The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-04-22 PC Agenda PacketOATH OF OFFICE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 6, 2022 Planning Commission Regular Meeting DRAFT 04 -06 -22 PC MINUTES.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 22 -004 –1152 Benton Way –Variance (No Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF Planning Case 22 -007 -4440 Round Lake W. -Site Plan Review (No Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair: Paul Vijums Commissioners: Jonathan Wicklund Marcie Jefferys Kurt Weber Arlene Mitchell Joshua Collins Shelley Blilie Clayton Zimmerman (Alt) Steven Jones (Alt) Council Liaison: Fran Holmes Planning Commission May 4, 2022 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 3. 3.A. Documents: 4. 4.A. Documents: 4.B. Documents: 5. 6. 6.A. 6.B. 7. OATH OF OFFICEAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESApril 6, 2022 Planning Commission Regular MeetingDRAFT 04 -06 -22 PC MINUTES.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 22 -004 –1152 Benton Way –Variance (No Public Hearing Required)MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF Planning Case 22 -007 -4440 Round Lake W. -Site Plan Review (No Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair:Paul VijumsCommissioners:Jonathan WicklundMarcie JefferysKurt WeberArlene MitchellJoshua CollinsShelley BlilieClayton Zimmerman (Alt)Steven Jones (Alt)Council Liaison:Fran Holmes Planning Commission May 4, 2022 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting,strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirableCity in which to live, work, and play.This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website AgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.3.3.A.Documents:4.4.A.Documents: 4.B. Documents: 5. 6. 6.A. 6.B. 7. Approved: May 4, 2022 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2022 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Paul Vijums called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. OATH OF OFFICE Chair Vijums administered the Oath of Office to reappointed Commissioner Jonathan Wicklund and to newly appointed Commissioners Shelley Blilie and Arlene Mitchell. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Paul Vijums, Commissioners Shelley Blilie, Marcie Jefferys, Arlene Mitchell, Kurt Weber, Jonathan Wicklund Absent: Commissioners Joshua Collins, Steven Jones (Alternate) and Clayton Zimmerman (Alternate). Also present were: City Planner Jessica Jagoe and Councilmember Fran Holmes. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – APRIL 6, 2022 Commissioner Wicklund moved, seconded by Commissioner Jefferys, to approve the April 6, 2022, agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 8, 2021 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Wicklund moved, seconded by Commissioner Weber, to approve the December 8, 2021, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried 4-0-2 (Commissioners Blilie and Mitchell abstained). PLANNING CASES ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 6, 2022 2 A. Planning Case 22-003; 1682 Wedgewood Circle – Conditional Use Permit – Public Hearing City Planner Jagoe stated Richard Spicer (“Applicant”) has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Class II Accessory Home Occupation at 1682 Wedgewood Circle. The Applicant is the sole owner and operator of Crimsontech Industries, LLC, a business related to repair, maintenance, and restoration of firearms including online sales. A home occupation is allowed in residential zoning districts, but a Conditional Use Permit is required when there is the delivery of products other than those delivered by private passenger vehicle. The Applicant anticipates one to two deliveries per week by a commercial courier which triggered the Class II designation requiring a Conditional Use Permit. City Planner Jagoe reported 1682 Wedgewood Circle (“Subject Property”) is zoned R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District, and is designated for Medium Density Residential Uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Subject Property is the site of a single-family dwelling owned by Wendy Wei Wang. All surrounding parcels are also zoned R -3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District, and designated for Medium Density Residential Uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. City Planner Jagoe reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The subject property located at 1682 Wedgewood Circle is zoned R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District and is designated for Medium Density Residential uses on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2. A home occupation is allowed in residential zoning districts, but a Conditional Use Permit is required when there is the delivery of products. 3. The Applicant is the sole owner and operator of Crimsontech Industries, LLC, a business related to repair, maintenance, and restoration of firearms including online sales. 4. Crimsontech Industries, LLC is a Minnesota registered limited liabilit y company that was opened on February 16, 2022. 5. All company business is conducted through an online portal and no customers will be visiting the subject property. There is no in-person interaction between the Applicant and business patrons. 6. The company requires only one delivery per day. 7. The company is a small scale operation and is solely owned and operated by the Applicant, CEO and Owner Richard Spicer. 8. Repair, maintenance, and restoration of the firearms is conducted entirely within the dwelling. City Planner Jagoe stated staff recommends approval of Planning Case 22-003 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Class II Accessory Home Occupation at 1682 Wedgewood Circle, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall obtain, maintain, and provide evidence upon request of applicable County, State or Federal licensing for the proposed home occupation following City Council approval. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 6, 2022 3 2. The Applicant shall for the duration of the Conditional Use Permit continue to provide evidence to the City of issuance of FFL renewal licenses and/or Letters of Authorization from the Federal Firearms Licensing Center prior to the expiration of the federal firearms license. 3. The number of daily deliveries associated with the home occupation shall be limited to one per day. 4. No exterior evidence of the home occupation shall be permitted. 5. No exterior signage shall be permitted. 6. The home occupation shall be conducted only by the occupants of the premises and may not employ any person not residing in the residence. 7. There shall be no patrons visiting the premises and all home occupation engagement and sales must be exclusively conducted online. 8. The premises shall at all times be protected by a contracted security service and all firearms and ammunition shall be kept secured in heavy duty gun safes. City Planner Jagoe 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 Vijums opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Wicklund asked if it was common for conditions to exceed the requirements within City Code. He indicated the applicant could have one employee per City Code, but staff is recommending no employees be allowed, except the applicant. City Planner Jagoe reported City Code does state as part of the Conditional Use Permit review that one employee not living on the property may be employed, and this was something the Planning Commission can review. She explained the applicant has indicated they do not have any employees nor does he intend to have employees. In this recommendation, the condition was drafted to match the current scope of the home occupation because we have not reviewed parking or other neighborhood impacts if there were to be an employee. The ordinance language provides a mechanism for that to occur, but the applicant would need to apply for a CUP Amendment to add an employee the way the condition is drafted currently. Commissioner Wicklund questioned what type of monitoring would the City be doing for this type of CUP. City Planner Jagoe stated the applicant would have to provide the City with evidence of the licensing. She reported the City was complaint based for code enforcement matters and if a concern were to arise at this property, the City would then respond. Commissioner Weber inquired who would follow up on complaints received by the City. City Planner Jagoe stated the City’s Building Inspector was also the Code Enforcement Officer. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 6, 2022 4 Commissioner Weber asked how long the CUP would remain in effect. City Planner Jagoe reported conditional use permits run with the property. Commissioner Weber questioned if staff was aware of any other residential rental properties in the City that have CUP’s in place for home occupations. City Planner Jagoe stated she had not researched this. She noted that the home occupation ordinance states the business is conducted by an occupant of the residence so that would apply to an Owner or Renter. She added that the land use application and home occupation license forms require the Property Owner signature if they are not the applicant. Commissioner Weber indicated he watched one of the videos that was posted online by the applicant. He stated the applicant appears to be very competent. He requested the applicant speak to the manner in which he handles, cleans and stores firearms. Richard Spicer, 1682 Wedgewood Circle, explained how safety was of the utmost importance to him. He reported he stores his firearms in a safe with ammunition locked in a secure area in a different part of the dwelling. He described how he keeps ammunition away from his work area. He indicated he tests his firearms at the Bald Eagle Sportsman Association in Hugo, Minnesota. Commissioner Weber inquired how long Mr. Spicer has lived at this address. Mr. Spicer indicated he has lived in this home for almost two years. Commissioner Weber asked who else lived in the home. Mr. Spicer reported he lives in the rental home with his wife and 11 year old daughter. He explained they have both have access to his work space, but do not have access to the secured areas or safes. He commented further on the requirements that were in place for his firearms safe. Commissioner Weber questioned if the applicant had ever held a federal firearms license. Mr. Spicer stated he had not, but noted he has a license to carry, which meant he had gone through an extensive background check. Commissioner Jefferys requested further information regarding the security service that would be in place for the property. City Planner Jagoe deferred this question to the applicant. Mr. Spicer stated he has hired ADT to monitor his property 24 hours a day. He noted the windows have