Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-08-2017 PCAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 8, 2017 Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02 -08 -17PC.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 17 -003 - Subdivision Code Amendment - Public Use Dedications (Section 1130.08, Subd.3) MEMO.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS Planning Case 17 -006 - Higher Education Moratorium Study MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council 03 -08 -17 - REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF Planning Commission Comments STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair: Roberta Thompson Commissioners: Brent Bartel Angela Hames Phillip Neururer Clayton Zimmerman Steven Jones James Lambeth Nick Gehrig (Alternate) Council Liaison: Fran Holmes Planning Commission March 8, 2017 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. Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 2.A. Documents: 3. 3.A. Documents: 4. 4.A. Documents: 5. 5.A. Documents: 5.B. 5.C. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESFebruary 8, 2017 Planning Commission Regular Meeting02-08 -17PC.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 17 -003 - Subdivision Code Amendment - Public Use Dedications (Section 1130.08, Subd.3) MEMO.PDFUNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS Planning Case 17 -006 - Higher Education Moratorium Study MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council 03 -08 -17 - REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF Planning Commission Comments STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair:Roberta ThompsonCommissioners:Brent BartelAngela Hames Phillip NeururerClayton ZimmermanSteven JonesJames LambethNick Gehrig (Alternate)Council Liaison:Fran Holmes Planning CommissionMarch 8, 2017 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 desirable City in which to live, work, and play. AgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.2.A.Documents:3.3.A.Documents:4. 4.A. Documents: 5. 5.A. Documents: 5.B. 5.C. Approved: March 8, 2017 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2017 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Roberta Thompson called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Roberta Thompson, Commissioners Angela Hames, Steven Jones, James Lambeth, and Phillip Neururer. Absent: Commissioners Brent Bartel (excused), Nick Gehrig (excused), and Clayton Zimmerman (excused) Also present were: Senior Planner Matthew Bachler, City Clerk Julie Hanson, Hannah Rybak, WSB, and Councilmember Fran Holmes. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – FEBRUARY 8, 2017 Chair Thompson stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 7, 2016 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Jones moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambeth, to approve the December 7, 2016, Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). APPOINTMENTS Senior Planner Bachler stated Roberta Thompson, Angela Hames, and Steven Jones are currently serving on the Planning Commission as Commissioners. Their terms expired December 31, 2016. During the Regular City Council meeting on January 9, 2017, the Council unanimously approved Resolution 2017-002 to reappoint Roberta Thompson, Angela Hames, and Steven Jones to the Planning Commission. Their current term will expire December 31, 2019. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 8, 2017 2 City Clerk Hanson administered the Oath of Office to Planning Commission members Roberta Thompson, Angela Hames and Steven Jones. PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 17-002; Boston Scientific – Site Plan Review – 4100 Hamline Avenue North Senior Planner Bachler stated Boston Scientific has requested a Site Plan Review to construct a new parking and drop-off area to the east of the existing Building 10, between Innovation Way and the building. The new parking area will provide short-term parking and curbside drop-off for the daycare facility located in Building 10, and will help address existing safety concerns associated with parents dropping off children for daycare. Senior Planner Bachler reported the project will include the construction of 7 parking stalls and 3 curbside drop-off spaces, along with two associated driveways and sidewalks. Additional landscaping and exterior lighting will also be installed for the new parking area and sidewalks. Site Data Land Use Plan: Light Industrial and Office Existing Land Use: Light Industrial and Office Zoning: I-1: Limited Industrial/PUD Overlay Current Lot Size: Lot 1 – 77.41 Acres Proposed Density: N/A Topography: Level Senior Planner Bachler reviewed the surrounding area and the Plan Evaluation. Senior Planner Bachler provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The applicant has requested approval of a Site Plan Review in order to construct a new parking and drop-off area for the daycare facility located in Building 10 on the Boston Scientific campus at 4100 Hamline Avenue North. 2. A Site Plan Review is required by the City’s Zoning Code for the reorganization of parking, drives, and entrances within any industrial district. 3. The Boston Scientific campus is a conforming use in the I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District and operates under an approved PUD Overlay District. 4. The parking area would include seven parking stalls and three curbside drop-off spaces, along with two associated driveways and sidewalks. 5. The proposal is conformance with the landscape lot area requirements for properties in the I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District as required by Section 1320.06 of the Zoning Code. 6. The proposal is in conformance with the off-public street parking requirements included in Section 1325.06, Subd. 1 of the Zoning Code. 7. The proposal is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood or the City as a whole. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 8, 2017 3 Senior Planner Bachler stated based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 17-002 for a Site Plan Review for a new parking and drop-off area for the daycare facility located in Building 10 on the Boston Scientific campus at 4100 Hamline Avenue North. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request, staff recommends that the following three conditions be included with the approval: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. 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. That the applicant shall continue to abide by all previous agreements, as amended by the conditions of approval of this application. 