Sign Standards by Sign District — Section 1240.02 The Subject Property is located within the B-2 General Business District and falls under Sign District 5. Sign District 5 includes all properties fronting on Lexington Avenue South of Interstate 694. Sign District 5 allows for a maximum of 80 square feet of copy area for wall signage. The Subject Property has a total of 80 square feet in existing wall signage and the Applicant is proposing one (1) additional 60 square foot wall sign on the eastern elevation of the building. The eastern elevation does not currently have any signage. The Applicant is requesting flexibility to allow an additional 60 square feet of wall signage to construct the proposed wall sign and for a total of 140 square feet of wall signage to be permitted on the building. The proposed wall sign would be internally lit with LED -illuminated letter sets, as permitted in Sign District 5. Page 4 of 8 Image 3. Proposed Signage at Eastern Elevation PROPOSED ELEVATION CHANNEL LETTERS ON RACEWAYS Scale: 1/16"=T-0" Image 4. Proposed Signage 2« 120" 90" RIN 1 RIN2 A " A I ve 8 PROFILE Scale: 114"-V-a" 2. Sign Standard Adjustments —Section 1260.01 The Applicant requests flexibility for additional square footage of wall signage area. City Code Section 1260.01, Sign Standard Adjustments states "adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location of a sign or signs established by this Chapter may be approved with a Site Plan Review or a Planned Unit Development process." To approve any sign standard adjustment, the City Council must make a determination if the proposed signage meets the sign standard adjustment criteria. The following criteria of Subd. 1 or Subd. 2 shall be satisfied, and the necessary criteria of Subd. 3 shall be satisfied: 1. Subd. 1 There are site conditions which require a sign adjustment to allow the sign to be reasonably visible from a street immediately adjacent to the site. According to the Applicant, a sign adjustment is requested to allow for a sign on the east face of the building. With the existing signage, it is noted that there is little signage visibility for traffic moving west on County Road E West and no signage visibility for traffic moving south on Lexington Avenue North. Page 5 of 8 2. Subd. 2 The sign adjustment will allow a sign of exceptional design or a style that will enhance the area or that is more consistent with the architecture and design of the site. According to the Applicant, the proposed signage will be designed in keeping with existing signage approved for the site. The proposed signage will be professionally produced and maintained in accordance with all other code requirements. 3. Subd. 3 The sign adjustment will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located or the current land use. According to the Applicant, the proposed signage is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as it indicates the name of the retail business occupying the building. The Applicant notes that the amount and placement of signage would be similar to other retail businesses in the vicinity. 1355.04 Procedural Requirements for Specific Applications Section 1355.04, Subd. 5 of the Arden Hills Zoning Code states that a public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review, but neighboring property owners shall be notified. Notification was prepared in accordance with City policy. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission reviewed this application at the November 5, 2025, meeting and have offered the following findings of fact for your consideration. During the meeting, the Planning Commission voted to propose Finding # 13, "The building on the Subject Property has its greatest building elevation area along Lexington Avenue and has no existing signage on this elevation to identify the use", as an additional finding of fact that identifies the hardship of the Applicant. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). 1. The Applicant submitted an application for Site Plan Review to install 80 square foot wall signage on the eastern elevation of the building at the subject property, 1103 County Road E West. 2. On February 11, 2013, the City Council approved a Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Subject Property 3. On March 9, 2015, the City Council approved a Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow for the construction of the 17,743 square foot building at the southeast corner of the Subject Property. 4. The Subject Property is located in the B-2 General Business District and is guided as Community Mixed Use on the 2040 Land Use Plan. 5. The Subject Property is located in Sign District 5, where the maximum wall signage permitted is 80 square feet. 6. The Subject Property has two existing wall signs for a total of 80 square feet. 7. Adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location of a sign or signs established by this Chapter may be approved with a Site Plan Review or a Planned Unit Development process as described for in Section 1320 and 1355 of the Zoning Code. Page 6 of 8 8. Flexibility through the Site Plan Review process has been requested for an additional 60 square feet of wall signage, bringing the total building wall signage to 140 square feet. 9. The proposed signage plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 10. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 11. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 12. A public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review. 13. The building on the Subject Property has its greatest building elevation area along Lexington Avenue and has no existing signage on this elevation to identify the use. Options and Motion Language The Planning Commission reviewed this application at the November 5, 2025, meeting. The report to the Planning Commission noted that Applicant was proposing an 80 square foot sign but a correction was made to reflect the proposed sign of 60 square feet. At that time, they recommended approval with conditions of the application from Archetype Sign Makers for a Sign Standard Adjustment to allow for an additional wall sign up to 60 square feet by a 6-0 vote. The following are motion language options for the City Council to consider. 