vibration detection which then sets off the alarms. He indicated the ATF as part of the FFL license would require him to report the loss of a stolen firearm. He provided the ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 6, 2022 5 Commission with a handout on the reports from the ATF for the past five years for crimes related to FFL’s. Further discussion ensued regarding the security system that was in place on the home. Commissioner Jefferys explained she was curious to learn what the Ramsey County Sheriff’s office thought about this request. City Planner Jagoe stated she had sent the application to them for review and noted staff will follow up as part of this process to see if they have any comment before the City Council meeting. She indicated that as part of the FFL licensing paperwork there is a section for local law enforcement that the applicant will have to complete as part of the federal review. Chair Vijums commented this was a sensitive topic for many people. He reported there has to be a thorough review of this topic by the City and it appears this has been done. He felt confident that this type of business will not alter the neighborhood in any manner. He appreciated the security and mitigation measures that were put in place on the property. Commissioner Weber agreed. Chair Vijums opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Chair Vijums invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Renee Crumpton, 1680 Wedgewood Circle, noted she has lived in her home for the past 22 years. She indicated the neighboring home became a rental three years after she built her home and there has been nothing but problems. She explained the neighboring home has been broken into on two different occasions. She stated she pays taxes on her property and Mr. Spicer does not because he was a renter. She reported the proposed home business made her afraid and she feared people would break into her neighbors house to steal the weapons onsite. She encouraged the City to not approve this home occupation CUP. JoAnn Cirks, 1687 Wedgewood Circle, commented she was concerned about the proposed home occupation. She indicated she lives on a cul-de-sac and there has been packages stolen at times. She feared that the residents in her neighborhood would have a hard time selling their homes if the CUP were approved. She anticipated the home occupation would devalue her home. She recommended the Planning Commission not approve the requested CUP. Tom Coffey, 1693 Wedgewood Circle, stated he has a number of questions. He indicated he was concerned with the fact the applicant was a renter. He explained he pays a great deal in property taxes to live in Arden Hills, while the applicant does not. He questioned why the City had not run a report on CUP’s to see how many others were renters running home occupations. He believed that Richard Spicer was a nice person, but did not believe a rental home was the right place for this type of business. He anticipated that most homeowners would not allow a renter to operate this type of business out of their home. He noted the applicant also runs another business out of the home that deals with the retail sale of toys. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 6, 2022 6 Mr. Coffey reported he has used an FFL in the past to purchase a gun online and he had to go to the home to fill out the paperwork and take possession of the weapon. He noted this was in a residential neighborhood in Blaine. He questioned if the process had changed. He asked if the work space for the home business was being done in a three season porch. He believed that this was not a secure workspace. There being no additional comment Chair Vijums closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Chair Vijums requested the applicant respond to the questions that were raised by the neighbors. Mr. Spicer described the “how-to” videos he posts online. He discussed how he would only be conducting online sales and the product gets shipped to another local FFL certified business for handling of paperwork and pickup. He explained shipment of firearms can only be done between two registered FFL’s. He explained background checks would then be handled by that local FFL. He reported his address would not be shared with purchasers. He commented his workshop was located in the basement, on the interior of the three season porch. Chair Vijums asked if firearms were delivered directly to the applicants home. Mr. Spicer reported UPS and FedEx deliver firearms only to FFL license holders and signatures are required. Commissioner Weber questioned if the applicant would allow people to bring guns to him for maintenance and cleaning. Mr. Spicer explained he amended his proposal so as not to have this type of gunsmithing coming to him. Chair Vijums asked if there was a robbery in the applicants home in 2018. Mr. Spicer stated there was not. He went on to state that he understands this was a sensitive subject for his neighbors. He indicated in one of his conversations with a neighbor he explained he would be willing to discuss the negative concerns and may have to adjust what he was doing with his business. Commissioner Weber commented he paid a lot of money in property taxes as a homeowner and anticipated that renters were contributing to property taxes as well through their rent. He noted he did have concerns about issuing a CUP to an applicant that was renting a home, especially for this type of use, knowing that he could move away and the CUP would remain in place. Chair Vijums questioned if the owner of the home understood what type of business would be operating out of the home. Mr. Spicer stated the property owner was fully aware of his proposal. Commissioner Weber inquired if the property owner had to sign off on the CUP proposal or require a notary. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 6, 2022 7 City Planner Jagoe stated the City does not require the Property Owner signature to be notarized. She noted the property owner did sign the land use application for the CUP and home occupation, and the signature was reviewed with the rental registration paperwork on file with the City. Chair Vijums indicated the CUP that was outlined be staff was very thorough and passed all relevant areas. He noted that the CUP process was started because of the deliveries. He commented on the safety measures that had been put in place by Mr. Spicer. He appreciated the fact that Mr. Spicer’s firearms were kept in a safe. He anticipated Mr. Spicer’s property was more safe than some of the homes on his block where guns may not be kept in a safe. Commissioner Jefferys explained she would like to see that Mr. Spicer has the maximum security measures in place and suggested another condition be added to address this concern. She suggested this condition read: The City is assured that the level of security provided at this residence matches the potential risk due to the nature of the business and shall be approved by the Ramsey County Sheriff. Chair Vijums commented this condition could be added but questioned who would determine what the proper level would be. Commissioner Wicklund stated he appreciated these comments and suggested Condition 8 be amended to require the applicant to provide contracted video security services. He indicated this would provide a definition or measurement as to what type of security should be provided. Commissioner Weber suggested this motion for a condition be amended in order to have the security provided be approved by the Sheriff’s Department. Commissioner Jefferys stated she would like to keep her condition separate from Condition 8. She stated she did not know what the proper level of security would be or what measures should be put in place or not be put in place and would like the sheriff’s department to make this determination. Councilmember Holmes recalled the City requested feedback from the County Sheriff on security at E Street Flats and we did get their recommendation on appropriate level of security and this same request could be made of the Sheriff’s Department for this property. Chair Vijums suggested the condition read: The level of security is approved at this residence as determined by the County Sheriff in coordination with City staff. Commissioner Jefferys indicated she would like her language to remain as is in order to address the level of risk this business potentially may bring into the neighborhood. She recommended Condition 9 read: The level of security is adequate to address the potential risks as determined by the Ramsey County Sheriff. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 6, 2022 8 Commissioner Jefferys moved, seconded by Commissioner Weber, to add Condition 9 to read as follows: The level of security is adequate to address the potential risks as determined by the Ramsey County Sheriff. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Commissioner Weber moved and Commissioner Wicklund seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-003 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Class II Accessory Home Occupation at 1682 Wedgewood Circle based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the nine (9) conditions in the April 6, 2022, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Holmes provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. She welcomed Shelley Blilie and Arlene Mitchell to the Planning Commission. She welcomed the Planning Commissioners back after a three month hiatus and discussed how important the work of the Planning Commission was to the City Council. She then discussed the issues that Council has discussed over the past three months. She noted a roundabout was being proposed by the County at County Road E and Old Snelling Avenue. She anticipated this project would be completed in 2023. Also, review is being done on a trail from County Road E to Highway 96 on Old Hwy 10 in conjunction with the County road work. She noted the Council was considering reducing the speed limit in residential areas to 25 miles per hour and a public hearing would be held this spring and there would also be upcoming public discussion on food trucks. She explained polling places were approved for 2022. Further discussion ensued regarding Round Lake project and dredging that would occur around the lake. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests None. ADJOURN Commissioner Wicklund moved, seconded by Commissioner Jefferys, to adjourn the April 6, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting at 7:58 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Page 1 of 9 PC Agenda Item – 4A MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 2022 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #22-004 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: William and Adrienne Guelker Property Location: 1152 Benton Way Request: Variance Requested Action William and Adrienne Guelker (“Applicants”) have requested a variance to remove an existing 20’ by 12’ deck on the rear side of the single-family dwelling located at 1152 Benton Way (“Subject Property”) and replace it with a 14’ by 14’ addition and 14’ by 12’ deck. To construct the proposed addition and deck, the applicants are requesting four variances: 1) Side Yard Setback: The minimum combined side yard setbacks shall be 15 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance with the home addition to maintain the existing combined side yard setbacks of 11.6 feet. 2) Minimum Landscape Area: The minimum required landscaped area is 65%. The applicant is requesting a variance to decrease the minimum to 62% of the property. 3) Maximum Structure Coverage: The maximum allowed structure coverage is 25%. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow 30% structure coverage. 4) Floor Area Ratio: The maximum allowed floor area ratio is 0.3 or 1,800 square feet of floor area on this property. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct an addition that would result in a total of 2,188 square feet of floor area, equaling a floor area ratio of 0.36. Background 1. Existing Site Conditions: 1152 Benton Way, the Subject Property, is zoned R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District. It is designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The subject property is the site of a single-family dwelling owned by the Applicants. Surrounding parcels to the North, East, and South are also zoned R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District and designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the Page 2 of 9 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The parcel to the West is zoned B-2, General Business District and designated for Community Mixed Use in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 2. Site Data 2040 Future Land Use Plan: LDR – Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Zoning: R-3 Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District Lot Size: 0.14 acres 3. Proposed Use The Applicants are requesting a variance to decrease the required side yard setback and landscaped area and increase the allowed structure coverage and floor area ratio for a proposed building addition and deck replacement. The table below details the variance requests. Required Existing Proposed Side Yard Setback 5’ minimum/ 15’ combined 5.8’ minimum/ 11.6’ combined 5.8’ minimum/ 11.6’ combined Landscaped Area Greater than 65% 65% 62% Structure Coverage Less than 25% 27% 30% Floor Area Ratio Less than 0.3 0.31 0.36 The Applicants are proposing to use the second floor of the addition as a dining room and the first floor as a small work shop and storage area. The proposed deck will replace the existing deck. Due to the size of the Subject Property, the Applicants would not be able to construct the proposed deck or addition without a variance. 4. Hunters Park Planned Unit Development The Subject Property is located within the Hunter’s Park Planned Unit Development which was approved in 1973. The single family portion of Hunters Park is built on approximately 29 acres of which seven acres are shared green space, almost three acres are used for shared driveways, and the remaining 19 acres are divided into 84 single-family residential homes. The PUD process can permit a great amount of flexibility for developments from the underlying zoning regulations. This development used the flexibility permitted in the PUD process, and the neighborhood was designed with varying lot sizes, structure setbacks, and lot coverages. Lots in the neighborhood range in size from 4,356 square feet to 32,670 square feet with a median lot size of 7,187 square feet. A number of the lots were permitted to have structures that did not meet the underlying zoning requirements, which is allowed under the PUD process. Because the lot sizes and building locations were approved as part of the PUD process, they are not considered nonconforming even if they do not meet the underlying R-3 zoning requirements. Therefore in developments like the Hunters Park neighborhood, it is not uncommon for the PUD to include an alternative set of regulations that supersede the underlying zoning regulations. In the case of the Hunters Park, alternative lot layout standards were not created, which means that the Page 3 of 9 underling R-3 regulations were left in place. Since most of the structures and lots do not meet the R-3 Zoning regulations, virtually any change to the structures in Hunters Park required a variance. Furthermore, it can be difficult to apply the R-3 regulations to lot sizes that do not meet the minimum R-3 lot size. The City Council considered approving an alternative set of regulations for the Hunters Park neighborhood in 1985 (Planning Case 85-010). As part of this planning review, the City compiled a summary of the existing development patterns within the Hunters Park Development which were as follows: o Front Yard Setback from Public Street – Vary from 8 feet to 60 feet. Most units determined to be in a range of 20 feet to 25 feet. o Front Yard Setback from Private Street – Range of 18 feet to 20 feet. o Side Yard Setback – Several as low as 2 feet and some as high as 30 feet. Common range determined to be 4 feet to 15 feet, with a combined setback of 15 feet. o Rear Yard Setback – Range from 8 feet to 45 feet. Most units determined to be 14 feet to 24 feet. o Lot Structure Coverage – Range from 17% to 38%. Most lots determined to have 25% to 30% structure coverage. From this analysis it was determined that an alternative set of regulations for Hunters Park should not be created because the lots and structure layouts were so varied in the original PUD that it would be very difficult to create a standard that is less complicated than the existing process. The City Council did, however, approve a process for evaluating future changes to structures in Hunters Park: 1. If additions or alterations to the homes do not require setback or coverage variances from the R-3 Zone, only a building permit issued administratively by the City shall be required. This removed the need for a PUD amendment with every change. 2. If additions or alterations to cluster homes do require additional variances of any kind from the R-3 Zone, the standard variance procedure set by the City shall apply. 3. In both cases, the Architectural and Environmental Committee of the Hunter's Park Homeowners Association shall review and approve the proposed addition or alteration before submitting the same to the City. It shall assist individual homeowners in determining if a variance is required for proposed alterations. According the planning case files, the Hunters Park homeowner association approved this process along with the City. Since many of the lots and structures do not meet current requirements under the R-3 regulations, a variance is still almost always required. A number of other properties in the Hunter’s Park neighborhood have received variances to construct similar additions; however past variance approvals are not a basis for current variance reviews. 1. Planning Case #86-35: Side yard setback, rear yard setback, and lot coverage variance approved at 1153 Benton Way 2. Planning Case #97-21: Side yard setback, rear yard setback, and lot coverage variance approved at 1124 Benton Way 3. Planning Case #09-012: Side yard setback, rear yard setback, and lot coverage variance approved at 1126 Benton Way 4. Planning Case #12-013: Side yard setback, lot coverage, and landscaped area variance approved at 1185 Benton Way Page 4 of 9 There may be other properties that have improvements/additions from the original PUD approval and/or subsequent amendment in 1985 that did not trigger the requirement to apply for a variance. 5. Approvals The Planning Commission is being asked to determine whether a variance request for flexibility on side yard setbacks, landscaped area, structure coverage, and floor area ratio should be approved. The sketches that have been submitted show the location of the proposed building addition and deck replacement. The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the District Provisions in Section 1320 and the Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4. Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1. District Provisions (R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District) – Section 1320.06 Lot Size and Dimensions The Subject Property was constructed as part of the Hunter’s Park Planned Unit Development, approved in 1973. The Subject Property has a lot area of 6,000 square feet. Section 1320 – District Provisions of the Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 11,000 square feet per single family dwelling unit. Structure Setbacks In the R-3 District, the minimum side yard setback requirement is five 5 on each side and 15 feet combined. The current structure is located approximately 5.8 feet from each side yard property line, making the combined side yard less than the minimum required. The proposed building Page 5 of 9 addition would maintain the existing building line of the structure at a setback of 5.8 feet from the south side yard property line. The proposed addition would conform to rear setback requirements. The structure located on the parcel south of the Subject Property is approximately 18 feet from the existing structure. Landscaped Area In the R-3 District, the minimum landscaped area required without a variance is 65% of the property or 3,900 square feet. The Subject Property has an existing landscaped area of 3,906 square feet or 65%. The proposed addition would decrease the total landscaped area to 3,710 square feet, or 62% percent of the property. Structure Coverage The R-3 District allows for a maximum structure coverage of 25% or 1,500 square feet on the Subject Parcel. The existing structure coverage is 1,626 square feet or 27%. This does not conform to the requirements of Section 1320.06 of the Arden Hills City Code. The proposed addition would increase the total structure coverage by 196 square feet for a total of 1,822 square feet, or 30% of the Subject Property. Floor Area Ratio In the R-3 District, the maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 0.3, or 1,800 square feet on the Subject Property. The existing floor area is 1,837 square feet, equally a FAR of .31. The proposed addition will increase the FAR to 0.36, or 2,188 square feet. 2. Variance Review The role of the Planning Commission is to determine and consider how the facts presented to them compare with the city’s articulated standards. The Commission should base their decision on the facts presented and then apply those facts to the legal standards contained in city ordinances and relevant state law. Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While the Planning Commission may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the statutory practical difficulties factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help in addressing these factors, however, unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not form a legitimate basis for a variance decision. The Planning Commission may impose conditions when granting variances as long as the conditions are directly related and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed the front setback limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the effect of the encroachment. 3. Variance Requirements – Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 The Applicants request a variance to construct a 14’ by 12’ deck and a 14’ by 14’ home addition. The Planning Commission will need to make a determination utilizing the following variance findings and criteria on whether there are practical difficulties with complying with the zoning regulations. If the applicants do not meet all the factors of the statutory test, then a variance should not be granted. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. Page 6 of 9 1. Purpose and Intent. The variance request shall comply with the purpose and intent of the provisions of the City’s Zoning Regulations and with the policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The variance request for 1152 Benton Way is consistent with the purpose and intent of the R-3 Zoning District and with the policies within the City’s Comprehensive Plan. A single- family detached dwelling with an addition is a reasonable use within the Low Density Residential land use designation and the R-3 Zoning District. 2. Practical Difficulties. The Applicant for a variance shall establish that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provisions of the Arden Hills Zoning Regulations. The term “Practical Difficulties” as used in the granting of a variance means: a. Reasonable Use. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The existing parcel on the Subject Property is currently “non-conforming” with the R-3 district’s standards for lot size, combined side yard setbacks, structure coverage, and floor area ratio due to the small lot sized approved at part of the Hunter’s Park Planned Unit Development. The proposed building addition would maintain the current side yard setbacks and be located 5.8 feet from the south side yard property line. The combined side yard setbacks would remain 11.6 feet. The proposed addition would decrease the Subject Property’s landscaped area and increase the structure coverage. The increase in lot coverage and the decrease in landscaped area are reasonable in the Hunter’s Park Development, due to the abundance of shared greenspace throughout the development. There is a total of seven acres of Homeowners Association common greenspace throughout the neighborhood. b. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The Hunter’s Park Planned Unit Development was approved with small lot size and density in mind. At the time of development, many of the dwellings in the neighborhood were built closer to property lines than would otherwise be allowed by the Arden Hills Zoning Code. Due to the small lot sizes in the Hunter’s Park neighborhood, the requirements of the R-3 District are an impediment to home improvements for the Subject Property as well as the surrounding parcels. A variance would be needed for most scenarios involving a substantial home improvement project within the neighborhood. c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed building addition would maintain the current side yard setbacks and would not require a rear yard setback variance. The proposed addition will match the exterior materials of the existing structure. By doing so, the Applicants have stated this will maintain the character of the area. Also according to the application, the proposed addition would not create over building and crowding within the neighborhood. Page 7 of 9 3. Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. The proposed variance is not based on economic consideration. 4. Access to Sunlight. Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems shall be considered a practical difficulty. A solar energy system is not proposed. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a variance request to the required combined side yard setback and landscaped area and increase the allowed structure coverage and floor area ratio at the Subject Property, 1152 Benton Way. 2. The Subject Property is located within the Hunters Park Planned Unit Development which was approved with flexibility in the development standards. 3. The Subject Property does not comply with the underlying R-3 district standards for lot size, combined side yard setbacks, structure coverage, and floor area ratio. 4. The proposed building addition would maintain the current side yard setbacks and be located 5.8 feet from the south side yard property line. The combined side yard setbacks would remain 11.6 feet. 5. The proposed addition would not require a rear yard setback variance. 6. The structure coverage is proposed to increase from 27% to 30% of the Subject Property. A variance is required to exceed 25% structure coverage of a parcel. 7. The landscaped area is proposed to decrease from 65% to 62% of the Subject Property. A variance is required to reduce landscaped area below 65% of the parcel. 8. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is proposed to increase from 0.31 to 0.36. A variance is required to increase FAR above 0.3. 9. The proposed addition of the subject parcel would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-3 district. 10. The City Council has approved similar variance requests for other properties in the Hunter’s Park Planned Unit Development. Variance Findings: 11. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 12. A single-family detached dwelling with an addition is a reasonable use within the R-3 District. 13. The nonconforming lot size for the R-3 District, which was approved as part of the Hunter’s Park Planned Unit Development, and the substantial amount of shared open space that is part of the development, presents a unique situation for the property owner. Page 8 of 9 14. The proposed addition will not reduce the existing side yard setbacks. The addition will not require a rear yard setback variance. The nearest dwelling unit to the south of the Subject Property is approximately 18 feet away. 15. The increase in lot coverage and the decrease in landscaped area are unlikely to have a negative impact on the Hunter’s Park Development, due to the abundance of shared greenspace throughout the development. There is a total of seven acres of Homeowners Association common greenspace throughout the neighborhood. 16. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone. 17. The Applicants have received approval from the Hunter’s Park Architectural and Environmental Committee for the proposed addition. Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission should consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. • Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-004 for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the May 4, 2022, Report to the Planning Commission: 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. • Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22- 004 for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way, based on the findings of fact and the submitted materials in the May 4, 2022 Report to the Planning Commission. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial Planning Case 22-004 for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. • Table: Motion to table Planning Case 22-004 for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within 500 feet of the Subject Property on April 22, 2022. A public hearing notice for this planning case was published in the Pioneer Press on April 22, 2022. Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied, however, after consulting with the City Attorney, staff agree that the best practice is to allow public forum on all variance requests. A public forum allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors. Public Comments Page 9 of 9 Staff have not received written or verbal comments in regard to this proposal as of April 28, 2022. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on February 24, 2022. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by May 24, 2021 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. With consent of the Applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. The applicant submitted a written request to waive the 60-day review period on March 10, 2022. The City must act on the variance application at 1152 Benton Way by May 31, 2022. Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Planning Commission Letter D. Site Survey E. Building Plans F. Homeowner’s Association Approval G. Applicant Request to Waive 60-day Review 1152 Benton Way Lege nd Address La bels Muni ci pal Bou nda ry City Mask April 27, 2022 Map P owered By DataLink 1 in = 188 ft ± March 2, 2022 Arden Hills Planning Commission City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Dear Planning Commission Members: This letter will provide you with the building details of our proposed project. In addition to the details of the project we will provide the information that will hopefully result in the approval for a variance. A variance in this case is required for four reasons. They are: 1. Side Yard Setback, 2. Minimum Landscaped Area, 3. Maximum Structure Coverage and 4. Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Before we address these standards I would like to give a short historical perspective relating to Hunters Park Addition. In the early 70’s the City of Arden Hills approved a Planned Unit Development. The plans called for 68 homes along with common areas and common roadways. The common areas, or green space, was required to approve the small size of the lots. By the nature of the lot sizes the homes were built quite close together and in many instances were non-conforming with setbacks and other normal requirements. Whether the developers anticipated future additions to the homes no one knows, but given the conﬁguration there most likely could be none without applying for a variance. Even faced with this, the city has approved 6 additions to homes in Hunters Park. We have no way of knowing which of these required a variance, but it seems likely that some, if not all, did. According to the Hunters Park Home Owners Association bylaws any addition to a home must be approved by the Architectural and Environment Committee. We have received said approval and an email to that effect is included in our packet. Details of the Project Included with this letter will be copies of the land survey and architectural drawings that detail the dimensions as well as exterior view of the addition. Currently, our home has a 20X12 deck on the rear (west side) of the house. We propose to remove that deck in its entirety and replace it with a two level 14X14 foot addition. The plans also include a 14X12 foot deck off of the north side of the addition. There will be a foundation laid and 2X6 walls will be built to frame in the addition. The lower level will have an 8 foot ceiling and the upper level will have 8 foot sidewalls with a vaulted ceiling. The exterior of both levels will be “batten board on sheeting” to conform with the current siding of the home. The roof of the addition will have two foot eaves on each side and in the peak. I refer you to the plans for the window and door placements along with the size. The current home has slider windows as will the addition. There will be a 14X8 concrete slab on the north side of the lower level. The upper level deck will have composite decking with aluminum railing. The roof will be gabled into the existing roof at a right angle. It will consist of standard architectural shingles matching the existing roof. The roof will be a 6/12 pitch. The addition on both levels will be electrically wired as per code. The upper level will be heated and cooled using a heat pump duplex system. The lower level will have electric heat. Variance Details 1.Side yard setback: A variance is needed because the distance between our home and the neighbor to the north is 11.6 feet and not the required 15 feet. This is an existing non-conforming issue and is not exacerbated by the plans for this addition. All other set backs conform to city ordinance. 2.Minimum Landscaped Area: The minimum landscaped area allowed without a variance is 65% or 3900 square feet. The existing landscaped area is 3925 square feet or 65%. After the addition I calculated 3729 square feet which is 62% and would require a variance. 3.Maximum Structure Coverage: The maximum allowed structure coverage without a variance is 25% or 1500 square feet. The existing structure coverage is 1626 square feet or 27 %. I calculated 1822 square feet after the addition which is 30% and would require a variance. It should be noted that without the addition the house is currently non-conforming. 4.Floor Area Ratio: The maximum allowed FAR for R-3 without a variance is 0.3 which would be 1800 square feet. The existing ﬂoor area is 1837 square feet with an FAR of .31. I calculated 2188 square feet after the addition for an FAR of .36 and would require a variance. Request for Variance 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls: Not only is the home currently non-conforming, the requirements stated above would always preclude an improvement to the house without granting a variance. Wanting to improve the home would seem to be a reasonable pursuit and without a variance that cannot proceed. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: The purpose of the approved Planned Unit Development was to allow more homes in a smaller area creating permanent non-conforming issues. This was mitigated by requiring common green-space. This action created a situation that was clearly beyond our control for future improvements to the house. 3. The deviation from the Ordinance with any attached conditions will still be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance: The ordinance is likely meant to prevent over building and crowding within a neighborhood. We do not believe this type and size of addition in anyway creates an over-crowding or objectionable use. With the exception of the legal/non-conforming set back issue on the north side the plans do not require building beyond set backs currently in place. As such this addition is not causing additional crowding in the neighborhood. 4. The variance will not create a land use not permitted in the zone: The addition is in an R-3 zone which is residential. If granted, these variance requests will result in further residential use. 5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the City: This proposed addition is relatively small in the scheme of things. By and large, most homes in Arden Hills are one or two level structures with many of them having this type of addition. By maintaining the look of the existing house this addition should have no impact on the character of the city. 6. The variance is not for economic reasons alone: There are no economic reasons for this variance request. Thank you for your consideration of this request. I look forward to meeting with you and answering any questions you might have. Sincerely, William and Adrienne Guelker 651-503-8745 email: guelk001@comcast.net CERTIFICATE OF SURVO Propeirty Address: #H52 lemon Way. Arden Hffls. MN 55t11212'X20.3' DECK TO BE REMOVED. A NEW 12'X14' DECK to the north as shown, and 14'X14' home addition to be FOR: BIILL GUEi.KER g d EXSITlffG HOUSE I / / bull Vffllll8 exlstlng deck Is. C #"lr.-i:r"' t Ii,, Ii "'-'(i,,4' t • 0 Ill @ � LEGEND OEN'.OlES IRON MONUMENT FOUND OENOlES IRON M:ONUMENT SET DBl:OlES Ut!UiY BOX l!JEN'.OlES MtSCE.l.LAHEOUS MAM«llE DENOTES GATE 'wAL\£ DENOTES ARE HmRMT x1011.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. �{ f.N FKET } t mcl!t = zott. � V; �-,. ... ) �� ::u- �----- 3 __ , RISl1095 .,,/ S0UlH UI€ CF U>T 3,, BWCK 3-- EXSITING GARAGE; {', i AREAS '9,. ... r-... ., , 1:/i .., BfT1llllj' � 925.7 tf.5 ¢,-1 t----....;;::�gl�& LEGAL DESCRIPTION lot 3, Btodc 3. and\ that part of Outlot "\•. all in HUN1ERS ?ARK FOORTH A.OOrnON. Ramsey County, Mirmesotai. which Iles n:�y of th� westerly extension of the southerly tine af said! Lot 3 andl hes sootherly of the westerly extension; of the north line of said Lot 3. NOTES -BEARING'S SHOWN ARE ON ASSUMED OA '\'UM.-FIELD SURVEY COMPLETED 09/12/2021.- El.EVA TIONS ON ASSUMED DA 111.lM.-CONTRACTOR TO VERtFY HOUSE OIME!lliSIONS.AND SEVER ANO BASEMENT DEPTHS.-FINISHED GRADE 10 FEET FROM PROPOSED I BUlUllNG SHALL BE 0.5 FEET LOVER l'HAN lHE 92�.1 FIN;ISHEO GRADE AT ffiE BUILDING. - ANISHEO - ?OT.AL lOT AREA ,. 6,000 SCf. ft. O.U ccaree GRADE ELEVATIONS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE E>:ISRNG HOOSE � s-:1: .,,,, n WHH lURf' ESTABUSHMENT. : DECK ·.,;, 244 SQ.Fr. • "" .,..... . -alY TO VERIFY All BUILDING SETBACKS.- EX. OOKCR£JE 4r: Bl11ll«t«lUS ('MiTHIH L.Ol) ""' 468:f: SQ.FT.- LEGAL DESCRIPTCONI PER tNSPEClilON OF TAXpcereby certify th�t this p!an •• �y or report Wmt prepaf"�d! by RECORDS AND RE\IIEW OF COON.TY t/2 SECTION me or under my drrect � and that. I am 01 duly Uunud MAPS.. MO TI1lf.WORK FURNISHED TO SUR\£\'OR. Lamd Surve)'CI!" 11.md!w the laws of the State of M·fll!nao•ta. SURVEY SUBJECT TO RE\!ISlON UPON RECEIPT ,,, JS.CRE UNO SURVEYINQ'rn_OF TITlEWORK. LAL.-?'C' � Rev. 09/27 /21. tegat dac:ript!on 8llntw lwlll CIIINJ Mlaliro = I -ERIC R. \ltCKARYOOS Dote: SEPT. 21ST. 2(l-21 Req. Ne. 44t25 __, 111d belend' r--Ill 7m-49-911 acrelandel.lrv ,agtnaJI. o O\Users'\erlc,NJnellr"lve\CAB-lir.213-12 CD loll -tHINli\.dlrgi'c:�1312cer1: CD.dt!g �/27'/3121 11<06&ll M C&T NORTH 1 Jessica Jagoe From:William and Adrienne Guelker <guelk001@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, March 10, 2022 8:59 AM To:Jessica Jagoe Subject:1152 Benton Way Addition Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. I understand that based on my land use application submittal date of February 24th, the City is required under State Statute 15.99 to approve or deny my application within 60 days which would be no later than Sunday, April 24, 2022. I confirm that it is my intent to extend the time period to approve or deny the application until no later than Tuesday, May 31, 2022. I am hereby waiving the right to have the City act on the application within the 60‐day period. William Guelker Sent from my iPhone Page 1 of 7 PC Agenda Item – 4B MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 2022 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #22-007 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Baker Hostetler LLP Property Location: 4440 Round Lake Road W. Request: Site Plan Review Requested Action Gregory Lee, Baker Hostetler LLP (“The Applicant”) on behalf of Saltbox (“The Company”) has submitted a land use application for Site Plan Review for a project located at 4440 Round Lake Road W. (“Subject Property”). The Applicant is seeking approval to reconfigure the parking lot layout for tenants of the approximate 113,000 square foot office and warehouse facility. The Subject Property is zoned GB, Gateway Business District and is guided as Light Industrial & Office on the Land Use Plan. Background 1. Overview of Request At their March 21, 2022 meeting the City Council reviewed a concept plan for a company called Saltbox. Saltbox offers flexible warehouse and office suites that are leased by individual businesses, usually startup/small digital commerce companies. The intent of Saltbox is to provide an all-inclusive collaborative workspace to small businesses by providing the essential operations and logistical infrastructure that enables a business to start and scale its growth. Saltbox will be remodeling the interior of the building to construct flexible work spaces that can be used as either warehouse, office, or some combination of the two. Suites will range in size from 76 sq. ft. up to approx. 2,000 sq. ft. The suites are constructed with 10’ high modular walls that are open above with no ceilings. Each suite is equipped with power, HVAC, and Wi-Fi as well as access to a shared central loading dock for shipping/delivery needs. Each Saltbox facility is designed with conference rooms, huddle rooms/lounges, bathrooms, main entry/welcoming area, and a break room that are shared by the small business tenants. The facility is open seven (7) days a week from 6 AM to 11 PM. Page 2 of 7 Saltbox employs Operations Specialists that handle the on-demand logistical services for receipt and delivery of packages, plus they are able to provide order fulfillment assistance to the small business owners. A package that is delivered to Saltbox is received by the Operations Specialist at the loading dock. The Saltbox employee then distributes smaller boxes to the individual suites or there is secured warehouse space for larger packages. Saltbox employees are onsite from 8 AM to 6 PM. The Applicant has stated this window of time is when 95% of their activity is expected to occur The Arden Hills location would be for 214 warehouse and office suites with an estimated maximum occupancy of 398 members and 15 Saltbox employees. Saltbox would say that their flexible business model means that the 398 members would not be at the facility at the same time, but rather come and go at the needs of their individual business. As part of the improvements to the property, the Applicant is proposing to reconfigure the parking lot layout that would result in the immediate addition of 36 parking spaces and also identifies an area as proof of parking as a placeholder for