Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-04-2026 PC PacketAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 3, 2025 Planning Commission Regular Meeting DRAFT 12 -03 -25 PC MINUTES.PDF December 10, 2025 Planning Commission Special Meeting DRAFT 12 -10 -25 SPC MINUTES.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 26 -003 –City Of Arden Hills –Ordinance Amendments To Zoning Code Section 1140.08 Stormwater Management MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Planning Case 26 -001 –3535 Pine Tree Drive –Site Plan Review For Sign Standard Adjustment MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF Planning Case 25 -016 –3628 Connelly Avenue –Site Plan Review MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair: Joshua Collins (2027) Commissioners: Brad Bjorklund (2025) Steve Erler (2026) Ben Lindau, Vice Chair (2026) Patrick Burlingame (2027) Nancy Jacobson (2027) Jessica Birken (2027) Katie Stromberg - Alternate (2026) SJ Julius -Alternate (2027) Council Liaison: Kurt Weber Planning Commission February 4, 2026 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills. https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -City -Meetings Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 2.A. Documents: 2.B. Documents: 3. 3.A. Documents: 3.B. Documents: 3.C. Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESDecember 3, 2025 Planning Commission Regular MeetingDRAFT 12 -03 -25 PC MINUTES.PDFDecember 10, 2025 Planning Commission Special Meeting DRAFT 12 -10 -25 SPC MINUTES.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 26 -003 –City Of Arden Hills –Ordinance Amendments To Zoning Code Section 1140.08 Stormwater Management MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Planning Case 26 -001 –3535 Pine Tree Drive –Site Plan Review For Sign Standard Adjustment MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF Planning Case 25 -016 –3628 Connelly Avenue –Site Plan Review MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair:Joshua Collins (2027)Commissioners:Brad Bjorklund (2025)Steve Erler (2026)Ben Lindau, Vice Chair (2026)Patrick Burlingame (2027)Nancy Jacobson (2027)Jessica Birken (2027)Katie Stromberg -Alternate (2026)SJ Julius -Alternate (2027)Council Liaison:Kurt Weber Planning Commission February 4, 2026 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting,strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirableCity in which to live, work, and play.Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills.https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -City -MeetingsAgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.2.A.Documents:2.B.Documents: 3. 3.A. Documents: 3.B. Documents: 3.C. Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. Approved: February 4, 2026 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 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: None. Also present were: Community Development Director Jacob Reilly, Senior Planner Elena Fransen and Council Liaison Kurt Weber. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – DECEMBER 3, 2025 Commissioner Bjorklund moved, seconded by Commissioner Burlingame, to approve the December 3, 2025, agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 5, 2025 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Lindau moved, seconded by Commissioner Jacobson, to approve the November 5, 2025, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 25-014 – 4100 Hamline Avenue Noise Wall Senior Planner Fransen explained Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC) applied for site plan review to construct a noise barrier wall along a portion of the northwest corner of the Arden Hills corporate campus. The stated purpose of the wall is to further reduce the level of noise generated from Building 14 that reaches neighboring residential properties. While study documents submitted by BSC demonstrate the operation meets local noise compliance requirements, the noise barrier wall is intended to further mitigate sound from daily operational noise including ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 3, 2025 2 loading dock-related noise. The proposed noise barrier wall is approximately 576 lineal feet with a varied height of 8 feet to 21 feet to accommodate existing grade changes. The proposed north leg of the wall runs 200 feet from east to west, and the southwest leg runs 376 feet from north to south. The proposed materials are precast concrete and pretreated wood. The proposed wall location is offset 17 feet from the nearest property line which is shared with City-owned property where a trail is located. To construct the wall, the Applicant proposes to remove significant trees in the area and make landscaping improvements on both sides of the proposed wall. Senior Planner Fransen stated the Boston Scientific campus at 4100 Hamline Avenue North operates under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that was originally approved in 2002 for the Guidant Corporation. The last update to the PUD and Campus Master Plan took place in 2021 when the city approved a 17,450 square foot addition to the south side of Building 14, a facility located in the northwest corner of the Arden Hills campus near Innovation Way (Planning Case 21-001). The purpose of this facility is the development and production of lithium batteries for use in medical devices. A PUD Amendment was required for the proposed addition to Building 14. The PUD Amendment request included flexibility from the Zoning Code for the proposed height of 40 feet for a penthouse addition to enclose roof-mounted mechanical equipment. As part of the land use application process, the Applicant held a neighborhood meeting with residents and presented the concept at a City Council Work Session. Senior Planner Fransen reported at a June 23, 2025, City Council work session, the Applicant presented a concept of the proposed noise barrier wall to garner feedback. Discussion topics included the height of the wall in relation to Building 14 and the neighboring residential properties; the sources of noise at Building 14, and changes to the landscaping. The City Council directed the Applicant to hold a neighborhood meeting and present the concept to and answer questions from the adjacent neighborhood. On July 29, 2025, having followed the City’s policy for noticing neighboring properties, the Applicant held a neighborhood meeting and presented the noise barrier wall concept. Comments were made about the different sources generating noise at Building 14, including rooftop mechanical equipment and delivery and vendor vehicles accessing the loading dock area in the northeast corner of the building. Attendees asked questions about the proposed wall height and location and if these would be sufficient for noise mitigation, the visual impact of the wall, and the impact of a barrier wall to neighboring property values. The Applicant states updates were made to the length of the northern leg of the wall, extending it an additional 50 feet to the east in response to comments. A follow-up letter was mailed to neighbors describing next steps to construct the proposed wall and other actions taken to address nuisance noise generated by Building 14 operations. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the Site Data, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The Applicant submitted a land use application for a site plan review to construct a noise barrier wall on the Subject Property located at 4100 Hamline Avenue North. 2. The Subject Property is guided as I/O, Light Industrial and Office on the Land Use Plan. 3. The Subject Property is a conforming use in the I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District and operates under an approved PUD. 4. The Applicant complies with conditions of approval for previous PUD and Site Plan Review requests. 5. The proposed wall would be constructed from treated wood and concrete panel materials. 6. The proposed wall ranges in height from 8 feet to 21 feet as measured from existing grade. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 3, 2025 3 7. The Applicant states that the proposed wall will further reduce the level of noise reaching adjacent neighborhood properties. 8. The proposal is not expected to adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole. 9. The proposed tree replacement plan exceeds ordinance requirements. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission for Planning Case 25-014 for a Site Plan Review to allow a noise barrier wall at 4100 Hamline Avenue North: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to the plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. All conditions of the original Planned Unit Development and Master Plan Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape financial security equal to 125% of the cost of the landscaping to be installed on the site shall be submitted. The Applicant must submit a detailed cost estimate for the landscaping so staff can determine the final amount. Landscape financial security shall be held for two full growing seasons. For any landscaping that is not in accordance with the approved landscaping plan at the end of two growing seasons, the Developer shall replace the material to the satisfaction of the City before the guarantee is released. Where this is not done, the City, at its sole discretion, may use the proceeds of the performance guarantee to accomplish performance. 4. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any other permits necessary from other agencies, including, but not limited to, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Ramsey County, Rice Creek Watershed District, and any other relevant parties prior to the start of any site activities. 5. The Applicant must provide a copy of the Water Management Plan and Report and verification of Rice Creek Watershed District staff approval to the city prior to the approval of grading and erosion control permit. 6. The Applicant must obtain a Grading and Erosion Control permit from the City’s Engineering Division prior to the commencement of any land disturbance activities. 7. The Applicant must obtain a Right of Way permit from the City’s Engineering Division prior to any work impacting City property or to use the trail for access to the work area. 8. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site is required and must be maintained by the Applicant during construction to ensure that sediment and stormwater do not leave the project site. 9. The Applicant is responsible for protecting the proposed on-site storm sewer infrastructure and components and any existing storm sewer from exposure to any and all stormwater runoff, sediments, and debris during all construction activities. Temporary stormwater facilities must be installed to protect the quality aspect of the proposed and existing stormwater facilities prior to and during construction activities. Maintenance of any and all temporary stormwater facilities shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. 10. The Applicant must continue to submit annual noise studies to the city. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 3, 2025 4 4. Table Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner questions for staff. Commissioner Jacobson reported she has heard a lot about this section of trail and she had the pleasure to walk it on Monday. She explained this trail section connects Cummings Park to Floral Park. She indicated the people surrounding this area are lucky to have this amenity in the area. She asked if there were concerns regarding how the wooded area would be impacted by the proposed construction. Senior Planner Fransen stated staff had forwarded to the Commission the written comments the City received prior to this meeting. She noted there were also members of the public in attendance. Commissioner Jacobson commented it was her understanding the proposed sound wall was an expensive, good neighbor gesture from Boston Scientific to assist with mitigating noise. She inquired if neighbors have complained about noise in the past. Senior Planner Fransen reported there have been noise complaints from the neighbors. Commissioner Jacobson questioned if the concerning noises were coming from the loading dock area. Senior Planner Fransen indicated Boston Scientific does have an active loading dock with Building 14. Commissioner Jacobson stated she lived near a college that has an active loading dock and she has asked the college to address this concern and this seems to have worked. Commissioner Lindau asked if Boston Scientific currently met noise requirements within the 2021 PUD Amendment. Senior Planner Fransen reported the applicant provided a recent noise study, which was a requirement of the 2021 PUD amendment for the addition to Building 14, Boston Scientific must submit yearly noise studies. She indicated the study findings showed Boston Scientific was in compliance with the required noise levels. Commissioner Lindau stated the noise wall was not required, but rather was an act of goodwill. Senior Planner Fransen commented the applicant has stated they are aware they are meeting the City’s requirements but the noise wall would further mitigate the noise levels. Commissioner Birken questioned if noise studies were taken from adjacent properties versus at the loading dock. Senior Planner Fransen deferred this question to the applicant, but noted several noise studies have been completed by the applicant and the applicant was meeting the City’s noise standard requirements. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 3, 2025 5 Community Development Director Reilly commented on the City’s rules for noise noting the rules are applied at the property line. He indicated that MPCA rules are incorporated by reference, however the city is responsible for enforcing the rules. Chair Collins stated there has been continuous concerns regarding noise at this Boston Scientific building since 2021. Community Development Director Reilly explained he does not have a record of complaints made to the City but has record of complaints that were made when projects come before the Planning Commission and City Council. Chair Collins inquired if the City had completed its own study to ensure Boston Scientific was compliant. Senior Planner Fransen indicated the City has not completed a noise study but has instituted conditions on Boston Scientific to complete noise studies annually. Chair Collins referred to Attachment F, stating a neighborhood comment notes that in 2024, Boston Scientific was out of compliance at certain hours. Senior Planner Fransen reported the City does keep record of this. She understood that in 2023 Boston Scientific was out of compliance and steps were taken to address this concern. Chair Collins asked if the applicant had verified that the proposed sound wall would create a noise reduction at the property line. Senior Planner Fransen deferred this question to the applicant. She recalled from the neighborhood meeting that different wall heights were tested in order to see how sounds could be mitigated from Building 14. Chair Collins questioned what the City’s noise standards were in City Code. Community Development Director Reilly explained after reviewing City Code, the City does not have a noise standard established but rather references MPCA guidelines. Chair Collins stated this meant Boston Scientific was to be no louder than 60 decibels during the day and 58 decibels at night. Commissioner Birken requested Boston Scientific speak to the results from the recent sound study. Savannah Doerr, Facilities Maintenance Manager at Boston Scientific, explained the July 2025 sound study had the receiver placed on the trail. She reported there were some levels above 50, but the MPCA rules require for one hour to be below 50, which was shown in the table. Commissioner Birken inquired who owned the trail property. Senior Planner Fransen reported this was City-owned property. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 3, 2025 6 Commissioner Burlingame stated it appears the noise was coming from the garbage haulers, hissing from filling tanks, and the HVAC systems on the roof. Ms. Doerr commented there was dock noise and noise coming from the northwest corner of the building where mechanical equipment was being exhausted out. She noted the third noise source was coming from the argon tanks and the last noise source was coming from the rooftop units. Commissioner Erler inquired if the proposed noise wall would assist with addressing the rooftop noise, given that the sound wall would only be 21 feet tall and Building 14 was taller. Ms. Doerr reported most of the building was at a lower elevation and the proposed sound wall would screen the equipment that was on the lower elevation portion of the roof. Commissioner Erler anticipated that Boston Scientific had modeling that showed the sound would be reduced by the proposed sound wall. Ms. Doerr explained Boston Scientific has completed multiple sound analyses with all of the equipment on the roof and the loading dock area and she sees a range of noise mitigation reduced. Tony Baxter, ESI Engineering, explained he was the sound engineer working with Boston Scientific. He commented further on how the proposed noise wall would reduce noise for the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Doerr reported the proposed noise wall would create significant sound reductions. Commissioner Lindau questioned if the sound wall is necessary if the other improvements listed on Attachment G were completed to the rooftop units. Ms. Doerr commented Boston Scientific was currently meeting all of the City’s requirements and the proposed HVAC unit replacements would assist in reducing noise. She indicated Boston Scientific was proposing to complete the sound wall in good faith in order to create a buffer between Boston Scientific and the adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Lindau inquired if tree plantings would be a solution versus the proposed wall. Mr. Baxter reported a few trees would not be effective. He explained a deep forest would be needed in order to impact the noise levels. He commented further on how the proposed sound wall would create noise reductions from the loading dock area. Commissioner Lindau questioned if the noise wall had to be so close to the trail. Ms. Doerr stated the studies have shown this would be the best location for noise mitigation as well as the proposed height for visuals. Mr. Baxter stated the sound wall would be more effective at this location and would take advantage of the hill. Commissioner Bjorklund asked if the louvered mechanical area had been screened. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 3, 2025 7 Ms. Doerr reported this area has to allow air through and explained the best option was to place a wall in front of the louvered mechanical area. She commented further on the silencers that would be installed on the three big boxes on the roof. Commissioner Bjorklund indicated he had concerns with the fact the proposed sound wall would not provide meaningful noise mitigation for the rooftop units. He explained he stood in the backyards of three of the adjacent homes and was able to see the rooftop units. Mr. Baxter discussed how sound moves in a spherical pattern and how it dissipates over distance. He explained he understood the sound wall would not be tall enough to cover the rooftop units but there would be meaningful noise reductions in the backyards of these houses. Commissioner Jacobson stated it appears the loading dock and the rooftop units were the main areas of concern. She explained it appears the berm and sound wall would mitigate a portion of this sound. Ms. Doerr reported this was the case. Commissioner Jacobson encouraged Boston Scientific to address the sharper sounds that were coming from their property. Ms. Doerr noted Boston Scientific has received complaints from the neighbors regarding beeping from snow plows working overnight and noted the proposed wall would address this concern. Commissioner Bjorklund expressed concern with the fact the sound wall would not alleviate sharp and sudden sounds. Mr. Baxter reiterated that the sound wall would assist with addressing this concern. He commented further on how the silencers on the rooftop units would assist with addressing the noise that was hitting the second floors of the adjacent homes. Commissioner Jacobson asked if there were any measures the neighbors could take to assist with mitigating the noise. Mr. Baxter reported this would depend on the topography of the lot, but noted he did not believe there was a great deal a resident could do to mitigate all of the noise. Commissioner Birken stated with the greenery in the illustration, she did not believe the noise wall looked so bad. She questioned how many of the existing trees would be retained. Ms. Doerr discussed how Boston Scientific had pursued a full concrete, landscaped wall versus a cheaper wooden wall in order to properly address the concerns of the neighbors and to provide a nicer finished product. Chuck Evans, Landscape Architect with Damon Farber, reported the plans show a mix of new and existing planted materials. He indicated he was hoping to save the mature evergreen trees on the neighborhood side of the wall. He stated the landscaping would then be augmented with new trees as well. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 3, 2025 8 Commissioner Jacobson explained she read through the proposed planting list and appreciated the wide variety of trees that would be used. Chair Collins commented it appears the sound wall would not be effective when it comes to the rooftop units for the adjacent homes. Ms. Doerr reported the sound wall would be effective for the ground level of the homes, but not the second level. She indicated this was the reason Boston Scientific would be adding silencers to the rooftop units. Chair Collins asked if the sound wall would address the noise coming from the louvered mechanical area and the argon tanks. Ms. Doerr explained the sound wall would address the noise coming from these areas. She indicated the noise from the loading dock area would also be addressed. Chair Collins appreciated the fact that the noise from three of the four problem areas would be addressed by the sound wall. He inquired what the decibel level reduction would be after the noise wall was in place. Ms. Doerr stated there was a range pending which location on the wall someone was at. Mr. Baxter reported the noise near the loading dock would be reduced by 7 to 20 decibels. He indicated the rooftop units would be reduced by 4 to 11 decibels. Chair Collins inquired if Boston Scientific would be making any other changes to the campus that would be increasing noises. Ms. Doerr commented there are two future items, one being a chiller that would be placed on the roof in 2026. She noted this piece of equipment would be screened on the roof. She explained other HVAC units would be removed which would help with sound mitigation. Chair Collins opened the meeting for public comment. Bryan Mills, 1280 Wynridge, explained he has lived in his home since 2009. He stated he moved eight houses up the street seven years ago in order to remain in this neighborhood. He encouraged the Commission to read his letter and to walk the beautiful path in his neighborhood in order to truly understand what he was living 24/7/365. He appreciated that some improvements have been made, but noted there was still a problem that engaged residents cannot solve. He stated he needed help from the City in order to hold Boston Scientific accountable for the impacts they are having on the residents each and every day. He indicated his quality of life has been greatly impacted by Boston Scientific and he wanted the City to hold Boston Scientific accountable. He recommended the trash bins be placed in a structure. He asked that a noise study be done on the rooftop units with and without the silencers to show the improvements. He urged the City not to push the sound wall through until these other improvements have been considered. He explained he was not a sound expert, but noted he had read through the entire packet of MPCA information prior to this meeting. He reported after speaking with Laura Dickerson at the MPCA, she would respectfully disagree that Boston Scientific was not meeting proper noise levels and the data was there to prove this. He recommended experts be brought in ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 3, 2025 9 to address this further. He stated the residents in this neighborhood will show up and were willing to engage with the City because they want to see the situation improved. Curtis Swenson, 1228 Wynridge Drive, reported his home does not backup to the trail, but he could see the trail from his home. He explained he worked at the University of Minnesota and he was a building mechanic in one of the dorms. He discussed how the University has worked to alleviate noise and no longer allow for deliveries from large trucks. He was of the opinion more work needs to be done to negate the noise coming from Boston Scientific. He appreciated the fact equipment would be replaced and that mechanical walls would be built close to the HVAC units. He stated he did not want to advocate for the wall being higher, but questioned how effective the sound wall would be for the homeowners trying to sleep on the second story of their home. He commented further on how disruptive the snowplows were in the middle of the night after a large snow event. He recommended the beeping noises be eliminated. He asked that not all of the cottonwoods be removed on the neighborhood side of the trail and recommended the water runoff plan be further reviewed to ensure the stormwater pond would not overflow. Maria Pieters, 1250 Wynridge Drive, explained she was a 20-year resident of Arden Hills. She thanked the Commission for allowing her to express her deep concerns regarding the proposed sound wall. She indicated she sent a detailed letter to the Commission regarding her concerns. She asked the Commission to hear the neighbors, the residents of Arden Hills who are being impacted by the noise and would be even more impacted by the construction of a sound wall. She reported she was not an expert in construction or sound mitigation but even so she believed there were more effective ways to address the noise coming from Boston Scientific. She indicated after the building was expanded in 2021 Boston Scientific, the company agreed to improve communication and have a liaison work with the neighborhood. She stated this never happened. Instead, Boston Scientific responds with unilaterally initiated projects. She recommended small changes be taken to improve the noise level situation, such as following the schedule for the loading dock area. She did not believe the sound wall was an act of goodwill. She encouraged Boston Scientific to really think about the people that live in this neighborhood and are being impacted by the noise. She stated the proposed construction would not be a solution but would only create more problems as mature trees would be removed. She indicated she did not want to look out her window and see a tall ugly wall, but rather would like to enjoy the trees that were currently in place. She expressed concerns with how her property value would be impacted if the noise wall were installed. She reiterated that she believed it would be more effective for Boston Scientific to take small measures in order to address the noise concerns than to install a noise wall. Pedro Urriola, 1250 Wynridge Drive, commented he was concerned with how his property value would be impacted by the proposed noise wall. He discussed a study he found where property values decreased by 6 to 11% that were close to a sound wall. He asked that the City take this into consideration when making a decision on the sound wall. Andrew Centanni, 1253 Wynridge Drive, explained he looks between his neighbor’s homes to the path. He stated he and his boys use the trail a lot and commented on the visual pollution the sound wall would create for the neighbors. He understood Boston Scientific was trying to do the right thing. He urged the City to hear the voices of the neighbors that were being impacted in this small pocket neighborhood. He recommended Boston Scientific pursue noise solutions for the areas of concern instead of pursuing a noise wall. He reported he was an architect and he believed there were successful measures that could be taken that do not include a sound wall. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 3, 2025 10 Bob Christensen, 1234 Wynridge Drive, thanked the Commission for allowing the neighbors to speak. He stated Boston Scientific has been saying things like “goodwill gesture” and “good faith”. He reported he was being woken from a dead sleep by slamming garbage bins. He supported Boston Scientific looking into the timing of deliveries versus a sound wall. He indicated he did not want to see the sound wall in his backyard. Chair Collins closed the meeting for public comment. Chair Collins referred to Attachment F and explained he was of the opinion the methods for gathering data may not have been met because the data was collected at the trail and not at the property line. He indicated the City does not have a clear understanding of if there was a point in time when sound was higher or if the noise levels were sustained. He wanted to better understand if the applicant was complying with current noise standards or not before this application was considered. Commissioner Lindau stated he believed Boston Scientific has done an outstanding job trying to address the noise concerns and he understood the wall would be a significant investment. He was of the opinion Boston Scientific needed to better understand the problem and be specific with how the four sources of noise would be mitigated. He agreed the measurements should be taken from the proper location. He stated if the rooftop units had the silencers installed, then perhaps a wall would only be needed around the loading dock. He indicated this may be a more common-sense approach to the situation and would protect the natural beauty of the trail. Commissioner Bjorklund agreed more had to be done from Boston Scientific before this project could move forward. He supported action on this item being tabled because there has been significant public comment addressing the concerns of the effectiveness of the wall and there has been significant Planning Commission input addressing the concerns of the wall and the deficiencies of the recent sound study. He stated there may not be a need for a wall if the proposed measures were taken on the roof top units and Boston Scientific followed the proper schedule for deliveries. He recommended Boston Scientific be given more time to consider what mitigation measures should be pursued in order to eliminate or reduce the scale of the proposed sound wall. Commissioner Jacobson commented Boston Scientific put together a great set of plans. She stated she was hearing from the residents and Boston Scientific that there was a noise problem that had to be solved. She supported the Commission having before and after noise levels before making a decision. She encouraged Boston Scientific to consider looking into changing the road design on the site in order to reduce the amount of backup beeping for the neighbors. Commissioner Erler stated this was a tough case. He noted he attended the neighborhood meeting in July and explained it was obvious there was a noise problem. He appreciated the efforts Boston Scientific had come forward with but noted this solution was being rejected by the residents who were being most affected by the noise. He encouraged Boston Scientific to take into consideration what other solutions may be more effective without being so intrusive. He stated he could support a shortened wall on the northwest corner of the building or to table action on this item to allow the applicant to further address the questions that have been raised. Commissioner Burlingame explained he was not convinced the proposed wall would mitigate noise on the upper floors of the adjacent homes. He did acknowledge that some of the sound measurements were taken before some recent improvements were made, which was making it ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 3, 2025 11 difficult to understand the before and after impacts. He understood the wall would improve the noise situation for residents but does not address the questions about the neighborhood’s look and feel. He discussed how property values may be impacted by the noise wall, but anticipated the noise would be the real property value killer. He stated he would like to better understand what viable alternatives exist, what other mitigation options could be considered or if this was the only option available. He indicated he could support tabling action on this item. Commissioner Birken reported when she interviewed for this position she recalled the discussion that was held surrounding the difficulty of planning. She indicated there are pros and cons that have to be balanced. She was empathetic to the neighbors and their inability to sleep through the night due to the chronic noise. She understood how the wall seems like the best solution for the Applicant but the wall would also create the biggest impact. She explained her main concern was with where the sound measurements were taken. She feared the City did not have the proper data on what impact the changes would have on the residents. She anticipated Damon Farber would make the wall look beautiful for the neighborhood, but she wanted to better understand what kind of difference the wall would make when it came to decibel levels. She indicated she could support tabling action on this Planning Case. Chair Collins stated he could support tabling action on this item as well. He indicated the Commission would need to provide staff with clear direction on why the item was being tabled. He stated he has heard from the Commission there was a desire to understand what the noise levels were at the residents’ homes from Boston Scientific and also have a clear understanding of what the MPCA noise restrictions were. He explained he would like to know more about how property values would be impacted. He recommended the Commission be provided with more information on the commonsense solutions Boston Scientific could pursue such as the mechanical unit dampeners and having Boston Scientific address the delivery hours with their vendors. Commissioner Lindau recommended the four main sources of noise be measured with the improvements that have been done and suggested on point solutions be pursued by Boston Scientific. He supported a more significant wall installed around the loading dock area that was higher to stop the noise from this area. Chair Collins recommended thorough and detailed public impact statements be provided to the Commission as well. Commissioner Jacobson recommended Boston Scientific work to provide the City with information on if and how the sound could be mitigated on site as opposed to how the noise is mitigated by a wall. In addition, she wanted to see noise ranges from all times of day. Chair Collins moved and Commissioner Bjorklund seconded a motion to table action on Planning Case 25-014 based on the following rationale: 1. The Commission needs clear guidance and understanding on the MPCA noise guidelines are and how these measurements are to be taken and for what duration. 2. The Commission needs measurements from the four noise generating items at Boston Scientific (rooftop/HVAC units, loading dock area, louvered area, argon tanks). The Commission wants to understand if Boston Scientific is compliant in all four areas. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 3, 2025 12 3. The Commission wants commonsense solutions investigated for the effectiveness of the rooftop unit dampeners, a smaller sound wall around point source sound generation items on Building 14 and an understanding if Boston Scientific was following the proper loading dock hours. 4. The Commission received feedback from the neighbors as to the negative impacts of the sound wall both visually and property devaluation. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Chair Collins asked how staff would proceed with this item. Community Development Director Reilly reported staff would relisten to this meeting in order to verify the actions and directions from the Commission. He explained staff would speak with the applicant about the State Statute timeline requirements and see how Boston Scientific would like to proceed. He indicated staff would come back to the Commission in January with further information on this item. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Community Development Director Reilly provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Community Development Director Reilly reported there would be a special Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, December 10. ADJOURN Chair Collins moved, seconded by Commissioner Lindau, to adjourn the December 3, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:51 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Approved: February 4, 2026 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 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 Special Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Joshua Collins, Commissioners Jessica Birken, Brad Bjorklund, Patrick Burlingame, Nancy Jacobson, and Ben Lindau. Absent: Commissioner Stephen Erler. Also present were: Community Development Director Jacob Reilly and Council Liaison Kurt Weber. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – DECEMBER 10, 2025 Chair Collins requested Item 5C – Staff Report be added to the agenda. Commissioner Birken moved, seconded by Commissioner Lindau, to approve the December 10, 2025, agenda as amended adding Item 5C. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 25-015 – 4440 Round Lake Road – Public Hearing Community Development Director Reilly stated the Subject Property was previously occupied by Saltbox, a business offering suites leased by individual businesses - usually startup/small digital commerce companies - in this building. Saltbox went through Concept Review with the City Council in March of 2022 (Planning Case #22-005) and Site Plan Review with the Planning Commission and City Council in May and June of 2022 (Planning Case #22-007). As part of improvements to the property in 2022, a new site plan was approved to reconfigure the parking lot layout to allow for 144 parking stalls. Portal Warehousing (“The Operator”) became the new ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION – December 10, 2025 2 operator of the building in 2024 and has been operating under the same flexible warehousing business model operated by Saltbox. Portal handles the on-demand logistical services for receipt and delivery of packages and/or products and provides order fulfillment assistance to small business owners. Products arrive at the loading dock(s) and the on-site logistics staff ensure items are delivered to individual suites or to secure warehouse space. Approximately one half of the warehouse is unoccupied. The Applicant purchased the property early in 2025. Community Development Director Reilly explained at the October 27, 2025, work session meeting, the City Council reviewed a concept plan for Portal to operate a cannabis warehouse operation in addition to the existing flexible warehouse and office suites offered in the building. The legalization of adult use cannabis by the State Legislature offers a new market for warehousing pre-packaged cannabis products for wholesale distribution. The Applicant seeks to offer similar flexible warehouse spaces to cannabis wholesalers and Portal will continue to coordinate operations at the site. The discussion at the Council work session revolved around the operations of the building, the number of jobs, and vehicle circulation. Community Development Director Reilly reviewed the Site Data, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The subject property located at 4440 Round Lake Road is zoned GB, Gateway Business Zoning District and is designated for office and industrial use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2. Cannabis, wholesale is a conditional use in the GB Gateway Business Zoning District. 3. A state license is required for each wholesaler. 4. The Applicant, Hempel Real Estate, dba HRE Arden Hills, LLC is the sole owner of the property and applied for a conditional use permit for cannabis wholesale operations at the site. 5. The Applicant’s site plan shows sufficient parking for 10% office and 90% warehouse use, a use that continues an existing legal nonconforming use. 6. The Applicant’s narrative notes the specifics of the proposed business, including the sourcing of products and customer and employee education, and indicates odor suppression, security, and licensing as required by state law will be followed. 7. The materials submitted show adequate circulation on site to prevent adverse effects to the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole. 8. Standards and conditions in Section 1325.047 Cannabis Business Conditional Use Permit are met. 9. Standards and conditions in Section 1320.06 District Requirements Chart (GB Gateway Business District) are met. 10. Standards and conditions in Section 1325.06 - General Regulations, Off-Street Parking Requirements are met, given the existing nonconforming nature of the site. 11. A public hearing for a Conditional Use Permit request is required before the request can be brought before the City Council. The required public hearing was held on December 10, 2025. Community Development Director Reilly stated suggested conditions of approval for Planning Case 25-015 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow cannabis, wholesale at 4440 Round Lake Road: 1. All existing and any future refuse/recycling containers on site must be enclosed prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION – December 10, 2025 3 2. No additional exterior signage related to the cannabis wholesale use shall be permitted. 3. The Applicant shall comply with all sections of the City Code and with applicable State Statutes. 4. An odor management plan must be submitted to the City prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. 5. The Applicant shall for the duration of the Conditional Use Permit continue to provide evidence to the City of the status of each operator’s state licensure annually and no later than the first business day of December of each year. 6. Not more than 10% of the building’s floor area may be used for office use. Community Development Director Reilly reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission for a decision 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. Chair Collins asked to clarify that the only reason the Planning Commission was reviewing this case was because this was a cannabis use. Community Development Director Reilly reported this was the case. Commissioner Lindau asked what kind of internal security measures would be put in place for the individual units. Brandon Champeau, applicant, explained items would be stored within individual, secure units. He reported the 52,000-foot vacant space would have to comply with any State Statute with respect to internal security. He noted the building had security and alarms as well. Chair Collins opened the public hearing at 6:46 p.m. Chair Collins invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment from the public, Chair Collins closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Commissioner Burlingame stated after reviewing the operational safeguards and the clear alignment with the Gateway Business District he would be offering his support for this project. He recommended one condition be considered to require an odor plan to be in place prior to occupancy. Chair Collins reported Condition 4 states: An odor management plan must be submitted to the City prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Burlingame indicated he would like this condition to be amended to read: An odor management plan shall be submitted for review and approval by City staff prior to the occupancy of each cannabis wholesale tenant. Odor control measures must be tailored to each tenant specific products and packaging to ensure there is no detectable odor at the property line. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION – December 10, 2025 4 Chair Collins asked how this differed from what the State required. Commissioner Burlingame explained the odor management plan from the City would address each tenant versus the overall property. Commissioner Lindau stated he would like to better understand the State’s requirements when it comes to odor mitigation. Commissioner Birken questioned if the City had to be concerned about odor on this property, given that the products will not be manufactured on site, rather the products would be prepacked and stored on this site. Mr. Champeau stated he did not anticipate there would be any odor issues because the products would be prepacked and sealed. He noted there would be a lot of tenants operating in this space and if one was smellier than the others, he would not want them in the space because it would upset the other tenants. Chair Collins inquired if all products would arrive at the space prepackaged. Mr. Champeau reported this was the case noting no production would take place onsite. Chair Collins indicated he supported the language for Condition 4 as proposed by staff. Commissioner Burlingame stated he would redact his recommended language changes for Condition 4. Commissioner Birken moved and Commissioner Lindau seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 25-015 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow cannabis, whiles at 4440 Round Lake Road based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the December 10, 2025, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Chair Collins reported this item would be reviewed by the City Council on January 12, 2026. 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 stated the Council greatly appreciated the work this group was doing on behalf of the City. He noted he would continue to serve as the Planning Commission liaison in 2026. He reported the Council approved a balanced budget and levy increase of 12.5% at their most recent meeting. He wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION – December 10, 2025 5 B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests None. C. Staff Report Community Development Director Reilly explained staff would like to confirm with the Commission what additional information should be sought from Boston Scientific prior to the January Planning Commission meeting. He reviewed a list of items that were discussed at last week’s meeting and asked if there were any corrections or additions. Commissioner Lindau asked that the noise measurement be conducted for each of the four main sound sources. Commissioner Jacobson recommended the location of these measurements be documented as well. Commissioner Birken indicated she would like the noise levels to be taken from the adjacent homes because these were the receiving properties being impacted by the sound levels. Chair Collins inquired if the City had ever stepped in and enforced the MPCA rules or guidelines when it comes to the noise levels at Boston Scientific. Community Development Director Reilly stated he was not aware of this taking place. Chair Collins questioned if the neighborhood would have to do their own sound study in order for this to occur. Community Development Director Reilly indicated he was not able to answer this question. Commissioner Bjorklund reported City Administrator Jessica Jagoe has extensive experience doing this exact thing in Chisago County. He noted the City may have to conduct this testing and stated it was expensive. Chair Collins asked if there were any other comments or questions from the Commission. Commissioner Lindau recommended the point sources and operating hours at the loading dock be further addressed with Boston Scientific. Community Development Director Reilly stated the City has not received any official complaints from the neighbors regarding the loading dock, but staff was doing research on what the requirements were at the time the original PUD was approved. Chair Collins commented when the PUD was created there were noise levels that were referenced. He discussed the MPCA noise levels that were allowed and stated the City may have to consider what its intentions were for the noise levels and if they should be allowed to go above the peak decibel levels. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION – December 10, 2025 6 Community Development Director Reilly indicated the PUD may address the hours of operation and noise levels which is why staff is researching the conditions of the original PUD and subsequent amendments to clarify both the hours of operation and noise levels. Commissioner Lindau reported explained he would appreciate knowing what the current noise levels were prior to Boston Scientific making any more improvements. Community Development Director Reilly indicated Boston Scientific has more detailed repors that have not yet been provided to the City. He stated he has requested this information. Councilmember Weber noted the City Council had received an emailed complaint about Boston Scientific when construction was occurring because activity occurred on a Sunday, which was outside of the allowed hours of operation for construction and emails to the City Council should be considered official complaints. Commissioner Birken reported it was her understanding from the residents that they believe Boston Scientific was not currently compliant and the neighbors would like Boston Scientific to be brought into compliance before having to look at a big wall. Commissioner Jacobson indicated the focus at the last meeting was on the loading dock area, argon tanks and rooftop units. She believed the residents wanted to better understand how the wall would assist with mitigating sounds, which led to the request for further information on how the wall would assist with addressing noise. Commissioner Lindau requested the four points of noise be measured and that solutions be tailored to address the noise at the source without Boston Scientific putting up a large wall that will only mask the noise. Commissioner Jacobson agreed with this recommendation. Community Development Director Reilly thanked the Commission for their feedback. ADJOURN Chair Collins moved, seconded by Commissioner Jacobson, to adjourn the December 10, 2025, Special Planning Commission Meeting at 7:21 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Page 1 of 1 PC Agenda Item – 3A MEMORANDUM DATE: February 4, 2026 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Lucas J. Miller – Assistant Public Works Director Jake Reilly – Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case #26-003 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: City of Arden Hills Request: Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 11 Subdivisions – related to stormwater management Requested Action • The City of Arden Hills is required to amend Chapter 11 Subdivisions to bring it into conformance with required updated rules set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The proposed amendment includes revisions to Section 1140 Required Improvements. Background The City of Arden Hills is one of Minnesota’s approximately 248 entities required to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits and develop Stormwater Pollution Prevention Programs (SWPPPs). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) updates Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Language every five years. In 2025, the MPCA issued new MS4 Permits with updated language to take effect for the permit cycle of 2025 through 2029. Entities typically have up to two years to comply with the new rules. City Staff worked with a consultant to update the language within our City’s Code of Ordinance to correctly reflect the revisions required by the MPCA for the new MS4 permit rules. The City of Arden Hills Planning Commission has review and recommendation authority over proposed changes to Chapter 11 Subdivisions, Chapter 12 – Signs, and Chapter 13 – Zoning Code. There is a related ordinance change to Chapter 15 – Erosion and Sediment Control. Proposed changes to Chapter 15 – Erosion and Sediment Control is included as Attachment B. Both Ordinances are anticipated to be considered together at the March 9 City Council meeting. They are presented here as a package as they are related to one set of rule changes from the MPCA. Attachments Attachment A: Ordinance 2026-XX - Amending Chapter 11 Subdivisions (redlines) Attachment B: Ordinance 2026-XX – Amending Chapter 15 - Erosion and Sediment Control ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE ARDEN HILLS CITY CODE CONCERNING SUBDIVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 11 – Subdivision Code, Section 1140 – Required Improvements is hereby amended removing the following struck text and adding the following underlined text: 1140.08 Stormwater Management. Stormwater management plans shall comply with with Rule C: Stormwater Management Plans of the Rice Creek Watershed District Rules.the following: the standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Construction Permit MNR 100001 (Construction Storm Water (CSW) Permit) as amended in its entirety and now constituted and from time to time amended; Rule C: Stormwater Management Plans of the Rice Creek Watershed District Rules; and the standards listed below, whichever is more restrictive. Subd. 1 Post-Construction Stormwater Management A. Submittal of Site Plans consisting of Post-Construction Plans 1. Site plans must be submitted for review and confirmation that ordinance requirements have been met, prior to start of construction activity. 2. Site plans must consist of, at a minimum, the following items: (i) All calculations for the permanent stormwater treatment system; (ii) The water quality volume that will be treated through volume reduction practices; (iii) Rationale and documentation supporting the location of any off-site permanent stormwater treatment projects; (iv) All legal mechanisms related to Part c. (Long-term Maintenance). B. Post-Construction Stormwater Management BMPs must meet the following criteria: 1. Designed with accepted engineering practices and in accordance with part d. (Permanent Stormwater Management System Design Criteria). 2. Designed so that discharges from the project during and after construction activities do not cause a violation of state water quality standards, including nuisance conditions, erosion in receiving channels or on downslope properties, or a significant adverse impact to wetlands caused by inundation or decrease of flow. 3. Treat the water quality volume on any project where the sum of the new impervious surface and the fully reconstructed impervious surface equals one or more acres. 4. For construction activity (excluding linear projects), water quality volume must be calculated as one (1) inch times the sum of the new and the fully reconstructed impervious surface. 5. For linear projects, water quality volume must be calculated as the larger of one (1) inch times the new impervious surface or one-half (0.5) inch times the sum of the new and the fully reconstructed impervious surface. Where the entire water quality volume cannot be treated within the existing right-of-way, a reasonable attempt to obtain additional right-of-way, easement, or other permission to treat the stormwater during the project planning process must be made. Volume reduction practices must be considered first, as described in Section 3.b.vi. Volume reduction practices are not required if the practices cannot be provided cost effectively. If additional right-of-way, easements, or other permission cannot be obtained, the owner/operator of construction activity must maximize the treatment of the water quality volume prior to discharge from Arden Hill’s MS4. 6. Volume reduction practices (e.g., infiltration or other) to retain the water quality volume on-site must be considered first when designing the permanent stormwater treatment system. Wet sedimentation basins and filtration systems are not considered volume reduction practices. If infiltration is prohibited, as described in Part d.i.14. (Infiltration System), other volume reduction practices, a wet sedimentation basin, or a filtration basin may be considered. C. Post Long-term Maintenance 1. The Permitee must enter into a long-term maintenance agreement with the City of Arden Hills that documents all responsibilities for long-term operation and maintenance of stormwater treatment practices that are not owned or operated by the City of Arden Hills. At a minimum, the long-term maintenance agreement must include provisions that: (i) Allow the City of Arden Hills to conduct inspections of structural stormwater BMPs not owned or operated by the City of Arden Hills, perform necessary maintenance, and assess costs for those structural stormwater BMPs when the City of Arden Hills determines the owner of that structural stormwater BMP has not ensured proper function; (ii) Are designed to preserve the City of Arden Hills right to ensure maintenance responsibility, for structural stormwater BMPs not owned or operated by the City of Arden Hills, when those responsibilities are legally transferred to another party; and (iii) Are designed to protect/preserve structural stormwater BMPs. If structural stormwater BMPs change, causing decreased effectiveness, new, repaired, or improved structural stormwater BMPs must be implemented to provide equivalent treatment to the original BMP. D. Permanent Stormwater Management System Design Criteria 1. Infiltration System (i) Infiltration options include, but are not limited to: infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, rainwater gardens, bioretention areas without underdrains, swales with impermeable check dams, and natural depressions; (ii) To determine if an infiltration system is suitable, either the MPCA's contamination screening checklist must be completed or an assessment must be conducted. The checklist or assessment must be documented in the site plan. For more information and to access the MPCA's "contamination screening checklist" see the Minnesota Stormwater Manual; (iii) Must be designed such that pre-existing hydrologic conditions of wetlands in the vicinity are not impacted (e.g., inundation or breaching a perched water table supporting a wetland); (iv) Must not be excavated to final grade, or within three (3) feet of final grade, until the contributing drainage area has been constructed and fully stabilized unless they provide rigorous erosion prevention and sediment controls (e.g., diversion berms) to keep sediment and runoff completely away from the infiltration area. (v) When excavating to within three (3) feet of final grade, the Permitee must stake off and mark the area so heavy construction vehicles or equipment do not compact the soil in the infiltration area; (vi) A pretreatment device such as a vegetated filter strip, forebay, or water quality inlet (e.g., grit chamber) to remove solids, floating materials, and oil and grease from the runoff, to the maximum extent practicable, must be used before the system routes stormwater to the infiltration system; (vii) Designed to provide a water quality volume as described in Section b.iii, b.iv, and b.v; (viii) Designed to discharge all stormwater (including stormwater in excess of the water quality volume)routed to the system through the upper most soil surface or engineered media surface within 48 hours. Additional flows that cannot infiltrate within 48 hours must bypass the system through a stabilized discharge point; (ix) Must provide a means to visually verify the infiltration system is discharging through the soil surface or filter media surface within 48 hours or less; (x) Must provide at least one soil boring, test pit or infiltrometer test in the location of the infiltration practice for determining infiltration rates; (xi) For design purposes, divide field measured infiltration rates by 2 as a safety factor or use soil-boring results with the infiltration rate chart in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual to determine design infiltration rates. When soil borings indicate type A soils, field measurements should be performed to verify the rate is not above 8.3 inches per hour. (xii) Must employ appropriate on-site testing to ensure a minimum of three (3) feet of separation from the seasonally saturated soils(or from bedrock) and the bottom of the proposed infiltration system; (xiii) Must design a maintenance access ,typically eight (8) feet wide; (xiv) Infiltration Systems are prohibited in the following areas (See "higher level of engineering review" in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual for more information): i. Areas that that receive runoff from vehicle fueling and maintenance areas; ii. Areas where infiltrating stormwater may mobilize high levels of contaminants in soil or groundwater; iii. Areas where soil infiltration rates are field measured at more than 8.3 inches per hour unless the soils are amended to slow the infiltration rate below 8.3 inches per hour; iv. Areas with less than three (3) feet of separation distance from the bottom of the infiltration system to the elevation of the seasonally saturated soils or the top of bedrock; v. Areas of predominately Hydrologic Soil Group type D soils(clay); vi. The following areas within a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) as defined in Minn. R. 4720.5100, subp. 13: 1. In an Emergency Response Area (ERA) within a DWSMA classified as having high or very high vulnerability as defined by the Minnesota Department of Health; or 2. In an ERA within a DWSMA classified as moderate vulnerability unless a higher level of engineering review sufficient to provide a functioning treatment system and to prevent adverse impacts to groundwater has been approved by the City of Arden Hills; or 3. Outside of an ERA within a DWSMA classified as having high or very high vulnerability unless a higher level of engineering review sufficient to provide a functioning treatment system and to prevent adverse impacts to groundwater has been approved by the City of Arden Hills. 4. Areas within 1,000 feet upgradient or100 feet downgradient of active karst features; and 5. Areas that receive runoff from the following industrial facilities not authorized to infiltrate stormwater under the NPDES stormwater permit for industrial activities: a. Automobile salvage yards; b. Scrap recycling and waste recycling facilities; c. Hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities; d. Wood preserving facilities; or e. Air transportation facilities that conduct deicing activities. ii. Filtration System 1) Filtration options include, but are not limited to: sand filters with underdrains, biofiltration areas, swales using underdrains with impermeable check dams and underground sand filters; 2) Must not install filter media until the contributing drainage area is constructed and fully stabilized unless they provide rigorous erosion prevention and sediment controls (e.g., diversion berms) to keep sediment and runoff completely away from the filtration area; 3) Designed to remove at least 80 percent of TSS; 4) Must use a pretreatment device such as a vegetated filter strip, small sedimentation basin, water quality inlet, forebay or hydrodynamic separator to remove settleable solids, floating materials, oils and grease from the runoff to the maximum extent practicable, before runoff enters the filtration system; 5) Designed to provide a water quality volume as described in Section b.iii, b.iv, and b.v; 6) Designed to discharge all stormwater(including stormwater in excess of the water quality volume) routed to the system through the uppermost soil surface or engineered media surface within 48 hours. Additional flows that the system cannot filter within 48 hours must bypass the system or discharge through an emergency overflow; 7) Designed to provide a means to visually verify the system is discharging through the soil surface or filter media within 48 hours; 8) Employ appropriate on-site testing to ensure a minimum of three (3) feet of separation between the seasonally saturated soils(or from bedrock) and the bottom of the proposed filtration system; 9) Construct with an impermeable liner when the system has less than three (3) feet of separation between seasonally saturated soils or bedrock; 10) Designed with a maintenance access, typically eight(8) feet wide. iii. Wet Sedimentation Basin 1) Permanent volume of 1,800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe for each acre that drains to the basin; 2) Permanent volume must reach a minimum depth of at least three (3) feet and must have no depth greater than 10 feet; 3) Must be configured to minimize scour or resuspension of solids; 4) In addition to the permanent volume, the basin must provide the water quality volume as live storage. Water quality volume is described in Section b.iii, b.iv, and b.v; 5) Water quality volume discharges at no more than 5.66 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre of surface area of the basin; 6) Designed to prevent short-circuiting and the discharge of floating debris; 7) Basin outlets must have energy dissipation; 8) Must include a stabilized emergency overflow to accommodate storm events in excess of the basin's hydraulic design; 9) Must have a maintenance access, typically eight (8) feet wide, for the basin; 10) Must be located outside of surface waters and any buffer zones identified in Construction Stormwater General permit. 11) Permittees must design basins using an impermeable liner if located within active karst terrain. iv. Regional Wet Sedimentation Basins 1) When the entire water quality volume cannot be treated by volume reduction practices onsite, regional wet sedimentation basins can be used or created, provided they are constructed basins, not a natural wetland or water body. 2) The regional basin conforms to all requirements for a wet sedimentation basin as described in Part d.iii. (Wet Sedimentation Basin) 3) Must be large enough to account for the entire area that drains to the basin. 4) Waterways between the project and the regional basin must not be significantly degraded. 5) Written authorization from the City of Arden Hills or private entity that owns and maintains the regional basin. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. A Summary of this Ordinance will be published in accordance with state statute. PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2026, by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS By _______________________________ David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Julie Hanson, City Clerk Published in the Pioneer Press on ______________________, 2026 ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OF THE ARDEN HILLS CITY CODE CONCERNING ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTIONS AND CHAPTER 15 OF THE ARDEN HILLS CITY CODE CONCERNING EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 10 – Utilities is hereby amended by replacing struck text with the underlined language below. Section 1020 - Illicit Discharge and Connections 1020.01 Purpose. The purpose of the ordinance is to promote, preserve and enhance the natural resources within the City and protect them from adverse effects caused by non-storm water discharge by regulating discharges that would have an adverse and potentially irreversible impact on water quality and environmentally sensitive land. This ordinance will provide for the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City through the regulation of non-storm water discharges to the storm drainage system to the maximum extent practicable as required by federal and state law. This ordinance establishes methods for controlling the introduction of pollutants into the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) in order to comply with requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process. The objectives of this ordinance are: A) To regulate the contribution of pollutants to the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) by storm water discharges by any person. B) To prohibit Illicit Connections and Discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer system. C) To establish legal authority to carry out all inspection, surveillance, and monitoring procedures necessary to ensure compliance with this ordinance. 1020.02 Definitions. ANIMAL: A dog, cat or other animal kept for amusement or companionship. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, general good housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants directly or indirectly to stormwater, receiving waters, or stormwater conveyance systems. BMPs also include treatment practices, operating procedures, and practices to control site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or water disposal, or drainage from raw materials storage. STRUCTURAL BMP: a physical device that is typically designed and constructed to trap or filter pollutants from runoff, or reduce runoff velocities. CITY: The City of Arden Hills. CLEAN WATER ACT: The federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. ' 1251 et seq.), and any subsequent amendments thereto. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY: Activities subject to NPDES Construction Permits. These include construction projects resulting in land disturbance of one acre or more. Such activities include but are not limited to clearing and grubbing, grading, excavating, and demolition. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Any material, including any substance, waste, or combination thereof, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may cause, or significantly contribute to, a substantial present or potential hazard to human health, safety, property, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. ILLEGAL DISCHARGE: Any direct or indirect non-storm water discharge to the storm drain system, except as exempted in this ordinance. ILLICIT CONNECTION: An illicit connection is defined as either of the following: 1. Any drain or conveyance, whether on the surface or subsurface, which allows an illegal discharge to enter the storm drain system (including any non-storm water discharge) including wastewater, process wastewater, and wash water to enter the storm drain system and any connections to the storm drain system from indoor drains and sinks, regardless of whether said drain or connection had been previously allowed, permitted, or approved by the City; or, 2. Any drain or conveyance connected from a commercial or industrial land use to the storm drain system which has not been documented in plans, maps, or equivalent records and approved by the City. INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY Activities subject to NPDES Industrial Storm Water Permits as defined in 40 CFR, Section 122.26 (b)(14). MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE (MEP). A standard for water quality that applies to all MS4 operators regulated under the NPDES program. Since no precise definition of MEP exists, it allows for maximum flexibility on the part of MS4 operators as they develop and implement their programs to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques and system, design and engineering methods, and such other provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of pollutants. MPCA: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4): The system of conveyances (including sidewalks, roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, channels, or storm drains) owned and operated by the City and designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water, and which is not used for collecting or conveying sewage. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT: A permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) that authorizes the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States, whether the permit is applicable on an individual, group, or general area-wide basis. NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGE: Any discharge to the storm drain system that is not composed entirely of storm water. OWNER/CUSTODIAN: Any person, group or corporation who harbors, feeds, boards, possesses, keeps, or has custody of an animal. PERSON: Any individual, association, organization, partnership, firm, corporation, or other entity recognized by law and acting as either the owner or as the owner's agent. POLLUTANT: Anything Any substance which when discharged has potential to or does any of the following: Interferes with state designated water uses; Obstructs or causes damage to waters of the state; Changes water color, odor, or usability as a drinking water source through causes not attributable to natural stream processes affecting surface water or subsurface processes affecting groundwater; Adds an unnatural surface film on the water; Adversely changes other chemical, biological, thermal, or physical condition, in any surface water or stream channel; Degrades the quality of groundwater; or Harms human life, aquatic life, or terrestrial plant and wildlife; A Pollutant includes but is not limited to dredged soil, solid waste, incinerator residue, garbage, wastewater sludge, chemical waste, biological materials, radioactive materials, rock, sand, dust, industrial waste, sediment, nutrients, toxic substance, pesticide, herbicide, trace metal, automotive fluid, petroleum-based substance, wastewater, and oxygen-demanding material. causes or contributes to pollution. Pollutants may include, but are not limited to: paints, varnishes, and solvents; oil and other automotive fluids; non-hazardous liquid and solid wastes and yard wastes; refuse, rubbish, garbage, litter, or other discarded or abandoned objects, ordinances, and accumulations, so that same may cause or contribute to pollution; floatables; pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers; hazardous substances and wastes; sewage, fecal coliform and pathogens; dissolved and particulate metals; animal wastes; wastes and residues that result from constructing a building or structure; and noxious or offensive matter of any kind. POLLUTE: To discharge pollutants into waters of the state. POLLUTION: The direct or indirect distribution of pollutants into waters of the state. PREMISES: Any building, lot, parcel of land, or portion of land whether improved or unimproved including adjacent sidewalks and parking strips. STORM SEWER SYSTEM: Publicly-owned facilities by which storm water is collected and/or conveyed, including but not limited to any roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, gutters, curbs, inlets, piped storm drains, pumping facilities, retention and detention basins, natural and human-made or altered drainage channels, reservoirs, and other drainage structures. STORMWATER: Any surface flow, runoff, or drainage consisting entirely of water from any form of natural precipitation, and resulting from such precipitation. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP): A document which describes the Best Management Practices and activities to be implemented by a person or business to identify sources of pollution or contamination at a site and the actions to eliminate or reduce pollutant discharges to stormwater, stormwater conveyance systems, and/or receiving waters to the Maximum Extent Practicable. SURFACE WATERS: All waters of the state other than ground waters, which include ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, ditches, and public drainage systems except those designed and used to collect, convey, or dispose of sanitary sewage. WASTE: Solid matter expelled from the bowels of the pet; excrement. WASTEWATER: Any water or other liquid, other than uncontaminated storm water, discharged from a facility or the by-product of washing equipment or vehicles. WATERCOURSE: A ditch, stream, creek, or other defined channel intended for the conveyance of water, runoff, groundwater discharge or similar hydraulic or hydrologic purpose. WATERS OF THE STATE: All streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, watercourses, waterways, wells, springs, reservoirs, aquifers, irrigation systems, drainage systems and all other bodies or accumulations of water, surface or underground, natural or artificial, public or private, which are contained within, flow through, or border upon the state or any portion thereof. 1020.03 Applicability and Administration. Subd. 1 Applicability. This ordinance shall apply to all water entering the storm sewer system generated on any developed and undeveloped lands unless explicitly exempted by the City. Subd. 2 Responsibility for Administration. The City and its authorized representatives are authorized to administer, implement, and enforce the provisions of this ordinance. 1020.04 Compatibility with Other Regulations. Subd. 1 Compatibility. This ordinance is not intended to modify or repeal any other ordinance, rule, regulation, or other provision of law. The requirements of this ordinance are in addition to the requirements of any other ordinance, rule, regulation, or other provision of law, and where any provision of this ordinance imposes restrictions different from those imposed by any other ordinance, rule, regulation or other provision of law, whichever provision is more restrictive or imposes higher protective standards for human health or the environment shall control. 1020.05 Discharge Prohibitions. Subd. 1 Illegal Disposal and Dumping. A. No person shall throw, deposit, place, leave, maintain, or keep any substance upon any street, alley, sidewalk, storm drain, inlet, catch basin, or other drainage structure, business place, or upon any public or private land, so that the same might be or become a pollutant, unless the substance is in containers, recycling bags, or any other lawfully established waste disposal device. B. No person shall intentionally dispose of grass, leaves, dirt, or landscape material into a water resource, buffer, street, road, alley, catch basin, culvert, curb, gutter, inlet, ditch, natural watercourse, flood control channel, canal, storm drain or any fabricated natural conveyance. Subd. 2 Illegal/Illicit Discharges. A. No person shall throw, drain, or otherwise discharge, cause, or allow others under its control to throw, drain, or otherwise discharge into the municipal storm sewer system or surface water any materials, pollutants or waters containing any pollutants, other than storm water. The commencement, conduct or continuance of any illegal discharge to the storm sewer system is prohibited except as described as follows: 1. The following discharges are exempt from discharge prohibitions established by this ordinance: water line flushing or other potable water sources, landscape irrigation or lawn watering, diverted stream flows, rising ground water, ground water infiltration to storm drains, uncontaminated pumped ground water, foundation or footing drains (not including active groundwater dewatering systems), sump pumps, crawl space pumps, air conditioning condensation, springs, non-commercial washing of vehicles, natural riparian habitat or wetland flows, dechlorinated swimming pools, and any other water source not containing pollutants. 2. Discharges or flow from fire fighting, or other activities deemed necessary by the City to protect public health and safety. 3. Consists of dye testing discharge, as long as a verbal notification is made to the City Public Works Director prior to the time of the test. 4. Consists of non-storm water discharge permitted under a NPDES permit, waiver, or waste discharge order issued and administered under the authority of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Subd. 3 Illicit Connections. A. No person shall use any illicit connection to intentionally convey non-storm water to the City's storm sewer system. B. The construction, use, maintenance, or continued existence of illicit connections to the storm sewer system is prohibited. This prohibition expressly includes, without limitation, illicit connections made in the past, regardless of whether the connection was permissible under law or practices applicable or prevailing at the time of connection. C. A person is considered to be in violation of this ordinance if the person connects a line conveying wastewater to the storm sewer system, or allows such a connection to continue. D. Improper connections in violation of this division must be disconnected and redirected, if necessary, to an approved onsite wastewater management system or the sanitary sewer system upon approval of the City. E. Any drain or conveyance that has not been documented in plans, maps or equivalent, and which may be connected to the storm sewer system, shall be located by the owner or occupant of that property upon receipt of written notice of violation from the City requiring that such locating be completed. Such notice will specify a reasonable time period within which the location of the drain or conveyance is to be determined, that the drain or conveyance be identified as storm sewer, sanitary sewer or other, and that the outfall location or point of connection to the storm sewer system, sanitary sewer system or other discharge point be identified. Results of these investigations are to be documented and provided to the City. 1020.06 Industrial or Construction Activity Discharges. Any person subject to an industrial or construction activity NPDES storm water discharge permit shall comply with all provisions of such permit. Proof of compliance with said permit may be required in a form acceptable to the City prior to the allowing of discharges to the MS4. Any person responsible for a property or premise, who is, or may be, the source of an illicit discharge, may be required to implement, at said person's expense, additional structural and non-structural BMPs to prevent the further discharge of pollutants to the storm sewer system. These BMPs shall be part of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) as necessary for compliance with requirements of the NPDES permit. 1020.07 Access to Facilities Subd. 1 When the City has determined that there is a danger to the health, safety or welfare of the public, City representatives shall be permitted to enter and inspect facilities subject to regulation under this ordinance as often as may be necessary to determine compliance with this ordinance. If a discharger has security measures in force which require proper identification and clearance before entry into its premises, the discharger shall make the necessary arrangements to allow access to City representatives. Subd. 2 Unreasonable delays in allowing the City access to a permitted facility is a violation of a storm water discharge permit and of this ordinance. Subd. 3 The City may seek issuance of a search warrant for the following reasons: A. If city representatives are refused access to any part of the premises from which storm water is discharged, and there is probable cause to believe that there may be a violation of this ordinance; or B. there is a need to inspect and/or sample as part of a routine inspection and sampling program designed to verify compliance with this ordinance or any order issued hereunder; or C. to protect the overall public health, safety, and welfare of the community. 1020.08 Watercourse Protection. Every person, or such person's lessee, owning property through which a watercourse passes or is directly adjacent to a watercourse, shall keep and maintain that part of the watercourse free of trash, debris, excessive vegetation, and other obstacles that would pollute, contaminate, or retard the flow of water through the watercourse. In addition, the owner or lessee shall maintain existing privately owned structures within or adjacent to a watercourse, so that such structures will not become a hazard to the use, function, or physical integrity of the watercourse. 1020.09 Animal Waste Subd. 1 No owner or custodian of any animal shall cause or allow such animal to soil, defile or leave excrement on any public property or upon any street, sidewalk, public way, play area, or upon private property other than that of the owner, unless such owner immediately removes and disposes of all waste deposited by such animal in a sanitary manner. Subd. 2 It is unlawful for any person owning, keeping or harboring an animal to cause or permit said animal to be on any public or private property, not owned or possessed by such person without having in immediate possession a device for the removal of waste and depository for the transmission of excrement to a proper receptacle located on the property owned or possessed by such person. Subd. 3 It is unlawful for any person in control of, causing or permitting any animal to be on any public or private property, not owned or possessed by such person, to fail to remove waste left by such animal and dispose of it properly as described in Subd. 4. Subd. 4 Proper disposal of animal waste shall be limited to, flushing in the toilet, bagging for disposal in the owner or custodians’ waste receptacle, and bagging for disposal in a waste receptacle in a public park or park area. Subd. 5 Disposal of animal waste in storm drains is prohibited. Subd. 6 Disposal of animal waste in public compost is prohibited. Subd. 7 The provisions of this section shall not apply to the ownership or use of any properly identified service animals, animals when used for police activities, or tracking animals when used by or with the permission of the appropriate authorities. 1020.09 10 Notification of Spills. Notwithstanding other requirements of law, as soon as any person responsible for a facility or operation, or responsible for emergency response for a facility or operation has information of any known or suspected release of materials which are resulting or may result in illegal discharges or pollutants discharging into storm water, the storm sewer system, or water of the state, said person shall take all necessary steps to ensure the discovery, containment, and cleanup of such release according to state and federal laws. 1020.10 11 Suspension due to Illicit Discharges in Emergency Situations. The City may, without prior notice, suspend MS4 discharge access to a person when such suspension is necessary to stop an actual or threatened discharge which presents or may present imminent and substantial danger to the environment, or to the health or welfare of persons, or to the MS4 or Waters of the United States. If the violator fails to comply with a suspension order issued in an emergency, the City may take such steps as deemed necessary to prevent or minimize damage to the MS4 or Waters of the United States, or to minimize danger to persons. 1020.11 12 Suspension due to the Detection of Illicit Discharge. Any person discharging to the MS4 in violation of this ordinance may have their MS4 access terminated if such termination would abate or reduce an illicit discharge. The City will notify a violator of the proposed termination of its MS4 access. The violator may petition the authorized enforcement agency for reconsideration and hearing. A person commits an offense if the person reinstates MS4 access to premises terminated pursuant to this Section, without the prior approval of the City. 1020.13 Salt Storage. A. Salt storage at commercial, institutional, and non-NPDES permitted industrial facilities must comply with the following: 1. Designated salt storage areas must be covered or indoors; 2. Designated salt storage areas must be located on an impervious surface; and 3. Implementation of practices to reduce exposure when transferring material in designated salt storage areas, such as sweeping, diversions, and/or containment. 1020.14 Enforcement. Subd. 1 Notice of Violation. A violation of this ordinance is a Public Nuisance. Whenever the City finds that a person has violated a prohibition or failed to meet a requirement of this Ordinance, the City may order compliance by written notice of violation to the responsible person. Such notice may require without limitation: A. The performance of monitoring, analyses, and reporting; B. The elimination of illicit connections or discharges; C. That violating discharges, practices, or operations shall cease and desist; D. The abatement or remediation of storm water pollution or contamination hazards and the restoration of any affected property; and E. Payment of a fine to cover administrative and remediation costs; and F. The implementation of source control or treatment BMPs. If abatement of a violation and/or restoration of affected property is required, the notice shall set forth a deadline within which such remediation or restoration must be completed. Said notice shall further advise that, should the violator fail to remediate or restore within the established deadline, the work will be done by a designated governmental agency or a contractor and the expense thereof shall be charged to the violator. Subd. 2 Appeal of Notice of Violation. Any person receiving a Notice of Violation may appeal the determination of the City. The notice of appeal must be received within 7 days from the date of the Notice of Violation. Hearing on the appeal before the City Administrator or his/her designee shall take place within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice of appeal. The decision of the municipal authority or their designee shall be final. Subd. 3 Enforcement Measures After Appeal. If the violation has not been corrected pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Notice of Violation, or, in the event of an appeal, within 7 days of the decision of the City Administrator upholding the decision of the City, then representatives of the City shall enter upon the subject private property and are authorized to take any and all measures necessary to abate the violation and/or restore the property. It shall be unlawful for any person, owner, agent, or person in possession of any premises to refuse to allow the government agency or designated contractor to enter upon the premises for the purposes set forth above. Subd. 4 Cost of Abatement of the Violation. Within 15 days after abatement of the violation, the owner of the property will be notified of the cost of abatement, including administrative costs. The property owner may file a written protest objecting to the amount of the assessment within 7 days. If the amount due is not paid within a timely manner as determined by the decision of the municipal authority or by the expiration of the time in which to file an appeal, the charges shall become a special assessment against the property and shall constitute a lien upon the property, and the City shall have the right to assess such cost against the property owned by such violator(s) pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 429.101. Subd. 5 Injunctive Relief. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this ordinance. If a person has violated or continues to violate the provisions of this ordinance, the City may petition for a preliminary or permanent injunction restraining the person from activities which would create further violations or compelling the person to perform abatement or remediation of the violation. Subd. 6 Compensatory Action. In lieu of enforcement proceedings, penalties, and remedies authorized by this ordinance, the City may impose upon a violator alternative compensatory actions, such as storm drain stenciling, attendance at compliance workshops, creek cleanup, etc. Subd. 7 Criminal Prosecution. A violation of this ordinance is a misdemeanor. Subd. 8 Costs and Expenses. The City may recover all attorney's fees, court costs and other expenses associated with enforcement of this ordinance, including sampling and monitoring expenses. Subd. 9 Remedies Not Exclusive. The remedies listed in this ordinance are not exclusive of any other remedies available under any applicable federal, state, or local law and it is within the discretion of the authorized enforcement agency to seek cumulative remedies. SECTION 2. Chapter 15 – Erosion and Sediment Control is hereby amended by replacing the entirety of Chapter 15 – Erosion and Sediment Control with the erosion, sediment, and waste control standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater General Permit MNR100001 (CSW Permit) as now constituted and from time to time amended. For land disturbing activities that require a CSW Permit, activities shall be performed according to the CSW Permit requirements in addition to the policies of the City. Section 1500 - Purpose and Scope 1500.01 Purpose. The purpose of this regulation is to control or eliminate soil erosion and sedimentation within the City of Arden Hills. This regulation establishes standards and specifications for conservation practices and planning activities which minimize soil erosion and sedimentation and work to protect the City's natural resources for the health, safety, and welfare of the public. 1500.02 Scope. Except as exempted by the definition of the term "land disturbance activity" in Section 1510.01, any person, firm, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, state agency, or political subdivision thereof proposing land disturbance activity within the City shall apply to the Public Works Director or appointed designee (herein called "PWD") for the approval of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. No land shall be disturbed until the Plan is approved by the PWD and conforms to the standards set forth in this article. Section 1510 - Definitions 1510.01 Definitions. For the purposes of this ordinance, the following terms have the meanings given in this section: ∙ BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (BMP): Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, general good housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants directly or indirectly to stormwater, receiving waters, or stormwater conveyance systems. BMPs also include treatment practices, operating procedures, and practices to control site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or water disposal, or drainage from raw materials storage. 1. Non-structural BMP: Practices that focus on preserving open space, protecting natural systems, and incorporating existing landscape features such as wetlands and stream corridors to manage storm water at its source. Other practices include clustering and concentrating development, minimizing disturbed areas, and reducing the size of impervious areas. 2. Structural BMP: a physical device that is typically designed and constructed to trap or filter pollutants from runoff, or reduce runoff velocities. ∙ BLUFF. A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): 1. Part or all of the topographic feature is located in a shoreland area; 2. The slope rises at least twenty-five (25) feet above the ordinary high-water level of the waterbody; 3. The grade of the slope from the toe, or bottom, of the bluff to a point twenty-five (25) feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages thirty percent (30%) or greater; and 4. The slope must drain toward the waterbody. ∙ CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION: The certificate issued after the final inspection of the site has been completed, temporary erosion control has been removed and the site has been fully restored. ∙ CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The cutting and removal of trees, shrubs, bushes, windfalls, and other vegetation including removal of stumps, roots, and other remains in the designated areas. ∙ CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER GENERAL PERMIT: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) Construction Stormwater General Permit (MNR100001), herein referred to as the CSW Permit, which covers anyone conducting a land disturbing activity which disturbs one (1) or more acres of total land area. ∙ EROSION: Any process that wears away the surface of the land by the action of water, wind, ice, gravity, and/or land disturbance activities. Erosion can be accelerated by the activities of man and nature. ∙ EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN (Plan): A plan which includes a set of best management practices or equivalent measures designed to control surface runoff and erosion and to retain sediment on a particular site during the period in which pre-construction and construction related land disturbances, fills, and soil storage occur, and before final improvements are completed, all in accordance with the specific requirements set forth in Section 1520. This Plan shall also include permanent measures and Best Management Practices to control post-construction surface runoff and sediment. ∙ Erosion and sediment control practice specifications and erosion and sediment control practices. The management procedures, techniques, and methods to control soil erosion and sedimentation as officially adopted by the City. ∙ EXCAVATION: The mechanical removal of earth material. ∙ FILL: The deposit of soil or other earth materials placed by artificial means. ∙ GRADING: Excavation or fill of material, including the resulting conditions thereof. ∙ LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITY: Any land change greater than 2,500 square feet or 50 cubic yards, or land change on a parcel of land located within 1,000 feet of a shoreland area or adjacent to a surface water that may result in soil erosion from wind, water and/or ice and the movement of sediments into or upon waters or lands of the City, including but not limited to construction, clearing and grubbing, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land. Land Disturbance Activity does not mean the following: 1. Minor land disturbance activities such as home gardens and an individual's home landscaping, repairs, and maintenance work; 2. Additions or modifications to existing single-family dwellings or accessory structures that will result in creating under 2,500 square feet of exposed soil and/or impervious surface; 3. Construction, installation, and maintenance of electric, telephone, and cable television utility lines or individual service connection to these utilities, except where a minimum of 2,500 square feet of land disturbance can be anticipated; 4. Tilling, planting, or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or silvicultural crops; 5. Installation of fence, sign, telephone, and electric poles and other kinds of posts, bollards, or poles; and 6. Emergency work to protect life, limb, or property and emergency repairs. However, if the land disturbing activity would have required an approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan except for the emergency, then the land area disturbed shall be shaped and stabilized in accordance with the requirement of the PWD when applicable. ∙ MINIMUM CONTROL MEASURE: Measures implemented in managing municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. ∙ NPDES: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System as established pursuant to 33 USC § 1342 (b) to regulate Discharges of Pollutants to waters of the United States. ∙ OUTFALL: The point source where a storm sewer system discharges from a pipe, ditch, or other discrete conveyance to receiving waters, or to a storm sewer system owned and operated by another party. ∙ PERMITEE: A person, firm, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, state agency or political subdivision thereof engaged in a land disturbance activity who submits an application to the PWD for a permit pursuant to this ordinance. ∙ PHASING: Clearing a parcel of land in distinct phases, with the stabilization of each phase before the clearing of the next. ∙ RAMSEY CONSERVATION DISTRICT: The Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District. ∙ RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT: An organization which oversees the activities in the Rice Creek watershed as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103B,and 103D. ∙ RUNOFF: Rainfall, snowmelt, or irrigation water flowing over the ground surface. ∙ SEDIMENT: Solid mineral or organic material that, in suspension, is being transported, or has been moved from its original site by air, water, gravity, or ice, and has been deposited at another location. ∙ SEDIMENTATION: The process or action of depositing sediment, caused by erosion. ∙ SITE: The entire area of land on which the land disturbance activity is proposed in the permit application. ∙ SITE PLAN: A plan or set of plans showing the details of any land disturbance activity of a site including but not limited to the construction of: structures, open and enclosed drainage facilities, stormwater management facilities, parking lots, driveways, curbs, pavements, sidewalks, bike paths, recreational facilities, ground covers, plantings, and landscaping. ∙ SHORELAND: The land located within the following distances from protected waters: 1. One thousand (1,000) feet from the ordinary high-water mark of a lake, pond, or flowage; 2. Three hundred (300) feet from a river or stream, or the landward extent of a flood plain on such rivers or streams, whichever is greater; and, 3. The practical limits of shorelands may be less than the statutory limits where the limits are designated by natural drainage divides at lesser distances, as shown on the official map of the City. ∙ STABILIZATION: The use of measures which protect soil from the erosion forces of wind, rain, and flowing water. ∙ STEEP SLOPE: Land where agricultural activity or development is either not recommended or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics, as mapped and described in available county soil surveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Where specific information is not available, steep slopes are lands having average slopes over twelve percent (12%), as measured over horizontal distances of fifty (50) feet or more, that are not bluffs. ∙ SURFACE WATER or WATERS: All streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, wetlands, reservoirs, springs, rivers, drainage systems, waterways, watercourses, and irrigation systems whether natural or artificial, public, or private. ∙ STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP): A plan for stormwater discharge that includes erosion prevention measures and sediment controls that, when implemented, will decrease soil erosion on a parcel of land to eliminate or reduce pollutant discharges from leaving the site to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the standards set forth by the MPCA and City Code. ∙ UTILITY: The owner/operator of any underground facility including an underground line, facility, system, and its appurtenances used to produce, store, convey, transmit, or distribute communications, data, electricity, power, heat, gas, oil, petroleum products, water (including stormwater), steam, sewage and other similar substances. ∙ WATERCOURSE: Any natural or improved stream, river, creek, ditch, channel, canal, conduit, gutter, culvert, drain, gully, swale, or wash in which waters flow either continuously or intermittently. ∙ WATERSHED: A region draining to a specific river, river system, or body of water. ∙ WETLANDS: A lowland area such as a marsh, that is saturated with moisture, as defined in Sec. 404, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1987, or the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. Section 1520 - Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and Review 1520.01 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Subd. 1 Required. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must be submitted to the PWD for every project involving a land disturbance activity. No building permit, site plan approval, subdivision approval, or permit to allow land disturbing activities shall be issued and no earth disturbing activity shall commence until approval of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Projects coordinated by Ramsey County or Mn/DOT do not require a permit from the City; however, the PWD shall be notified of the project and be provided with a copy of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, as well as an estimated schedule for commencement and completion. The PWD shall notify the designated contact if erosion control measures should fail or require maintenance with the expectation that the deficiencies will be corrected. If no permit has been obtained, a stop work order may be issued on the construction and a fine may be issued in an amount equal to twice the required permit fee. A completed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and permit application shall be submitted before construction will be allowed to resume. Obtaining a permit does not exempt the Permittee from obtaining permits required by other governmental agencies. Subd. 2 Application Fee. The Permittee shall submit an application fee as specified on the City's Fee Schedule as adopted and revised annually by the City Council by ordinance. The fee is non-refundable and shall cover any review costs accrued within one (1) year of the date of payment. Subd. 3 Criteria. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall minimize soil erosion or sediment from damaging adjacent land. A Permittee engaged in a Land Disturbance Activity shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that will minimize soil erosion or sediment from damaging adjacent land, bodies of water, watercourses, or wetlands to the PWD for approval. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall address the following criteria: A. Conform to the natural limitations presented by topography and soil so as to create the least potential for soil erosion. B. Stabilize all exposed soils and soil stockpiles; C. Establish permanent vegetation; D. Prevent sediment damage to adjacent properties and other designated areas; E. Schedule of erosion and sediment control practices; F. Use of temporary sedimentation basins; G. Stabilization of steep slopes and bluffs; H. Control the storm water leaving a site; I. Stabilize all waterways and outlets; J. Protect storm sewers and outfalls from the entrance of sediment, debris, and trash; K. Control waste, such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste that may adversely impact water quality; L. When working in or crossing water bodies, take precautions to contain sediment; M. Re-stabilize utility construction areas as soon as possible; N. Protect paved roads from sediment and mud brought in from access routes; O. Dispose of temporary erosion and sediment control measures; P. Maintain all temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control practices; and, Q. Removal of sediment from streets at the end of each day. Subd. 4 Plan Content. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan content shall include the following unless waived by the PWD: A. Project name; B. Contact information for the Permittee; C. Address of site where the land disturbing activity is proposed; D. Total acreage to be disturbed; E. Signature(s) of the owner(s) of the site or an authorized representative; F. Project description including the nature and purpose of the land disturbing activity and the amount of grading involved; G. Phasing of construction and timeline; H. Existing and proposed site conditions, including topography, vegetation, and drainage; I. Adjacent areas, neighboring streams, lakes, wetlands, residential areas, roads, etc., which might be affected by the land disturbing activity; J. Soil data including soil names, mapping units, erodibility; K. Critical erosion areas, which are areas on the site that have potential for serious erosion problems; L. Erosion and sediment control measures to be used on the site, both during and after the construction process; M. Temporary and Permanent stabilization to show how the site will be stabilized during and after construction (is completed), including specifications; N. Storm water management to show how storm runoff will be managed, including methods to be used if the development will result in increased peak rates or volume of runoff; O. Maintenance and schedule of regular inspections and repair of erosion and sediment control structures; and, P. Any calculations that were made for the design of such items as sediment basins, diversions, waterways, and other applicable practices. Q. A land disturbance activity equal to or greater than one (1) acre is required to comply with the conditions of the CSW Permit, as amended, and shall incorporate the erosion, sediment, and waste controls that are at least as stringent as described in the CSW permit. 1520.02 Review of Permit Application Subd. 1 General. The PWD shall review the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to ensure compliance with the erosion and sediment control practice specifications and erosion and sediment control practices. If a CSW permit is required, the applicant will be notified in writing and a checklist will be used to determine if the plans incorporate the following: A. Erosion prevention practices; B. Sediment control practices; C. Dewatering and basin draining; D. Inspection and maintenance; E. Pollution prevention management measures; F. Temporary sediment basins; and G. Termination conditions. Subd. 2 Permit Approval. If the PWD determines that the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan meets the requirements of this ordinance, the PWD shall issue a permit, valid for a specified period of time that authorizes the land disturbance activity contingent on the implementation and completion of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Subd. 3 Permit Denial. If the PWD determines that the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan does not meet the requirements of this article, the PWD shall not issue a permit for the land disturbance activity. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must be resubmitted for approval before the land disturbance activity begins. No land use and building permits shall be issued until the Permittee has an approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. 1520.03 Escrow Requirement. After approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, the PWD may require the Permittee to escrow a sum of money sufficient to ensure the installation, completion, maintenance, inspection, and enforcement of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and practices. Escrow amounts shall be set by Ordinance in the City fee schedule. Inspection fees shall be drawn from the escrow. Six months after final inspection, the remaining escrow shall be returned to the Permittee. (Amended 11/27/23) 1520.04 Modification of Plan. An approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan may be modified upon submission of an application for modification to the PWD and subsequent approval by the PWD. In reviewing such application, the PWD may require additional reports and data. Section 1530 - Implementation and Maintenance 1530.01 Implementation and Maintenance of Plan. All storm water pollution controls noted on the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be installed before commencing the land disturbing activity and shall not be removed without PWD approval or approval of a Certificate of Completion. Noncompliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall constitute grounds for an order from the PWD to halt all construction. 