1. Approval with Conditions: Move to a Opt Resolution 2025-075 approving Planning Case 25- 012 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install an additional wall sign of up to 60 square feet on the east building elevation at 1103 County Road E West, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 24, 2025, report to the City Council: 1) The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2) A separate sign permit shall be required for all proposed signage. 3) All signage shall meet all other requirements of Sign District 5. 2. Approval as Submitted: Move to a opt Resolution 2025-075 approving Planning Case 25-012 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install an additional wall sign of up to 60 square feet on the east building elevation at 1103 County Road E West, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the November 24, 2025 report to the City Council. 3. Denial: Move to deny Planning Case 25-012 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install an additional wall sign of up to 60 square feet on the east building elevation at 1103 County Road E West, based on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial. 4. Table: Move to table Planning Case 25-012 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install an additional wall sign of up to 60 square feet on the east building elevation at 1103 County Road E West: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Page 7 of 8 Public Notice and Comments Staff published a notice in the Pioneer Press as per City procedure on November 13, 2025. Public notices were mailed out on November 13, 2025. The mailing was sent to neighbors within 500 feet of the subject parcel. Staff has received one public comment against this application at the time of report drafting. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on October 8, 2025. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by December 4, 2025 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The sixty (60) day timeline begins on the day the City is in receipt of what has been determined to be a complete application. With consent of the applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Applicant Narrative D. Applicant Sign Plan E. Planning Commission Memo F. Draft Planning Commission Minutes G. Resolution 2025-075 H. Presentation Page 8 of 8 Attachment A -AVEN HILLS 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Telephone (651) 792-7800 Fax (651) 634-5137 www.cityofardenhills.org Planning Case No. 25- Submittal Date Application Completed Date Accepted by Receipt Number Council Decision Council Decision Date 2025 LAND USE APPLICATION Applicant Information Applicant: Austin Harris - Archetype Sign Makers, Inc. Address: 9611 James Ave S Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone No.: 952-641-9621 Other: Fax No.: Email Address: austin.harris@archetypesign.com Property Information Property Owner: Tat Properties LLC Owner Address: 3900 Northwoods Dr Ste 125 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Owner Telephone No. 651-481-6291 Other: Address of Property Involved: 1103_County Rd_E, Arden Hills, MN 55112 Legal Description: CIC NO 809 1103 AND 1201 CO RD E PLANNED UNIT 2 Property ID No.: 273023440018 Type of Use: Zone: B2 General Business District Property Acreage: 1.72 Type of Request ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Fee: $550 + Escrow: $2,500) ❑ Conditional Use or Interim Use Permit/CUP or IUP Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500) ❑ Preliminary Plat (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $2,500) ❑ Final Plat (Fee: $450 + Escrow: $1,000) ❑ Concept Plan Review (Fee: $300 + Escrow: $750) ❑ Master Planned Unit Development or Master Special Development Plan (Fee: $600 + Escrow: $2,500) ❑ Final Planned Unit Development or Final Special Development Plan (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $2,000) ❑ Planned Unit Development Amendment or Special Develo ment Plan Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500� ® Site Plan Review (Fee: $450 + Escrow: $1,500) ❑ Rezoning or TCAAP Regulating Plan Amendment (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $1,500) ❑ Zoning Code or TCAAP Redevelopment Code Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500) ❑ City Code Amendment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,500) ❑ Lot Split/Minor Subdivision (R-1 and R-2 Districts Only) (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,500) ❑ Variance or Permitted Adjustment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000) ❑ Vacation of Easement or Right -of -Way (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000) ❑ Appeal of Administrative Decision (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000) ❑ Land Use Requests — Not Already Specified (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000 Page 1 of 3 Brief Description of Request (please also include a typed, detailed letter explaining the project?: _ _ i Goodwill Easter Seals MN is requesting approval to place an additional set of channel letters on the East face of their building. This would give them visibility to traffic heading West on County Road E West and South on Lexington Avenue North. *IMPORTANT* • Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-398-3070 for additional information. • The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permit fees that may be required upon approval of a land use application. • All applications will be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of consultant costs associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of application in the form of an escrow to the City. Filina & Information Reauirements The City requests that you make a pre -application meeting with the Community Development Director to discuss the application process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the Community Development Director or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the property is required for all applications. A checklist with additional application requirements can be found at www.citvofardenhills.org/landuseapplications. Complete/Incomplete Applications Under Minnesota Statute, Chapter 15.99, cities have 15 business days to review all plans and application materials to ensure they satisfy City requirements. During the 15 day review period, planning staff will provide written comments on the application and may request plan revisions. If the application is determined to be complete, Minnesota State Statute then requires the City to approve or deny the application within 60 days, up to 120 days. If not complete, the City may require plan revisions and/or additional information before the application is scheduled for Planning Commission review and/or City Council action. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the Community Development Director. Pavment of Fees and Escrows The undersigned acknowledges that she/he understands that before a land use application can be deemed complete, all required fees and escrows must be paid to the City. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Each separate land use request shall be charged a separate administrative fee and escrow even if submitted on the same application. Costs expended in reviewing and processing an application will be charged against the cash escrow and credited to the City. Charges to the escrow may include planning and engineering staff time, City Attorney and consulting fees, and mailing costs. If, at any time, a required cash escrow is depleted to less than 20 percent of its original amount, the applicant shall deposit additional funds in the cash escrow account as determined by the City. The City may withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and/or rescind prior action until all fees have been paid. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. The escrow may be reduced or increased by the Community Development Director on a project by project basis. Notice of Meetina Attendance In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. Page 2 of 3 Meeting Schedule Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday of each month at 6:30 PM, though please contact City Hail to verify the meeting date and time. City Council meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held i; ff the Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. The schedules below are for reference purposes only. Project wall not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the Community Development Director. 2025 Planning Commission and City Council Schedule (`subject to change) TENTATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday at 6:30 .m. TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the fourth Monday at 7:00 p.m.) DEADLINE FOR LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMISSION ( I" day of the preceding month) January 8 February 10 December 1 2024 February 5 March 10 January 2 March 5 Aril 14 February 3 April 9 Aril 28 March 3 May 7 May 26* April 1 June 4 June 23 May 1 July 9 July 28 June 2 August 6 August 25 July 1 September 3 September 22 August 1 October 8 October 27 September 1 November 5 November 24 October 1 December 3 Januar 12 2026 November 3 Acknowledgement and Signature I hereby apply for the above consideration and declare that the information and materials submitted with this application are complete and accurate per city code and ordinance requirements. I fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. 0iI.Y by Austin Hams Austin Harris RN G=US, E=agn Mai— CetypcsiynHar O-Nrhetype Sign Makes Inc.. CPd=Arrrin Harm easom f am tfie auttwr of thm d—ment ban::. 2025.09.24 ! 519.3fi-05'00' Applicant Signature jlf different than the property owner) Date 5�- PropertyOwner Signature e (Required) Date Please contact the Community Development Director at 651-792-7800 if you have any questions regarding this application. Additional copies of this application form are available on the City's website www.citvofardenhills.orgAanduseaoplicadons Page 3 of 3 Location Map Attachment B A 1133 373' ,• I Q P ■ o i 3r7r2�0 Q i 377,I.I .r 1230 I V" IA AIL 1209 12 Or e = _ ?203 s..__ _ ' i 3600 • ,_ •,.• W� ?210 r 1220 q y'{�{�� . .. Jrd.V� 3 •8 rt 1r rr� -1 10 1200 ,r �3 ; I rF 'ri � a a 1 tl t• V I fir — r 357,0 3537 . IP► — F e{ �. FBI i� All I x 35301 _ , tidal I ;: a a �A► y, a a 10 i, 10/27/2025, 12:25:26 PM 1:3,600 0 0.03 0.06 0.12 mi 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 km Ramsey County Ramsey County MN Attachment C To whom it may concern, On behalf of Goodwill— Easter Seals, Archetype Signmakers, Inc is requesting a Sign Standard Adjustment to allow a set of channel letters on the East face of the building at the Northwest corner of County Road E West and Lexington Avenue North. Currently the total square footage of signage allowed for the zoning district (132 General Business) does not allow for a sign on the East face of the building. With only the existing signage there is little signage visibility for traffic heading West on County Road E West and zero signage visibility for traffic heading South on Lexington Avenue North. The proposed signage will be designed in keeping with existing signage approved for the site. It will be professionally produced and maintained in accordance with all zoning code requirements. The proposed signage is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as it indicates the name of the retail business occupying the building. Additionally, the amount and placement of signage would be similar to other retail businesses in the immediate vicinity. - Austin Harris Project Manager Archetype Signmakers, Inc. I k 8 k§ p ix \LU \ q 2 Attachment D = \{§\ 5, -_ :--- ;{\ i- :`-- Q;\\ Cq �_-\ i \\ ##S! �m� k § §D %2 \LU \ § ) (k k ( / \ « §# § ( � � \ k m ; §\ j\-G -H) ! :--- �;{� i :`-- !� ° Q;\\ M - _-\ i ##S! §(\ ) § \ \ \ � z Attachment E PC Agenda Item — 3B ARZEEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 5, 2025 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Elena Fransen, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #25-012 — No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Archetype Sign Makers, Inc. Property Location: 1103 County Road E West (Goodwill Industries) Request: Sign Standard Adjustment (Site Plan Review) Requested Action Archetype Sign Makers, Inc. ("The Applicant") submitted a land use application for Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process for the property located at 1103 County Road E West ("Subject Property"). The Applicant proposes to install an additional 80-square-foot wall sign on the eastern elevation of the building through the Site Plan Review process for a sign standard adjustment. Background 1. Overview of Request The Subject Property is located within Sign District 5, where the maximum wall sign copy area allowed is 80 square feet. The property has two wall signs totaling 80 square feet. The Applicant is seeking flexibility through the Site Plan Review process for a sign standard adjustment for size with the proposed additional wall sign, for a total of 160 square feet of wall signage. The proposed wall sign could not be permitted without an approved sign standard adjustment. 