Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-03-26 PC Minutes Approved: July 8, 2026 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 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, 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 – JUNE 3, 2026 Commissioner Erler moved, seconded by Commissioner Birken, to approve the June 3, 2026, agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 8, 2026 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Senior Planner Fransen reported there were updates made to the minutes on Page 4 and 5 to correct the spellings of names. Commissioner Erler moved, seconded by Commissioner Birken, to approve the April 8, 2026, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as amended. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 26-012 – 3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard – Variance – Public Hearing Senior Planner Fransen stated 3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard, the Subject Property, is zoned R- 2 Single and Two-Family Residential District. It is designated Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Subject Property is the site of a single-family ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2026 2 dwelling. Surrounding parcels to the north, south, and west are also zoned R-2 Single and Two- Family Residential District and designated Low Density Residential in the Future Land Use Plan. Section 1320.06, District Requirements Chart establishes a maximum permitted FAR of 0.3 in the R-2 Zoning District. The Subject Property lot area is 9,215 square feet as measured from the front and side property lines to the ordinary high water level. Minnesota State Statute 6120.3300 requires only land above the ordinary high water level can be used to meet lot area standards. The maximum gross floor area of the principal dwelling on the lot is 2,765 square feet, for a maximum FAR of 0.3. The existing principal dwelling is 2,718 square feet in area. Senior Planner Fransen reported the Subject Property was originally developed in 1913 with an addition constructed in 1987. The detached garage on the property was reconstructed in 2004. The detached garage required a variance from the front yard setback, the side yard setback for accessory structures, and the requirement that no accessory structure shall be nearer the front lot line than what is the required front setback. The City Council approved the variance requests in Planning Case 03-22. The Subject Property is a riparian lot with frontage on Lake Johanna, which is defined by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as a General Development Lake. The property is subject to the Shoreland Regulations in the City’s Zoning Code Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the Site Data, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. Mike and Katie Shepard are the owners of the property at 3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard, Arden Hills, MN. 2. Mill City Design Build, on behalf of the property owners submitted a land use application for a variance to construct a porch addition at the Subject Property 3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard. 3. The proposal would vary from the maximum floor area ratio (0.3) permitted in the R-2 Zoning District in that the proposed new porch expands the footprint of the existing dwelling and increases the floor area ratio to 0.336. 4. The Subject Property is a riparian lot with frontage on Lake Johanna and is subject to Shoreland Regulations. 5. The proposed addition would be set back 52.7 feet from Ordinary High Water Level and would be located outside of the required structure setback of 50 feet and will not be nearer to OHWL than the nearest adjacent structure. 6. The Applicant submitted the required shoreland mitigation plan for the proposed addition. 7. The proposed addition on the Subject Property would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-2 Zoning District and the Shoreland Regulations. Variance Findings: 8. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when consistent with the comprehensive plan. 9. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. 10. The requested variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance because a porch is a common feature of a single-family dwelling use. 11. The requested variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan goal of maintaining a strong, vital diverse, and stable housing supply, uses site sensitive planning and design to ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2026 3 protect the significant natural feature – Lake Johanna – abutting the property, and remains a residential use as shown on the Future Land Use map. 12. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner because a porch addition is a common amenity within residential zoning districts. 13. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner due to the unique grading and drainage issues posed by a shoreland property. 14. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because the proposed porch will be incorporated into the profile of the existing dwelling and will have limited impacts to view from Lake Johanna and adjacent properties. Senior Planner Fransen stated staff recommends approval of Planning Case 26-012 for a variance to allow the property owner to construct a porch addition resulting in a floor area ratio of 0.336 and deviate from the 0.3 FAR standard at 3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the following conditions: 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to the commencement of construction. 2. The proposed building addition shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. 3. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the City’s PW/Engineering Division prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. 4. Final grading, drainage, 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. 5. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, RCWD and DNR, prior to the start of any site activities. 