3. Exterior lighting shall conform to the design standards included in Section 1325.05, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Code. Senior Planner Bachler 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 Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lambeth asked if the project would require any demolition. Senior Planner Bachler described the work that would be completed. He reported no structures would be demolished for the parking area. Chair Thompson questioned if the exterior lighting would be updated. Senior Planner Bachler stated new lighting would be added for the parking area. Staff will review the lighting for conformance with the Zoning Code when the applicant applies for permits. Chair Thompson stated that it will be important for the parking area to be well lit for safety reasons. She requested that additional information on the exterior lighting be provided for the City Council’s review of this case. Commissioner Hames moved and Commissioner Lambeth seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 17-002 for a Site Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the three (3) conditions in the February 8, 2017, Report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. Planning Case 17-003; Subdivision Code Amendment – Public Use Dedications (Section 1130.08, Subd. 3) ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 8, 2017 4 Senior Planner Bachler explained this application was not complete in time to include on the February 8, 2017 Planning Commission agenda. Staff requests that the Planning Commission table Planning Case 17-003 until such time that a full review can be completed. A motion to table to a future meeting is necessary because this item has already been noticed as a public hearing for this evening prior to it being pulled from the agenda. Commissioner Jones moved and Commissioner Lambeth seconded a motion to table action and continue the Public Hearing on Planning Case 17-003 to the March 8, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. 2016 Planning Commission Year-End Report Senior Planner Bachler provided the Planning Commission with a summary of the planning activities for 2016. He reviewed a list of the main accomplishments completed over the past year: • Reviewed and processed 32 planning cases that included 44 separate land use requests • Processed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, TCAAP Redevelopment Code, and TCAAP Regulating Plan related to the proposed Master Development Plan for the 427- acre former Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant site • City approved four City Code amendments, including amendments that addressed mobile residential homes and speed restrictions on Lake Johanna Chair Thompson commended staff for the great work completed in 2016. B. Draft 2017 Work Plan Senior Planner Bachler reviewed the draft 2017 work plan with the Commission. He explained the City Council will be asking the Planning Commission to join them for a joint Work Session later this spring to discuss the Work Plan for 2017. To assist in that discussion, staff would like the Planning Commission to provide input on topics that might be addressed at this meeting. While the Council will make the final determination as to the goals and priorities for the coming year, it will be useful for them to have input from the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Bachler explained the Planning Commission differs from the City’s other committees and commissions in that the purpose and scope of the Commission’s work is largely determined by State Statute. The majority of the Planning Commission work plan is dedicated to continuing the work of evaluating and providing recommendations on land use applications, zoning code amendments, and other planning related items that come before the City. He then reviewed the items the Planning Commission would be addressing in the coming year. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Cities in the seven-county metropolitan area are required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act to update their Comprehensive Plans every 10 years. These updates are required to ensure consistency with the regional system plan that is prepared by the Metropolitan Council. The City of Arden Hills will commence a full update of its Comprehensive Plan this year to ensure that a new 2040 Comprehensive Plan can be adopted by the end of 2018. During this process, the ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 8, 2017 5 Planning Commission will work with a consultant firm to be hired by the City on reviewing the current Comprehensive Plan and making updates as needed based on recent trends in physical development and current and projected demographic data. Higher Education Study The City Council adopted an Interim Ordinance in October 2016 temporarily prohibiting land use applications and reviews for higher education uses in residential business, industrial, and other zones. The moratorium can remain in effect for up to 12 months to prepare a study on the impacts and benefits of higher education land uses. The Planning Commission will work with a consultant firm to be hired by the City on completing this study by September 2017. The Planning Commission may be asked to make recommendations to the City Council on possible Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan amendments based on the report conclusions. Sign Code Over the last few years, the City has processed several applications requesting flexibility from regulations included in its Sign Code. The most common requests have been for additional wall or freestanding signage. In 2017, staff will work with the Planning Commission to complete a review of the existing Arden Hills Sign Code and how neighboring communities regulate signage. The Planning Commission will be asked to make recommendations to the City Council on possible updates to the Sign Code. Chair Thompson was pleased the City would be completing a higher education study. Commissioner Jones stated he was interested in attending the GTS training being offered in 2017. Senior Planner Bachler commented that when he receives information on training opportunities he would forward this information on to the Planning Commission members. Councilmember Holmes recommended the Planning Commission review the B-2 zoning district design standards in the coming year. Chair Thompson agreed it would benefit the City for the Planning Commission to review the B- 2 District design standards and recommended this item be placed on the Commission’s work plan for 2017. Commissioner Hames and Commissioner Jones supported this recommendation. Commissioner Hames questioned if staff was aware of any development projects that would be proposed in the near-term in the B-2 District. Senior Planner Bachler stated that there were not any pending applications at this time. He reported he would add the review of the B-2 District design standards to the draft 2017 Work Plan. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 8, 2017 6 C. Planning Case 17-004 – Sign Code Review Hannah Rybak, WSB, explained the Planning Commission’s work plan for 2015 included completing a review and update of the City’s Sign Code. Staff began work on this item last fall, with the first task being a review of planning cases from the previous five years that included a request to deviate from the Sign Code. The purpose of this review was to identify areas of the Sign Code that may not be consistent with what businesses currently need for signage. The City has approved 15 planning cases since 2012 that included the following breakdown of specific requests: • Greater area for wall sign: 7 cases • Greater area for freestanding sign: 4 cases • Greater height for freestanding sign: 2 cases • Longer display period for temporary sign: 3 cases • Greater area for temporary sign: 4 cases • Electronic sign: 1 case • Projecting sign: 1 case Ms. Rybak reported staff compared the sign ordnances of the cities of Roseville, New Brighton, Shoreview and Mounds View to the current Arden Hills sign ordinance based on the most common types of deviations requested. The sign regulations included in the TCAAP Redevelopment Codes were also reviewed. The purpose of this comparison was to identify sections of the Sign Code that are or are not consistent with neighboring communities. Ms. Rybak explained currently, the sign ordinance allows a set square footage of wall signage based on the sign district the property is located in. This can be problematic, as it does not account for different sized buildings within the same district. Mounds View is the only other city in the study that regulates wall signage in this manner. The other cities regulate the amount of wall signage permitted based on a percentage of the building square footage or façade area. This allows for signage that fits individual buildings best, rather than a one size fits all approach. The TCAAP Redevelopment Code uses a combination of both, allowing either a set square footage or percent of the façade area, whichever is less. Ms. Rybak reported a monument sign is a type of freestanding sign where the sign face is mounted on the ground or a base rather than a pole. Sign Districts 4 and 5 only allow monument signs for freestanding signs. For all districts, freestanding signs are allowed a set square footage and height based on the sign district the property is located in. While none of the other cities limit the style of freestanding signs to individual districts, Roseville, New Brighton and Mounds View all regulate them in the same manner as Arden Hills; a set square footage based on sign district. Shoreview allows a set square footage based on the gross floor area of the principal structure. The TCAAP Redevelopment Code allows a set square footage for “Highway Monument Signs” and a percentage of the street frontage for “Corridor Monument Signs.” Ms. Rybak stated currently, the Sign Code does not allow any electronic or dynamic display signs. All four cities that were reviewed allow for some type of dynamic display signs. They are regulated as follows: • Roseville: Must be static and remain for a minimum duration of 25 seconds. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 8, 2017 7 • New Brighton: No animation or video is permitted and a minimum duration of 8 seconds. • Shoreview: No animation or video is permitted and a minimum duration of 8 seconds. • Mounds View: Must be static and remain for a minimum duration of 8 seconds. • TCAAP Redevelopment Code: Allowed only on “Marquee Signs.” A Marquee Sign is located at a theatre or other public venue and displays the name of the establishment or event details. Message board may be changeable copy provided that the copy does not change more than once every 15 minutes. Ms. Rybak commented the Sign Code defines a projecting sign as a sign, other than a wall sign, that projects more than 18 inches from the building façade. These types of signs are not permitted in Arden Hills, New Brighton, or Shoreview. Roseville regulates them as a wall sign, and they may only project up to 30 inches from the building façade. Mounds View allows them with a set square footage by zoning district. The TCAAP Redevelopment Code allows the lesser of a set square footage or 15% of the façade area. They may project no more than 50% of the width of the sidewalk, or six feet from the building façade line, whichever is less. Ms. Rybak explained for temporary signs, Arden Hills allows up to half of the area allowed for permanent wall or freestanding signage to be displayed on three occasions throughout the year, with a maximum of 10 days each time. Businesses may also combine the three occasions to display a temporary sign for one 30-day period per year. Other cities’ regulations are as follows: • Roseville: Allows a maximum of 32 square feet up to 60 days in one year. • New Brighton: Allows up to 32 square feet on four occasions, up to 14 days each. • Shoreview: Allows either 32 or 64 square feet (depending on building size) on four occasions, up to 14 days each. • Mounds View: Allows temporary signage on four occasions, with a maximum of 21 days each. Can obtain a fifth permit for a banner only. • TCAAP Redevelopment Code: Maximum area of 150 square feet or 10% of the façade area, whichever is less. Maximum of thirty days per calendar year. Ms. Rybak stated based on the direction provided by the Planning Commission, staff will complete additional research on possible revisions to the Sign Code. Staff will bring this item back to the Planning Commission for further discussion and review recommendations with the City Council before a public hearing is scheduled for any changes to the Sign Code. Chair Thompson stated she was interested in learning more about dynamic display signs. She indicated she was not necessarily against dynamic display signs if they were well designed and not distracting. Commissioner Hames explained the restrictions on dynamic display signs in the Sign Code were brought about due to electronic billboards that were being introduced in the Twin Cities several years ago. She encouraged the City to differentiate between these large signs and the smaller scale dynamic display signs. She recommended the City not have two separate Sign Codes, one for TCAAP and one for the remainder of the City. She suggested the Sign Code be consistent for all areas of the City. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 8, 2017 8 Commissioner Jones believed dynamic display signs could be designed to be iconic features and should be considered within the Sign Code. Commissioner Hames recommended wall signage shift to a percentage of wall surface area, similar to the language within the TCAAP Redevelopment Code. Commissioner Jones was supportive of permitting projecting signs consistent with what is allowed in the TCAAP Redevelopment Code. Commissioner Jones recommended that the City evaluate its regulations on temporary signage to address items such as inflatable mascots and temporary firework sales tents. Commissioner Jones suggested that corporate campuses with highway frontage, such as Land O’Lakes, should be allowed to have larger freestanding signs. Commissioner Lambeth asked how the City defined portable signs. Senior Planner Bachler described how the City defined portable signs. He thanked the Commission for their feedback and summarized based on the comments received, there was support to revise the Sign Code. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Holmes updated the Planning Commission on activities from the December 12, 2016 City Council Regular Meeting, noting the City Council approved the TCAAP Comprehensive Plan Amendment, TCAAP Regulating Plan Amendment, and TCAAP Redevelopment Code Amendment in Planning Case 16-025. The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and regulatory documents were requested by the TCAAP Master Developer in order to facilitate their redevelopment plans for the property. The Planning Commission recommended approval (5-0) of this case at their meeting on December 7, 2016. Councilmember Holmes reported the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Master Developer regarding park improvements on TCAAP. The MOU addresses the amenities to be provided in the Creek, Hill, and Town Center parks, and requires the Master Developer to coordinate the design of the parks with the City, subject to City Council final approval. In addition, the City Council approved an Option Agreement with the Master Developer that would allow the City to purchase the 1.6-acre Civic zoned property on the TCAAP site. The Option Agreement provides the City up to seven years to acquire the site with the timeframe beginning once the JDA approves the Master Development Agreement (MDA) with the Master Developer. The sales terms will depend on when the City is ready to move forward with construction. The City has an incentive to move quickly on developing a plan for the property as an earlier sale will result in better terms for the City. Councilmember Holmes noted at the January 13, 2017 City Council Work Session, Roberts Management Group presented a Concept Plan Review for proposed modifications to the Lexington Station Master PUD at the southwest corner of Lexington Avenue and Red Fox Road. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 8, 2017 9 The proposed changes would decrease the overall amount of density within the development and increase the number of surface parking stalls. Roberts Management is expecting to submit a formal PUD Amendment application and a Final PUD application for Phase 2 in spring 2017. The application would be subject to the full review process, including a public hearing with Planning Commission and City Council review. Councilmember Holmes noted at the January 30, 2017 Special City Council Work Session, the City Council discussed the Option Agreement to purchase the Civic property on TCAAP. Their discussion focused on site restrictions, use options, and possible funding sources. The City Council requested that staff draft a Request for Proposals for assistance in managing the City’s planning process for the future use of the property. Councilmember Holmes reported the Tavern Grill was now open in Arden Hills. She thanked Commissioner Hames, Commissioner Jones and Chair Thompson for their continued service on the Planning Commission. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Councilmember Jones congratulated Senior Planner Bachler on the arrival of his new baby boy. C. Staff Comments Senior Planner Bachler reported he would update the Planning Commission when a date has been set for the joint Council/Commission worksession meeting. ADJOURN Commissioner Jones moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambeth, to adjourn the February 8, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting at 7:30 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 8, 2017 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-003 - Subdivision Code Amendment - Park Dedication Ordinance\Memos_17-003 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 2017 PC Agenda Item 3.A TO: Planning Commission Chair Thompson and Commissioners FROM: Matthew Bachler, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #17-003 Applicant: City of Arden Hills Request: Subdivision Code Amendment – Public Use Dedications (Section 1130.08, Subd. 3) Requested Action Continue this item to a future meeting. Background The Planning Commission tabled Planning Case 17-003 at their regular meeting on February 8, 2017 because the application was not complete. This case was tabled until the next regular Planning Commission meeting on March 8, 2017. Staff continues to work on the Subdivision Code Amendment proposed in Planning Case 17-003, however, this item will not be complete in time to include on the March 8, 2017 Planning Commission agenda. Staff requests that the Planning Commission table Planning Case 17-003 until such time that a full review can be completed. Notice of the required public hearing for this case will be republished once it has been rescheduled. _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 8, 2017 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-006 - Higher Education Study\Memos_Reports_17-006 Page 1 of 10 DATE: March 8, 2017 PC Agenda Item 4.A TO: Planning Commission Chair Thompson and Commissioners FROM: Eric Zweber, Interim City Planner Hannah Rybak, Interim Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #17-006: Higher Education Moratorium Study Requested Action Review the Higher Education Study schedule; Bethel University and University of Northwestern Campus Master Plans; and the current commercial and industrial zones’ purposes and uses. Background On October 10, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2016-008 An Interim Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting Land Use Applications and Reviews for Higher Education Uses in Residential, Business, Industrial and Other Zones (moratorium, Attachment A). The moratorium can last up to one year to prepare a study to determine the impacts and benefits from higher education land uses and provide recommendations for possible Zoning Code and/or Comprehensive Plan amendments regarding higher education uses. The City Council discussed at the December 19, 2016 Work Session that the study would involve the economic impact of higher education uses within the commercial and employment zones and would be led by the Planning Commission with the assistance of the Economic Development Commission. Based on the direction given by the City Council, WSB and Associates has prepared a proposal to conduct the planning and economic development study. The study is comprised of seven components: • Background gathering and analysis of the existing Campus Master Plans for the University of Northwestern and Bethel University. • Analysis of the Commercial and Employment Uses currently allowed in the various Commercial and Industrial Zones. MEMORANDUM _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 8, 2017 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-006 - Higher Education Study\Memos_Reports_17-006 Page 2 of 10 • Analysis of the Employment and Economic Activity that results from the allowed Commercial and Employment Uses. • The regulation of Higher Education Uses within other communities. • Analysis of existing parcels and buildings within the Commercial and Industrial zones. • Preparation of a Final Report. • Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan Amendments based on the Report’s recommendations. Eric Zweber, WSB Senior Planner and Arden Hills Interim City Planner, will be leading the study efforts with the Planning Commission with assistance from Hannah Rybak, WSB Planner and Arden Hills Interim Planner. At their meeting on March 8, 2017, the Planning Commission will be reviewing the first two subjects of the study: background of the existing Campus Master Plans for the Bethel University and University of Northwestern; and the analysis of the Commercial and Employment Uses currently allowed in the various Commercial