2. Planning Case Background With the 2013 approval of Planning Case 12-019, the City entered into a Planned Unit Development Agreement with TAT Properties LLC to allow the reuse of the existing building on the property for 74 residential apartment units and 20,000 square feet of retail space at 1201 County Road E. Planning Case 12-019 established signage requirements for the E Street Flats apartments and the main floor retail tenants. Page 1 of 8 At its March 9, 2015, meeting, the City Council approved Planning Case 13-017 and a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment at 1201 County Road E to construct a building with retail and warehouse uses on the undeveloped two -acre southeast corner of the property. The proposal did not include a request to subdivide the property. Planning Case 13-017 included the proposed construction of a 17,743 square foot building with frontage along County Road E and Lexington Avenue. The building was proposed to be operated by Goodwill Industries as a long-term tenant. A maximum wall sign copy area of 80 square feet is permitted in Sign District 5, where the Subject Property is located. As part of the land use application for Planning Case 13-017, the Applicant proposed a total of 80 square feet of wall signage for the building, to be divided between two, 40 square foot signs. The proposed signs would be installed on the parapets on the south and west sides of the building. No additional signage was included with the proposal. The Goodwill building was constructed and the sign permit applications were submitted and approved with the signage described in the PUD application. On September 12, 2025, the Applicant submitted a sign permit application for an additional 80 square foot wall sign. Based on the previous PUD Amendment approval and the requirements for the Subject Property's Sign District, flexibility is required for the proposed signage. Adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area and/or location of a sign may be approved with a Site Plan Review or Planned Unit Development process. The sign flexibility that the Applicant is seeking under this proposal for the Subject Property has been initiated through the Site Plan Review process. 3. Site Data Future Land Use Plan: Commercial Mixed Use Existing Land Use: Multi -family Residential, Community Commercial, Thrift Store Zoning: B-2 General Business District Size (entire property): 18.04 acres (350,078 SF) Size (Portion of Subject Property): 1.77 acres (77,122 SF) 4. Existing Conditions The Applicant submitted the land use application on behalf of Goodwill Industries, which leases the Subject Property. As part of the sign permit application submitted in September 2025 and the Land Use Application, the property owner, TAT Properties LLC, gave approval for the proposed signage. The Subject Property is located in the B-2 General Business Zoning District and is part of Sign District 5 due to it having frontage on Lexington Avenue South of Interstate 694. The Subject Property is guided for Community Mixed Use in the 2040 Land Use Plan. Surrounding properties are located in the B-2 General Business and B-3 Service Business Zoning Districts and include a mix of retail and residential uses. Aerial Map of Subject Property Page 2 of 8 County Road E W �' r � •� 11.601, •3 i ,y 1150 3585 - -' i� x 1220 01100 - _ 1210 a - Jt _3561. 8�.. w353' t .X 1, 52 ,�'� L�IIr111�a.IF r.392'�8 : 1060: - 3570 ;j ;r ram 1 a : 030 •. Of 355 —�—� r �30 '*1 - -_ Sign District 5, applicable to the Subject Property, allows for wall signage with a maximum sign copy area of 80 square feet. Currently, two 40-square-foot "Goodwill" signs are installed on the southern and western elevation of the 1103 County Road E building, for a total of 80 square feet. With the current signage, the Subject Property has the maximum sign square footage permitted without flexibility. Approvals 1. Site Plan Review The Applicant proposes to install new wall signage on the eastern elevation of the Subject Property. To install additional signage, the Applicant must request flexibility from the City Code, Chapter 12 — Sign Code through the Site Plan Review process. Adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location of a sign or signs established by this Chapter may be approved with a Site Plan Review or a Planned Unit Development process as described for in Section 1320 and 1355 of the Zoning Code. The Applicant's request for flexibility is initiated through the Site Plan Review process due to the nature of the sign standard adjustment and the previous land use approvals for the site. The Site Plan Review process allows for the Applicant's request for an additional 80 square feet of wall Page 3 of 8 signage on the east building elevation. The approval of this application would apply to any use of that particular sign to any subsequent user. If the sign is removed or modified by a subsequent user, then the approval ceases. Additionally, the 2015 City approval for the construction of the 17,743 square foot building included signage that met the requirements for Sign District 5. As such, this request is not for additional signage flexibility but rather for initial flexibility from the sign district standards. It is established in Chapter 12 of the City Code that this flexibility can be granted by a Site Plan Review rather than the full Planned Unit Development amendment process, which would require the drafting of a PUD amendment by the city's legal counsel and subsequent approvals from the Developer of the PUD and the City Council. The Applicant is not seeking any other flexibility or changes to the site. Plan Evaluation Chapter 12, Sign Code Review 1. Sign Standards by Sign District — Section 1240.02 The Subject Property is located within the B-2 General Business District and falls under Sign District 5. Sign District 5 includes all properties fronting on Lexington Avenue South of Interstate 694. Sign District 5 allows for a maximum of 80 square feet of copy area for wall signage. The Subject Property has a total of 80 square feet in existing wall signage and the Applicant is proposing one (1) additional 80 square foot wall sign on the eastern elevation of the building. The eastern elevation does not currently have any signage. The Applicant is requesting flexibility to allow an additional 80 