6. The submitted shoreland mitigation plans shall be completed in accordance with City Code Section 1330.03 Subd. 7. E. within one year of the plan's approval unless otherwise approved by the City. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Burlingame asked if the applicant was aware of the fact this addition would bring the structure coverage to the hard maximum of 25% and any future additions would require another variance. Senior Planner Fransen stated the applicant was aware of this requirement and this information would be included in the building permit approval. Chair Collins requested further information regarding the between floor area ration (FAR) and structure coverage. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2026 4 Senior Planner Fransen explained FAR was the sum of the horizontal area of all floors of the building measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls and does not include garages, decks, covered front porches or spaces that do not meet minimum height requirements. She reported the structure coverage for this property would be expanded through the deck addition. Commissioner Bjorklund asked what the side yard setbacks were in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. Senior Planner Fransen indicated the minimum side yard setback in the R-1 zoning district was 10 feet and the combined total can be no less than 25 feet. She reported the minimum side yard setback in the R-2 zoning district was 5 feet and the combined total can be no less than 15 feet. Commissioner Bjorklund commented on the number of variances this property already has, noting the lot size dimension was too small. He further discussed the FAR change. Chair Collins explained the only requested variance at this time was to the FAR. He reported the property itself does not conform to many items within the R-2 or shoreland ordinances. He indicated this meant the lot was non-conforming and not that the lot required additional variances. Commissioner Bjorklund stated the garage was not in conformance with City standards. He indicated the garage was not currently meeting the front yard or side yard setbacks. He was of the opinion this property required four variances. Chair Collins explained there were numerous properties in Arden Hills that were not in conformance with the City’s zoning code. He indicated the Commission was being asked to consider an FAR variance at this time. Commissioner Bjorklund stated this may be the case, but noted this property had six or seven non-conformities already. He further discussed how this lot did not meet the lot area minimum or proper lot width at the building line. He discussed how this property had a cottage on it at one time and the property owner has continued to expand the building over time while the lot remains in non-conformance. He stated approval of the proposed variance would make this lot even more non-conforming. Senior Planner Fransen reported a variance was granted for the garage. Commissioner Jacobson thanked staff for the detailed presentation on this request. She commented on the City’s FAR and questioned how Arden Hills’ regulations compared to neighboring cities. Senior Planner Fransen indicated the City’s FAR has become more restrictive over time, but was utilized to manage density and how structures are massed on a property. Commissioner Bjorklund discussed how this neighborhood had changed over time. He commented on how there was pressure to build bigger and bigger homes on lakeshore properties. He stated the building area for the lots on this lake was becoming quite congested. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2026 5 Commissioner Jacobson explained she lived on a non-conforming lot in a non-conforming house. She indicated she appreciated how the applicant was proposing to alter their property and believed the three season porch and deck were a good use of the space. Chair Collins reported the structure coverage for this property would remain at 25%. He understood the visual congestion that was occurring on the lake, but noted this was just progress. Commissioner Lindau commented he believed the three season porch and deck expansion were reasonable requests. He stated some communities don’t count porch space against an FAR. Commissioner Lindau moved a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 26-012 for a variance to allow the property owner to construct a porch addition resulting in a floor area ratio of 0.336 and deviate from the 0.3 FAR standard at 3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Erler moved and Commissioner Birken seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 26-012 for a variance to allow the property owner to construct a porch addition resulting in a floor area ratio of 0.336 and deviate from the 0.3 FAR standard at 3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the following conditions in the June 3, 2026, report to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bjorklund stated he believed seven non-conformities on a property were too many. He explained he would not be supporting the motion on the floor. Commissioner Erler reported he disagreed with Councilmember Bjorklund noting this property was different from the previous request on Lake Johanna. He stated this property owner was requesting one small variance and not six. Commissioner Burlingame indicated the requested variance was very minor. He clarified for the record that non-conformities were not the same as variances. He stated the request before the Commission was to consider if the FAR variance meets the three factor practical difficulty test. He indicated the Commission cannot use this case as a vehicle to revisit conditions that were already on the property. The motion carried unanimously 6-1 (Commissioner Bjorklund opposed). B. Planning Case 26-010 – Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 13 - Zoning Code Section 1380 TCAAP Redevelopment Code for multi-use trail width and streetlight spacing – Public Hearing 