and Industrial Zones. Bethel University and University of Northwestern Campus Master Plans Arden Hills has approved a Campus Master Plan (CMP) for Bethel University in 2012 (Attachment B) and a CMP for the University of Northwestern in 2007 (Attachment C). Both CMPs show opportunities for additional buildings and classrooms on the respective campuses, but both universities have requested the development of higher educational facilities off of their campuses. Bethel has classrooms and administrative offices at the Anderson Center located at 2 Pine Tree Drive, formerly occupied by Country Financial. In October 2016,, Northwestern submitted an application to convert the former Smiths Medical buildings at Grey Fox Road and Snelling Avenue into a STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) facility. The Planning Commission and the City Council have both questioned why the colleges are looking for facilities off of their campuses when their CMPs show that they can build facilities on campus. To help answer that question, Arden Hills staff has interviewed the President of Northwestern and the President and other staff from Bethel. A summary of their responses are described below. Priorities To understand the universities’ future plans, staff asked for each board’s top priorities. The priorities for both universities include growing enrollment which will require additional facilities. To build additional facilities, they both will need to raise significant resources and funds. Bethel stated that they can accommodate their growth expectations through new buildings on their campus and the expansion of the Anderson Center. However, they did state that they would like to be able to pursue opportunities for building new or acquiring existing buildings off of their campus as well. _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 8, 2017 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-006 - Higher Education Study\Memos_Reports_17-006 Page 3 of 10 TOP PROIRTIES BETHEL UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF NORTHWESTERN Raise $150,000,000 Fulfill Their Mission Increase Use of the Anderson Center by Adding Health Care Programs Enrollment Growth to 7,000 Students Build the Endowment Add Programs Grow College of Adult and Professional Studies to 4,000 Students Additional Resources and Money Northwestern stated they cannot meet their growth expectations on their current campus. Northwestern is looking for sites in Arden Hills, Roseville or Shoreview to build additional facilities which would be designed for adult and graduate students and would not include student housing. Costs During the Planning Commission’s review of the application from Northwestern regarding the Smiths Medical property on November 9, 2016, the President of Northwestern stated that it would cost about $150 per square foot to renovate the Smiths Medical buildings into a STEM facility while new construction would be closer to $400 per square foot. Staff at Bethel noted similar experiences with the cost savings associated with renovation versus new construction. Both universities stated that the cost savings outweighs the separation for their existing campus, particularly if they intend to use the facilities for adult or graduate courses in which the students typically would not live on campus. End of the Joint Engineering Program with the University of Minnesota The University of Minnesota recently ended its 3-2 engineering program with all of its partner colleges and universities. The 3-2 program allowed students to attend three years of college at their first college or university (including Bethel and Northwestern) and then transfer to the University of Minnesota for the final two years of the engineering program. The University of Minnesota has terminated this agreement with all other colleges and universities, but has agreed to honor any students that have started the program before the agreement expired. This means that Bethel and Northwestern will need to have their own junior and senior level engineering programs established by Fall 2018. The President of Northwestern stated that the university will need to find a temporary facility by May 2018 and a permanent facility to house the engineering program by Fall 2019. Increasing Student Enrollment through Technology and Graduate Programs Bethel has a total of 4,267 students, of which 1,153 are graduate level. Northwestern has a total 3,231 students, of which 213 are graduate level. Bethel plans on increasing the Continuing Adult _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 8, 2017 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-006 - Higher Education Study\Memos_Reports_17-006 Page 4 of 10 and Professional Programs enrollment to 4,000 students. Northwestern plans on growing their total enrollment to 7,000 students while they have room for only about 2,500 full time traditional students on campus. Both universities plan on adding enrollment through increasing the number of programs that they offer. These new programs are expected to include a significant amount of online instruction. In addition to the mathematic, science, and engineering courses, Bethel plans on adding physical therapy, occupational therapy, athletic training and doctorate of nursing programs at the Anderson Center within the next five years. Northwestern plans on adding bachelor of science in data analytics, master of biology, master of data analytics, master of nursing, engineering, physical therapy, occupational therapy, physician’s assistant and nurse practitioner programs and hopes to eventually have a medical college. Northwestern does not currently have facilities for these new programs and there is not enough room to accommodate all of the new programs on their campus. CURRENT STUDENT POPULATION BETHEL UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF NORTHWESTERN POST SECONDARY 21 1,290 TRADITIONAL UNDERGRADUATE 2,548 1,556 ADULT UNDERGRADUATE 172 GRADUATE 1,153 213 SEMINARY 545 N/A TOTAL 4,267 3,231 Due to the desire of both universities to grow their programs and enrollment, and the cost savings from converting existing building into higher education facilities, Arden Hills should continue to expect requests from both Bethel and Northwestern to expand their facilities into the existing business and industrial zones. Commercial and Industrial Zones For the purposes of this study, all applicable land uses within the City were assigned a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. The NAICS is used by businesses and governments throughout North America, and is also used for industry information in the United States Census. It is being used for this study so that the land uses within districts correlate and can be evaluated in the same manner as employment and income by industry. The following discussion will center on the two tables below. The first table is an evaluation of the Purpose Statements for each individual district. The statements were grouped by topic to show the intended purpose or areas of emphasis of each zoning district. The complete list of _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 8, 2017 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-006 - Higher Education Study\Memos_Reports_17-006 Page 5 of 10 each zoning district’s purpose statements are provided in Attachment D. The second table shows which industries (based on NAICS code) are currently allowed in each zoning district. The table breaks down whether the uses are permitted, accessory, conditional, conditional accessory or allowed by Planned Unit Development. The complete list of uses allowed in each zoning district is provided in Attachment E. To evaluate these tables, we have grouped two or three zoning districts together based on overall similarity. The discussion will focus on where the uses and purpose statements are similar between the districts, as well as where they are different. Group 1: Neighborhood Business (NB) & Limited Business (B-1) Purpose Topics: • Residential Transition: Both of these districts discuss residential transition in their purpose statements. Some characteristics of this purpose include: to be located at the edge of residential neighborhoods, to provide goods and services to adjacent residents, and to limit the type, size and intensity of use, so as not to be disruptive to residents nearby. • Pedestrian, Bicycle & Public Transport: This topic is discussed in the purpose statement for NB, but not B-1. Goals include making access safe and convenient to pedestrians and bicyclists, to have connected sidewalks, and access to public transportation. • Sense of Place: Again, this topic is included in the purpose statement for NB, but not B-1. The statement discusses having a public commons so people have a place to gather, as well as to comply with the City’s gateway requirements. Uses Allowed: The uses allowed in the NB and B-1 districts are generally very similar. There are ten industries that are allowed in both districts and only three industry codes that are allowed, in some form, in B-1 but not in NB. These industries include: Transportation and Warehousing, Educational Services, and Arts, Entertainment and Recreation. These three industries typically require larger development areas that would not necessarily fit well within a more residential setting. Group 2: General Business (B-2), Service Business (B-3) and Retail Center District (B-4) Purpose Topics: • Mixed Use District: Of the three districts, only B-2 has encouraging mixed use development where people can live, work and play as a purpose • Pedestrian, Bicycle & Public Transport: Again, only B-2 has this emphasized in its purpose statement. • Sense of Place: A place to gather and socialize is in the purpose statement of only the B-2 district. • Architectural/Identity Elements: All three districts have this topic in their respective purpose statements. This shows that all districts are meant to be visually attractive, and in some cases, have a distinctive look. • Nuisances/Traffic: Again, all three districts include language in their purpose statements regarding preventing nuisances to neighboring properties and minimizing traffic. _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 8, 2017 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-006 - Higher Education Study\Memos_Reports_17-006 Page 6 of 10 • Implementation of City Plans: The City has adopted a guiding plan for the B-2 district, and one of the purposes of the district is to implement that plan. The B-3 and B-4 districts do not have guiding plans. • Flexibility in Land Uses & Site Development Standards: The B-3 district promotes more flexibility in these areas than in other districts in order to achieve the ultimate goals of the district. • Grouping/Critical Mass: All three of these districts emphasize the importance of grouping similar and mutually supportive businesses together. • Business Prosperity: This topic is in the purpose statements of the B-3 and B-4 districts. • Redevelopment: Redevelopment is stated as a priority within the B-3 and B-4 districts. It discusses allowing transitional reuse of buildings until they can be redeveloped and prohibiting uses that would impede redevelopment. • Surrounding Communities: Allowing for uses that serve not only residents, but surrounding communities is a priority in the B-4 district. • Serving the Community and Motorists: Maintaining an adequate supply of different businesses to serve residents, and having businesses with easy access to arterial streets and highways is emphasized in the B-3 district. Uses Allowed: These three districts have fourteen industries that are allowed in all of them. The only industry that is not universally allowed is Real Estate and Rental Leasing, which is only allowed by Conditional Use Permit in B-3. Group 3: Gateway Business (GB) and I-FLEX Purpose Topics: • Architectural/Identity Elements: This topic is present in the purpose statement for the GB district. The GB district is an entry point to the City and highly visible to motorists passing through. • Nuisances/Traffic: Both of the districts emphasize only allowing uses that will not create traffic issues on surrounding roads. • Natural Resources/Environmental Elements: A purpose of the GB district is to protect the site’s natural resources. • Implementation of City Plans: The City has adopted a Comprehensive Development Plan called the I-694/I-35W Plan that pertains to the GB area, and a purpose of the district is to implement that plan. • Flexibility in Land Uses & Site Development Standards: One purpose of the I-FLEX district is to allow flexibility in standards. This item is not present in the GB purpose statement. • Maintain Existing Character: This topic is repeated several times in the purpose statements for the I-FLEX district. The goal is to protect and enhance existing development, while also allowing for new development that fits with the existing character of the area. _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 8, 2017 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-006 - Higher Education Study\Memos_Reports_17-006 Page 7 of 10 Uses Allowed: The uses allowed within these two districts are almost identical. The only industry that is allowed in GB and not in I-FLEX is Accommodation and Food Services. Group 4: Limited Industrial (I-1) and General Industrial (I-2) Purpose Topics: • Compatibility with Existing Development/Surrounding Uses: Both of these districts have this element in their purpose statements. This topic aims to mitigate the negative effects that can sometimes accompany industrial uses, and ensure that all the businesses in the district fit well together. • Provides an Area for Industrial Uses to Locate: o For the I-1 district, this refers to keeping the intensity of land utilization lower than in the I-2 district. o For the I-2 district, the intent is to provide an area where more intense industrial uses can locate. Uses Allowed: There are eleven industries that are permitted in both industrial districts. The only industry permitted in the I-1 district that is not permitted in the I-2 district is Arts, Entertainment and Recreation. _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 8, 2017 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-006 - Higher Education Study\Memos_Reports_17-006 Page 8 of 10 Commercial and Industrial Zones’ Purpose Statements Table NB