1530.02 Implementation. The plan implementation shall incorporate the following: Subd. 1 Existing vegetation shall be retained whenever feasible. Subd. 2 Land shall be disturbed in increments of workable size such that adequate erosion and sediment control can be provided and maintained as construction progresses. The area exposed shall be stabilized in conformance with best management practices and with the maintenance requirements in the CSW Permit. Soil stabilization measures should be selected to be appropriate for the time of year, site conditions, and estimated duration of use. Subd. 3 The location of areas not to be disturbed shall be identified with flags, stakes, signs, silt fence, etc. before construction begins. Subd. 4 Down-gradient sediment controls shall be in place before up-gradient land disturbing activity begins. Subd. 5 All storm drains, inlets and outfalls shall be protected until all sources of potential discharge are stabilized. Subd. 6 Temporary stockpiles shall have effective sediment control and cannot be placed in surface waters or storm water conveyance systems. Subd. 7 Vehicle tracking from the site shall be minimized with the use of stone pads, concrete or steel wash racks, or equivalent systems. Subd. 8 Street sweeping shall be used if BMPs are not adequate to prevent sediment from being tracked into the street. 1530.03 Responsibility. The Permittee shall be responsible for proper operation and maintenance of all stormwater pollution controls and soil stabilization measures in conformance with best management practices and with the maintenance requirements in the CSW Permit. The Permittee is responsible for the operation and maintenance of temporary erosion at the site. The Permittee is responsible until another Permittee has assumed control over all areas of the site that have not been finally stabilized or the site has undergone final stabilization, and has received an approved Certificate of Completion. The Permittee is responsible for maintenance, clean-up and all damages caused by flooding of the site or surrounding area due to in-place erosion or sediment control. Section 1540 - Enforcement 1540.01 Erosion and Sediment Control Permit Enforcement. If the PWD determines that erosion and sedimentation control is not being implemented or maintained according to the approved Plan, the Permittee will be notified and provided with a list of corrective work to be performed. Notification may be given by personal delivery upon the Permittee, or an officer, partner, manager, or designated representative of the Permittee, or by e- mail or facsimile by sending such notice to the e-mail address or facsimile number provided by the Permittee. Upon the receipt of a Non-Compliance Notice from the PWD, the Permittee shall undertake corrective action. Subd. 1 Types of Corrective Actions. A. Violations Contained on the Construction Site. The Permittee shall complete clean-up and restoration within forty-eight (48) hours of receipt of the Non-Compliance Notice. B. Violation Impacting Adjoining Property. The Permittee shall develop and complete a clean-up and restoration plan within forty-eight (48) hours of receipt of a Non-Compliance Notice unless the affected adjoining property owner refuses Permittee access to the adjoining property. In all cases, clean-up and restoration shall be completed within seven (7) days of receipt of the Non-Compliance Notice, unless an extension is granted by the PWD. C. Violations Impacting Streets, Wetlands, or Water Bodies. The Permittee shall develop and implement a clean-up and restoration plan immediately upon receipt of a Non-Compliance Notice. Subd. 2 Failure to Comply. If Permittee fails to implement the Plan or complete any required corrective action in a timely manner, the City may pursue one or more of the remedies specified herein. All costs incurred by the City shall be paid by Permittee. Escrow funds may be used by the City for this purpose and, if such funds do not adequately cover the City's cost, the Permittee shall reimburse the City for any deficiency before continuing work on the construction site. If payment is not made within 30 days after costs are incurred by the City, then the City may assess the remaining amount against the property. As a condition of the permit, the property owner shall waive notice of any assessment hearing to be conducted by the City, agree that the benefit to the property exceeds the amount of the proposed assessment, and waive all rights by virtue of Minnesota Statute 429.081 to challenge the amount or validity of such assessment costs related to cleanup or corrective actions taken by the City. The City may: A. Withhold the scheduling of inspections and/or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. B. Issue a stop work order, ceasing all land disturbance activity on the site until such time as corrective measures are completed to the satisfaction of the PWD. C. Revoke any permit issued by the City to the Permittee for the Site. D. Direct the correction of the deficiency by City forces or by a separate contract. E. Obtain a Compliance Order from the appropriate court. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. A Summary of this Ordinance will be published in accordance with state statute. PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2026, by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS By _______________________________ David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Julie Hanson, City Clerk Published in the Pioneer Press on ______________________, 2026 Page 1 of 10 PC Agenda Item – 3B MEMORANDUM DATE: February 4, 2026 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Elena Fransen, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #26-001 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Lake Johanna Fire Department Property Location: 3535 Pine Tree Drive Request: Sign Standard Adjustment (Site Plan Review) Requested Action Lake Johanna Fire Department (“The Applicant”) submitted a land use application for Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process for the property located at 3535 Pine Tree Drive (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is located within Sign District 7, where the maximum wall sign copy area allowed is 45 square feet, the maximum freestanding sign copy area allowed is 25 square feet, and graphic signs are not permitted. The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sign standard adjustment to allow 235 square feet of signage on the building, including a graphic sign, and 33.5 square feet of signage on a freestanding monument. Background 1. Overview of Request The Applicant proposes installing two wall signs totaling 163 square feet and one graphic sign totaling 72 square feet on the eastern elevation of the building for a total of 235 square feet of signage on the building. The Applicant also proposes to install a 79 square foot freestanding monument on the property with a total of 33.5 square feet in signage. The Applicant is seeking flexibility through the Site Plan Review process for a sign standard adjustment for size of proposed wall and freestanding signs and for type with the proposed graphic sign. The proposed signage would not be permitted without an approved sign standard adjustment. 2. Planning Case Background In Planning Case 24-009, the Applicant applied for a Master and Final Planned Unit Development to construct a 41,000 square foot headquarters fire station facility which was approved by the City. Page 2 of 10 The proposal included a 30 square foot freestanding monument with 36 square feet of signage and two (2) non illuminated wall signs for a total of 28 square feet to be located on the east and west elevations. At the Planning Commission meeting on July 10, 2024, the Applicant clarified the proposed monument signage and stated their intent to comply with the sign code and that flexibility would not be sought for signage. Since those approvals in 2024, and prior to applying for required sign permits, the Applicant determined that a change in the proposed signage is needed. The proposed wall signage includes one (1) edge illuminated graphic sign, one (1) non illuminated sign, and one (1) illuminated sign, all to be installed on the east elevation of the building. No wall signage is proposed for the west elevation. The proposal includes one (1) non illuminated monument sign. Based on the signage described, the previous PUD Amendment approval, and the requirements for the Subject Property’s Sign District, staff advised the Applicant to submit a land use application for a sign standard adjustment as described in Chapter 12, Section 1260 of the city’s Code of Ordinances. 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: Public Use Zoning: B-2 General Business District Size (entire property): 3.7 acres (161,172 SF) 4. Existing Conditions The Subject Property is located in the B-2 General Business Zoning District and is part of Sign District 7. 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. Sign District 7 allows for wall signage with a maximum sign copy area of 45 square feet. The maximum freestanding sign copy area allowed is 25 square feet. Sign District 7 does not allow for graphic signs. Page 3 of 10 Proposed Site Plan Approvals 1. Site Plan Review The Applicant proposes to install wall and graphic signage on the eastern elevation of the building and a monument sign on Pine Tree Drive. 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. 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. Page 4 of 10 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 7. Sign District 7 includes properties in the I-Flex, Gateway Business, or other commercial or industrial district without frontage on the following roadways: Lexington Avenue, Highway 96, and County Road E. Sign District 7 allows for a maximum of 45 square feet of copy area for wall signage and 25 feet of copy area for monument signage. Wall signs may be illuminated externally or internally. Sign District 7 does not permit graphic signs, which are defined in the Sign Code as a sculpture attached to or sign painted directly on a wall that is primarily symbolic or representational in nature and not alpha or numeric in content or copy. The Applicant is proposing two (2) wall signs, one non illuminated 88 square foot sign reading “Lake Johanna Fire Department” and one internally illuminated 75 square foot sign reading “Station 110,” both on the eastern elevation of the building. In addition to the two wall signs, the Applicant’s plans include an edge lit graphic logo sign measuring 72 square feet that would also be attached to the eastern elevation of the building. No wall signage is proposed for the west elevation of the building. The Applicant is requesting flexibility to allow the facility wall signage to exceed the permitted 45 square feet by 190 square feet for a combined total of 235 square feet. Sign District 7 allows for a maximum of 25 feet of copy area for freestanding signage with a maximum height of eight (8) feet. Freestanding signs may be externally illuminated. The sign code also requires that the total area of a freestanding sign shall not exceed 1.5 times the permitted sign copy area of a freestanding sign. For Sign District 7, the total area of a freestanding sign shall not exceed 37.5 square feet. For monument signage, the Applicant is proposing one (1) sign measuring 6 feet in height and 79 square feet in area with 33.5 square feet in non illuminated sign copy area. The proposed sign would exceed the permitted 37.5 feet by 41.5 feet and the sign copy area would exceed the permitted 25 feet by 8.5 feet. The Applicant is requesting flexibility to allow for the proposed signage to be installed on the Subject Property. The Subject Property currently does not have any wall, graphic, or monument signage. Page 5 of 10 Proposed Signage at Eastern Elevation (Day View) Proposed Signage at Eastern Elevation (Night View) Page 6 of 10 Proposed Wall Signage Proposed Graphic Signage Page 7 of 10 Proposed Monument Signage 2. Sign Standard Adjustments – Section 1260.01 The Applicant requests flexibility for additional square footage of wall signage area, monument signage area, and graphic signage. 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 determine if the proposed signage meets the sign standard adjustment criteria. The criteria of Subd. 1 or Subd. 2, as applicable, 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. This criterion does not apply. 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 is of exceptional design to both enhance and coordinate with the architecture and design of the site. The stature of the signage is scaled appropriately for the structure. Signage lighting is soft and does not inhibit night vision and the direction of the signage is toward adjacent commercial properties. The font used is ADA-compliant and enhances readability for individuals with disabilities, with clear, distinct letter shapes and sufficient contrast. 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. Page 8 of 10 This criterion must be met. According to the Applicant, the proposed signage is consistent with the purpose of the B-2 General Business Zoning District and will not negatively impact adjacent properties or residents. As an emergency services facility, the structure must be easily identifiable by the public. The Applicant notes that the amount and placement of signage would be similar to 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 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 applied for Site Plan Review to install 163 square feet in wall signage and 72 square feet in graphic signage on the eastern elevation of the building and install a 79 square foot freestanding monument with 33.5 square feet of sign copy at the subject property, 3535 Pine Tree Drive. 2. On December 9, 2024, the City Council approved a Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Subject Property. 3. 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. 4. The Subject Property is located in Sign District 7, where the maximum wall signage permitted is 45 square feet. 5. In Sign District 7, the maximum freestanding signage permitted is 25 square feet. 6. Graphic signs are not permitted in Sign District 7. 7. The Subject Property has no existing signage. 8. 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. 9. Flexibility through the Site Plan Review process has been requested for 163 square feet of wall signage and 72 square feet of graphic signage bringing the total building wall signage to 235 square feet. 10. Flexibility has also been requested for 33.5 square feet of freestanding signage. 11. 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. 12. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 13. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 14. A public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review. Page 9 of 10 Proposed Motion Language Staff offer the following options and motion language for this case. 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Move to recommend approval of Planning Case 26- 001 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install up to 172 square feet in wall signage, 72 square feet in graphic signage, and 33.5 square feet in freestanding signage at 3535 Pine Tree Drive, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the February 4, 2026, 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 each proposed sign. 3) All signage shall meet all other requirements of Sign District 7. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Move to recommend approval of Planning Case 26-001 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install up to 172 square feet in wall signage, 72 square feet in graphic signage, and 33.5 square feet in freestanding signage at 3535 Pine Tree Drive, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the February 4, 2026, report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Move to recommend denial of Planning Case Planning Case 26-001 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install up to 172 square feet in wall signage, 72 square feet in graphic signage, and 33.5 square feet in freestanding signage at 3535 Pine Tree Drive, based on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial. 4. Table: Move to table Planning Case 26-001 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install up to 172 square feet in wall signage, 72 square feet in graphic signage, and 33.5 square feet in freestanding signage at 3535 Pine Tree Drive: 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 required by City procedure on January 21, 2026. Public notices were mailed out on January 21, 2026. 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 January 6, 2026. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the city must act on this request by March 4, 2026 (60 days), unless the city provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. Page 10 of 10 The sixty (60) day timeline begins on the day the City is in receipt of what has been determined to be a complete application. Based on the date of completeness, and the city meeting schedule for February and March, the city provided the Applicant with written reasons to extend the City’s review period from 60 days to 120 days so that the planning case may be heard by the City Council on March 9, 2026. 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 Location Map Override 1 Personal Property Tax Parcels Cities County Offices 7/3/2024, 1:54:16 PM 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:8,000 Ramsey County Ramsey County MN From:Sather, Matt To:Elena Fransen; Jake Reilly Cc:Tim Boehlke Subject:Fw: 2026 Land Use Application- Lake Johanna Fire Department HQ Board Date:Tuesday, January 6, 2026 2:37:11 PM Attachments:image002.png Outlook-24ico1sy.png Outlook-2a0bwupm.png You don't often get email from msather@ljfd.org. Learn why this is important Elena and Jake, Please see the responses below. Thanks again for your time today, LAKE JOHANNAFIRE DEPARTMENT Matt Sather Assistant Chiefof Operations 5545 Lexington Ave N Shoreview, MN 55126 651-415-2100 Mobile 651-334-4937 Office 651-415-2123 msather@ljfd.org From:Sather, Matt <msather@ljfd.org> Sent:Tuesday, January 6, 2026 12:28 PM To:Boehlke, Tim <tboehlke@ljfd.org>; Rasch, Jonathan <jrasch@ljfd.org>; Rewald, Kris <krewald@ljfd.org> Subject:Re: 2026 Land Use Application- Lake Johanna Fire Department HQ Board Just some thoughts to start with... 1) Subd 2 - The proposed building and monument signage is of exceptional design to both enhance and coordinate with the architecture and design of the site. The stature of the signage is scaled appropriately to the scale of the structure. The lighting of the applicable signage pieces is soft and red does not inhibit night vision. The direction of the signage is facing similar commercial properties. The font utilized is ADA-compliant and enhances readability for individuals with disabilities, focusing on clear, distinct letter shapes and good contrast. 1) Subd 3 - The adjustment is not inconsistent with the purpose of this zoning district and will not negatively impact adjacent properties or residents. This is an emergency services facility that must be easily identifiable by the public. 2) a ௐௐௐௐNo west elevation signage; east elevation only 2) b ௐௐௐௐ120" x 86.5" (additional dimensions were on the pricing proposal) = 72 square feet 2) c ௐௐௐௐ79 square feet, 6'-0" tall 2) d ௐௐௐௐThe copy area is 36" x 134" = 33.5 square feet (this includes the entire seal reveal and all text in one rectangle) LAKE JOHANNAFIRE DEPARTMENT Matt Sather Assistant Chiefof Operations 5545 Lexington Ave N Shoreview, MN 55126 651-415-2100 Mobile 651-334-4937 Office 651-415-2123 msather@ljfd.org From:Boehlke, Tim <tboehlke@ljfd.org> Sent:Monday, January 5, 2026 4:35 PM To:Sather, Matt <msather@ljfd.org>; Rasch, Jonathan <jrasch@ljfd.org>; Rewald, Kris <krewald@ljfd.org> Subject:Fw: 2026 Land Use Application- Lake Johanna Fire Department HQ Board Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android From:Elena Fransen <EFransen@cityofardenhills.org> Sent:Monday, January 5, 2026 4:22:51 PM To:Boehlke, Tim <tboehlke@ljfd.org> Cc:Jake Reilly <JReilly@cityofardenhills.org>; Jessica Jagoe <JJagoe@cityofardenhills.org> Subject:RE: 2026 Land Use Application- Lake Johanna Fire Department HQ Board Hello Chief Boehlke, Please see the attached letter for a review of the application you submitted on December 18th. Can we set up a time tomorrow or Wednesday to discuss the items in the letter? I am pretty PLEASE REVIEW THIS PROOF CAREFULLY We do our best to make sure things are correctly, but is your responsabillity to review all spelling and content for accuracy. BMS Signs & Printing will not be responsible for any errors in spelling, acurracy, or layout after a proof has been approved. Colors on finished product may vary slightly from electronic proof. All drawings and documents appearing hereign are the property of BMS Signs & Printing and may not be used, duplicated or disclosed without the written consent from BMS Signs & Printing. All Rights Reserved. 