future installation of parking spaces. Therefore, the Applicant is pursuing the Site Plan Review for the additional parking spaces. Image from the Saltbox website of Suites Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1. Land Use Chart (GB Gateway Business District) – Section 1320.05 The property is zoned GB, Gateway Business District. In addition, the parcel abuts Round Lake which would also be subject to applicable Shoreland regulations as a riparian lot. Under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the property is guided as Light Industrial and Office use. Light Industrial and Office (I/O) uses are areas designated for a broad range of light industrial uses such as warehousing with manufacturing. This land use may also include offices. According to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the expected share of uses within this area are 50 percent to 100 percent Light Industrial or up to 100 percent Office. Over the years, the property has continuously been utilized for office and warehouse use. The building is currently vacant, but the former occupant was Deluxe Corporation. The historical uses of the property would be allowed to continue as a legal right as a legal nonconforming so long as there is no intensification or expansion of said use. In 2004, it was documented that the distribution of uses within the building to be supported by the current parking supply would be no greater than Page 3 of 7 10% office (11,356 sq. ft.) and 90% warehouse (102,209 sq. ft.). Additionally, the former zoning of the parcel did not require a Special Use Permit for warehouse use. 2. District Requirements Chart (GB Gateway Business District) – Section 1320.06 The property was developed in 1979 prior to the City’s creation of the Gateway Business Zoning District. The total lot area is 358,036 square feet (8.2 acres) and the building is 113,565 square feet. At the time of construction, the existing development and uses complied with the applicable zoning codes. Today under the GB District, the existing development does not meet setback requirements for the building and off-street parking and is considered legal nonconforming. The following are the Gateway Business District minimum setbacks: • Front yard – 50 feet • Side Yard (interior) – 20 feet/40 feet combination • Rear Yard – 20 feet • Off-Street Parking from ROW – 50 feet • Off-Street Parking from Side or Rear Property Lines – 20 feet The Certificate of Survey (Attachment C) shows the parking lot is approx. 10 feet from the south property line and the building is approx. 14 feet from the north property line. As a legal nonconforming, the property can continue to operate in the same manner without triggering any further action for the property to be brought into compliance with current zoning code requirements. Aerial Map of Subject Property 3. General Regulations, Off-Street Parking Requirements – Section 1325.06 For the Site Plan Review, the Applicant will not be modifying the existing parking lot size or pavement location. The Applicant is proposing new striping that would be completed within the boundaries of the existing parking lot. Under the new site plan, the Applicant is proposing to Page 4 of 7 discontinue the utilization of several loading docks and convert the existing pavement to parking spaces. The lot striping would result in the addition of 36 parking spaces to be installed upon approval. The site plan also identifies an area as proof of parking as a placeholder for future installation of 20 parking spaces. The proof of parking area is conceptual in the event additional parking is required to meet their tenant demands. As noted above, city records have documented that the former use of the building was no more than 10% office and 90% warehouse use. The table below illustrates the number of off-street parking spaces that would be required based on that ratio under current city code requirements. Land Use Parking Requirement Required Number of Stalls by Use Total Stalls Required at 10%/90% Number of Existing Stalls Current Parking Deficiency Business & Professional Office @ 10% or 11,356 sq. ft. 1 for each 250 sq. ft. of floor area 45.4 stalls 147.6 stalls 108 stalls -39.6 stalls Other Business and Industry at 90% warehouse or 102,209 sq. ft. 1 for each 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area 102.2 stalls As a nonconforming site, this ratio is an important factor when evaluating a future land use because any intensification of use or shift in floor area between land uses has the likelihood of increasing the deficiency of off-street parking for this site. The Applicant is proposing parking lot improvements that would bring the property closer to conformance with current code requirements for the number of spaces required. Additionally in review of the proposed parking, city code requires individual parking spaces to be at least nine (9) feet in width and eighteen (18) feet in length. The proposed parking spaces comply at nine (9) feet in width by twenty (20) feet in length. As part of this submittal, the Applicant did provide a parking study that was conducted from a Saltbox location in Texas. This location has 126 office and warehouse suites with a maximum tenant occupancy of 186 members. Saltbox has indicated that occupancy is monitored through the issuances of access passes. Their Texas site has a total of 85 parking spaces. Saltbox has provided a chart to show peak parking usage over a seven (7) day work week (Attachment D). The Applicant states that “at the peak parking periods only 22% of the parking spaces were utilized by small business tenants”. In comparison, the Arden Hills location would be for 214 office and warehouse suites with an estimated maximum occupancy of 398 members and 15 Saltbox employees. They anticipate a peak parking demand of 91 spaces (i.e. 22% utilization) and feel this site would be sufficient to meet their needs. During the concept review, Saltbox representatives indicated that their facilities operate between 60% to full capacity. The feedback of the City Council during the concept review was generally supportive of the Saltbox proposal. The Applicant identified a willingness to install the additional parking as a preemptive measure based on tenant occupancy Page 5 of 7 and future utilization. The Council felt the installation of the additional parking would be beneficial for this proposal. Planning staff will note that parking is not allowed on unimproved spaces and no on-street parking is permitted along Round Lake Road. 4. Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, and Lots - Section 1350 In evaluating nonconforming uses, buildings, and lots, the City shall refer to City Code Section 1350 which mirrors the regulations of State Statute 462.357 for determining what type(s) of activity (i.e. continuation, rebuild, maintenance, expansion, etc.) may or may not be allowed. Nonconformities are simply any land uses, structures or lots that do not comply with the current zoning ordinance of a City. Legal nonconformities are those uses, buildings, or lots that were legal when the zoning ordinance or amendment was adopted, in that they complied with then existing ordinance. The intent of these regulations is to allow a nonconforming use of land or building to be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion. From the information reviewed, the determination has been made that the proposed building use is a continuation of not more than 10% office and 90% warehouse. 1355.04 Procedural Requirements for Specific Applications Section 1355.04, Subd. 5 of the Arden Hills Zoning Code states that a public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review, but neighboring property owners shall be notified. Notification was prepared in accordance with City policy. Additional Review Public Works Director/City Engineer The Assistant Public Works Director has reviewed the proposed site plan and is not recommending any changes to the site circulation, stall spacing, or sizing of drive aisle widths. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: General Findings: 1. The Applicant has submitted an application for Site Plan Review to install striping for additional parking spaces at the subject property 4440 Round Lake Road W. 2. The Subject Property is located with the Gateway Business District and is guided as Light Industrial & Office on the 2040 Land Use Plan. 3. The Subject Property was developed prior to the City’s creation of the Gateway Business District and is considered to be legal nonconforming. 4. The Applicant intends to continue the utilization of the existing 113,565 square foot building for office and warehouse purposes in a manner consistent with the nonconforming regulations. 5. The Applicant will be reconfiguring the parking lot layout within the boundaries of the existing parking lot. Page 6 of 7 6. The proposed plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 7. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 8. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 9. The proposed plan is not anticipated to have any impact on traffic or parking conditions. 10. A public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review. Proposed Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22- 007 for Site Plan Review at 4440 Round Lake Road W., based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the May 4, 2022, Report to the Planning Commission: 1) That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2) The proposed parking stalls and drive aisles shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 3) A building permit shall be obtained prior to installation for the parking spaces identified as “Proof of Parking”. Future installation of Proof of Parking area can be processed administratively through the Planning Department as part of the Site Plan approval if completed in accordance with the plans submitted under this review. 4) Saltbox shall be required to maintain a listing of building tenants and provide said listing to the City upon request as needed for verification of occupancy in satisfaction of nonconforming uses. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22- 007 for a Site Plan Review at 4440 Round Lake Road W., based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the May 4, 2022 Report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 22-007 Site Plan Review at 4440 Round Lake Road W., based on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial. 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 22-007 for Site Plan Review at 4440 Round Lake Road W.: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Notice and Comments Staff published a notice in the Pioneer Press as per City procedure. Public notices were mailed out on April 22, 2022. The mailing was sent to neighbors within 500 feet of the subject parcel. No comments have been received regarding this application as of April 27, 2022. Page 7 of 7 Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 1, 2022. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by May 30, 2022 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. With consent of the applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Applicant Narrative D. Site Plans E. Parking Study Page 1 of 3 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Telephone (651) 792-7800 Fax (651) 634-5137 www.cityofardenhills.org For Office Use Only Planning Case No. 22- Submittal Date Application Completed Date Accepted by Receipt Number Council Decision Council Decision Date 2022 LAND USE APPLICATION Applicant Information Applicant: Address: Telephone No.: Other: Fax No.: Email Address: Property Information Property Owner: Owner Address: Owner Telephone No. Other: Address of Property Involved: Legal Description: Property ID No.: Type of Use: Zone: Property Acreage: Type of Request Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Fee: $550 + Escrow: $2,500) Conditional Use or Interim Use Permit/CUP or IUP Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500) Preliminary Plat (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $2,500) Final Plat (Fee: $450 + Escrow: $1,000) Concept Plan Review (Fee: $300 + Escrow: $750)Master Planned Unit Development or Master Special Development Plan (Fee: $600 + Escrow: $2,500) Final Planned Unit Development or Final Special Development Plan (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $2,000) Planned Unit Development Amendment or Special Development Plan Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500)  Site Plan Review (Fee: $450 + Escrow: $1,500) Rezoning or TCAAP Regulating Plan Amendment (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $1,500) Zoning Code or TCAAP Redevelopment Code Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500) City Code Amendment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,500) Lot Split/Minor Subdivision (R-1 and R-2 Districts Only) (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,500) Variance or Permitted Adjustment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000) Vacation of Easement or Right-of-Way (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000) Appeal of Administrative Decision (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000) Land Use Requests – Not Already Specified (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000  4400 West Round Lake Road, Arden Hills, MN 55112 PID# 213023230001 Warehouse and shipping facility. Gateway Business District 7.838 Gregory D. Lee on behalf of Baker Hostetler LLP 200 S Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 407-649-4000 glee@bakerlaw.com WC Arden Hills LLC, C/O Watchung Capital LP 412 W 15th Street, 16th Floor, New York NY 10011 (202) 288-3991  Page 2 of 3 Brief Description of Request (please also include a typed, detailed letter explaining the project): Filing & Information Requirements The City requests that you make a pre-application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the property is required for all applications. A checklist with additional application requirements can be found at www.cityofardenhills.org/landuseapplications. Complete/Incomplete Applications Under Minnesota Statute, Chapter 15.99, cities have 15 business days to review all plans and application materials to ensure they satisfy City requirements. During the 15 day review period, planning staff will provide written comments on the application and may request plan revisions. If the application is determined to be complete, Minnesota State Statute then requires the City to approve or deny the application within 60 days, up to 120 days. If not complete, the City may require plan revisions and/or additional information before the application is scheduled for Planning Commission review and/or C ity Council action. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the City Planner. Payment of Fees and Escrows The undersigned acknowledges that she/he understands that before a land use application can be deemed complete, all required fees and escrows must be paid to the City. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Each separate land use request shall be charged a separate administrative fee and escrow even if submitted on the same application. Costs expended in reviewing and processing an application will be charged against the cash escrow and credited to the City. Charges to the escrow may include planning and engineering staff time, City Attorney and consulting fees, and mailing costs. If, at any time, a required cash escrow is depleted to less than 20 percent of its original amount, the applicant shall deposit additional funds in the cash escrow account as determined by the City. The City may withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and/or rescind prior action until all fees have been paid. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. The escrow may be reduced or increased by the City Planner on a project by project basis. Notice of Meeting Attendance In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. *IMPORTANT* Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Waters hed District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-398-3070 for additional information. The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permit fees that may be required upon approval of a land use application. All applications will be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of consultant costs associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of application in the form of an escrow to the City. Revise site plan to reflect an additional 36 parking spaces (to bring total current parking up to 145 spaces) and illustrate where an additional potential 20 parking spaces can be added in the future if needed. This submittal is consistent with the feedback and direction received during Concept Review with the City on March 21 during the City Council Workshop. Page 3 of 3 Meeting Schedule Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday of each month at 6:30 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. The schedules below are for reference purposes only. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the City Planner. 2022 Planning Commission and City Council Schedule (*subject to change) TENTATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday at 6:30 p.m.) TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the fourth Monday at 7:00 p.m.) DEADLINE FOR LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMISSION (1st day of the preceding month) January 5 January 24 December 1 (2021) February 9 February 28 January 3 March 9 March 28 February 1 April 6 April 25 March 1 May 4 May 23 April 1 June 8 June 27 May 2 July 6 July 25 June 1 August 3 August 22 July 1 September 7 September 26 August 1 October 5 October 24 September 1 November 9 November 28 October 3 December 7 January 9 (2023) November 1 January 4 (2023) January 23 (2023) December 1 Acknowledgement and Signature I hereby apply for the above consideration and declare that the information and materials submitted with this application are complete and accurate per city code and ordinance requirements . I fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. __________________________________________________ ________________ Property Owner Signature (Required) Date ________________________________________________ ________________ Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date Please contact the City Planner at 651-792-7800 if you have any questions regarding this application. Additional copies of this application form are available on the City’s website: www.cityofardenhills.org/landuseapplications 4/4/2022 3/1/2022 Location Map Tax Parcels _Query result Personal Property Tax Parcels Cities County Offices 4/26/2022, 12:16:37 PM 0 0.15 0.30.07 mi 0 0.25 0.50.13 km 1:8,000 Ramsey County Ramsey County MN 4/26/2022 1 Saltbox – Site Plan Review City of Arden Hills PRESENTATION What is Saltbox? Saltbox offers modern warehouse spaces primarily for digital commerce companies. Saltbox provides essential operations and logistics infrastructure to these entrepreneurs, allowing them to start, grow, and scale their businesses. Saltbox offers warehouse and office suites, on- demand operations specialists, order fulfillment, and daily pickups from preferred carriers. 4/26/2022 2 Intention for the Property Saltbox intends to fit out modern shared warehouse space to provide its members the ability to operate in one central location with enterprise logistics capabilities. Saltbox will offer members of this location a turnkey private warehouse suite equipped with power, HVAC, and Wi-Fi, as well as loading docks, conference rooms, and co-working / common areas. Daily pickups from preferred carriers and on-demand operations specialists are included as part of the offering. 4/26/2022 3 City Council Workshop March 21, 2022 •Concept Review Feedback Regarding Site Plan –107 existing parking spaces –Adding 36 parking spaces (for a total of 145 parking spaces) –Identifying an area on site where Saltbox can add 20 additional potential future parking spaces if needed Intention for the Property – Site Plan The Saltbox business plan requires primarily interior fit-out work (modular walls of warehouse suites, bathroom refurbishment, furnishings, décor, etc. The building is otherwise well laid out and appointed for Saltbox’s intended use. 4/26/2022 4 Parking Analysis Contact Info: Saltbox: Maxwell Bonnie 1720 Peachtree Road NE Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30309 646-334-1182 maxwell@saltbox.com Baker Hostetler: Gregory D. Lee 200 South Orange Avenue Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 407-649-4096 glee@bakerlaw.com _.SCALE: 1 INCH = 50 FEET L.oJ21.85 Ru-1080.4-7 o.11o�11°04'1J" ..-.; -50 0 ��; I I· I 50 100 150 / \ \ I � iH ' � i I " lis \1 0 ' '" I � l1• � & l � N ! � g Ji� �? bl� ,.- F-=-:,.,,•-----�-� '°'"'"'"'"""I\ � il, � ! I Ci / � : i �✓ CB CATCH BASIN O DRAIN ET ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER GM GAS MAETER !�l��ANT I.\H MAN HOL£ R RECORD DIMENSION SIGN TP TELEPHONE PEDESTAL TVP TELEVISION PEDESTAL IRON MONUMENT -FOUND IRON MONUMENT -SET @ SCHEDULE 8 ITEM LEGEND --ELEG�-ELECTRIC (UNDERGROUND) --ces �-GAS MAIN --SA, --SANITARY SEWER --SD �-STORM SEWER --TEL�-TELEPHONE (UNDERGROUND) --',/AT--WATER l.4AIN CURB _, -, -• -FENCE WALL 0,. HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE ALT A/ACSM Land Title Survey t 15. Tho fotlo,.ing <eoi\ol "l'P•a"' on the CerUfoool • of litlo ond wnl bo GOrri� fotW<ird \0 anyn""' CerUficale of Title: "Subj<:<:! to on oasement 130 feet in width for electric tronsmlnlon line purpose In f11.-o, cl Northern States Power Compor,y, to.gelher with tho incidental rights eonnooted therewith, 0$ .. t forth ,n the instrument recorded in Ek>ol< 2434 ol Ram.,,y County Reeords, f�:'11:::�:�t ��::r 1�; ;:,,;�h2i� J:,.