B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 GB I-1 I-2 I-FLEX Residential Transition X X Mixed Use District X Pedestrian, Bicycle & Public Transport X X Sense of Place X X Architectural/Identity Elements X X X X Nuisances/Traffic X X X X X Natural Resources/Environmental Elements X Implementation of City Plans X X Flexibility in Land Uses & Site Development Standards X X Grouping/Critical Mass X X X Business Prosperity X X Compatibility with Existing Development/Surrounding Uses X X Maintain Existing Character X Redevelopment X X Provides an Area for Commercial to Locate X X X Provides an Area for Industrial to Locate X X Surrounding Communities X Serving the Community & Motorists X _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 8, 2017 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-006 - Higher Education Study\Memos_Reports_17-006 Page 9 of 10 Commercial and Industrial NAISC Table NAISC # NAISC Classification NB B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 GB I-1 I-2 I-FLEX 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 22 Utilities P, C P, C P, C P, C P, C P, C P, C P, C P, C 23 Construction 31-33 Manufacturing C, A C, A C, A P, C P P P, C 42 Wholesale Trade 44-45 Retail Trade P A P, C P, C P, A C, A C, A C, A A 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing A A A A C P, C P, C, CA C 51 Information C, CA C, CA P, CA P, CA P, CA CA CA CA CA 52 Finance and Insurance P P P P P P P P P 53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing C 54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services P, C P P, C P, C P, C P P, C P, C P 55 Management of Companies and Enterprises 56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services P P, A P P P P P P P 61 Educational Services C C, D C C 62 Health Care and Social Assistance P P P, C, A CA, D P P P P P P 71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation P, A P, C P P P P P 72 Accommodation and Food Services C A P, C P, C P, C P, C, A C C 81 Other Services (except Public Administration) C C, A P, C, A P, C, A P, C P, A A 92 Public Administration C C C C C C C C C _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 8, 2017 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-006 - Higher Education Study\Memos_Reports_17-006 Page 10 of 10 LEGEND P Permitted Use C Conditional Use A Accessory Use CA Conditional Accessory Use D Planned Unit Next Steps The City Council and Planning Commission will discuss the Higher Education Moratorium Study at a joint Work Session meeting on Monday, March 20. At their regular meeting on May 3, 2017, the Planning Commission will be reviewing the employment and economic activity from the commercial and industrial uses and how other communities zone for higher educational uses. Attachments A. Ordinance No. 2016-008 B. Bethel University 2012 Campus Master Plan Map C. University of Northwestern 2007 Campus Master Plan Map D. Business and Industrial District Purpose Statements E. Arden Hills Land Use Chart ATTACHMENT A 1 Benson Great Hall 2 Lundquist Community Life Center 3 Academic Center (AC) 4 Brushaber Commons (BC) 5 Clauson Center (CC) 6 Hagstrom Center (HC) 7 Robertson Physical Education Center (RC) 8 Heritage Residence Hall 9 Edgren Residence Hall 10 Bodien Residence Hall 11 Getsch Residence Hall 12 Sports and Recreation Center (SRC) EXISTING A Lake Valentine B Ona Orth Athletic Complex C Hargis Park D Field Sports E Royal Stadium F West Parking Lot G Heritage Hall Parking Lot H SoHo Parking Lot I East Parking Lots 13 Facilities 14 Arden Village East Townhouses 15 Nelson Residence Hall 16 Lissner Residence Hall 17 Scandia Church 18 Seminary Complex 19 Chalberg Residence Hall 20 Turnwall Residence Hall 21 Danielson Residence Hall 22 Wessman Residence Hall 23 Widen Residence Hall 24 Wingblade Residence Hall and Campus Child Development Center (CDC) 1 K 11 2 B L 12 3 C 13 D N E 6 F 26 G Q 27 8 H R 28 929 29 10 J ATTACHMENT B PROPOSED FUTURE J Track K Multi-Purpose Turf Field L Bethel Drive Redesign M Courtyard N Parking Garage (Option 1) O Parking Garage (Option 2) P Parking Lot Q Lake Valentine Foot/Bike Path R Ring Road and Bridge 25 Wellness Center 26 Business and Economics 27 HC Expansion 28 Edgren-Bodien Connector 29 SRC Expansion 30 Nelson Residence Hall Additions 31 Science Center 32 Seminary Addition 33 Residence Hall 34 Learning Commons/Library Campus Master Plan A 21 31 22 32 M 23 33 4 14 24 34 5 O 15 P 16 26 7 17 18 I 19 30 25 20 North ATTACHMENT C 1  Purpose Statements  Residential Transition (NB & B‐1)  To be located at the edge of residential neighborhoods (NB) To provide a limited range of over‐the‐counter, convenience, retail and service uses to accommodate the needs of the adjacent residents (NB) To place limitations on the type, size and intensity of uses within this district, given its proximity to residential uses. (NB) To ensure adequate buffering is provided on these sites for the adjacent residential uses (NB) To provide a district which is related to and may reasonably adjoin high density or other residential districts (B‐1) To establish a business district in which there is limited contact with the public and no exterior display or  selling of merchandise to the general public (B‐1) Mixed Use District (B‐2)  To be a place in which people can live, work and play (B‐2) Pedestrian, Bicycle and Public Transport (NB & B‐2)  To place emphasis on convenience for pedestrian, bicycle and public transportation access to the use (NB) To create a compact, architecturally diverse, pedestrian‐ and bicycle‐friendly community1 with a distinct identity (B‐2) To provide a connected sidewalk system1 and places for people to gather and socialize (B‐2) Sense of Place (NB & B‐2)  To accommodate, where possible, a public commons giving residents a place to gather and interact with one another (NB) To require, where applicable, compliance with the City’s gateway requirements (NB) To provide a connected sidewalk system and places for people to gather and socialize1 (B‐2) Architectural/Identity Elements (B‐2, B‐3, B‐4 & GB)  To create a compact, architecturally diverse, pedestrian‐ and bicycle‐friendly community with a distinct identity1 (B‐2) To implement design standards to promote an attractive environment with lasting and sustainable value (B‐2) To establish a high standard of development and design that produces a positive visual image1 and minimizes the effects of traffic congestion, noise, odor and glare (B‐3) 1Bold denotes that the statement is repeated under two topics. The bolded text is the portion of the statement  that applies to the topic above.  