square feet of wall signage to construct the proposed wall sign and for a total of 160 square feet of wall signage to be permitted on the building. The proposed wall sign would be internally lit with LED -illuminated letter sets, as permitted in Sign District 5. Proposed Signage at Eastern Elevation 135'-0' 02" 126' w T, PROPOSED ELEVATION n Page 4 of 8 38" Proposed Signage 223 112" 120" 90" Y' RW 1 RW 2 _ I I 'E;"i B F'-_�': JFILE 2 CHANNEL LETTERS ON RACEWAYS Scale: 114"=1'-9" 2. Sign Standard Adjustments —Section 1260.01 The Applicant requests flexibility for additional square footage of wall signage area. City Code Section 1260.01, Sign Standard Adjustments states "adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location of a sign or signs established by this Chapter may be approved with a Site Plan Review or a Planned Unit Development process." To approve any sign standard adjustment, the Planning Commission must make a determination if the proposed signage meets the sign standard adjustment criteria. The following criteria of Subd. 1 or Subd. 2 shall be satisfied, and the necessary criteria of Subd. 3 shall be satisfied: 1. Subd. 1 There are site conditions which require a sign adjustment to allow the sign to be reasonably visible from a street immediately adjacent to the site. According to the Applicant, a sign adjustment is requested to allow for a sign on the east face of the building. With the existing signage, it is noted that there is little signage visibility for traffic moving west on County Road E West and no signage visibility for traffic moving south on Lexington Avenue North. 2. Subd. 2 The sign adjustment will allow a sign of exceptional design or a style that will enhance the area or that is more consistent with the architecture and design of the site. According to the Applicant, the proposed signage will be designed in keeping with existing signage approved for the site. The proposed signage will be professionally produced and maintained in accordance with all other code requirements. 3. Subd. 3 The sign adjustment will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located or the current land use. According to the Applicant, the proposed signage is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as it indicates the name of the retail business occupying the building. The Applicant notes that the amount and placement of signage would be similar to other retail businesses in the vicinity. Page 5 of 8 1355.04 Procedural Requirements for Specific Applications Section 1355.04, Subd. 5 of the Arden Hills Zoning Code states that a public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review, but neighboring property owners shall be notified. Notification was prepared in accordance with City policy. 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. City Staff offer the following findings for consideration: 1. The Applicant submitted an application for Site Plan Review to install 80 square foot wall signage on the eastern elevation of the building at the subject property, 1103 County Road E West. 2. On February 11, 2013, the City Council approved a Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Subject Property 3. On March 9, 2015, the City Council approved a Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow for the construction of the 17,743 square foot building at the southeast corner of the Subject Property. 4. The Subject Property is located in the B-2 General Business District and is guided as Community Mixed Use on the 2040 Land Use Plan. 5. The Subject Property is located in Sign District 5, where the maximum wall signage permitted is 80 square feet. 6. The Subject Property has two existing wall signs for a total of 80 square feet. 7. Adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location of a sign or signs established by this Chapter may be approved with a Site Plan Review or a Planned Unit Development process as described for in Section 1320 and 1355 of the Zoning Code. 8. Flexibility through the Site Plan Review process has been requested for an additional 80 square feet of wall signage, bringing the total building wall signage to 160 square feet. 9. The proposed signage plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 10. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 11. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 12. A public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review. Proposed Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. Page 6 of 8 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Move to recommend approval of Planning Case 25- 012 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install an additional 80-square-foot wall sign on the east building elevation at 1103 County Road E West, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission: 1) The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2) A separate sign permit shall be required for all proposed signage. 3) All signage shall meet all other requirements of Sign District 5. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Move to recommend approval of Planning Case 25-012 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install an additional 80-square-foot wall sign on the east building elevation at 1103 County Road E West, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the November 5, 2025 Report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Move to recommend denial of Planning Case 25-012 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install an additional 80-square-foot wall sign on the east building elevation at 1103 County Road E West, based on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial. 4. Table: Move to table Planning Case 25-012 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install an additional 80-square-foot wall sign on the east building elevation at 1103 County Road E West: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Notice and Comments Staff published a notice in the Pioneer Press as per City procedure on October 23, 2025. Public notices were mailed out on October 23, 2025. The mailing was sent to neighbors within 500 feet of the subject parcel. Staff have not received any public comments regarding this application at the time of report drafting. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on October 8, 2025. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by December 4, 2025 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The sixty (60) day timeline begins on the day the City is in receipt of what has been determined to be a complete application. With consent of the applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Page 7 of 8 Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Applicant Narrative D. Applicant Sign Plan Page 8 of 8 ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION —November 5, 2025 Attachment F Community Development Director Reilly stated because stakes were already in place there would be no need to install monuments on Parcel B. Commissioner Burlingame moved and Commissioner Lindau seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1580 Oak Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission and as amended by the withdrawal of the portion of the application for the lot line adjustment and an amended Condition 2, to read "Monument stakes shall be installed to demarcate the property lines for Property A." Commissioner Bjorklund explained he supported the proposed minor subdivision, noting his only concern was with the nonconformities that existed. He stated he understood that these nonconformities would be addressed in the future. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. Planning Case 25-012 — 1103 County Road 3 — Sign Standard Adjustment — No Public Hearing Required Senior Planner Fransen stated the Subject Property is located within Sign District 5, where the maximum wall sign copy area allowed is 80 square feet. The property has two wall signs totaling 80 square feet. The Applicant is seeking flexibility through the Site Plan Review process for a sign standard adjustment for size with the proposed additional wall sign, for a total of 160 square feet of wall signage. The proposed wall sign could not be permitted without an approved sign standard adjustment. Senior Planner Fransen explained with the 2013 approval of Planning Case 12-019, the City entered into a Planned Unit Development Agreement with TAT Properties LLC to allow the reuse of the existing building on the property for 74 residential apartment units and 20,000 square feet of retail space at 1201 County Road E. Planning Case 12-019 established signage requirements for the E Street Flats apartments and the main floor retail tenants. Senior Planner Fransen reported at its March 9, 2015, meeting, the City Council approved Planning Case 13-017 and a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment at 1201 County Road E to construct a building with retail and warehouse uses on the undeveloped two -acre southeast corner of the property. The proposal did not include a request to subdivide the property. Planning Case 13-017 included the proposed construction of a 17,743 square foot building with frontage along County Road E and Lexington Avenue. The building was proposed to be operated by Goodwill Industries as a long-term tenant. A maximum wall sign copy area of 80 square feet is permitted in Sign District 5, where the Subject Property is located. As part of the land use application for Planning Case 13-017, the Applicant proposed a total of 80 square feet of wall signage for the building, to be divided between two, 40 square foot signs. The proposed signs would be installed on the parapets on the south and west sides of the building. No additional signage was included with the proposal. Senior Planner Fransen explained the Goodwill building was constructed and the sign permit applications were submitted and approved with the signage described in the PUD application. On September 12, 2025, the Applicant submitted a sign permit application for an additional 80 square foot wall sign. Based on the previous PUD Amendment approval and the requirements for ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — November 5, 2025 5 the Subject Property's Sign District, flexibility is required for the proposed signage. Adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area and/or location of a sign may be approved with a Site Plan Review or Planned Unit Development process. The sign flexibility that the Applicant is seeking under this proposal for the Subject Property has been initiated through the Site Plan Review process. Senior Planner Fransen stated that the Applicant has requested the sign standard adjustment to construct a sign on the east elevation of the building. The current signage is limited to the west and south elevations of the building and therefore there is not sign visibility for the building for traffic moving westbound on County Road E West or southbound on Lexington Avenue. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the Site Data, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The Applicant submitted an application for Site Plan Review to install 80 square foot wall signage on the eastern elevation of the building at the subject property, 1103 County Road E West. 2. On February 11, 2013, the City Council approved a Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Subject Property 3. On March 9, 2015, the City Council approved a Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow for the construction of the 17,743 square foot building at the southeast corner of the Subject Property. 4. The Subject Property is located in the B-2 General Business District and is guided as Community Mixed Use on the 2040 Land Use Plan. 5. The Subject Property is located in Sign District 5, where the maximum wall signage permitted is 80 square feet. 6. The Subject Property has two existing wall signs for a total of 80 square feet. 7. Adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location of a sign or signs established by this Chapter may be approved with a Site Plan Review or a Planned Unit Development process as described for in Section 1320 and 1355 of the Zoning Code. 8. Flexibility through the Site Plan Review process has been requested for an additional 80 square feet of wall signage, bringing the total building wall signage to 160 square feet. 9. The proposed signage plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 10. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 11. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 12. A public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission for Planning Case 25-012 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install an additional 80-square-foot wall sign on the east building elevation at 1103 County Road E West. 