612-545-6636 printbms.com 3125 84th Ln NE, Blaine, MN 55449 BMS Scope of work: Fabricate Permit Installation PROJECT NAME Address County 3535 Pine Tree Dr | Arden Hills, MN 55112 United States PROJECT ADDRESS NAME Jonathan Rasch NUMBER 651-415-2125 EMAIL jrasch@ljfd.org CLIENT INFO CLIENT INFO Wind Speed 140 mph Mean Height 60 ft Wind Code ASCE 7-16 Exposure C Risk Category ll Wind Pressure (WP) 48.19 psf GCp =1.40 Total Pressure = WP*SF 67.47 psf These drawings are complied by NEC2017 All products are subject to quality control inspection prior to leaving our facility. Project Schedule Lake Johanna Fire Department Mockup Revisions Full-drawing Quote Acceptance / Deposit Landlord approval Permitting Fabrication Installation Index 1.0 / Cover 2.0 / Mockups 3.0 / 3D Renderings 4.0 / Measurements & Resolution 5.0 / Electrical & Equipment 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 2026 January Estimated Installation PageJOB#250364 Page 01Project Manager Designed by PROOF OUT jordan S.Sebastian G.09/26/2025 PROOF-2 PROOF-3 PROOF-4 11/07/2025 12/12/2025 12/16/2025 612-545-6636 Project Name Project Address Property Owner BMS SIGNS & PRINTING printbms.com 3125 84th Ln NEBlaine, MN 55449 All drawings and documents appearing hereign are the property of BMS Signs & Printing and may not be used, duplicated or disclosed without the written consent from BMS Signs & Printing. All Rights Reserved. Jonathan Rasch 3535 Pine Tree DrArden Hills,MN 55112United States 3535 Pine Tree Dr Arden Hills, MN 55112 United States Lake Johanna Fire Department - MULTIPLE SIGNS (DAY) Page 02Project Manager Designed by PROOF OUT Jordan S.Sebastian G.09/26/2025 PROOF-2 PROOF-3 PROOF-4PROOF#4 EDGE-LIT ILLUMINATED LOGO SIGN NON-ILLUMINATED RAISED LETTERS ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS NON-ILLUMINATED LOGO SIGN 11/07/2025 12/12/2025 12/16/2025 612-545-6636 Project Name Project Address Property Owner BMS SIGNS & PRINTING printbms.com 3125 84th Ln NEBlaine, MN 55449 All drawings and documents appearing hereign are the property of BMS Signs & Printing and may not be used, duplicated or disclosed without the written consent from BMS Signs & Printing. All Rights Reserved. Jonathan Rasch 3535 Pine Tree DrArden Hills,MN 55112United States 3535 Pine Tree Dr Arden Hills, MN 55112 United States Lake Johanna Fire Department - MULTIPLE SIGNS (NIGHT) Page 03Project Manager Designed by PROOF OUT Jordan S.Sebastian G.09/26/2025 PROOF-2 PROOF-3 PROOF-4PROOF#4 NON-ILLUMINATED LOGO SIGN EDGE-LIT ILLUMINATED LOGO SIGN 11/07/2025 12/12/2025 NON-ILLUMINATED RAISED LETTERS ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS 12/16/2025 612-545-6636 Project Name Project Address Property Owner BMS SIGNS & PRINTING printbms.com 3125 84th Ln NEBlaine, MN 55449 All drawings and documents appearing hereign are the property of BMS Signs & Printing and may not be used, duplicated or disclosed without the written consent from BMS Signs & Printing. All Rights Reserved. Jonathan Rasch 3535 Pine Tree DrArden Hills,MN 55112United States 3535 Pine Tree Dr Arden Hills, MN 55112 United States Lake Johanna Fire Department - Edge-Lit - Illuminated Logo (DETAILS) Page 04Project Manager Designed by PROOF OUT Jordan S.Sebastian G.09/26/2025 PROOF-2 PROOF-3 PROOF-4PROOF#4 Lighting True White QM2 CCT/Wavelength: Intesity: Ecacy: 7100 K 94.1 lm/mod (160 lm/ft) 118 lm/W E341517 Color specifications PANTONEPMS 1795 CPANTONEPMS 7540 C TRIMCAPStandard Black RETURNSStandard Black FACES 1/8” ACRYLIC Standard -White Halo lit channel lettersHalo lit letters Isometric view Section details - letters / backplate raceway 3" N.T.S. 30 MA TRANSFORMER(NEC 600-23) UL 2161 NEON INTEGRAL SLEEVINGGTO CONDUCTOR ELECTRODE INSULATINGBOOTS AND SLEEVING 1/4" DRAIN HOLES NEON TUBE SUPPORT LISTED BUSHING .080" ALUMINUM .19" CLEAR LEXAN™ .063" ALUMINUM3" RETURN PRIMARY ELECTRICAL(NEC 600-5) SEE ELEC. NOTES FASTENERS ASREQ'D. BY LOCALJURISDICTION ALUMINUMENCLOSURE Studs with spacers Clip attachments LED illumination Power supply connection 3/16” Clear acrylic .040” Aluminum return 1 2 3 4 7 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 .063” Aluminum face7 5 DAY NIGHT 11/07/2025 12/12/2025 12/16/2025 612-545-6636 Project Name Project Address Property Owner BMS SIGNS & PRINTING printbms.com 3125 84th Ln NEBlaine, MN 55449 All drawings and documents appearing hereign are the property of BMS Signs & Printing and may not be used, duplicated or disclosed without the written consent from BMS Signs & Printing. All Rights Reserved. Jonathan Rasch 3535 Pine Tree DrArden Hills,MN 55112United States 3535 Pine Tree Dr Arden Hills, MN 55112 United States Lake Johanna Fire Department - Edge Lit - Illuminated Logo (DETAILS CONT.) Page 05Project Manager Designed by PROOF OUT Jordan S.Sebastian G.09/26/2025 PROOF-2 PROOF-3 PROOF-4PROOF#4 11/07/2025 12/12/2025 Lighting True White QM2 CCT/Wavelength: Intesity: Ecacy: 7100 K 94.1 lm/mod (160 lm/ft) 118 lm/W E341517 Color specifications PANTONEPMS 1795 CPANTONEPMS 7540 C TRIMCAPStandard Black RETURNSStandard Black FACES 1/8” ACRYLIC Standard -White Halo lit channel lettersHalo lit letters Isometric view Section details - letters / backplate raceway 3" N.T.S. 30 MA TRANSFORMER(NEC 600-23) UL 2161 NEON INTEGRAL SLEEVINGGTO CONDUCTOR ELECTRODE INSULATINGBOOTS AND SLEEVING 1/4" DRAIN HOLES NEON TUBE SUPPORT LISTED BUSHING .080" ALUMINUM .19" CLEAR LEXAN™ .063" ALUMINUM3" RETURN PRIMARY ELECTRICAL(NEC 600-5) SEE ELEC. NOTES FASTENERS ASREQ'D. BY LOCALJURISDICTION ALUMINUMENCLOSURE Studs with spacers Clip attachments LED illumination Power supply connection 3/16” Clear acrylic .040” Aluminum return 1 2 3 4 7 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 .063” Aluminum face7 5 DAY NIGHT NIGHT Detail EDGE-LIT RAISED LOGO 12/16/2025 612-545-6636 Project Name Project Address Property Owner BMS SIGNS & PRINTING printbms.com 3125 84th Ln NEBlaine, MN 55449 All drawings and documents appearing hereign are the property of BMS Signs & Printing and may not be used, duplicated or disclosed without the written consent from BMS Signs & Printing. All Rights Reserved. Jonathan Rasch 3535 Pine Tree DrArden Hills,MN 55112United States 3535 Pine Tree Dr Arden Hills, MN 55112 United States Lake Johanna Fire Department - Dimentional Raised Letters (DETAILS) Square Feet = 87.79 ft² Page 06Project Manager Designed by PROOF OUT Jordan S.Sebastian G.09/26/2025 PROOF-2 PROOF-3 PROOF-4PROOF#4 Color specifications PANTONEPMS 7621 C TRIMCAPStandard Black RETURNSStandard Black FACES 1/8” ACRYLIC Standard -White Mounting Options Isometric view STUD WITH BLOCKFLUSH STUD Fabricated Letters 11/07/2025 12/12/2025 49 ft 12/16/2025 612-545-6636 Project Name Project Address Property Owner BMS SIGNS & PRINTING printbms.com 3125 84th Ln NEBlaine, MN 55449 All drawings and documents appearing hereign are the property of BMS Signs & Printing and may not be used, duplicated or disclosed without the written consent from BMS Signs & Printing. All Rights Reserved. Jonathan Rasch 3535 Pine Tree DrArden Hills,MN 55112United States 3535 Pine Tree Dr Arden Hills, MN 55112 United States Lake Johanna Fire Department - Illuminated Channel Letters (DETAILS) Page 07Project Manager Designed by PROOF OUT Jordan S.Sebastian G.09/26/2025 PROOF-2 PROOF-3 PROOF-4PROOF#4 Studs with spacers Clip attachments LED illumination Power supply connection 3/16” Clear acrylic .040” Aluminum return 1 2 3 4 7 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 .063” Aluminum face7 5 Front channel letters Transluscent premium vinyl Trimcap .177 White acrylic face LED illumination .040 Aluminum return .090” Aluminum backing 1 3 4 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 Power supply connection7 6 2 3 4 5 Isometric view Lighting True RED QM2 CCT/Wavelength: Intesity: Ecacy: 7100 K 94.1 lm/mod (160 lm/ft) 118 lm/W E341517 Section details - letters / flush to wall Tapcon Screws 5” Aluminum Returns 1”Trim Cap Acrylic FacesAluminum Backs Everylite Crystal LED’s Snap BushingHex Head screwsPower Supply Wall Aluminum Backer 5” Color specifications PANTONEPMS 7621 C TRIMCAPStandard Black RETURNSStandard Black FACES 1/8” ACRYLIC Standard -White DAY NIGHT 11/07/2025 12/12/2025 12/16/2025 612-545-6636 Project Name Project Address Property Owner BMS SIGNS & PRINTING printbms.com 3125 84th Ln NEBlaine, MN 55449 All drawings and documents appearing hereign are the property of BMS Signs & Printing and may not be used, duplicated or disclosed without the written consent from BMS Signs & Printing. All Rights Reserved. Jonathan Rasch 3535 Pine Tree DrArden Hills,MN 55112United States 3535 Pine Tree Dr Arden Hills, MN 55112 United States Lake Johanna Fire Department - Non- Illuminated Logo Sign (DETAILS) Page 08Project Manager Designed by PROOF OUT Jordan S.Sebastian G.09/26/2025 PROOF-2 PROOF-3 PROOF-4PROOF#4 Mounting Options Material Options Isometric view DOUBLE FACE TAPESTUD WITH BLOCKFLUSH STUD Flat cut metal letters Isometric view Flat surface, metal lamination Die-cut acrylic edge Studs for mounting 1 2 3 1 2 3 Acrylic Flat surface Die-cut edge Studs for mounting 1 2 3 Isometric view 1 2 3 Color specifications PANTONEPMS 7621 C RoutedAluminum TRIMCAPStandard Black RETURNSStandard Black FACES 1/8” ACRYLIC Standard -White 11/07/2025 12/12/2025 12/16/2025 Page 1 of 12 PC Agenda Item – 3C MEMORANDUM DATE: February 4, 2026 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Elena Fransen, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #25-016 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: Bruce Gardner Property Location: 3628 Connelly Avenue Request: Site Plan Review Requested Action Bruce Gardner (“The Applicant”) is requesting Site Plan Review and Variances to establish a retail sales use in an existing nonconforming 9,839 square foot manufacturing and warehousing facility on the property at 3628 Connelly Avenue (“Subject Property”). Site plan review is required under Section 1325.06 (G) because retail uses have a greater off-street parking requirement than the existing industrial use. Variances to section 1325.05 Design Standards are also requested. Background 1. Overview of Request The Applicant has submitted a land use application for Site Plan Review and Variances at the Subject Property. The Applicant seeks to purchase the property and relocate an existing retail business, Scale Model Supplies, from Saint Paul to Arden Hills. The Subject Property is owned by Waters Edge Enterprises Inc., and the building is occupied by JV Pallets, a company that manufactures and recycles wood pallets. The existing use is an existing nonconforming use that has been in operation as a light industrial/manufacturing and warehousing site since 1959. The B- 2 zoning district today does not allow this use as a principal use. The proposed retail use is permitted within the B-2 zoning district. The proposal includes reconfiguring access to the parking lot and restriping parking spaces within the existing parking lot. Three existing parking spaces, partially located within the right-of-way, are proposed to be removed and replaced with landscaped areas. The Applicant proposes to convert an overhead door to a standard retail dual door entryway. Other minor modifications to the exterior of the structure are proposed for safe and convenient access to the structure for customers. Page 2 of 12 The proposal includes a request to allow for fewer on-site parking spaces than required in the Zoning Code. The Applicant states the existing parking lot accommodates up to 24 parking spaces and that this number is sufficient to operate the business. Scale Model Supplies has been in business for more than 43 years. The store specializes in model trains and model kits as well as other hobby-related products. The business owner seeks to downsize from a 20,000 square foot space located in Saint Paul and find a space compatible with growing the online sales side of the business. The Applicant anticipates using approximately 7,500 square feet for retail sales and the remaining 1,800 square feet would be allocated for office, storage, restrooms, and utilities. The Subject Property would allow for a combination of retail space for direct sales and inventory space for both direct and online sales. The business is open Monday through Sunday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. with typically four (4) employees on site at a given time. The business receives deliveries from standard-size courier vans and does not regularly use overhead doors or a loading dock. The Applicant states these operations are likely to continue. The Applicant states that on the busiest days, the business does not require more than 22 parking spaces at one time. Recent checks showed that at the current location, a maximum of 13 spaces have been used at one time, and the average number of parked cars is eight. The store is a destination for customers who plan their visit, know what they are looking for, and do not linger for long periods of time. Therefore, sales are typically spread throughout the day, and the existing parking lot will accommodate the need. 2. History of the Subject Property The Subject Property was developed in 1959 as a manufacturing use consisting of a 9,839 square foot principal structure on a 21,720 square foot lot. Previous occupants of the site include various manufacturing operations, ranging from metal stamping and cabinet manufacturing, basket manufacturing, and sheet metal manufacturing. The building consists of three main areas, two open warehousing spaces and an office. In 1966, the City Council approved a land use application from Proto Sheet Metal Shop for an addition to the existing workshop. The 1966 building permit for the addition noted that the parking lot contained 24 parking spaces. The building and manufacturing use predate the current city’s zoning code. Both the structure and the use have been nonconforming since at least 2008. The Subject Property has street frontage on Connelly Avenue, which is a city street that connects to County Road E West. This commercial corridor is used by a number of small and large businesses for a variety of retail, manufacturing, distribution, warehousing, and office uses. Approvals 1. Site Plan Review The Applicant is proposing to convert the Subject Property from an existing manufacturing use to a retail sales use. The proposed retail sales use is allowed in the zoning district and, based on Section 1325.06-G Commercial or industrial buildings for a use which is proposed to be converted to accommodate another allowable use which has a greater off-street parking requirement shall be required to apply for Site Plan Review and approval to assure the adequacy of off-street parking, a site plan review is required. A retail sales use requires a greater number of off-street Page 3 of 12 parking spaces compared to a manufacturing use. The site plan review includes a review of requirements for parking and design standards as they relate to the zoning district and proposed use. 2. Variance A variance is required of the Applicant due to the proposal not meeting all of the design standards applicable to the proposed use in the Subject Property’s zoning district. The Subject Property and its current use are nonconforming with the current standards for the B-2 Zoning District. The proposal shall bring the property into conformance with the applicable standards and where standards are not met, a variance is required. Plan Evaluation The proposed is subject to Zoning Code standards established in Section 1320, District Provisions, Section 1325.05, Design Standards, Section 1325.06, Requirements for Parking, Loading and Circulation, and Section 1355.04, Procedural Requirements for Specific Applications. Due to the Subject Property’s B-2 Zoning, the request is subject to additional design standards for modifications to an existing site. The following evaluation identifies how the Applicant’s proposal addresses where standards are met and/or nonconforming and/or where a variance is required. Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1. District Provisions (B-2 General Business District) – Section 1320 Under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, this site is guided as Community Mixed Use (CMU) on the land use plan and is zoned B-2. The Future Land Use designation is for a broad range of retail, shopping, services, and office space to meet the needs of the community and surrounding areas. This area may also include medium-to-high-density housing with a potential density of three (3) to twenty (20) units per acre. Direction 2040 Comp. Plan Land Use Zoning Existing Land Uses North CMU – Community Mixed Use B-2 – General Business Office/ Warehousing South CMU – Community Mixed Use B-2 – General Business Medical (veterinary) Clinic East CMU – Community Mixed Use B-2 – General Business Warehousing West CMU – Community Mixed Use B-2 – General Business Commercial Recreation, indoor Retail sales is permitted within this district. The table below provides the standards for the B-2 District and the preliminary analysis for the principal structure and the site: B-2 District Standards Existing Proposed Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.8 .45 Maximum Structure Coverage 45% 45% Minimum Landscape Lot Area 20% 13.8% ~14.3% Minimum Front Yard Setback 50 feet 9.15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 20 feet 18.03 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 10 feet (min)/20 feet (total) 1.94 feet and 72.16 feet/74.1 feet Minimum Lot Area 13,000 square feet 21,720 square feet Maximum Building Height 50 feet 14 feet Page 4 of 12 The Subject Property has existing nonconforming landscaping and setbacks. The Applicant proposes to remove three existing parking spaces and replace the paved surface with landscaping. 2. Design Standards – Section 1325.05 Landscaping – Existing nonconforming, variance requested. A landscaping plan is not required for this application. Only new development construction or expansion of an existing building or parking lot require a landscaping plan to be submitted. The minimum landscaped area required for the B-2 Zoning District is 20 percent of the total lot area. The Subject Property contains an existing landscaped area of 13.8 percent of the total lot area. The Applicant is proposing changes that would increase the existing landscaped area with the removal of existing paved parking spaces located within the right-of-way and replacing it with a 120- square-foot landscaped area and reconstructing the curb at the right of way. With the additional 120 square feet in landscaping, the proposed landscaped area is increased to 14.3 percent, reducing the existing nonconformity. A variance is requested and evaluated below. Lighting – Meets Requirements The Subject Property does not have any existing lighting in the parking lot. There are several lights on the west side of the building. The Applicant states an intent to add lighting to the south side of the building to provide lighting for the new front entrance and parking lot. The Zoning Code requires lighting be directed away from adjoining lots and public streets and directed to only the site to which the lighting is intended. Based on the Applicant’s proposal, the lighting described meets the standard. A proposed condition of approval has been added to verify that lighting on the site is consistent with the described. Design Standards for New Development, Redevelopment, and Modifications to Existing Sites in the B2 and B3 Districts The Subject Property is an existing nonconforming site in the B-2 Zoning District and is subject to design standards established in 1325.05 Subdivision 8. The standards in this Section apply only to the building or site elements being developed or altered. The design standards shall be applied proportionately to the degree of change proposed. Upon recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council may waive specific design standards based on the scale of the project. The City Council shall make the final determination on compatibility and consistency with the design standards. In the application, the Applicant states that they intend to make cosmetic updates to the interior and exterior of the building including removing awnings, replacing an overhead door with a dual door entryway, repainting the building, and resurfacing and restriping the parking areas. The building and parking area changes are subject to the standards established in the code. The standards are evaluated below: Architectural Style, Building Character, Materials and Design – Standard met. Buildings shall be constructed of materials that are enduring, timeless, and well-detailed. Evaluation of a project shall be based on the quality of its design and on its relationship to its surroundings. The existing single-story building is constructed from cement block and includes windows on the south and west sides and overhead roll-up doors on the south and west sides. The proposal includes minor changes to the character of the existing building to update the façade and site. An overhead door located on the south elevation will be removed and replaced with an entryway to the sales floor with additional transparency. Page 5 of 12 Window and Door Openings – Existing nonconforming. Variance requested. Fifty percent (50%) of all first level building façades that front a public street shall be comprised of transparent windows or doors in order to allow views of interior uses and activities. If the building is a one-story design and the first-floor elevation exceeds twelve (12) feet, then only the first twelve (12) feet shall be included in calculating the façade area. The west elevation of the existing building fronts Connelly Avenue and has four windows. Of the 1,284 square foot elevation, approximately 28 square feet, or 2 percent of the elevation, contains windows. West side, facing Connelly The Applicant is not proposing to modify the west exterior of the building at this time, which is where the business storage area and office are located. On the south elevation of the building, a set of glass doors common for retail establishments are proposed to be added and will increase the overall transparency of the building façade. The building remains a non-conforming structure in the B2 District. A variance from the 50% standard is requested. Evaluation of the requested variance is below. Building Color – Standard met. Building colors shall be muted and recommended colors include browns, grays, tans, beiges, and dark or muted green, blues, and reds. The existing exterior is a muted gray. The Applicant intends to repaint the building in one of the recommended colors. Signs – Standard met. The Applicant states they intend to install signage in conformance with the City Code. The Subject Property is located within Sign District 7, which includes commercial properties without frontage on Lexington Avenue, County Road E, or Highway 96. Sign District 7 allows for a maximum of 45 square feet in internally or externally illuminated wall signage and a maximum of 25 square feet in externally illuminated freestanding signage. Conditions of approval have been added to address future signage at the Subject Property. A sign permit is required. Page 6 of 12 Screening – Standard can met. Section 1325.05, Subd. 8, K, Trash and recycling equipment, materials, and containers shall be fully enclosed and integrated into the architecture of the buildings. All mechanical equipment, whether roof-mounted or ground-mounted should be integrated into the architecture of the building. Truck docks and delivery areas shall face away from the public street and shall be integrated into the architecture of the building. There is no trash enclosure on the existing site and there are two delivery areas for the principal structure on the west and south elevations. The Applicant will provide a trash enclosure on the site, adjacent to the west elevation exterior door. The location of the proposed trash enclosure is shown in Attachment E. The existing mechanical equipment meets the standard. There are two existing overhead doors, one of which has a truck dock component. The Applicant proposes to prevent access to the west- facing truck dock/bay and to replace the south facing overhead door with a standard retail-style dual door. Deliveries will be to the retail and office doors on the south side of the building. The delivery area faces the parking lot away from the public street and is integrated into the architecture of the building. Landscaping – Existing nonconforming, variance requested. The minimum landscaped area required in the B2 zoning district is 20% of the lot area. A minimum of one (1) tree shall be placed along the right-of-way every forty (40) feet. The Subject Property has 181 feet of right-of-way and currently has one tree along the right-of-way. Approximately five trees would be required by this standard. The Applicant states they intend to plant additional trees near the business entrance, though the site is constrained by the portion of the right of way which is impervious surface. The proposed would bring the property closer to the standard for trees along the right-of-way and to total landscaped area. A variance from the standard is requested and evaluated below. Parking – Existing nonconforming, variance requested Sufficient parking shall be provided to accommodate reasonable hourly peak on a given site. Parking standards include using plantings to soften and shade parking lots, screening parking adjacent to public streets, and using parking islands to break up expansive lots. The existing parking lot has room for approximately 24 parking spaces (9 feet by 18 feet). The existing parking lot does not include plantings, screening, or parking islands. The standard for landscaping within parking areas includes a minimum requirement of 10 percent of the total landscaped area to include perennials and shrubbery and at least 10 percent of the parking areas include planting islands. A variance has been requested from these standards and is evaluated below. The proposal is also subject to additional parking requirements in Section 1325.06 which are evaluated later in this report. Traffic Study – Recommendation to waive requirement A traffic study shall be required for all new developments, redevelopments, and significant modifications to existing sites unless waived by the City Council. The Applicant offers sufficient data in the application to demonstrate the proposed use will not result in a large amount of additional traffic and that the current conditions of the site can support the anticipated traffic. Lighting – Meets requirements The Zoning Code requires exterior lighting that is consistent in type, design, scale, and color to create unity in the district. Exterior lighting for parking lots and buildings shall not be excessive and shall be directed at their intended purposes. Any light or combination of lights shall not cast Page 7 of 12 light that exceeds a meter reading of one foot candle on the travel lanes of adjoining public streets or 0.4 foot candles on adjoining residential property. The Applicant has described that additional lighting that meets code will be added to the south façade. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation – Meets Requirements The Zoning Code establishes standards for pedestrian and bicycle improvements in the B-2 Zoning District. The Subject Property does not connect to any public sidewalk but there are pathways from the building entrances to the right-of-way and site parking lot. The proposal does not include any changes to these existing conditions. Bicycle Parking – Meets Requirements Subdivision 8 requires bicycle parking in new development and site modifications in the B-2 Zoning District. For commercial uses, one bicycle parking space shall be provided for every twenty (20) automobile parking spaces. A minimum of two (2) parking spaces is required. The Applicant confirmed with staff that they intend to install two bicycle parking spaces near the building entrance. 3. Section 1325.06 - Requirements for Parking, Loading and Circulation The Applicant’s proposal includes resurfacing and restriping the existing parking area and recentering the driveway access to the parking lot. The proposed modifications are in line with the parking size and construction standards established in Section 1325.06. Staff have evaluated the proposal based on the requirements for commercial parking spaces. Location – Existing nonconforming, variance requested The City Code requires off-street parking spaces to be located at a minimum of 20 feet from the right-of-way of any public street. For side and rear setbacks, off-street parking spaces are required to be located a minimum of five (5) feet from rear and side lot lines. The existing parking lot is nonconforming with the required setback from the right-of-way of Connelly Avenue and is also nonconforming with the side setback from the south property line and the rear setback from the east property line. Additionally, there are three parking spaces that encroach into the right-of-way. The Applicant proposes to remove the three parking spaces and the associated concrete apron that encroach into the right-of-way and install new curb and gutter and landscaping. The parking lot will remain nonconforming from the minimum distance from the right-of-way, side and rear lot lines. The Public Works Department has been notified of the Applicant’s intent to install new curb and gutter and relocate the driveway. The Assistant Public Works Director confirmed a Right-of- Way permit is required for the work described and that a grading and erosion control permit is required if there is any land change greater than 2,500 square feet. Staff has notified the Applicant of this requirement and the City’s standards for driveways, curbs, and gutter. Conditions of approval for a City Public Works permits are included. Conversion or Alteration of Approved Uses –Site Plan Review required. Commercial or industrial buildings proposed to be converted, remodeled, or modified to accommodate another allowable use which has a greater off-street parking requirement shall be required to apply for Site Plan Review and approval to assure the adequacy of off-street parking. A manufacturing use falls under the category of Other Business and Industry, which requires a minimum of 1 for each 1,000 square feet of floor area, or 10 required parking spaces. The minimum number of off-street parking spaces required for retail sales use is 1 for each 150 square feet of Page 8 of 12 gross retail sales floor space. The Applicant proposes to dedicate 7,500 square feet of the structure sales floor space, which would require 50 off street parking spaces. The Applicant proposes to operate the retail business at the Subject Property with 24 parking spaces. The Code allows for a reduction in number of required spaces if the owner provides documentation that a lesser number of spaces will actually be needed than required and with the authorization from the City Council. The Applicant submitted a narrative stating that the business has never needed more than 22 parking spaces at one time to accommodate both customers and employees. The applicant states that the proposed 24 parking spaces are sufficient for business needs. The Applicant references historical data collected by the business about parking needs at peak operating hours and typical number of employees working. Snow Storage – Meets Requirements Snow storage areas shall be provided so that the number of parking spaces is not reduced below the minimum required. The Applicant shows a snow storage area on the site plan in the northwest corner of the property, separate from the parking lot. Driveways – Meets Requirements As part of the proposal, the Applicant intends to recenter the driveway access to the parking lot and install new curb and gutter in the right-of-way adjacent to the southwest corner of the structure. Recentering the driveway allows for safer maneuvering within the parking lot. Curb and gutter will be installed to the city standard. 4. Procedural Requirements for Specific Applications – Section 1355.04 The Applicant is requesting variances from several standards in Section 1325.05 Design Standards to operate a permitted retail sales use on the property located at 3628 Connelly Avenue. The Planning Commission must use the following variance findings and criteria to determine if there are practical difficulties with complying with the zoning regulations. If the applicants do 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 Applicant is proposing to establish a retail sales use in the existing principal structure on the Subject Property. The Subject Property is zoned B-2, General Business District and is designated for Community Mixed Use in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Retail Sales is a permitted use. The proposed use of the Subject Property and the variance request comply with the purpose and intent of the provisions of the City’s Zoning Regulations and 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. Page 9 of 12 The proposed use is a permitted use at the Subject Property. The Subject Property exists as a nonconforming structure and lot in the zoning district regarding the standards for landscaping, parking location, and window and door openings. The proposed use is permitted in the district and the manner in which the property is to be used is reasonable. b. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The existing nonconforming nature of the structure, landscaping, parking location and window and door openings is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The parking lot is constrained by grade changes to the east, the layout of the structures and properties to the north and south, and the roadway to the west. The existing structure is described as sufficient for the retail use by the Applicant. The applicant proposes to increase the amount of transparency on the south side of the building and is not able to increase the amount of transparency on the west side of the building due to the nonconforming nature of the building. The situation is 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. The essential character of the neighborhood is auto oriented and a mix of retail and industrial uses. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The Applicant states that cosmetic updates to the building including removing awnings, repainting the building, resurfacing, and re-striping parking areas will improve the current conditions of a warehouse with outside storage. Additional Review Building Official The Building Official has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. A Building Permit will be required prior to any construction taking place. This has been added as a condition of approval. Public Works Director/City Engineer The Public Works Director/City Engineer has reviewed the plans. A Right-of-Way Permit is required to install the curb and gutter and new driveway apron. A grading and erosion control permit is required for any land changes over 2,500 square feet in area. This has been added as a condition of approval. Fire Marshal The Fire Marshal is reviewing the plans. Findings of Fact General Findings: 1. The Subject Property is located within the General Business District designated for Community Mixed Uses on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Subject Property is zoned B-2 General Business. Page 10 of 12 3. The Subject Property contains an existing nonconforming principal structure and existing nonconforming setbacks, landscaping and parking lot. 4. The Subject Property has been used for manufacturing continuously since 1959. Manufacturing is not a permitted use in the B-2 General Business District. 5. The Applicant submitted site plan review and variance applications to establish a retail sales use in an existing manufacturing and warehousing facility at 3628 Connelly Avenue. Retail sales is a permitted use in the B-2 General Business District. 6. Site Plan Review is required for conversions from one permitted use to another permitted use when the new use has a greater off-street parking requirement than the existing use. In the parking requirements table, manufacturing use falls under the category of Other Business and Industry, which requires a minimum of 1 for each 1,000 square feet of floor area, or 10 required parking spaces. The minimum number of off-street parking spaces required for retail sales use is 1 for each 150 square feet of gross retail sales floor space. The Applicant proposes to dedicate 7,500 square feet of the structure sales floor space, which would require 50 off street parking spaces. 7. The Zoning Code requires 50 parking spaces for a retail use with Applicant is seeking site plan approval to operate a retail sales use with 24 off street parking spaces where the Zoning Code requires 50 parking spaces. 8. The Applicant is seeking a variance from design standards in Section 1325.06 related to required parking location, parking islands, landscaping, boulevard trees, and window and door openings. 9. The Applicant is proposing to remove three existing parking spaces that encroach on the right-of-way from Connelly Avenue and to increase the landscaped area on the property. 10. The Applicant requests to waive the requirement for a traffic study. The Applicant offers sufficient data in the application to demonstrate the proposed use will not result in a large amount of additional traffic and that the current conditions of the site can support the anticipated traffic. 11. The proposed plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 12. The proposed use is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 13. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 14. The proposed plan is not expected to have significant impact on traffic or parking conditions. 15. A public hearing is not required for site plan review. 16. Property owners within 500 feet of the subject property were notified of the application as established in city code. Variance Findings: 17. The Applicant is seeking variances from design standards in Section 1325.06 related to required parking location, parking islands, landscaping, boulevard trees, and window and door openings. 18. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 19. The proposed is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance. 20. The proposed is a reasonable use of the property that would not be allowed under the rules of the Zoning Code without the requested variance. 21. The proposed would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 22. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone. Page 11 of 12 23. A public hearing is not required for variance requests. Options and Motion Language Staff offers 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 detail. Site Plan Review and Variance • Recommend Approval with Conditions: Move to recommend approval of Planning Case 25-016 for a site plan review and variance to establish a retail sales use at 3628 Connelly Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the February 4, 2026, report to the Planning Commission: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. 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. The proposed parking area shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 3. A Building Permit shall be obtained for alterations to the existing principal structure. 4. All light poles, including base, shall be shoebox style, downward directed, with high- pressure sodium lamps or LED and flush lenses. Other than wash or architectural lighting, attached security lighting shall be shoebox style, downward directed with flush lenses. In addition, any lighting under canopies (building entries) shall be recessed and use a flush lens. 5. A Right-of-Way permit shall be obtained from the City’s Engineering Department prior to working in the right-of-way including, but not limited to parking lot resurfacing, driveway apron installation, and installing curb and gutter. 6. Curb and gutter must be installed according to the City’s standard plate. 7. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the City’s Engineering Department prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities greater than 2,500 square feet. The Applicants shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to Rice Creek Watershed District and Ramsey County prior to the start of any site activities. Verification of approved permits or documentation from other agencies that a permit is not necessary shall be provided to the City. 8. A separate sign permit shall be required for each sign on the site. 9. Any future trash enclosure shall use gates and be constructed on three sides using the similar or complementary materials, colors, and patterns used on the building. Locations shall be approved by the Planning Department. 10. All disturbed boulevards shall be restored with sod. All areas of the site, where practical, shall be sodded or seeded and maintained. The property owner shall mow and maintain all site boulevards to the curb line of the public streets. • Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 25- 016 for a site plan review and variances to establish a retail sales use at 3628 Connelly Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the February 4, 2026, report to the Planning Commission. Page 12 of 12 • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 25-016 for a site plan review and variances to establish a retail sales use at 3628 Connelly Avenue, 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 25-016 for a site plan review and variances to establish a retail sales use at 3628 Connelly Avenue: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Comments Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on January 21, 2026. Notice was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. At the time of report drafting, the city had not received public comments on this planning case. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on January 5, 2026. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the city must act on this request by March 3, 2026 (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. Based on the date of completeness, and the city meeting schedule for February and March, the city provided the Applicant with written reasons to extend the City’s review period from 60 days to 120 days so that the planning case may be heard by the City Council on March 9, 2026. 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. Narrative D. Existing Site Plan E. Proposed Site Plan Page 1 of 3 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Telephone (651) 792-7800 Fax (651) 634-5137 www.cityofardenhills.org For Office Use Only 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.: Other: Fax No.: Email Address: Property Information Property Owner: Owner Address: Owner Telephone No. Other: Address of Property Involved: Legal Description: Property ID No.: Type of Use: Zone: Property Acreage: 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 Development 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 Scale Model Supplies 458 Lexington parkway N Saint Paul Mn 55104 651-646-7781 scalemodelsupplies@comcast.net x 3628 Connelly Avenue Arden Hills, Mn 27.30.23.43.0006 retail .50 acresB-2 Dave Roeser 3091 Big Pass Lane Punta Gorda FL 33955 612-741- The North 181 feet of South 344 feet of West 120 feet of East 462 feet of Southeast Quarter in Section 27, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota - Waters Edge Enterprises Inc. Page 2 of 3 Brief Description of Request (please also include a typed, detailed letter explaining the project): 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.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. *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. We are seeking the city to allow the retail use of property with a different parking ratio than what is currently required by code.Please see attached explination Location Map Cities County Offices 1/29/2026, 1:59:21 PM 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:8,000 Ramsey County Ramsey County MN 6uEMect property Scale Model Supplies has been in business for over 43 years in Saint Paul. The store has become a favorite stop for serious modelers across the Midwest. We specialize in Model trains and model kits of all types as well as many other hobby related products. We currently have 20,000 square feet of space and are looking to downsize to about half of that amount. Due to market changes, we have seen internet sales increase and seek to grow that part of our business. We would like to reduce the amount of retail sales floor space but still believe having the inventory to physically come and look at is very important. We are seeking for the city to approve the reduction of the required parking ratio of spaces per sq ft, to allow compliance at this site. We are not proposing any physical changes to the site, just seeking to use the existing building and parking area as it has been for many years, which should greatly enhance it from its current state as a warehouse with outside storage. Updates will be cosmetic in nature inside and out which will include removing awnings, repainting the building, resurfacing, and re-striping parking areas. Future signage will conform to city code. Trash will remain by the loading dock. Snow will be piled north of the dock first and then hauled away after area is full as noted on the survey. This is my 43rd year at the store and even on our busiest days I don’t believe we have ever needed more than 22 parking spaces at any one time. It may seem strange but sales have always been spread throughout the day. Mainly seniors in the mornings and younger customers later in the day. Sure the store can be busy but we find that families that came in one vehicle or friends riding together is common. Recent checks on busy days revealed 13 cars max a couple of times throughout the day. Most of the time there are eight cars or less parking at any one time. Also most of our regular customers know what they want and do not linger for long periods of time. The amount of retail sales floor space we are planning on would be approximately 7,500 sq ft. The remaining 1,800 sq ft would be for office / warehouse, restrooms and utilities. We believe our store would be a great addition to Arden Hills as well as the surrounding communities. Giving people greater access to these wonderful hobbies and teaching them the life long skills that they bring. -Bruce Gardner (Owner) NARRATIVE 1 SITE PLAN 3628 Connelly Avenue Arden Hills, MN 55112 Approximately 24 striped stalls 9' x 18' October 2014 Ramsey County Aerial 2 FLOOR PLAN Approximately 7,500 Sq Ft – Sales Floor Approximately 1,800 Sq Ft – Office / Storage / Utilities Approximately 9,300 Sq Ft – Interior Space Total <--- Snow <-- Trash Ne w a p r o n Ne w cu r b g u t t e r New Driveway New curb/gutter to city standard Ma i n En t r y Trash Snow