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 ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2026 6 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 reported 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. The proposed 427-acre redevelopment referred to as Rice Creek Commons will include: • Retail, office, and light industrial development • A town center • Well-defined neighborhoods with architectural diversity • A wide variety of housing options to serve young professionals, empty nesters, and seniors • Abundant parks and open space • Trails that provide for convenient and safe pedestrian access to commercial areas and other site amenities Community Development Director Reilly stated 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. The JPA identifies two classifications of an Amendment to the TCAAP Master Plan: 1) Major Amendment – Requires the City to amend its Comprehensive Plan. 2) Minor Amendment – Does not involve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and is a change within a Development Site (i.e. TRC Zoning Districts). Community Development Director Reilly commented Rice Creek Boulevard Design Standards The Rice Creek Commons Public Infrastructure Improvements team is responsible for the overall scope, progress, and key design for Rice Creek Commons. With preparations for the construction of Rice Creek Boulevard (formerly known as the Spine Road) underway, the Public Infrastructure Improvements team identified lighting and trail design as topics that require further JDA discussion and direction to ensure alignment with project goals and the overall design intent. The team drafted the attached ordinance amendment language and prepared background information for the JDA to consider at the February 2nd Work Session. Community Development Director Reilly explained following the February 2 discussion, during which the JDA reached consensus around the amendment to the TRC-required multi-use trail design width, the item was brought back to the March 10 Special JDA Meeting with more information to support additional discussion on the topic of lighting. The JDA reached consensus around the proposed amendments for lighting, and a recommendation was made for City and County staff to bring the two TRC amendments requested by Ramsey County to the respective elected bodies for consideration. The Applicant presented the proposed amendments to the City ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2026 7 Council at the April 27th Work Session Meeting. The City Council reached consensus that the amendments could be advanced to the Planning Commission for review. Community Development Director Reilly commented on the proposed ordinance amendments for Planning Commissions review. The drafted language would allow for greater intervals between streetlights along Rice Creek Boulevard and allow for a reduction in the minimum width for shared use paths and trails on Rice Creek Boulevard from 12 feet to 10 feet. As these amendments are to Section 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code, they would only be applicable to infrastructure associated with the Rice Creek Commons area of Arden Hills. Section 10 – Streetscape and Landscape Standards, Subsection 10.5 – Street Lighting Current Language Street lighting requirements established in Subsection 10.5 of Streetscape and Landscape Standards. The existing code language establishes forty (40) feet as the average distance required between streetlights. The Applicant states that this standard would result in light spacing that is much closer than is typical or desirable and would require approximately 200 streetlights along the length of the Rice Creek Boulevard Corridor where 40 streetlights could provide adequate lighting. The Applicant notes that the code as written could also be interpreted to allow for no lighting designed for Rice Creek Boulevard. Proposed Language The Applicant proposes to amend the street lighting ordinance to make street lighting required infrastructure along Rice Creek Boulevard and to establish a different standard for spacing. The proposed language adds standards for vehicular light and pedestrian-oriented light placement in relation to curbing and sidewalks or trails. The language also replaces the 40-foot average spacing requirement for streetlights with a requirement that lighting is spaced adequately to meet Recommended Footcandle Levels established in the MnDOT Roadway Lighting Design Manual. In the submitted narrative, the Applicant states that the amended language is supported by County precedence and MnDOT best practices. Amending the language will ensure infrastructure design includes street lighting that is appropriate for the Rice Creek Boulevard Corridor. It is also noted that the Recommended Footcandle Levels approach would reduce the number of lights required from 200 to 40, resulting in infrastructure cost savings of $1,600,000 as well as long-term maintenance and operation costs for the additional lights. Attachment #2 Palette of Open Space Types, Subsection 1.g. – Public Open Space Types – MultiUse Trail Standards Current Language The minimum width for multi-use trails along Spine Road or through neighborhoods is established in Attachment #2 Palette of Open Space Types in the TRC. The minimum width of 12 feet is the same for multi-use trails, whether they are along the main Rice Creek Boulevard Corridor or along a neighborhood road. The Applicant explains that a minimum width of 12 feet exceeds previous designs, Ramsey County standards and precedence, and City standards and precedence, all of which are generally 10 feet maximum. The required 12-foot trail width would also exceed the Rice Creek Watershed District’s treatment exemption, capped at 10 feet in width, and would therefore require additional stormwater treatment volume. Additional costs are estimated for the additional trail width and additional stormwater treatment. Proposed Language ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2026 8 The Applicant has submitted