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 1) The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the Community Development ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — November 5, 2025 6 Director, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2) A separate sign permit shall be required for all proposed signage. 3) All signage shall meet all other requirements of Sign District 5. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Burlingame asked if staff believed there were any physical or topographical conditions that make the existing signs not visible from the adjoining streets. Senior Planner Fransen stated the topography of the land was fairly flat but noted this was a large building and the current layout of the building on the site makes it difficult to see the signage from the other elevations. Commissioner Julius inquired if the sign illumination would adversely impact the neighboring properties or adjacent residents. Senior Planner Fransen commented she did not believe the proposed sign would impact the adjacent businesses or property owners, as the current signage was not causing any concerns. Commissioner Lindau reported both Walgreens and The Tavern exceed the City's sign code standards. Senior Planner Fransen confirmed this was the case. Commissioner Bjorklund stated this business had frontage on Lexington Avenue and no signage along Lexington Avenue. He believed this was a hardship for the business and should be considered a Finding of Fact. Commissioner Jacobson agreed with Commissioner Bjorklund's statement. She asked if the new sign would be twice as big as the existing sign. Senior Planner Fransen stated this would be the case. Commissioner Jacobson noted this property does not have any monument signs and indicated she could support the addition of one more sign on the wall face for this building. Commissioner Bjorklund commented on how the proposed wall sign was proportional for the building elevation. Chair Collins requested the applicant come forward at this time. Commissioner Jacobson asked if the second sign would be double the size of the existing wall sign. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — November 5, 2025 7 Austin Harris, representative for Goodwill, explained the new wall sign would be 58.8 square feet in size and the existing signs were 40 square feet in size. He discussed how the proposed sign size would complement the wall fagade. Chair Collins commented on how the building side facing the street was like a black hole and he supported the requested sign. He was of the opinion the requested sign size was reasonable and noted he supported the sign standard adjustment. Commissioner Jacobson reported she visited this area and noted many of the other businesses in this area have multiple signs, including wall signs and monument signs. She believed this request was in keeping with the surrounding businesses. Commissioner Burlingame moved and Commissioner Lindau seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 25-012 for a Sign Standard Adiustment through the Site Plan Review process to install an additional wall sign of up to 60 square feet on the east building elevation at 1103 County Road E West, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). 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 noted last month the Council approved the rear yard setback for the property on Lake Josephine. He indicated the Council received an update from HKGi on the Zoning Code and began an initial review of the City's housing affordability language. He thanked Community Development Director Reilly for the highly detailed staff report that was provided to the City Council on this topic. He then provided the Commission with information on where the JDA was at with the RFI (Request for Information) process. He noted if changes were needed to the TRC (TCAAP Redevelopment Code) these requests would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and a recommendation would be passed along with the City Council. Commissioner Bjorklund asked what would be constructed first within Rice Creek Commons. Councilmember Weber stated this would be hard to determine and noted the JDA and City Council would learn more about this through the RFI process. Commissioner Jacobson inquired if it was advantageous to construct Rice Creek Boulevard before a developer was selected for this project. Councilmember Weber reported Ramsey County owns the property and this was a decision made by Ramsey County. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Attachment G IkEEN, HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2025-075 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SIGN STANDARD ADJUSTMENT AT 1103 COUNTY ROAD E WEST WHEREAS, City Staff received a complete land use application for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process for 1103 County Road E West ("Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located in Sign District 5, which allows a maximum wall sign copy area of 80 square feet. The Subject Property has two (2) existing wall signs for a total of 80 square feet of sign copy area; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is zoned B-2, General Business District and is guided as Community Mixed Use on the Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, Archetype Sign Makers ("The Applicant") is seeking flexibility to install an additional 60 square foot wall sign on the eastern elevation of the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location of a sign or signs established by this Chapter may be approved with a Site Plan Review or a Planned Unit Development process as described for in Section 1320 and 1355 of the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by December 4, 2025 (60 days); and WHEREAS, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a Land Use Application Public Policy Notification to notify all property owners within 500 feet of Subject Property when a request for the Planning Commission is to occur related to a land use application that does not require a public hearing; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission considered the Applicant's request for a Sign Standard Adjustment on November 5, 2025, and, as such, voted 6-0 in favor of recommending approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS: Pagel of 2 Herby adopts Resolution 2025-075 approving Planning Case 2025-012 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process for 1103 County Road E West to install 60 square feet of wall signage on the eastern elevation of Goodwill. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council approves Planning Case 25-012 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process 1103 County Road E, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the November 24, 2025 report to the City Council, as amended by the following conditions: 1) The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2) A separate sign permit shall be required for all proposed signage. 3) All signage shall meet all other requirements of Sign District 5. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025. David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: Julie Hanson, City Clerk To view the final document, access adopted Resolutions via Arden Hills Public Laserfiche Weblink by visiting cityofardenhills.org and clicking on Archived Documents under Helpful Links on our main webpage. Page 2 of 2 LLJ i U _0 U f6 O N L (J) � r V J rn v LD > a) m ro a� O o ro v a 4-1 T CL)LA U m a (7 i u Q N I m V o +' cn 4J m N ., CU .� v_ a +,Ln CU bb 0 N Cr .— � i WkS 19 Qu Qj OC z ate-+ Ln C V 0 ZOO 0 Qj tn 4j Z • f� C6 Q O Q O C6 U C6 4-j +� O O '— O O `— C�10 (z ro 0 -0 m X � 4-j ca O E �O O O C- � � .Ul M — > ca Q) O V) � O ,� w a) � 00 taA � � ca O 4—, v MO � •cn C: a) a--+ • cn 0 O 4-J a--+ O Q ate--+ N E a- O cr) m w Q I m 0 n W V) ^O r1 O m W m WE w w C) L QL Q N C6 o L ate-+ (7-) a-J O = O � O 0 4-J = 4-j ca � U � 0-0 Q U a� � N bn aA � O � O U N U � U L C: +� O O Ln U O Q N i Ln Q) E 4►;" Q Z CL .. Qj W S L � Q� O QJ 4+ � � Q � O � Q � 4-1 vo EE Q, Qj . Qj CC Qj � � Q Q� 4= 4-1 � � V Qj 4-1 Qj a;Qj Q � � Q� v o � v o Q) � o Q � � o o � C) o O � o ° LO O 1 N L� QJ � +-j o - .-j v cn z v 0 v m r, O 4) ti W f! � O (AID O O rblo ^� O N a � CLI - a z 0 N M W p Q) a v QJ a--+ O � p Q) N _ `ti a c6 p 4--, �, p a • _ ' •� +— 7-I O UE •I-.. •I. + 1 z O L- a a W U a; CC �, a 4--j 4 J O — O - w Oj O O O •� a , E p a .� v O �--� ate- J L' n .�,� Qj cn Oj�O� Ln .� J .>ro C� 4,1 4 '::N ':�:h 4-' v -0 . _ O O w •� v O cn t� (� � _ c�i� c./) a--� � cn 0 C6 � O v - Z � �— +-j C3) O ._ � � v ° O 0 = �s v _ �— O 0- L a Q0 Q) � v a; r-I X O O Q) �S Ui O O , o v � _�°� via � (a)QJ � .�' v v m ��o:3 I O o IQ-C3 j�- 0-0 Q Q. Ln Ln -ice M Q) O s ~ cv 4--J O•�O O a--� —0 C6 - c/) U 4� ,, � j 4 O v o `n J U '— .� � .� � �I cn O o +-1 0- o a O ov 4- --' Qo 4--J CAI cam., kn vs v ~ V) Q� O O I 4-jQj i o Ln V � O -j Q) a•��_ `n � � � 4J Q �� Q v v 4-' 0-0 s m C Ln m 4-1 o "' ' oQJ Ln 0- �' O W +, �Q,� c.r) Ln o C6 ate) 4-J � � � � — ro M —j O Q v � U Q �_ OL7- M U�+, �� N tjo= O j 7 _0 pQ) �> O - 70 m � .— N a) cE� -I--C =cnp Ln�0 `n� 2i�>. ��Q 'ro4- -00-0O �U v) ro ��Ln E-�-j E atej p�'� v(1) -0bA4 ro00 N� ca � .0 0�0v � 0bnC� -I.., Qca ��•— -0 � N Q) C rlZ3 �0� v-0� co V �� z �0N Oc6-Cr U i� �Lm U •�0 Q) 00 '0 v)4-1 c:oL zcvo v)oLz3 CL (1) �_' C: � U O +� �O 4-' O cn C6 �' U s 4 c 0 O ca O ro � _ O ro 4J � L u ci � O s Ca � O N O 4-, U ro p � N � N O,^ X +^'�' 1 V / M O ro E CrO-0 � r- E Q) Y O +-+ Wn , a-J �' a-J •� U � N U t >''E U U s p 4 a� s a� +-j U Ln N U N O X O v >, N O � ._ — Q ca � N — N 00 a)c6 — s s Q ca O Q 2 N ~ � � N sro �`�- �� O �O ' � O +J Q O N a� O - ro N a--+ CL 0 4-J . C >' +� +� N O > U O 0 Q� � � M .— N �UU-0ul SO- Qu cc O O U L O O` � � N O O >`~ >� O v z O 4-J Q) •� .�-j O •E O b4 E 0_ .- O � U v ca U buo 0 , C/) QL Q) O � cn — s 4-J`�s O N 4-' C�10 N b-0 a) ) � a� a) � 4= E 0 s O N •N > � . cn ca bz • E E O 0 4A U bn bA • C: +, O • W LL L N E� N CL , o •- L N (a)0oo N U Q • C6 O O O O E - C6 F— C- C: ca cc C- (1) cn Ca Co U ^ ` 1 Q Q � � N O C- C- a--+ +-+ _ 0 O ro C6 0 C— (1) Z; +-j CO ca N > o `~ o bio ro 4-j O N bn aA _0 � •X � ca 4A N CF- U }+ {n M E.c io L O L 0 4� O � c 3 ,, c +J fB � > 0 c O 0 bD co -6 a 'a d � C � > cr +, roo en � E 4- N n c fo vfn Ln +-+ O fo 3 +�-+ n � a > O o a a �� c� +� a 0 - o a an L O « 0 O •q0 uo Z fo O c o L N O M c in c O Ln a 0 Oc L OVA a U n O ai 7 0, Ln i N fo - UQ Q — •x a a 4- v fo E a a Ln a O 4' Oln c fw O U v 0 fa a 0 U a c c O'E n L Ln a t v `21 coo 0 ro � fo c s U 4� L yr a1 L U 3 L O c 0 a �O a ro L� 0 a aT+ � co a X a --a3 - o 0Ca ro fn o 00 _0 ca a U La v bbn t co >, Ln v c E co > V1 O O a) ro O V 4-+, E E 4-1 a Ln Ln N a O an 3 c a E E a MU oo a O O E O U L a E OL +� Q _ ro p O Y X a a a c fa a O rw E L -0 4a i — a '+� +� fo E Vn 40 c roQ Q am C +� bm Q Q .E 41 f0 O v E a E — a +' a c f6 c a a a L a`°i L co Q Ln 3 a > E co — o o a �p O a E > c fa v c L +, O 'n a > a E D cD -0 N Q a L 0 ro o Q a O +1 4-1 n X M O � -O a Q c O 0 a E p o v co bD ai a)c `o> v c u v a� Ln - v cu w E o a L a :3 L a ro L L o a C 4-1a ro a o �° 3 L o 3 Ln +� C 2 a Ln ai v L ,n 4-1fo a 'I►, a �a v fri c �.> L 3 w a cn L o L a U > L c a C7 +1 .� M •Ln M a a U O U f6 a Q tw N V O n Q o _ C c a T +� a c0 Q Q N Q N Q faLn 3 a Q c O Q) a fco tl a �w �� aj � .a Y U U N T C1 � U � � !n �-•i (n 0 0 L L •Q� U D X f6 V) -0 0 O Q CL - aa o + E m ru Za � � o U 3 v c O+'> O a v o o � �a vU� ,n a �fn > o- c =cUu4 0 L a O @M �.v + O to E +� - - L Q a +� fa � fa O c v�i •� c a O ry 111 � a a a Q ro c ro a yr t >-10 O O O O o� �fao r c a �a fV= a a a NT 00 L� v c .- wm L O� U E� Q-Q" ro itVD a a a E > O o _� C, t �T L ELa OT L 0- Om 0v L V Q a w 2� N to N aaJ Q a iw .- fa •a Q-U frs fa +� "O= O da L� L L•7 0- a H 0 0-0 H H H Q U U : 7 H a H H e Q -0 Lil O r4 N M 4 ui lD r-� 00 CJl r-I c-I c-I ° o °a �°W o v, Q Ln � �> — i� Q :� Ln O U O -0 OC +, O N O N s n1 0 N N 4A (a N O >� N � f6 � -_ U aJ a cn aJ cu U 11A Q U- Z3 0 v 4A -0Ln > M a1 LU o� 4-ro N ro-� +, E ,6 O N M p L-nW o� C 0 4 O O Q N }' N O O ate+ O Lfl N O a) 0 N Q aJ N }, 0 p cn Lr) D � O U Q O +� U Q rj O U O O V O CLO M O U ?� U O 0-O M N ON 4— Q c U N O O 4-1+ + DC O U O aJ O Lncc_ p DC N N _ _ a � a o O N N O � - z O� w -0 -0 U aJ a V) N \ }' aJ C a) aJ 41 Q a O — O aJ O cn U +- O � o c0 v �' co +� � 4-j U, NA U O _ +� m co cn O Ln +) N U U Q +v+ U un D CU Ln Ln -0 a) N Z3 O Ln ro u a) N — -0 v U — -0 > " M >, N + ' -0 O `n (A — Cc > L- L- r �� M M �� +-+ � p a a 0 M -0 D C3-� � U (IJ_ M 0 U 4 O � = .� N M 4-J � � V) Ln V N � 4 4 tD-O C U bn O Z3 O ro ::3 O a O O (3) N 4--J O Ln Ln CT kn �O l�A Ln � O O Q Q O 0 O _0 W fD V O fB O U V U N O Ln N Ln N O _ o O v N o +� w i +� w Qi u� N -0 M v t ,n N � -0 fB 3 N Ln •� � U ca � � O v U O O �4- o`er cn U cn U v ( c U v a a) ro o .- L ° o �}' r = o � o> v 2! o O cri E Ln Q i C- m W Ln I v w m O DC • O rn � o O N 0 O N VJ v Ln bn