Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-25 PC Minutes 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: 1. 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. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 3, 2025 12 Chair Collins reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 9:11 p.m. B. Planning Case 25-007 – City of Arden Hills – Ordinance Amendments to Zoning Code Section 1325.07, Subd. 6.A and City Code Section 410.01, Subd. 3 regarding the Keeping of Chickens and Review for the Keeping of Ducks – Public Hearing Not Required Senior Planner Fransen stated the City Council has reviewed and discussed the ordinance for the keeping of chickens at several City Council Work Sessions with suggested revisions. Following these work sessions, direction was given to staff to incorporate the recommendations into the ordinance for the Planning Commission to review. The Planning Commission reviewed a draft version of the ordinance amendment for the keeping of chickens at the August 6, 2025 meeting. The Planning Commission discussed multiple amendments to the draft language and tabled the review with direction to staff to review and draft revisions related to: 1. Number of chickens: increase the number permitted to seven (7) 2. Coop size and location: modify language to allow for a larger maximum coop size and be more clear about location requirements 3. Climate control: modify language to be less prescriptive 4. Cleanliness and enforcement/license revocation: review language for consistency with other communities and modify to be less prescriptive 5. Roaming of chickens: review language to allow for chickens to move about a fenced area within a backyard 6. Garages: consider updated language to allow for a chicken coop to be interior to a detached garage 7. The neighbor consent policy: provide language to modify policy to neighbor notification Senior Planner Fransen explained at the August 11 Special Work Session, the City Council discussed the keeping of ducks. The City Council directed staff to bring forth the topic of the keeping of ducks to the Planning Commission for discussion to occur along with the review of ordinance language for chickens. The Planning Commission was asked to provide a recommendation to the City Council on whether the inclusion of ducks should be considered in city ordinances. Staff has revised the draft ordinance language to incorporate the City Council’s directed revisions and the Planning Commission’s recommended revisions related to chickens. Based on the Council’s direction for the Planning Commission to discuss whether ducks should be incorporated in the ordinance language, staff has provided background information gathered from adjacent communities and draft ordinance language to aid in the Planning Commission’s review of this topic. Senior Planner Fransen provided an overview of the Ordinance Amendments and provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. The City of Arden Hills is proposing to amend ordinance language for the keeping of chickens. 2. The proposed ordinance will include amendments to the language of Chapter 13 – Zoning Code of the City Code. 3. Amendments to the Zoning Code regulations require a public hearing prior to action by the City Council. 4. The Planning Commission held the required public hearing on August 6, 2025 ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 3, 2025 13 Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on Planning Case 25-007 for Ordinance Amendments to Zoning Code Section 1325.07, Subd. 6.A and City Code Section 410.01, Subd. 3 regarding the Keeping of Chickens, based on the findings of fact and as presented in the September 3, 2025 Report to the Planning Commission: 1. Recommend Approval as Submitted 2. Recommend Approval with Amendments 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Collins stated he does not have any expertise when it came to duck ownership and he was uncertain of the proposed code was appropriate when it came to duck ownership. Commissioner Lindau thanked staff for working diligently and bringing together all of the comments from the Commission. He appreciated the information that was provided from what other cities were doing as well. He stated he supported the proposed language changes from staff. Commissioner Bjorklund thanked staff for all of their efforts, noting staff did an excellent job consolidating all of the comments. He explained he supported the keeping of both chickens and ducks. He recommended Options A and C move forward. Commissioner Jacobson reported she supported neighbor notification and not consent. She questioned why people would keep ducks over chickens and inquired if ducks needed water. Commissioner Bjorklund stated people keep ducks for the eggs and noted ducks do not need a pond. Commissioner Erler thanked staff for working to summarize the comments of the Commission so succinctly. He discussed how ducks were messier, needed a water source and that they were more complicated, especially if ducks and chickens are combined. He suggested a handout be created for those wishing to keep ducks. Senior Planner Fransen indicated staff would prepare some sort of handout for both chicken and duck keeping. Commissioner Birken thanked staff for all of their efforts on the ordinance amendments. She indicated she supported neighbor notification and not consent. She stated she supported the language surrounding ducks noting there were many different theories when it comes to duck keeping. She commented further on the pros of keeping ducks. She suggested no roosters, drakes or call ducks be allowed. Chair Collins asked if chickens would be able to roam around in a backyard under supervision. Senior Planner Fransen reported this would be allowed. She then read the definition within the code for an exercise yard. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 3, 2025 14 Commissioner Jacobson inquired if it would be onerous of the City to require chickens to be supervised when roaming the backyard. City Administrator Jagoe described the differences between an exercise yard versus a run/pen area which would have a roof. Commissioner Erler recommended a change to the language, noting a coop separate from other structures was required to house the chickens and ducks. He stated another minor change could be made to the language noting chickens and ducks shall not be housed in a residential house or detached garage. Commissioner Burlingame indicated he supported the proposed changes as well as neighbor notification versus consent because this process would be cleaner. He stated his only concern when it came to chicken coops was with their cleanliness and how this would be monitored by the City. Commissioner Erler spoke to the need for the City having some process in place in order to bring a coop into compliance, when it comes to cleanliness. He stated perhaps, the existence of the animal control officer would address this matter. City Administrator Jagoe indicated she would like to speak with other cities to see how they verify or ensure applicants have given neighbor notification. Chair Collins moved and Commissioner Lindau seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 25-007 for Ordinance Amendments to Zoning Code Section 1325.07, Subd. 6.A and City Code Section 410.01, Subd. 3 regarding the Keeping of Chickens, based on the findings of fact and as presented in the September 3, 2025 Report to the Planning Commission subject to city verification requirements for neighbor notifications with the minor language changes as discussed. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 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 expressed his thanks on behalf of the City Council for all of their efforts in addressing the zoning code amendments and chicken ordinance. He invited the Commission to attend Rib Fest on Saturday, September 13 at the Red Bulls facility. He noted the State of the City event would be held on Saturday, September 20. He was pleased to report the City Council approved the hire of a new Community Development Director. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 3, 2025 15 Commissioner Bjorklund asked what the Council’s recommendations would be when it comes to affordable housing. City Administrator Jagoe reported the Council would be discussing an affordable housing policy at the September 22 worksession meeting. She noted ADU’s would be discussed by the Council in October. ADJOURN Chair Collins moved, seconded by Commissioner Bjorklund, to adjourn the September 3, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting at 9:58 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (7-0).