Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-26 PC MinutesApproved: August 5, 2026 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2026 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, Patrick Burlingame, Stephen Erler, SJ Julius and Ben Lindau. Absent: Commissioners Brad Bjorklund and Nancy Jacobson. Also present were: Community Development Director Jacob Reilly, Senior Planner Elena Fransen and Council Liaison Kurt Weber. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – JULY 8, 2026 Commissioner Erler moved, seconded by Commissioner Birken, to approve the July 8, 2026, agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 3, 2026 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Lindau moved, seconded by Commissioner Erler, to approve the June 3, 2026, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6- 0). PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 26-013 – EFH Co. – 1300 Grey Fox Road – Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit – Public Hearing Required Senior Planner Fransen stated EFH Co. (“The Applicant”) is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review to create an internal drive lane with the addition of 6,098 square feet of pavement on the existing 6.55-acre parcel at 1300 Grey Fox Road (“Subject Property”). The proposed constitutes a substantial modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan regulating the site, triggering amendments and City review. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 2 Senior Planner Fransen explained the Subject Property is the location of an existing 80,267 square foot office and warehousing facility owned and operated by Powder Technology (“The Property Owner”). The facility was originally constructed in 1969 as a warehousing use. The property is accessible from Grey Fox Road on the north and the site is served by rail on the south. On April 8, 1991, the City Council adopted the I-Flex zoning ordinance, which established that wholesaling, warehousing, and related uses in this district shall require special use permits to allow such uses to continue, provided that the ratio of special uses to the gross floor area on the site did not exceed those established in the special use permit. In 1991, Tyson Companies, the occupant of the subject property, submitted for a special use permit to establish the following ratios of uses: Building Usage Area Office 5,600 square feet (6.5%) Warehouse, interior loading area, small office and lunchroom on mezzanine level 80,400 square feet (93.5%) Total floor area 86,000 square feet (100%) Senior Planner Fransen explained special use permit 91-011 also established that 43,851 square feet of the subject property would be utilized for parking and loading area with a percentage of parking/loading area to area of principal uses of 50.9%. As approved by the City Council on April 27, 1992, future expansion or modification which complies with these percentages should be allowed. In 2014, Powder Technology took ownership of the property. The property remains under the conditions and approvals of the 1991 special use permit and use expansions and modifications are subject to City review. Senior Planner Fransen provided an overview of the request, discussed the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The Applicant is a representative for the owner and occupant of the subject property located at 1300 Grey Fox Road, Arden Hills, MN. 2. The Subject Property is designated as Light Industrial & Office (IND) in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Subject Property is zoned I-FLEX Zoning District. 4. A warehouse requires a conditional use permit in the I-FLEX District. 5. The Applicant applied for a site plan review and conditional use permit to create an internal drive lane with the addition of 6,098 square feet of pavement at 1300 Grey Fox Road. 6. The Applicant proposes to remove 46 caliper inches of significant trees, to be replaced in accordance with City requirements, and to remove three parking spaces. 7. The Applicant states that the site can support up to 87 parking spaces shown in the proof of parking and that this number exceeds the parking needs for the approved operations at the site, based on the average need of 25 parking spaces. 8. The proposed plan will not result in insufficient parking for the uses permitted under the amended conditional use permit. 9. The proposed plan will not result in the subject property exceeding the maximum impervious surface coverage permitted in the I-FLEX zoning district. 10. The proposed plan is not expected to have significant impact on traffic or parking conditions. The proposed plan is intended to improve traffic circulation conditions both on the subject property and the adjacent public street, Grey Fox Road. 11. The proposed use is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 3 12. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 13. The proposed plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Plan for the City. 14. A public hearing is required for a conditional use permit. 15. Property owners within 1000 feet of the subject property were notified of the application as established in city code. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission for Planning Case 26-013 for a site plan review and a conditional use permit to create a new drive lane at 1300 Grey Fox Road: A. Recommend Approval with Conditions 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 Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the city’s Engineering Division prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, MPCA, Rice Creek Watershed District, MnDOT and Ramsey County (i.e. ROW or access) prior to the start of any site activities. 4. The final plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer, Building Official, and Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit. 5. Final grading, drainage, utility, and site plans shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Director, City Engineer, and Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit or other development permits. 6. Upon completion of grading and utility work on the site, a grading as-built and utility as- built shall be provided to the City for review. 7. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site shall be required and maintained by the Developer during construction to ensure that sediment and storm water does not leave the project site. B. Recommend Approval as Submitted C. Recommend Denial D. Table Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. There were no comments or questions from the Commission. Chair Collins invited the applicant to come forward at this time. Madison Whalen, representative for the applicant, introduced himself to the Commission and stated he was available for questions. Commissioner Lindau asked if the applicant would be maintaining the existing trees onsite. Mr. Whalen reported this would be addressed, noting the live trees would be maintained and the dead trees would be removed. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 4 Chair Collins questioned if the proposed traffic plan would alleviate traffic backups on Grey Fox Road. Mr. Whalen stated the intent was to have trucks pull in forward from either direction on Grey Fox Road versus having to back in to the property. Chair Collins opened the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. Chair Collins invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Collins closed the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. Commissioner Burlingame moved and Commissioner Birken seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 26-013 for a site plan review and a conditional use permit to create a new drive lane at 1300 Grey Fox Road, based on the findings of fact and as amended by the conditions in the July 8, 2026, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. Planning Case 26-009 – Roers Companies LLC – 3499 Lexington Avenue – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, Master and Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, and Variance – Public Hearing Community Development Director Reilly stated the Applicant has submitted a land use application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendments, Master Planned Unit Development (PUD), Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review, to redevelop the approximately six acre site at the corner of Harriet Avenue and Lexington Avenue North. Catholic United Financial (Catholic Aid Association Credit Union) owns the subject property which contains an office building constructed in 1974. The project proposer has executed a purchase agreement with the property owner, contingent upon the entitlements process. The property is guided for Community Mixed Use in the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan (2019, as amended). The property was first guided for Community Mixed Use with the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (2008) and has been guided for commercial uses since at least the 2020 Comprehensive Plan (1998), with a “Commercial” land use designation. The area is also subject to the Guiding Plan for the B2 District (2008) which was developed to create a long-term redevelopment plan for the area. Community Development Director Reilly reported the property is zoned B-2 - General Business District. The property to the west is zoned R-4 – Multiple Dwelling Unit District, the property to the north is zoned B-2 – General Business District and the properties to the south are zoned R-3 – Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District. The properties to the west and south are used for residential uses and the properties to the north are used for business uses, primarily retail. The Subject Property is accessed by Harriet Avenue to the south. The City Council reviewed a concept plan from the Applicant for a 167-unit apartment building with amenities such as a dog run, pickle ball courts, an outdoor pool, playground, and sidewalk connections on Lexington Avenue (to complete the sidewalk south to Harriet Avenue), Harriet Avenue, and to the Arden Plaza shopping center at the February 9, 2026, City Council work session. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 5 Community Development Director Reilly discussed the requested approvals, reviewed the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: Conditional Use Permit Findings: 1. The property located at 3499 Lexington Avenue is guided for Community Mixed Use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (2019, as amended). 2. The property located at 2499 Lexington Avenue is subject to the provisions in the adopted Guiding Plan for the B2 District (2008). 3. The proposed project is for 167 units of market-rate rental housing on 5.66 acres of land for a net density of 29.5 units per acre and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.98. 4. Community Mixed Use has a maximum net density of 20 units per acre and an FAR of 0.8. 5. The Applicant has applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to increase the maximum net density for Community Mixed Use to 30 units per acre. 6. The requested density and related FAR increase is consistent with the policy provisions adopted in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 7. The property located at 3499 Lexington Avenue is zoned B-2 General Business District. 8. Residential projects located in the B-2 General Business District The maximum permitted density in the B-2 General Business District is 20 units per acre if a proposed project uses the PUD process. 9. The Applicant has applied for a zoning code amendment to allow up to 25 units per acre if a proposed project uses the PUD process. 10. The zoning code amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with the purpose statement for the B-2 General Business District. 11. New building construction or site modification identified requires the submittal of a Site Plan Review application prior to construction. 12. For proposals for new construction and/or redevelopment of a site a PUD is required 13. The PUD process allows for flexibility within the City’s regulations through a negotiated process with a Developer. 14. The Applicant has applied for a Site Plan Review, Master Planned Unit Development, and a Conditional Use Permit, in order to construct a 167-unit market-rate apartment building. 15. The Applicant has proposed a Master Planned Unit Development for the development of one approximate 249,944 square foot multiple family dwelling on the Subject Property. 16. The Master Planned Unit Development generally conforms to the requirements of the City Zoning Code and design standards. 17. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City Code, the Applicant has requested flexibility. 18. A public hearing for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, Master Planned Unit Development, and Conditional Use Permit request is required before the request can be brought before the City Council. Community Development Director Reilly reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission for Planning Case 26-009 for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, Master Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review for a Multiple Family Dwelling at 3499 Lexington Avenue N: A. Recommend Approval with the following Conditions: 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. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 6 2. The Conditional Use Permit and Master Planned Unit Development shall expire one year from the date of City Council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension has been granted by the City Council. The City Council may extend the expiration date of such approval upon written application by the person to whom the approval was granted. 3. A violation of any condition set forth in the permit shall be a violation of this Code and shall be cause for revocation of the permit. 4. Prior to the release of the Final Planned Unit Development for recording, the Applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement. 5. The Final PUD shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. A Master and Final PUD Development Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval for the Development. The Master and Final PUD Development Agreement shall be fully executed prior to the issuance of building permits. 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. 7. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the city’s Engineering Division prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, MPCA, Rice Creek Watershed District, MnDOT and Ramsey County (i.e., ROW or access) prior to the start of any site activities. 8. The final plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer, Building Official, and Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit and shall be consistent with the memorandum from the City Engineer. 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the final plans shall show that landscaping will not inhibit clear sight lines into and out of the property. 10. Final landscaping plans shall be revised to relocated trees outside of any drainage and utility easements and shown with trees with a minimum caliper inch of 2.5 inches. 11. Final grading, drainage, utility, and site plans shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Director, City Engineer, and Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit or other development permits. 12. Upon completion of grading and utility work on the site, a grading as-built and utility as- built shall be provided to the City for review. 13. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site shall be required and maintained by the Developer during construction to ensure that sediment and storm water does not leave the project site. 14. The Applicant shall be 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 shall 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. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 7 15. All light poles, including base, shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height and shall be shoebox style, downward directed, with high-pressure sodium lamps or LED and flush lenses. 16. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be hidden from view with the same materials used on the building in accordance with City Code requirements. 17. A separate sign permit shall be required for all signs on the site. 18. Any future trash enclosures shall utilize gates and be constructed on three sides using the same materials and patterns used on the building. Locations shall be approved by the Planning Department. 19. The Applicant shall be financially responsible for all applicable water and sanitary charges. Rates applied shall be memorialized in the Development Agreement. 20. 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. 21. A right-of-way permit shall be required for work performed within the City and/or Ramsey County right-of-way. 22. The proposed structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. B. Recommend Approval as Submitted C. Recommend Denial D. Table Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lindau recused himself from acting on this item. Commissioner Erler requested further information regarding the park dedication fees for this proposal. Community Development Director Reilly explained park dedication fees would be required through the Planned Unit Development process. Commissioner Erler inquired if a portion of land could be dedicated to the Crepeau Nature Preserve. Community Development Director Reilly commented this could be considered by the City. Commissioner Julius asked why this project had to be this dense. Community Development Director Reilly explained the request was based on the ability of the project to come to fruition based on what the developer has proposed and whether the project pencils out or not. Commissioner Julius inquired if there was precedent to amend the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to accommodate the proposed density. Community Development Director Reilly reported the Comprehensive Plan has been amended in order to accommodate up to 24 units per acre in the R-4 Zoning District. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 8 Councilmember Weber provided further information on the developments on East Round Lake and at North Heights Church, noting both requested extra density. Chair Collins commented on the B-2 guiding plan and noted this area allowed for three to 20 units per acre for density. He questioned if a four-story residential unit could have 20 units per acre. Community Development Director Reilly explained the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and B-2 guiding plan were emblematic of their point in time and the 2030 plan may not have had the opportunity to fully incorporate the guiding plan for the B-2 district. He stated a developer could put together a four-story building that was 20 units per acre, but he did not know if a developer would. He commented on how the housing market has changed significantly since 2008. Further discussion ensued regarding the requests before the Planning Commission. Chair Collins asked if the Commission should be taking action on each of the requests separately. Community Development Director Reilly stated he was not an attorney, but he said the Commission could take action on each request separately. Commissioner Burlingame questioned if a newer market analysis exists for this corridor and asked why the 2008 projection should still apply. Community Development Director Reilly reported the fundamental answer to this question was the data associated with the 2008 plan and housing ceiling does not hold true today for many reasons. He discussed how the population had shifted since 2008, noting there has been a decline in birth rates. He explained fewer people were coming to the region and there has been underbuilding for decades. He stated a new market analysis was warranted for Arden Hills and noted the City was waiting to hear about a grant from the Met Council to complete this analysis. Commissioner Burlingame inquired which gross floor area figure was authoritative, the 249,944 square feet or the 190,094 square feet. He asked if these numbers included the underground parking space. Community Development Director Reilly reported the .96 floor area ratio figure was correct and this number did not include the underground parking component. Commissioner Erler questioned what the site plan review would do for this project. Community Development Director Reilly explained the site plan review went along with the planned unit development and conditional use permit. He noted the only difference with the site plan review consideration was that this portion of the request did not require a public hearing. Chair Collins asked if staff would like to address the questions received from the neighborhood at this time. Community Development Director Reilly stated he could review the questions and answers, but suggested the Commission move along to the public hearing at this time, noting staff could circle back to these questions if not raised during the public hearing. Chair Collins invited the applicant to come forward at this time. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 9 Nick Asta, Roers Company representative, introduced himself to the Commission noting Roers Company constructs, owns and manages its projects long term. He explained he Roers Company has done over 100 projects to date and was based on the metro area. He reported this site came to him over a year ago and noted an office use was originally considered, but there were no takers. He stated this brought him back to the table in order to consider a housing project. He commented on the neighborhood meeting that was held the week before, noting he worked to address all of the questions that were raised. He explained the building location was questioned and discussed how his team worked to scale the building back. He indicated the northwest corner was the best location for the building because this was the high point and would allow for water retention to occur naturally on the southern portion of the lot. He stated it made more sense to place the pickleball courts on the eastern side of the property because of the noise that would be generated. He reported the request to move the building to the east and closer to the road, but noted this would become an issue of where the water would runoff. He explained there would be approximately 110 feet between the proposed building and the adjacent condos. Mr. Asta commented on how trees and a fence could be installed as a buffer between the two properties. He reported the traffic study was completed on Thursday, June 4, from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. He understood there would be more cars in this area, but noted all of the intersections that were studied were rated either an A or B. He stated he was open to discussing ways to make people more comfortable with the situation, but indicated no concerns were raised from the traffic study. He reviewed the location of the walking trails that would surround the property. He stated he was interested in eliminating buckthorn and adding more local plants to the site. He indicated the minimum landscaping requirements was 25% and he was proposing 35% of the site would be landscaped. He pointed out he would have 808 inches of trees when 619 inches were required. Mr. Asta commented he started with a larger project and noted this has been scaled back over time. He explained he was at a point where the project could be scaled back no further, but for the use of City subsidies such as tax-increment financing or other forms of public assistance. He indicated he was not requesting public assistance at this time but rather was proposing a full market rate building. He stated the changes in the housing market and the increases in construction costs have led to four-story apartment buildings. He thanked the Commission for considering his request and noted he was available for further questions or comments from the Commission. Chair Collins asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant. Commissioner Julius stated the comprehensive plan had standards for a reason and expressed concern with making adjustments. She questioned why this location was chosen for this development. Mr. Asta explained this location was attractive for the live, work, play situation. He stated being able to live near retail was very attractive for tenants. He reported the employment opportunities in town were also very attractive. He indicated it was challenging to make the numbers work given the current construction market. He reported the thought that 20 units per acre was super high density was antiquated. He stated he has worked on projects that were 50 units per acre and more. He was of the opinion the proposed 29.5 units per acre, including the affordable units, was not that dense. Commissioner Erler stated most of his questions had to do with the siting of the building, but noted the applicant had addressed his questions. He had hoped the line of mature trees would be ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 10 spared by some adjustment, but it appears this would not occur. He understood the applicant was meeting the City’s caliper inch requirements, but these would be from new trees and existing mature trees would be lost. Mr. Asta reported previous iterations of the site plan were more invasive. He commented on how adjustments have been made to the site plan to be more accommodating. Commissioner Erler explained the proposed building location would allow the developer to use the Hunter’s Point property tree line to create a point of separation. Mr. Asta reviewed the proposed tree plan in further detail with the Commission. Commissioner Erler reiterated that the proposed plantings were made possible due to the loss of the mature trees that were currently on the site. Commissioner Burlingame stated these were impressive and detailed plans. He noted retail was allowed by right in this zone and he questioned why the ground floor did not include retail space. Mr. Asta indicated Roers Company was not in the business of mixed use. He did not believe it made sense to include retail uses on the ground floor given the surrounding uses. Commissioner Birken asked what it would take to save the mature tree line. Sam Trebesch, Civil Engineer, explained the building was currently set back 29 to 30 feet from the west property line, which was not up against the minimum setback. He indicated the mature line of trees was 20 to 30 feet from the property line. He stated the building itself would not impede the trees, but the grading for the sidewalk and trail around the building would. He anticipated the building would have to be shifted 40 feet to the east in order to not disrupt the existing mature tree line. Commissioner Birken commented on the B-2 zoning district guidelines and questioned if the parking could be placed behind the building in order to save the mature trees. She provided further comment on how mature trees were valued in this community. Mr. Asta stated