�i;� i:,,:�1��r t��; :�n!�h!""'s:i�"r:l1n�0�1"'.:� Nortt,,o..tOuorter,a dlstance of 990feol theoctuol pO!nt olb•glnnlng olthe llne hereln deooMDod; �ho•�=n�;;':lin�·01:0��: :,�:h� 1J�,t� :;.i;;:i�:1�, �'�j!i1�.,;. !r�1"86 �1.t\6t..�.:�:\!"t'h:�:1.n�. i��t��t�! �hoert�lgl��.1�1 d.��•-::o��w;��u6��r\�r�1��t:0n�e0\i12o� i!!!'. E��•;<;;i �:.rt�':��t t�o�er of ,a1d NOJih "os\Quorter ond there \erminoling."Plottod on survey. NOTES �: E�1�r��?fi�r:�:�:1d��•�:}:�i:�r41�:��:':.::e� 0;,�g1 !i:·· 4-. �\�1;\� ��p!:fe':' a�:• 0;:k:Q:::/��"':,p;",!,f��l��o:�1/'°t�;�:YSt'::�o�• �al�,;!��;�0002) rnus\ b� oont<>e\od fer field locations prior lo ony oxco'l<lUon 5. �•i7:'a��d1,�1�t�� :��-•�:;ib :�por plans prO'A<led by \ho City of Arden 6. G<apl,or S\<>\o Ono Coll woo contacted, Ticke\ No. 405-48471, lo locate utilities. Howov.r, not oil utll,\I..,. wor�loooted 7,ThoFIRt.!FLOOOINSURANCERATEMAFfor the CltyolN<len liillo. Ramooy County, Minnesota, C<>mmunlty Panel No. 270375 0002 B efleclive clot• 7 /2/1Ql!1 ohown tho pro�y to be in Z()t,jE C, on oreo of minimal floO<lin�. 8.Tho,ile is,oru,dGB-GolewoyBuoin .. sOistricl. Minimum �uilding Sotbock,o; [£'_-�ri�r 9. El�FJ:�i�l��n�eg�t�.;:/��•tod pl<lin lnfo,mo\lon ao p..-the City of 10. ll•m• cerlified to are limited to tl\ose ltoms which Oro sl>ible or m<>de known \o ,,. �:�]:��:1�F��;�1��i�;{J��1�h��;�1o:ior ��!��::9.��;nt• was mode by the """'")'>r as part ol thi• """"'Y· 12. There ore 108 regu1or porl<ing "!>OCOB ond 1 hond,ooppod parking spoee for th� oi\o n. 01:;;1;';�� ; r'!:.'t""!�;;,�,jence of oorth ma.Ing ""'"-bulldin� con,truct,on "' building 14 •• 1::;c:ceot�e!;t��;,'i ��.:::�/ :.,;��:�: i;1�!�a'l:;'t';.�': 1":: f��pi�."!;r.ob-1 • 15. The,e Is no ob,..rvoble ovideneo of site u,. a• o •otid waote dump, sump "'son�ary londfill LEGAL DESCRIPTION SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION I herobyc.rt1fy lo CSM Equltles, LL.C., Eoi'io Shores LLC, 8r<J!lC!1 Pevolopmont LLC, Four SonaEnt..-prisea LLC<lndFhl Americon Tltleln,uronc;iCc,mpany<l<'ld U,olr ,_.ct/w heirs, succ .. •=ond oooigns, 11,a\l howpo,sonollyinapocted ond �o'S��{i��J;��to/:i::i��:�� p;;�::1% t:� !�0tr:!Cl: �f�:;; ��::::��:f'.!:IY01th1�� (�0��t:ntd O� •r�•�i�:, �:�u;...�o��:�.::':.�'.:: ��wing ond bounda<io• \ho«of; (b) thot the street o.dolroouo, location• ond dimonolono of oll bulding,, ""d tho loco\iono and dimensions of oll parl<ing oreo,, of any other mp,"""ments upon tho Prope,ty, ol oll f""c•• and/o,-retaining ,rolls thereon, of oll recordedCl!ld/or vlolble oooemonto,reslrictions ondCQ""nonts(ondtheoome ore rofarenced to the oppropricte racorded document number or othor applicable recording infom,ollon), os elted In tho tlUe commitment of oil streets, rood,, rights-of�oy, and moon• of public ond/or prlvoto aoce .. which otfoct. ben.ofit, b.Jrdon or ore odj<)o•nl to tho Propor\y, of<lll ditches, septic systems, drain field•, ullllly lines and/or systems (from eoch buiding or other locotlon on the Property to tl\oir point of connoctioo witt, the pu�ic o:;,\<lmo) ,.t,ich affect, bonot,t, or burdon tho Property, Md ot oll building ootb<lck lines and/a, other sotbock lineo which offoct tho Property, ores. e,oopt oo sho•n hereon; (d) !hot thoro ore no fence,, ro\oioing wols, llghlpoot• or other improwmonls appur\enont to the PropertywOloh ore located wl\hin \he boundoty linoo of .odj,ining pr0porliff,OXOopt<lS'11'1own herO(Jn: (o)_that_ti1eProporty1s not loe!llod ,n any fiood ploin under ""Y stoto or fodorol lo�. ,nolud,ng .,;thoul llmi\otion, o"apoclol floodhoza,dor••"(100YoorFl<>0dPloin],or in on ldonllfl&d"!o<>d prono oreo•, os defined by the U.S. Deportment of Hou,ing ond Urbon Development, purauont to the Flood o..,s\er Pre ... tion Act of 1973, •� amended, oo reflected by Flood lnsu,-.,,..ce Rote MopPonele270J75 00028,doted 7/z/19B!.whkh mop pMo'co-• tho oroo In wl>,ch th• Ptopert� lo loootod, except a• shown on tho """"'Y. (I] thot !Ms plot of""'� ond the survey on whleh it is bosed wen, moOo lr, OCC<lrdonoo "ilh "t.un;mum S\ond0td Detail Requ�oments for N.TA/ACSt.! l..Md li11e Surve)IO•, os joinUy es(obllsliod ano adopted by N.TA ond ACSM in Hiil9, me�\s tho current o<:euracy slandordo joint,y odopt,,d by Al.TA and ACSt.! /or on ALTA/ACSI.I Urban Lond TIiie s,,,.,.y, oo defood thoren, ond C<ln\oin$ il.,ms 1 through 4. 6 lhrou9h 11 ond 14 through 16 incluslve of Toblo A of \t,e 1999 Mlnffium S\ondord Oeloll �equlremen\s lor ALTA/ACSI.ILondTitle Surveys MBTOCK 1446 COUNT,' ROAD J AVIS INC. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55432 I PHONE: 78J-784-9346 FAX: 763-784-9395 CONSUL TING ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS BOOK 42M FILE NO. 20-2-2046D9 R O U N D L A K E R O A D W E S T23 21 20 HCHC 744 2320 20'-0"20'-0" BUILDING AND PARKING SET BACK LINE 20'-0" BUILDING AND PARKING SET BACK LINE20'-0"50'-0" 50'-0" BUILDING AND PARKING SET BACK LINE 50'-0" BUILDING AND PARKING SET BACK LINE 50'-0"20'-0"20'-0" BUILDING SET BACK LINE 20'-0"20'-0" BUILDING SET BACK LINE 20'-0" 10'-0" BUILDING SET BACK LINE10'-0" 20'-0" PARKING SET BACK LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING ONE STORY BUILDING 113,387 GSF OVERALL ORIGINAL BUILDING 1980 BUILDING ADDITION 1990 ZONING DISTRICT: GATEWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE SUBJECT PROPERTY: GROSS AREA 358,036 SF (8.219 ACRES) SUBJECT PROPERTY: NET AREA 341,529 SF (7.840 ACRES) TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 113,387 GSF EXISTING PARKING: 107 STALLS EXISTING DOCKS: 15 ACTIVE / 3 NON-ACTIVE EXISTING DRIVE-IN: 2 ACTIVE SITE INFORMATION PARKING REQUIREMENT SUMMARY: BUILDING GSF: 113,587 GSF BUILDING NSF: 111,545 NSF OFFICE: 7,909 SF 07% WHSE: 103,636 SF 13% PARKING REQUIREMENTS: OFFICE USE: (1) SPACE / 250 SF (7,909 / 250) = 32 STALLS INDUSTRY USE: (1) SPACE / 1,000 SF (103,636 / 1,000) = 104 STALLS MULTIPLE OCC: (1) SPACE PER USE ( 2 SPACES REQUIRED) TOTAL PARKING STALLS REQUIRED: (138 STALLS) EXISTING PARKING STALLS ON SITE: (107 STALLS PER SURVEY) PROOF OF PARKING VIA NEW STRIPING: 31 STALLS PARKING CALCULATIONS: ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 1 AS-1.0 PLAN NORTH ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN DWS DFS AS-1.0Genesis Architecture, LLC. 1600 Utica Avenue S., Suite 300 St. Louis Park, MN Ph. 952.897.7700 Project:Drawing Title: Drawing No. Drawn By: Job: Checked By: 2022.039.0 Client: NOTICE: The designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, details, development, graphics and models, thereof, are the exclusive property of Genesis Architecture, LLC and can not be copied, duplicated, or reproduced, in whole or in part, nor can any derivative work be made unless expressly authorized by Genesis Architecture, LLC. Copyright 2021 Genesis Architecture, LLC ConsultantCertification: Issue / Revision Date Issue / Revision Date SALTBOX 4400 WEST ROUND LAKE ROAD ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112 SALTBOX X X NOT FO R CONST R U C T I O N ISSUE FOR CITY CONCEPT REVIEW 03-07-2022 Existing Site Layout R O U N D L A K E R O A D W E S T 18'-0"20'-0"24'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"36 PARKING STALLSADDED VIA STRIPING3'-4"FCEXISTING PARKINGEXISTING PARKINGEXISTINGPARKINGEXISTING DOCKS20 ADDITIONAL PROOFOF PARKING STALLSSHOWN DASHED24'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"9'-0"9'-0"33'-7"232120HCHC4232020'-0"20'-0" BUILDINGAND PARKINGSET BACK LINE20'-0" BUILDINGAND PARKINGSET BACK LINE20'-0"50'-0"50'-0" BUILDINGAND PARKINGSET BACK LINE50'-0" BUILDINGAND PARKINGSET BACK LINE50'-0"20'-0"20'-0" BUILDINGSET BACK LINE20'-0"20'-0" BUILDINGSET BACK LINE20'-0"10'-0" BUILDINGSET BACK LINE10'-0"20'-0" PARKINGSET BACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEORIGINALBUILDING1980BUILDINGADDITION1990ZONING DISTRICT: GATEWAY BUSINESS DISTRICTLEGAL NON-CONFORMING USESUBJECT PROPERTY: GROSS AREA 358,036 SF (8.219 ACRES)SUBJECT PROPERTY: NET AREA 341,529 SF (7.840 ACRES)TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 113,387 GSFEXISTING PARKING: 107 STALLS (INCLUDES 4 HC STALLS)EXISTING DOCKS: 15 ACTIVE / 3 NON-ACTIVEEXISTING DRIVE-IN: 2 ACTIVESITE INFORMATIONPARKING REQUIREMENT SUMMARY:BUILDING GSF: 113,587 GSFBUILDING NSF: 111,545 NSFOFFICE: 7,909 SF 07%WHSE: 103,636 SF 93%PARKING REQUIREMENTS:OFFICE USE: (1) SPACE / 250 SF (7,909 / 250) = 32 STALLSINDUSTRY USE: (1) SPACE / 1,000 SF (103,636 / 1,000) = 104 STALLSMULTIPLE OCC: (1) SPACE PER USE 2 SPACES REQUIREDTOTAL PARKING STALLS REQUIRED: 138 STALLSEXISTING PARKING STALLS ON SITE: 107 STALLS PER SURVEYADDITIONAL PARKING VIA STRIPING: 36 STALLSTOTAL PARKING STALLS PROVIDED: 143 STALLSADDITIONAL PROOF OF PARKING: 20 STALLSTOTAL PROOF OF PARKING:163 STALLSPARKING CALCULATIONS:EXISTINGRETAINING WALL5'-0" 5'-0"EXISTINGWALKWAYEXISTING EXIT /EGRESS WALKWAYTO BE MAINTAINED321HCHCARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANSCALE: 1" = 30'-0"1AS-1.0PLANNORTHISSUE FOR CONCEPT REVIEW 03-15-2022Drawn By:Job:Checked By:Issue / RevisionDateProject:The drawings and / or specifications containedherein are the exclusive property of GenesisArchitecture and shall not be utilized or copied byother parties without prior written consent.Genesis Architecture1600 Utica Avenue South, Suite 300St. Louis Park, MN 55416Date:Reg. No. xxxxxXXXI hereby certify that this plan, specification, orreport was prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly licensed architectunder the laws of the state of Minnesota.XX-XX-XXXXSaltbox4400 Round Lake Road W.Arden Hills, MN 55112DWSXXX2022.039.0Sheet:Copyright 2021 Genesis ArchitectureP R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O NARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANAS-1.0ISSUE FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 04-01-2022Site Plan Review Proposed Layout Saltbox Parking Analysis (March 2022) Subject Property: Saltbox Farmers Branch (4653 Nall Rd., Farmers Branch, TX 75244) Building Information: ● Total building size - approximately 66,000 square feet, consisting of 101 warehouse suites and 15 rentable offices ● Maximum member occupancy - 186 member access passes ● Saltbox employees - typically 12 on site during normal business hours ● Parking spaces - 85 Parking Analysis Methodology: ● Parking utilization monitored over the entire month of February 2022. ● Parking monitored through review of multiple on-site security cameras. Results: Conclusions: ● Even at its peak, parking utilization at Saltbox Farmers Branch equals only 22% of the total access passes plus Saltbox employees. ● The Arden Hills property has a conservative estimate of 398 potential members and 15 Saltbox employees on site at any given time. Accordingly, the anticipated peak parking need is 91 spots, with most utilization significantly below that. ● Given this data, the existing 107 spots should be more than sufficient for our needs.