draft ordinance language that separates the requirements for multiuse trails through neighborhoods from multi-use trails along Spine Road (Rice Creek Boulevard). The language changes the minimum multi-use trail width for trails along Rice Creek Boulevard from 12 feet to 10 feet. This minimum trail width is in line with current Ramsey County and Arden Hills trail design standards as well as the minimum recommended multi-use trail widths from MnDOT’s Bikeway Facility Design Guide and ADA and Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines. Community Development Director Reilly reported the Applicant states that reducing the minimum required trail width along Rice Creek Boulevard would also qualify the trail for a Rice Creek Watershed District Rules exception for trails that are 10 feet or less that are also bordered by down-gradient vegetation or vegetated filter strop of at least 5 feet, which the Rice Creek Boulevard right-of-way contains. Meeting the criteria for the RCWD exception would allow for a relative reduction in required stormwater treatment volume compared to the requirements for a 12-foot width trail. Reducing the required trail width from 10 feet to 12 feet would reduce project costs for stormwater treatment and trail materials. The Applicant notes that while there is sufficient space within the Natural Resources Corridor to provide the necessary treatment volume for a 12-foot-wide trail, this volume would reduce capacity for future developments within Rice Creek Commons. Cost and stormwater treatment estimates are provided by the Applicant. Community Development Director Reilly provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. The Applicant is proposing to amend ordinance language in Chapter 13 – Zoning Code Section 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code. 2. The proposed ordinance amendment would allow for streetlight spacing along the length of the Rice Creek Boulevard Corridor that meets the Recommended Footcandle Levels as established in the MnDOT Roadway Lighting Design Manual. 3. The Applicant states that the proposed ordinance language will ensure adequate lighting while reducing infrastructure costs and long-term maintenance and operation costs. 4. The proposed ordinance amendment would allow for a minimum multi-use trail width of 10 feet along Rice Creek Boulevard. 5. The Applicant states that the proposed ordinance language would meet minimum width standards as set by MnDOT’s Bikeway Facility Design Guide, ADA and Public Right-of Way Accessibility Guidelines, and other local standards while minimizing costs for additional trail width and additional stormwater treatment under the Rice Creek Watershed District. 6. The proposed ordinance amendments are generally in the public interest and in keeping with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 7. Amendments to the Zoning Code regulations require a public hearing prior to action by the City Council. Community Development Director Reilly stated staff recommends approval of Planning Case 26-010 as presented (or as modified by Planning Commission) for Zoning Code Amendments Ordinance to Chapter 13 in Section 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code of the Arden Hills City Code to modify language to allow for greater intervals between streetlights along Rice Creek Boulevard and allow for a reduction in the minimum width for shared use paths and trails on Rice Creek Boulevard from 12 feet to 10 feet as discussed in the June 3, 2026 Report to the Planning Commission. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2026 9 Community Development Director Reilly reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lindau requested further information from the County regarding why this request was being made. John Mazzitello, Ramsey County Deputy Director for Public Works, introduced himself to the Commission. He explained at the time the TRC was developed the project was in a highly conceptual stage. He reported the project has since moved along and 12 foot trail widths were no longer being considered. For this reason, it made sense to change the 12 foot trail width to 10 feet. He commented further on County’s lighting standards for trails and roadway corridors. Michael Kirsch, Kimley Horn, commented further on the three trail corridors that would run through Rice Creek Commons. Commissioner Bjorklund inquired if the proposed changes were being made at the request of a developer or were the requests coming from the County. Mr. Mazzitello explained the requests were coming from Ramsey County. Commissioner Jacobson thanked the County for making these recommendations. She noted she supported the two proposed changes. Commissioner Erler asked why the multi-use trail in the neighborhood would be 12 feet wide when the trail along Rice Creek Boulevard would be 10 feet. Mr. Mazzitello indicated the regional trail along the east side of the development will belong to Ramsey County Parks and Recreational and they have different standards than Ramsey County Public Works. Commissioner Lindau questioned if this trail would be multi-modal. Mr. Mazzitello reported all three trails would be multi-modal. Commissioner Bjorklund encouraged the County to put additional conduit in the ground for future lighting along the trail corridors. Mr. Mazzitello stated this was being discussed by the County. Commissioner Burlingame asked if there was an approval process for the foot candle compliance before infrastructure was accepted by the City. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2026 10 Community Development Director Reilly explained the City did have a process in place. Chair Collins opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Chair Collins invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comments, Chair Collins closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Birken moved and Commissioner Erler seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 26-010 as presented (or as modified by Planning Commission) for Zoning Code Amendments Ordinance to Chapter 13 in Section 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code of the Arden Hills City Code to modify language to allow for greater intervals between streetlights along Rice Creek Boulevard and allow for a reduction in the minimum width for shared use paths and trails on Rice Creek Boulevard from 12 feet to 10 feet as discussed in the June 3, 2026 Report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). C. Planning Case 26-008 – 3761 Lexington Avenue – Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit – Public Hearing Senior Planner Fransen stated the Applicant submitted a land use application for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review at the Subject Property. The Applicant plans to lease 3,900 square feet of an existing facility for a new business, TINT WORLD. The proposed space would combine two tenant spaces into one and share the building with TGK Tires, another service station use. A Conditional Use Permit is required for a service station use within the proposed 3,900 square foot tenant space. Senior Planner Fransen explained the Applicant proposes to combine the two unoccupied tenant spaces into one and use five existing bay areas for services and provide a retail area and waiting room for customers. Employee and customer parking needs will be met by 30 parking spaces to the south and west of the tenant space. An application for a Conditional Use Permit requires a Site Plan Review application. Through the site plan review process, an applicant can request flexibility from the strict application of the zoning code by applying for a Sign Standard Adjustment as part of site plan review. The applicant proposes two 55 square foot wall signs be installed above the main entrance. The property is located in Sign District 5. The maximum amount of signage allowed in Sign District 5 is 80 square feet. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the Site Data, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. The applicant has a lease agreement for space in the subject property located at 3761 Lexington Avenue, Arden Hills, MN. 2. The Subject Property is located within the Service Business District designated for Commercial Uses on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Subject Property is zoned B-3 Service Business. 4. A service station use requires a conditional use permit in the B-3 District. 5. The Subject Property is located in Sign District 5, where the maximum wall signage permitted is 80 square feet. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2026 11 6. The Subject Property has two existing wall signs for a total of 80 square feet. 7. Section 1260.01, adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location of a sign or signs established by Chapter 12 Sign Code may be approved with a Site Plan Review. 8. The Applicant applied for a site plan review with a sign standard adjustment and conditional use permit to establish a vehicle window tinting and stereo installation service station at 3761 Lexington Avenue. 9. The applicant requested a sign standard adjustment to install an additional 110 square feet of wall signage, bringing the total building wall signage to 190 square feet. 10. The Applicant proposes to restripe the parking lot on the site, install a gate to the existing trash enclosure, and provide an additional accessible parking space. 11. 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. 12. The proposed plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 13. The proposed use is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 14. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 15. The proposed plan is not expected to have significant impact on traffic or parking conditions. 16. A public hearing is required for a conditional use permit. 17. Property owners within 1000 feet of the subject property were notified of the application as established in city code. Senior Planner Fransen stated staff recommends approval of Planning Case 26-008 for a site plan review with sign standards adjustment and a conditional use permit to establish a vehicle window tinting and stereo installation service station and install up to an additional 110 square feet in wall signage at 3751 Lexington Avenue, based on the findings of fact in the June 3, 2026, Planning Commission report, subject to 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. 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. A separate sign permit shall be required for each sign on the site. 5. 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. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2026 12 4. Table Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Burlingame inquired what the total signage allowed was for this building, noting TGK Tires already had signage on the building. He asked if a sign standard adjustment would remain with the property. Community Development Director Reilly stated the sign standard adjustment would remain with the user but the conditional use permit would remain with the property, if a similar use were to occupy the property within 90 days of the applicant vacating the site. He noted 80 square feet was allowed for signage. He commented further on the sign code adjustments that would be coming forward for City Code. Commissioner Burlingame requested further information on why staff was recommending the traffic study be waived. Senior Planner Fransen stated this recommendation was made in the Findings of Fact because staff has sufficient information from the applicant. Commissioner Jacobson reported the total sign limit for the building was 80 square feet, which had to be split among the users of the building. Senior Planner Fransen stated this was the case. Commissioner Jacobson commented visibility was a concern given how this property was setback from Lexington Avenue. She appreciated the fact that visitors to this business would be coming by appointment. She questioned if this business would have a free standing sign as well as signage on the building. Senior Planner Fransen indicated the applicant would have signage on the free standing pylon sign and the building. Commissioner Erler supported this business having a visible sign given how this building was setback from Lexington Avenue. However, he questioned if it was necessary to have additional signage on the southern facing elevation of the building. Nick Jorczak, representative for the applicant, reported this request was being made for traffic flow purposes through the parking lot as this signage would point visitors to the entrance of the business. Commissioner Birken asked if Tint World worked with the other tenant to get signage on the east face of the building. Mr. Jorczak explained this was TGK’s space and he did not believe this would be an option. Senior Planner Fransen commented this would be an option for the applicant to discuss with the property owner. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2026 13 Commissioner Birken stated she did not object to the size of the sign, noting the signage was necessary in order to be seen from Lexington Avenue, but encouraged the applicant to speak with the property owner to see if the signage could be placed on the east face of the building. Kevin Murray, representative for the applicant, thanked Commissioner Birken for this suggestion and noted he and Mr. Jorczak could speak with the property owner regarding this matter. Chair Collins inquired if approval of the sign standard adjustment was size and location based. Senior Planner Fransen reported the motion language would allow the applicant to install up to 110 square feet of wall signage at 3751 Lexington Avenue and the location on the building was not specified. Chair Collins asked if the current motion language would allow the applicant to install one large 110 square foot sign. Senior Planner Fransen stated the applicant would have to follow the submitted plans per the current motion language. Commissioner Lindau commented he wanted this business to be successful along the Lexington Avenue corridor. Commissioner Jacobson explained she had concerns with signage being on both faces. She supported the signage only being located on the face adjacent to Lexington Avenue. She questioned if the signage on the southern face of the building was necessary. Mr. Jorczak reported the south facing sign was proposed for impressions. He stated the more impressions passersby get from the building and pylon signs the better. He commented on how users of the car wash would be viewing the sign on the southern face of the building, which would also leave an impression. Commissioner Jacobson inquired if the applicant would support scaling down the size of the sign in order to meet the 80 square foot requirement. She stated this would require the applicant to have 40 square foot signs on the two faces of the building. Mr. Jorczak indicated the proposed signage was very similar in size to the TGK sign. Senior Planner Fransen commented further on the amount of open space on the Tint World sign. Mr. Murray thanked City staff for all of their assistance with this request and for accommodating him via Zoom. Chair Collins opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Chair Collins invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comments from the public, Chair Collins closed the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2026 14 Chair Collins stated he was of the opinion the proposed signage would be similar in size and scale to the TGK signage. Commissioner Burlingame moved and Commissioner Lindau seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case for a site plan review with sign standards adjustment and a conditional use permit to establish a vehicle window tinting and stereo installation service station and install up to an additional 110 square feet in wall signage at 3761 Lexington Avenue, based on the findings of fact, subject to the following conditions in the June 3, 2026, report to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Jacobson reported approval of this motion would mean this building would have 190 square feet of wall signage. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Chair Collins recessed the Planning Commission meeting at 8:15 p.m. Chair Collins reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 8:23 p.m. D. Planning Case 26-011 – City of Arden Hills – Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 13 – Zoning Code Section 1325 Adding Language for Accessory Dwelling Units – Public Hearing Community Development Director Reilly stated in 2025, the City Council requested a work session agenda item to allow for discussion of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). At the April 13, 2026, City Council work session the Council considered information related to permitting ADUs, including information from other metropolitan area municipalities related to permitting ADUs. That information is included in this memo. At the work session, the Council asked city staff to craft an ordinance that included the following provisions: A. Allow ADUs as an accessory use in residential districts. B. Prohibit units not attached to either the principal structure or an existing accessory garage. C. Allows not more than one ADU per residential lot. D. Maintains existing impervious surface coverage, setbacks, and other adopted provisions of the code related to dimensional standards. E. Requires that utilities be provided through the principal dwelling while also providing for a mechanism to ensure residents in either dwelling unit have independent understanding of their use of the utility. F. Prohibits the separate sale or subdivision of the secondary unit (ADU). G. Requires – to the extent possible - at least one of the dwelling units on the property to be occupied by a property owner. Community Development Director Reilly reviewed a definition for ADU’s, described reasons municipalities allow ADU’s, and commented on the draft ordinance. Staff requests the Planning Commission provide any comments, questions, concerns or ideas related to the above provisions. These will be considered and passed on to the City Attorney in order to ensure the ordinance language meets the intent, purpose, and direction of the Planning Commission and the City Council, as appropriate and subject to applicable laws and regulations. While ADUs alone will not solve the region's housing crisis, or Arden Hills’ share of the need, they offer a proven, ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2026 15 neighborhood-scale contribution to housing choice, supply, affordability, aging in community, and multigenerational living as part of a broader housing strategy. The benefits align with the city’s housing goals in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as well as the newly adopted strategic plan. Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Collins discussed how there were two sections of the Ordinance that were still open at this time. Community Development Director Reilly explained the draft language for these two sections was being reviewed by the City Attorney. He indicated the goal of this language was to bring existing ADU’s into conformance as possible through an administrative review. Chair Collins stated it appears this ordinance would be tabled until July or August to allow this language to be brought forward to the Planning Commission for consideration prior to moving forward to the City Council. Community Development Director Reilly indicated this item could be tabled to the July Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Erler thanked staff for the detailed presentation on this matter. Commissioner Lindau asked why a detached ADU’s would not be allowed. Councilmember Weber explained he was uncertain why the Council did not support detached ADU’s. Commissioner Bjorklund commended staff for the well written staff report and presentation. Commissioner Jacobson inquired if tiny homes, which were mobile, would qualify as an ADU. Community Development Director Reilly stated tiny homes would qualify as an ADU. Chair Collins opened the public hearing at 9:02 p.m. Chair Collins invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Steve Nelson, 3475 Seims Court, indicated he would like a limitation set on the number of occupants within an ADU. He recommended steps be allowed to go up to the ground floor. He recommended ADU’s be allowed within a trust. He suggested new construction permits not allow residents to live within an ADU without finishing the principle structure. He recommended proper address signage be required for ADU units. He stated he was concerned with how the City would monitor the occupants in rental ADU’s and noted he also had concerns regarding parking. He supported ADU’s be permanent structure and not mobile. He asked if ADU’s would be allowed if a property already had an accessory structure. There being no additional comment Chair Collins closed the public hearing at 9:09 p.m. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2026 16 Community Development Director Reilly responded to the public comment noting the parking language requires a property to have one additional parking space for the ADU. He commented further on how City Code defines a family and household. Commissioner Birken stated she believed the detached ADU option was missing from this ordinance. She questioned why the City Council objected to detached ADU’s. She asked why the height was limited to 24 feet. She noted she supported a property having one or two internal ADU’s. She explained she supported a smaller house on a large property in Arden Hills becoming an ADU, noting a larger home could be built on the same property. She questioned why one garage stall would have to remain open in a garage ADU. She requested staff take a look at the exterior step language within the ordinance. She recommended that ADU’s not have to be owner occupied because some properties may be in a trust or residents may be living intergenerationally. Commissioner Burlingame stated his main concerns with the ordinance at this time were with owner occupancy verification, short term rental, utilities and how the City would be addressing non-conforming ADU’s. He discussed how the City verifies homesteaded properties and recommended the short term rental language for ADU’s be further considered. He supported submetering be required for ADU’s. He explained he supported the draft of this ordinance being forwarded along to the City Council with recommendations from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Erler commented on how the ADU ordinance owner-occupied requirement. He explained no other city that allows ADU’s requires separate utilities. He stated the City’s stance around the short term rental of ADU’s was also a concern for him. He reported this led him to further consider what the City was trying to accomplish with ADU’s. He asked if the goal was to create more affordable housing units or create intergenerational housing. Commissioner Lindau stated he believed ADU’s were an excellent option to allow residents to age in place. He supported the City having a low amount of regulations in place when it came to ADU’s. He commented on the number of ADU’s in Minneapolis, noting only 120 units were added over the past 10 years. He reported there were a lot of barriers to adding an ADU to a property in Arden Hills and believed this probability should be further studied. He discussed how modular construction was becoming more applicable. Commissioner Bjorklund indicated ADU’s usually do not alter the fundamental character of the existing neighborhood. He discussed how ADU’s were constructed without public subsidies. He supported the City adopting this Ordinance at this meeting, with the understanding amendments could be made in the future. Commissioner Jacobson reiterated that the focus for ADU’s should be to add housing units to Arden Hills. She indicated she did not support ADU’s becoming short term rentals, but did support the City having detached ADU’s. Chair Collins commented he had concerns with moving this ordinance forward without all of the ordinance language in place. He stated the City as pursuing ADU’s in order to increase housing stock and affordability. He was of the opinion the Commission had to further consider the ordinance language when it comes to ADU’s as short term rentals. He asked if the Commission supported allowing ADU’s over a garage. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2026 17 Commissioner Lindau stated he supported ADU’s over a garage as this would provide homeowners with another option for locating an ADU on their property. Commissioner Birken supported this option as well. Commissioner Burlingame indicated he would like to see detached ADU’s allowed, however, he understood the City Council did not support this option. Commissioner Bjorklund and Commission Jacobson supported ADU’s over garages as well. Chair Collins requested further information regarding the height limit for ADU’s. Senior Planner Fransen reported other communities have set height limits for ADU’s. Community Development Director Reilly indicated the proposed requirement aligns with the height limits established in City Code. He discussed the differences between an accessory use and an accessory structure. He commented the language could be changed to allow for a height no more than 35 feet. Commissioner Birken supported this recommendation. Commissioner Jacobson stated she did not support allowing ADU’s to be 35 feet tall because this would be out of scale with many homes in the community. Chair Collins recommended staff further investigate the height limit language within the ordinance. He asked if ordinance language would allow an existing small home to become an ADU if the lot size allowed for the construction of a new home. Community Development Director Reilly commented the existing language does not account for this scenario. Commissioner Lindau anticipated there were very few lots in Arden Hills that would allow for this scenario. Chair Collins inquired if the City was only interested in allowing one ADU on a property. Community Development Director Reilly stated only one ADU would be allowed at this time. The Commission supported this requirement. Chair Collins asked that staff review the front stoop/step language for clarification purposes. He asked how the Commission wants to address the owner-occupancy requirement. Commissioner Birken feared that this requirement would make it more difficult for an individual to get financing and was a barrier that the City should not have in place. She stated if the concern was that corporations would be buying up housing in Arden Hills and creating ADU’s, language could be drafted to address this concern. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2026 18 Community Development Director Reilly stated the owner occupancy requirement was put in place due to the perception owners care more for their property than people who don’t. He reported the corporate ownership of properties was a separate issue. Commissioner Birken was of the opinion the perception that owners took better care of their property was biased and classism. She supported children being able to live in a parents home if the parents wanted to go and travel the world, without requiring the parents to sell their home. Chair Collins questioned how the ordinance language should be worded. Commissioner Birken she recommended the owner occupied requirement be removed from the ordinance. She stated the data shows 90% of ADU’s are going to be owner occupied. Chair Collins asked if the Commission supported the subdivision of utilities. Commissioner Burlingame recommended submetering be required along with a separate address. Commissioner Lindau reported the utility provider would bear the expense of running the line for the additional meter. Commissioner Bjorklund suggested the language read installation of a meter or submeter. Commissioner Erler stated he was of the opinion the separation of the meter should be determined by the owner of the house. He reported no other city requires meters to be split. Chair Collins asked if the Commission wanted to move this ordinance forward or should the ordinance be brought back to a future meeting for further consideration. Commissioner Erler stated he was not comfortable approving the ordinance at this time, noting there were currently two blank sections. Commissioner Birken indicated she would like to see a new draft of the ordinance prior to approval. Chair Collins suggested the ordinance be laid over until the August Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Lindau supported this recommendation. Commissioner Erler moved and Commissioner Burlingame seconded a motion to postpone action on the ADU ordinance to the August 5, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Bjorklund explained he would be forwarding his comments to staff in order for these items to be incorporated into the revised ordinance. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2026 19 UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Weber provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. He reported the City Council approved the affordable housing ordinance. He explained the Council was working through the Zoning Code updates. He stated the 75th Anniversary of Arden Hills would be celebrated on Friday, July 17. Community Development Director Reilly discussed the planning cases that would be addressed by the Commission at the July 8, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Commissioner Bjorklund asked what the status was for the apartments being constructed on the North Heights Church property. Senior Planner Fransen reported Trident Development was still closing on this property with the church and construction should begin later this summer. ADJOURN Commissioner Birken moved, seconded by Commissioner Bjorklund, to adjourn the June 3, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting at 10:22 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (7-0).