one of the original iterations of the site had the building flipped and to the south. He indicated this would push the building closer to the neighbors along Harriet. For this reason, the building was pushed closer to the retail in order to provide a buffer. He discussed the slope that was in place from Harriet to the parking lot, noting trees would be planted in this space which would serve as a buffer. Chair Collins indicated he was surprised the applicant was responding with a “noted but no” response. He commented on the number of flexibility requests that were being made by the applicant and asked what was extraordinary about this project. Mr. Asta reported he felt the proposed project was the highest and best use for this property given how the office space has sat vacant. He explained he would be making a huge investment in the community in order to allow more people to live in the community. Chair Collins stated while he appreciated the trees and landscaping that would be added, he wanted to acknowledge the negative impact of this project and the trees that would be lost. He ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 11 explained he visited the property today and noted all of the trees onsite were flourishing except for maybe two. He inquired what the applicant was doing within this project that addressed environmental conservation or sustainability. Mr. Asta commented the building materials and energy star requirements would be followed. He stated the tree replacements, ponds and walking trails would also be enhancements to the site. He explained he would be open to more suggestions from the Commission. Chair Collins indicated the Commission did not tell applicants how to check this box, but noted this project was really missing when it comes to innovation and sustainability. He discussed how the B-2 district guiding principle requires all multi-family parking to be enclosed in order to avoid large parking lots, while also protecting greenspace. He stated the applicant would cover one-third to one-half of the site. He questioned why the applicant was requesting flexibility to the minimum number of enclosed parking spaces. Mr. Asta reported a building of this type can provide .8 to 1 covered parking and beyond that plaza parking would be required. He discussed how important it was to have these types of buildings properly parked so as not to spill over onto adjacent properties. Chair Collins explained he has worked on 30 projects like this in a previous career and he understood the tension between codes, regulations and finances. He was of the opinion this project was not taking on the recommendations within B-2 zoning district. From his perspective, he was concerned about the southern orientation of the building. He did not have confidence there was any environmental considerations for this building. He expressed concern with the parking and where it was situated when taking into consideration the B-2 zoning district guidelines. Commissioner Erler asked how far the sidewalk along Harriet would extend. Mr. Asta reported the initial plans do not include a sidewalk along Harriet but this could be added. Chair Collins opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Chair Collins invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Shawn Wochnick, 4 Pine Tree Drive, requested the Commission deny the requests of the applicant because the requests far exceed the current zoning allowed for the parcel and Roers cannot meet the minimum PUD requirements. He expressed concern with how parking would be managed during snow removal. He indicated the environmental impact from this project was also a concern to him. He noted the proposed apartment units do not meet the one-bedroom minimum square foot requirements and does not meet the one enclosed parking space per unit. He explained this project was not consistent with the adopted 2040 comprehensive plan. He stated community mixed use should have 12 to 20 units per acre with a .8 FAR and the proposed project had a 50% increase in units per acre and 20% increase in FAR. He commented further on the negative impact this project would have on Hunter’s Park. He suggested the building be moved to the east in order to address the solar exposure concerns. He recommended the Commission deny the proposed requests. Mary Esser, Hunters Park resident, stated she lived on the east side of the Hunters Park building and noted if this project were constructed, a four-story building 50 feet from her home would be her view and the mature trees between the two properties would be lost. She indicated the proposed ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 12 building would block all sunlight and replace her view with another building. She explained she chose her unit because it was quiet and surrounded by mature trees and wildlife. She commented on how she photographs the owls and juvenile hawks on the adjacent property. She stated she was diagnosed autistic and she has anxiety. She reported she has worked very hard to be an independent adult, noting she has a job she loves and she volunteers in the community. She indicated she was able to do these things because she has a home where she can recharge. She feared how this project would remove this peace by removing the tree buffer, reducing her privacy and impacting her quality of life and mental health. She explained she was also concerned with how traffic would be impacted by the proposed apartment building. She respectfully asked the Commission to deny the request. George Boyadjis, Hunters Park resident, requested the Commission deny Planning Case 26-009. He explained he was an accountant which led him to review the numbers. He commented on the variances the applicant was requesting, noting there was a 32% difference for the minimum lot area request and a 20% difference for the FAR. He indicated the increased density was a 47.5% difference and the parking difference was 11%. He was of the opinion the applicant was trying to squeeze more sardines into the sardines can. He commented on how the traffic study was a draft document and the final study had not been presented to the City. He reported this particular project would create a 90% increase in traffic, which would be a significant change for the existing neighbors. He discussed how there was currently a nice berm in place on the office building property that buffers the office building. He indicated the proposed building would be at street level and the existing buffer would be lost. Traci Youngs, 4 Pine Tree Drive, commented on the solar study and noted the proposed building would shade her parking lot throughout the winter, which would increase costs for ice and snow removal. In addition, this would increase liability for slip and fall events. She noted the top of the Hunters Park building would be shaded at the northeast corner which could create ice dams. She stated none of this would occur if the proposed building was more than 30 feet from the property line. She was of the opinion the proposed building was entirely too close to the property line. She discussed how the entire lot would be graded in order to allow for the drainage to be moved. She commented on the plan the community proposed noting the developer had not heeded any of these suggestions. She requested the planning case be denied based on the solar hardships that would be created at Hunters Park and Frattalone’s. Sarah Anderson, 1192 Benton Way, reported the back of her home was adjacent to the south side of Harriet Avenue. She indicated she sent an email to the Commission prior to this meeting. She requested the office building remain in place for some type of future redevelopment. She anticipated some type of development could occur without requiring the amount of flexibility that was being requested. She hoped the Commission only makes decisions for 3499 Lexington Avenue North and not the broader B-2 district. She noted she has concerns regarding the requested density, noting only 17 of the proposed units would be affordable at 80% AMI. She questioned how this project would achieve the City’s fourth housing goal, which was to encourage housing development and redevelopment that was complementary to and enhances the City’s established neighborhoods. She indicated this was a critical goal that the Commission should consider because none of the surrounding housing had a similar density or height. She discussed the new developments that have been completed in the area and commented on how traffic has been impacted. She was of the opinion another developer should be solicited to bring forward a project that would be more agreeable and more in line with the City’s comprehensive plan/B-2 guiding document. She recommended the Commission deny Planning Case 26-009. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 13 Robert Porter, 1128 Benton Way, stated he was proud of all of his neighbors for attending this meeting and for the comments that have been made. He explained as an ex-land use planner and working for developers, this project was about cost. He indicated this project was not providing any net benefit to the City. Rather, the developer wanted to construct a single building through a PUD with numerous exceptions to the City’s requirements. He commented further on the City’s zoning requirements and stated financial hardship was not grounds for granting a variance. He stated the costs incurred by the developer were not a concern for the City, rather the developer had to find the necessary financing. He recommended the Commission deny the request. Angie Isaacson, 4 Pine Tree Drive, thanked the Commission for their thoughtful consideration of this request. She did not believe this project fit the City’s vision for housing. She commented on all of the greenspace and wildlife that has been lost from the New Perspectives and fire department projects. She expressed concern regarding the findings within the solar study and did not want to see her property struggling with additional ice concerns. She questioned if another high-density residential building was needed in the City. She stated Roers believes they have designed this building with the neighbors in mind, but noted the neighbors would be looking directly into a four- story building, a large parking lot and dumpster pad. She expressed concern with the fact the line of mature trees would be lost and in its place would be a four-story wall. She asked that this project be denied and that the City not put Roers profit over the needs of the existing homeowners in the community. Angie Patterson, Hunters Park resident, thanked the Commission for their time. She indicated she would face the proposed building and her unit would be completed shaded. She explained she loved looking at the sun in the morning. She discussed how her parking lot would now be ice during the winter months as it would be fully shaded by the proposed building. She noted she has lived in her unit for 20 years and she did not want to be assessed for additional snow and ice removal costs. Lynn Diaz, 1143 Ingerson Road, stated there was a severe housing shortage in the Twin Cities. She reported Arden Hills had a smaller than normal amount of multi-family units and the City has seen a decline in the 20 to 30 year old age group. She was of the opinion the proposed housing was suitable for addressing these concerns. She explained the proposed housing would increase the City’s tax base, would assist with school enrollment, create additional support for local businesses and may assist in attracting new amenities. She indicated she supported this project moving forward with conditions. She recommended Roers be required to keep the trees on the west side or that the trees be replaced with mature trees/like-sized trees. She discussed the benefits of mature trees on the community. She recommended Roers be required to construct more enclosed parking spaces. She suggested Roers be required to construct one-bedroom units that were at least 700 square feet in size or that the 16 sub-standard sized units be allowed if offered at 60% AMI as this would provide additional workforce housing for the community. She was of the opinion the density request was too high noting she warned the City the ask for more units would occur when the City approved 80% AMI as an option. She reported if the City was forced to provide the 25% affordability bump, the Commission should deny the other 25% bump. She indicated another option would be to allow the 25% bump if 10% of the units were provided at 50% to 60% AMI. Brenda Goldman, 1146 Waldon Place, noted she has lived in the community since July of 1993. She discussed how townhomes were proposed for this area and how greenspace has already been lost in this area due to the senior housing units and fire station. She noted these developments have also increased traffic and created an emergency vehicle route. She commented on the building height study, noting four-stories and higher were allowed in the northwest corner above County ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 14 Road E, not south of County Road E. She asked what the City was fighting for when it comes to additional density, given the fight that occurred between the City and the County within the Rice Creek Commons development. She was of the opinion the traffic study was invalid given how it was completed on June 4, when Bethel University and the Mounds View School District were no longer in session. She discussed how natural beauty and elevated forests were important to this community and spoke to the City’s name, Arden Hills. She stated trees were so important to this community they were included in the City logo. She recommended this request be denied or that the plan be reconsidered to more closely align with the surrounding neighborhood. Eric Christianson, 1169 Benton Way, stated he lived in cul-de-sac five in Hunters Park and has walked through the Crepeau Nature Preserve thousands of times with his family. He discussed how the loss of habitat and trees has impacted his neighborhood. He explained 200 more cars would adversely impact his neighborhood and quality of life. He was of the opinion the traffic study was not valid because it was not done while school/college was in session. He recommended more data be collected regarding how the increased traffic would impact the surrounding intersections. He understood the developer had a lot of wants and questioned what the City would be getting from this development. He stated he only saw detriment from this development. Paul Wood, 1184 Benton Way, reported he sent a memo to Community Development Director Reilly. He explained he was concerned with the financial, safety and environmental impacts of this project. He recommended the fiscal and financial perspective of this project be further investigated. He stated 150 units with two cars parked per unit would impact the surrounding properties and traffic. He anticipated traffic in this area would double and a traffic light would be needed at Lexington and Harriet. He requested the City further consider the safety aspects. He commented further on how the proposed landscaping and trees would not grow on this property because they would not be receiving sunlight. He noted he was a light sleeper and discussed all of the noise that would be generated from the proposed building. Scott Burns, Hunters Park resident, commented his neighbors have addressed many of his concerns. He stated he understood there were concerns regarding the lack of housing in the community, but noted he was worried about the amount of housing proposed for this site. In addition, he had concerns about how his unit would be impacted by loss of sun exposure. He asked that the Planning Commission take into consideration how the quality of life would be impacted for the current residents if this project were to move forward. Wayne Sather, 1137 Hunters Court, noted he has lived in his home for the past 48 years. He stated he has agreed with most of the comments his neighbors brought forward and noted he sent a memo to staff. He indicated it was apparent this project does not fit this site. He believed this project should not move forward given the number of exceptions that were being requested. He did not believe it was up to the City to make this project work for the current property owner. He requested the City not make this project fit where it does not fit. Allen Wilson, 3457 Harriet Court, noted he lived across the street from the proposed development. He encouraged the Commission to consider the precedent that would be set if this project were to move forward. He discussed the noise and light pollution that would be created by the four-story building. He stated he grew up in Arden Hills and noted 50 units per acre was not for this community. There being no additional comment Chair Collins closed the public hearing at 9:08 p.m. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 15 Chair Collins requested motions be brought forward individually for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, Master Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit. Community Development Director Reilly supported this recommendation, noting action should be taken separately for the Site Plan as well. Commissioner Birken moved and Commissioner Erler seconded a motion to take action on the Site Plan Review first. Commissioner Erler asked if language must be created to take action on these items separately. Chair Collins would recommend taking action on the items separately and that the conditions be attached to each approval. Community Development Director Reilly reported the Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and PUD hinge on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and then the Zoning Code Amendment. He indicated this may impact the order in which the Commission votes on these items. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Chair Collins asked for comments from the Commission on the Site Plan Review. Commissioner Julius stated she had no concerns regarding the Site Plan Review, noting her main concern was with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Commissioner Erler commented on the high level of impact this project would have on the Hunters Park community. He explained his biggest problem with this project was with the site plan. He anticipated the City needed more development like this with increased density, but he did not support this site plan moving forward. He expressed frustration with the fact Roers did not take into consideration the comments that were made at the neighborhood meeting. He stated his vote on the site plan would be a no. He stated there were too many problems with this building and recommended this project not move forward. Chair Collins asked if the Commission could table action on this item if the Commission wanted to state “no not this”. Community Development Director Reilly indicated this was one of the Commission’s options. Commissioner Erler questioned what would be accomplished by tabling action on this item. Community Development Director Reilly explained tabling the item would require a request for additional information, an extension of the time limit would be needed and the item would come back once all of the additional information were gathered by the applicant. Commissioner Burlingame stated he had the same concerns as Commissioner Erler. He understood Arden Hills needed more housing, but explained this project was not in properly aligned with the neighborhood. He supported the project being tabled in order for the developer to rework the plans to create an adequate buffer of 50 feet and rotating the building to the northeast ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 16 portion of the site. He was of the opinion the proposed plans as submitted were inadequate given how this property abuts a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Birken explained the City needed housing and noted she had lived in a comparable building. She indicated these units would be market rate and she liked that the developer would retain ownership of this building. She supported the tax revenue that would be generated by this building. She commented she did not support the tree loss and she needed the site plan to be amended in order to protect the tree buffer and create a transition. She suggested the building location be reconsidered. She reiterated that she was a fan of the City having more housing, but stated the proposed plan did not work on this site. Commissioner Julius stated even if the tree work were addressed, the density of this site was too high and did not align with the City’s comprehensive plan. She did not believe the City should be making adjustments to the comprehensive plan. She indicated if the plan was antiquated then this needs to be reflected in the plan. She did not believe a better site plan would move this project forward because the density was the problem. Chair Collins explained the B-2 zoning district was very specific when it came to building location, parking location, mitigating traffic risks, preserving trees and parking requirements. He reported these concerns were not accounted for within the proposed plans and were not addressed by the developer after the neighborhood meeting. For this reason, he would not recommend approval of this site plan. He encouraged the developer to reconsider his plans for this lot taking into consideration the requirements within the B-2 zoning district and that the tree buffer not be removed. He stated it appears the Commission was considering either a “no” vote or “not this one” vote, which would lead to the item being tabled. He explained he would support tabling this item with conditions and direction to staff. Chair Collins moved and Commissioner Burlingame seconded a motion to table action on Planning Case 26-009 for a Site Plan Review for a Multiple Family Dwelling at 3499 Lexington Avenue N requesting the applicant evaluate the northeast rotation of the building as was proposed by the neighbors, that the applicant review the plan in light of the B-2 zoning district guidelines paying special attention to green initiatives, noise, traffic, building location, parking lot location and naturescape enhancements for this development, that the applicant provide a plan that protects the tree buffer on the west side of the property and that a meaningful traffic study and updated solar study be completed. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Chair Collins recessed the Planning Commission meeting at 9:35 p.m. Chair Collins reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 9:45 p.m. Chair Collins requested the Commission take action on the comprehensive plan amendment next. He commented on the City’s current density and height requirements, noting this project was proposing a four-story building. He was of the opinion the proposed building was wildly out of character from what the City wanted. Commissioner Birken discussed how the cost for constructing multi-family buildings had increased over time and noted the City may have to reconsider its density requirements in order for future projects to cash flow. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 17 Chair Collins indicated a project could move forward with four-stories and all three-bedroom units, but noted these units would come with extremely high rents and this type of project would not properly address the housing crisis. He understood the community needed one and two- bedroom units. Commissioner Julius was of the opinion it would be irresponsible to approve plans like this when the plans were not aligned with the City’s comprehensive plan. Commissioner Erler spoke to how the Commission does not set policy but does have the opportunity to advise the City Council on when policies need to be changed. He commented on how construction costs have increased since 2008. He anticipated if the City were to keep the density at 20 units per acre the City would not be getting any projects in the B-2 zoning district. He noted this lot would redevelop at some point in the future and if not this project, then what. He reported a 50,000 square foot retail use could locate on this property without any changes. Commissioner Birken commented it was hard for her to make a comment regarding the increased density because she does not have data in front of her on what other cities were doing. Chair Collins explained he was trying to consider this request taking into consideration the spirit and intent of what the comprehensive plan and B-2 documents are trying to convey. Commissioner Birken stated based on this information she would support moving forward with the comprehensive plan amendment with the understanding the City Council would have the final say on this matter. Commissioner Julius indicated she would vote to deny the comprehensive plan amendment because she saw no benefit in approving the amendment. Commissioner Birken stated the Commission had to take into consideration what the appropriate transition was for this parcel given the fact it was adjacent to residential. Chair Collins reported the district guidelines address sensible or incremental height increases. He commented on one side of the street there were single-family homes and on the other side there could potentially be four-stories. He asked how the Commission wanted to proceed with the comprehensive plan amendment. Commissioner Erler stated he was in favor with moving the comprehensive plan amendment forward. However, he would like a stipulation in place that has the FAR following the housing density as it applies to housing and not to any other development within B-2. Commissioner Burlingame indicated he would support the change to the comprehensive plan amendment and the zoning code amendment. Commissioner Birken explained she would support the comprehensive plan amendment and increase in density. Commissioner Erler moved and Commissioner Burlingame seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 26-009 for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a Multiple Family Dwelling at 3499 Lexington Avenue N, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the July 8, 2026, report to the Planning ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 18 Commission recommending the density be increased from 20 units per acre to 30 units per acre and that the FAR be increased from .8 to 1.0 as it applies to residential development. Commissioner Julius stated she believed this was the wrong move for the City. She feared this item was being approved to meet financial constraints from a developer. She challenged the Commission to consider why the developer wasn’t building on another piece of land. The motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Julius opposed). Commissioner Birken asked if the Commission had to take action on the zoning code amendment given the fact the Commission tabled action on the site plan review. Chair Collins stated the Commission did not have to take action. Commissioner Birken indicated she was having a difficult time understanding how the zoning code amendment advances the project. Community Development Director Reilly reported the State Supreme Court has stated the comprehensive plan is the City’s guiding legal framework for land use decisions by the City and recommendations have to tie to the vision of the comprehensive plan. He explained the zoning code implements the comprehensive plan. He indicated the City Council was the decider on both of these things. He stated the comprehensive plan sets the ceiling and the zoning code sets standards that align with the comprehensive plan. He noted, for the record, that the 2050 comprehensive planning cycle will require this community to guide overall density to seven units per acre versus five units per acre. Commissioner Burlingame stated he was in favor of approving the zoning code amendment. Chair Collins and Commissioner Erler were in agreement. Commissioner Julius indicated she was against the proposed zoning code amendment for the same reasons she was against the comprehensive plan amendment. Commissioner Burlingame moved and Commissioner Birken seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 26-009 for a Zoning Code Amendment for a Multiple Family Dwelling at 3499 Lexington Avenue N, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the July 8, 2026, report to the Planning Commission recommending the density be increased from 20 units per acre to 24 units per acre and that the FAR be increased from .8 to 1.0 as it applies to multi-family housing developments. The motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Julius opposed). Commissioner Birken recommended the applicant be required to provide the units below the allowed size at 60% AMI. She explained she was concerned about moving forward with the CUP given the fact action on the site plan was tabled. For this reason, she supported action on this item being tabled. Commissioner Burlingame and Commissioner Erler supported action on this item being tabled. Commissioner Julius agreed, noting she would like to hear the compelling reasons why the applicant was not meeting the City’s requirements. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 19 Chair Collins moved and Commissioner Birken seconded a motion to table action on Planning Case 26-009 for a Conditional Use Permit for a Multiple Family Dwelling at 3499 Lexington Avenue N, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the July 8, 2026, report to the Planning Commission requiring the applicant to provide the substandard sized units at 60% AMI in perpetuity and that the one enclosed parking space be provided per unit. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Chair Collins moved and Commissioner Burlingame seconded a motion to table action on Planning Case 26-009 for a Master and Final Planned Unit Development for a Multiple Family Dwelling at 3499 Lexington Avenue N, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the July 8, 2026, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Commissioner Lindau returned to the meeting. C.Planning Case 26-017 – Ryan Companies – Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 13 - Zoning Code Section 1380 TCAAP Redevelopment Code for clear height and loading dock requirements – Public Hearing Required Community Development Director Reilly stated in November 2012, the City Council approved a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with Ramsey County which establishes a partnership between the City of Arden Hills and Ramsey County with the goal of the remediation and redevelopment of the 427-acre Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) site. Under the JPA, the City and County created a Joint Development Authority (JDA) that is the joint governing entity of the TCAAP site as allowed by the Joint Powers Act and MN State Laws. The JDA is the authority responsible for, but not limited to, environmental remediation, elimination of blight, infrastructure construction and financing, comprehensive planning and zoning, and economic development and redevelopment. The JDA Board is comprised of two County Commissioners, two City Councilmembers, and an additional non-elected City appointee as the Chair. Community Development Director Reilly explained between 2013 – 2016, the city facilitated the process of developing the Master Plan for the TCAAP site, which as noted above was the responsibility of the city under the JPA. Planning elements of the Master Plan included defining the public engagement process, land use, circulation and movement, utilities, environmental remediation, parks and open space, implementation plan, and a regulatory plan. In 2016, the City adopted the TRC, Section 1380 of the zoning code which includes the regulating plan, land use table, design standards, and other regulations related to land development that are specific to the TCAAP site. Through the JPA in the event the JDA believes the TCAAP Master Plan should be amended that shall be referred to the City and County for review. The city maintains the responsibility for processing TRC and Comprehensive Plan Amendments. As part of a TRC Amendment, the City will request confirmation of approval by Ramsey County. Community Development Director Reilly reported in 2024 Ryan Companies entered into a purchase agreement with Ramsey County for the portion of Rice Creek Commons known as “Outlot A.” Outlot A is designated as CC – Campus Commercial in the TRC. Campus Commercial is described in the TRC as “facilitat[ing] a building format that allows multiple, single tenant buildings or campuses within the northern “Thumb” site of the Plan Area. The goal is to allow for an individual plan approach for each campus or building, based on user preferences within a range of requirements. In 2025 Ryan Companies received required approvals from the JDA, City, and ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 20 County to construct an office and manufacturing facility on the north side of Outlot A, off of Rice Creek Parkway. That facility was completed in 2026 and is occupied by Micro Control Company. Ryan Companies is working toward completion of the campus-style development with additional commercial/industrial users. Based on the experience working with architects and engineers for the existing light-industrial manufacturing use, Ryan Companies is requesting changes to the TRC in response to current Twin Cities industrial real estate market data and design constraints associated with the existing code language and design requirements for mezzanine office configurations and the structural and internal functional needs of today’s light-industrial manufacturing facilities. Community Development Director Reilly provided an overview of the Ordinance Amendments, discussed the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The Applicant is proposing to amend ordinance language in Chapter 13 – Zoning Code Section 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code. 2. The proposed ordinance amendment aligns the definition and description of Clear Height with industry standards. 3. The Applicant states that the proposed ordinance language will address current industrial real estate market data and remove design constraints associated with mezzanine office configurations. 4. The proposed ordinance amendment would allow for a maximum clear height of 32 feet for facilities that include a loading dock. 5. The Applicant states that loading dock door dimensions and configurations will continue to follow standard industry dimensions. 6. The Applicant states that the proposed ordinance language does not impact design standards established in the TRC. 7. The proposed ordinance amendments are generally in the public interest and in keeping with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 8. Amendments to the Zoning Code regulations require a public hearing prior to action by the City Council. Community Development Director Reilly reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval as Proposed 2. Recommend Approval with Amendments 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lindau questioned why a maximum clear height was being set. Community Development Director Reilly indicated the intent was to ensure high quality design in the City. Chair Collins inquired if the 24 foot height was decided in the TRC for specific reasons. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 21 Community Development Director Reilly stated he was not able to answer this question given his tenure with the City. He reported it was his understanding there was an intent to limit the type of industrial uses to not include very tall racking systems and warehouse operations. Chair Collins asked the applicant to come forward at this time. Eddy Wolf, Ryan Companies, stated the JDA requested a series of lessons learned after completing Outlot A and this was one of the items that was called out as an area of opportunity. He noted the number of potential users was dramatically reduced by the 24 foot clear height. He reported med tech users were in need of 24 to 32 foot clear height. Chair Collins opened the public hearing at 10:51 p.m. Chair Collins invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Collins closed the public hearing at 10:52 p.m. Commissioner Lindau stated the sustainability guidelines (Attachment C) were very challenging and lofty, but it sounds like Attachment A was valid. Councilmember Weber appreciated the fact the JDA requested the lessons learned from Outlot A and discussed how this information was passed along to the City Council, JDA and Ramsey County. Chair Collins indicated the previous 24 foot clear height standard was established to limit certain uses. He supported the change to the clear height to be driven by the City Council. He recommended the fourth redline be removed because it was redundant noting the language would now read: Facilities that include a loading dock shall have a maximum clear height of 32 feet. Mr. Wolf requested this change not be made within the TRC language. Commissioner Birken moved and Commissioner Burlingame seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 26-017 as presented for Zoning Code Amendments to Chapter 13 in Section 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code of the Arden Hills City Code to modify language to modify language pertaining to clear height and loading docks in Rice Creek Commons as described in the July 8, 2026 Planning Commission staff report. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). D. Planning Case 26-018 – City of Arden Hills – Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 13 – Zoning Code Section 1320.16 Requirements for Affordable Housing – Public Hearing Required Community Development Director Reilly stated on April 27, 2026 the Arden Hills City Council, upon recommendation by the Planning Commission, adopted Ordinance 2026-007 amending Chapter 13, Zoning Code to add Section 1320.16 – Requirements for Affordable Housing to identify when and how affordable units may be required to be included in new housing developments and in rehabilitation of existing housing units, including regulatory incentives and provisions for enforcement.. As stated in staff reports and in meetings, those affordable housing provisions were not intended to be applied to the TRC. Upon further review, the City Attorney recommends that language memorializing that intent be added to for clarity. A draft ordinance is ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 22 included as Attachment A. The attorney recommends the following amendments to Subd. 5. Applicability. Subd. 5. Applicability. A. This ordinance applies to the following development types as follows: 1. New multifamily residential developments creating 20 or more dwelling units. 2. Mixed-use developments with a residential component of 20 or more dwelling units. 3. Substantial rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing buildings containing 20 or more dwelling units. 4. Conversion of non-residential buildings to residential use creating 20 or more dwelling units. 5. Those developed on property purchased from the City of Arden Hills unless a waiver is approved by the Arden Hills City Council. 6. The development must comply with this inclusionary housing ordinance as amended and approved by the city council as of the date the development enters into a development agreement with the city. 7. Properties within the TCAAP development Plan Area, as defined in the TRC, are exempt from this ordinance. Community Development Director Reilly provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The City of Arden Hills is proposing to amend ordinance language to clarify the applicability of Ordinance 2026-007 to the TRC. 2. The proposed ordinance will include amendments to the language of Chapter 13 – Zoning Code, Section 1320.16. 3. The City Council approved Ordinance 2026-007 amending Chapter 13 Zoning Code on April 27, 2026. 4. As stated in the record, the intent and purpose of said ordinance is to provide a requirement for affordable housing in new residential developments in areas of Arden Hills not regulated by the provisions of the TRC. 5. The proposed ordinance amendment is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 6. There is an adopted comprehensive plan policy and goal to require affordable housing at Rice Creek Commons: a. The City of Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan (2019) Land Use Chapter states, “Future development of TCAAP shall be subject to a term sheet for development to be known as Rice Creek Commons in order to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan with a requirement that 20% of housing units in the development must be affordable at 60% of Area Median Income or less.” b. The Comprehensive Plan guides 15.9 acres at Rice Creek Commons at sufficient density to accommodate at least 373 units of housing affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. 7. Amendments to the Zoning Code regulations require a public hearing prior to action by the City Council. Community Development Director Reilly reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission for Planning Case 26-017 for Zoning Code Amendments to Chapter 13 – Zoning Code, Section 1320.16 of the Arden Hills City Code to modify language to provide clarity regarding affordable housing development at Rice Creek Commons: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 23 1. Recommend Approval as Presented 2. Recommend Approval with Amendments 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Birken asked why the City would not want to have a consistent rule that covers the entire City when it comes to affordable housing. Chair Collins stated he had concerns with the fact there was no language in place that would require developers in TCAAP developing a project over a certain threshold to provide the same level of affordability as the developers looking to develop in Arden Hills outside of TCAAP. Community Development Director Reilly commented right now as written, the provision does not apply to the 400+ acres in TCAAP. He provided further information on comprehensive plan requirement for the term sheet that was drafted for TCAAP noting 20% of the housing units would be affordable at 60% AMI or less. Chair Collins expressed concern with the fact the way the language was written, the requirement would only apply to new housing in existing Arden Hills based on a running ratio. He stated he did not want to see a poverty pocket created in the community where affordable housing was built all in one place. Community Development Director Reilly reported this comprehensive plan statement would result in more affordable housing units than the provision as written in the zoning code. Chair Collins stated he understood this to be true. Councilmember Weber indicated this language had already been approved by the City and the amendment was for clarification purposes. He thanked the Chair for raising his concerns regarding Rice Creek Commons. Commissioner Birken asked what the intent was for inclusive housing within TCAAP. Councilmember Weber explained the intent was to incorporate affordable housing into each development in Rice Creek Commons. Chair Collins expressed concern with the fact affordable housing could be concentrated within towers on TCAAP in the Town Center. He recommended the language within the TRC be firmed up to ensure all developments within TCAAP be required to have affordable housing. Councilmember Weber encouraged Chair Collins to attend a future JDA meeting to express this intent. Chair Collins opened the public hearing at 11:18 p.m. Chair Collins invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 8, 2026 24 There being no comment Chair Collins closed the public hearing at 11:18 p.m. Commissioner Birken moved and Commissioner Erler seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 26-017 as presented for Zoning Code Amendments to Chapter 13 – Zoning Code, Section 1320.16 of the Arden Hills City Code to modify language to provide clarity regarding affordable housing development at Rice Creek Commons as discussed in the July 8, 2026 Report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6- 0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Case 26-011 - City of Arden Hills – Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 13 – Zoning Code Section 1325 Adding Language for Accessory Dwelling Units Community Development Director Reilly provided a verbal update to the Planning Commission on the updated draft. It was noted the Planning Commission will formally review an updated draft at the August Planning Commission meeting. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Weber provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. He reported the 75th Anniversary Celebration for the City would be held on Friday, July 17 at Cummings Park beginning at 4:00 p.m. He noted Ramsey County would be hosting a booth at this event with renderings for Rice Creek Boulevard. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests None. ADJOURN Commissioner Erler moved, seconded by Commissioner Birken, to adjourn the July 8, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting at 11:21 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0).