ATTACHMENT D 2     To produce a positive visual image by establishing a high standard of design and development  (B‐4)   To allow only development that will create an attractive environment and a positive image for  this site, which is one of the most visible in the community and represents the City’s last major  development site (GB)   To promote high quality, unified, large‐scale development in a manner similar to a planned unit  development (GB)    Nuisances/Traffic (B‐2, B‐3, B‐4, GB & I‐FLEX)   To minimize the effects of traffic congestion, noise, odor, glare and similar safety problems (B‐2)   To establish a high standard of development and design that produces a positive visual image  and minimizes the effects of traffic congestion, noise, odor and glare1 (B‐3)   To ensure acceptable traffic operations on local streets (B‐3)   To alleviate potential traffic congestion on local streets by the design of the circulation pattern  and arrangement of uses (B‐4)    To allow development that will ensure reasonable traffic operation on the internal and  surrounding transportation systems (GB)   To permit only those uses that will have traffic generation characteristics that are compatible  with existing development in the district and that will ensure reasonable traffic operation on  streets in the vicinity (I‐FLEX)  Natural Resources/Environmental Elements (GB)   To protect the site’s natural resources (GB)  Implementation of City Plans (B‐2 & GB)   To implement the plan known as the “Guiding Plan for the B‐2 District,” which was adopted by  the City Council on October 27, 2008 (B‐2)   To implement that part of Arden Hills Comprehensive Development Plan known as the I‐694/I‐ 35W Plan (GB)   To take full advantage of the site’s location as documented and described in the NE I‐694/I‐35W  Plan (GB)    To promote flexibility in land uses and development standards to achieve the objectives of the I‐ 694/I‐35W Plan (GB)  Flexibility in Land Uses and Site Development Standards (B‐3 & I‐FLEX)   To promote flexibility in land uses and site development standards to achieve the purposes of  the district (B‐3)   To promote flexibility in land uses and site development standards to achieve the objectives of  the I‐FLEX District (I‐FLEX)  3    Grouping/Critical Mass (B‐2, B‐3 & B‐4)   To group compatible retail and service business uses that tend to draw trade that is naturally  interchangeable and promotes business prosperity (B‐2)   To encourage grouping of compatible and mutually supportive business uses and services (B‐3)   To provide an integrated retail trade center that groups compatible retail uses in one or more  multiple‐occupancy buildings. Free standing, single‐occupancy buildings will be allowed if  planned and constructed as part of a unified development that contains a retail center or is  developed after such a retail center is developed (B‐4)   To encourage grouping of uses that are mutually supportive and have similar requirements for  vehicular and pedestrian accessibility and exposure (B‐4)  Business Prosperity (B‐3 & B‐4)   To promote business prosperity (B‐3)  To promote business prosperity by creating an attractive and functional retail center (B‐4)Compatibility  with Existing Development/Surrounding Uses (I‐1 & I‐2)   To allow only those types and intensities of industrial uses that do not detract from the  surrounding area (I‐1)   To present the least deleterious effect to adjacent, less intensive land uses (I‐2)  Maintain Existing Character (I‐FLEX)   To preserve, protect, enhance and perpetuate existing development in the district (I‐FLEX)   To attract new development that is compatible with existing development in the district in  terms of use, performance, character, quality and appearance of buildings and sites (I‐FLEX)   To encourage new site development that will be compatible with existing site development  standards of existing development in the district (I‐FLEX)   Redevelopment (B‐3 & B‐4)   To allow a transitional reuse of existing buildings until market conditions warrant  redevelopment (B‐3)   To enhance redevelopment potential by prohibiting uses that would impede redevelopment (B‐ 3)   To allow transitional uses that will allow an orderly phasing out of existing uses and  development that are not appropriate in a contemporary retail center and a phasing in of uses  and development as warranted by market conditions (B‐4)  Provides an Area for Commercial (office, retail) to Locate (B‐1, B‐2 & B‐3)   To establish areas for the location and development of administrative office buildings and  related office uses which are subject to more restrictive controls (B‐1)   4     To provide an adequate supply of businesses and professional service areas to meet the needs  of the residents (B‐2)To provide locations for uses that may be incompatible with retail centers,  thereby keeping the retail centers compact and convenient (B‐3)  Provides an Area for Industrial to Locate (I‐1 & I‐2)   To maintain performance standards to keep the intensity of land utilization lower than in the  general Industrial District (I‐1)   To provide an area where more intensive light industrial land uses may locate (I‐2)   Surrounding Communities (B‐4)To meet retail shopping needs of the surrounding community by  providing a district that will accommodate a wide range of retail goods and services (B‐4)   Serving the Community and Motorists (B‐3)   To accommodate an adequate supply of businesses and services that serve the community and  motorists traveling through the community with a broad range of services and goods (B‐3)   To keep services in close proximity to arterial streets or highways in areas that are appropriately  designated on the Comprehensive Plan (B‐3)     1320.05 Land Use Chart. (revised 11125113) Zoning Districts: Uses: R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 NB B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 CC GB 1-1 1-2 FLEX POS Antenna,Dish or Tower CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA I CA CA CA CA Boarding house C C ! C C C m Brew pub C ` C C Business service A i P P P C P P P P Ginic,medical office P P P P P C P iij P ,. P P Club or lodge(non-profit) P P P C Club,sports&fitness A P P P C P P P Commercial recreation-indoor P P P P Daycare Facility,over 10 P P P P P P P P P Daycare,family- 10 or less A A A A A A Daycare,group farrily-14 or less CA I CA CA CA CA CA Dog kennel Dog run A A A Drive-up windows C C C A Dry cleaning&laundry,pick-up station C A A A Dry cleaning&laundry,self-service C C C NOMElaundry Dwelling: density zoning D D D D Dwelling: multiple family C C C C C C Dwelling: single-family attached C C D D Dwelling:single-farrily detached P P P P Dwelling: two-family C C P P C Dwelling:live-work unit Financial institution&service P P P P j P C P P P P Garage,truck C C - Home occupation: Class I A A A A A A Home occupation: Gass II CA CA CA CA CA C Hospital Hotel/motel C P C C C - C -- House of worship C C C j C C C C C j C C Manufactured home park C nufacturing&processing: Gass 1 A A ! A PMaP P P Manufacturing&processing: Gass II P Nicrobrewery C C C C C Nicrodistillery C C C C C Mortuary,funeral home P P C Multiple occupancy building C C C C C C C C C C Nursery C C C i C Nursing home and assisted living C C C C Em 9 186721v2 ATTACHMENT E Zoning Districts:R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 NBB 1 i B-2 B-3 B-4 CC GB 1-1 I-2 FLEX CD POSUses:Office p P P P P P P P ' P ` PParkFacilitiesMM-------- P Pawn shop Personal services C A P PP C I P -- A Public use C C C C C C C C C C I C C C C C C Research and development facility C P C C , C P P P P - Research animals C C C Residence Hall,dormitory C C D Residential facility,state licensed, P P serving 1-6 P P P P Residential facility,state licensed,serving 7 C C C C C C 16 Restaurant and restaurant-fast food C A P P P C P C C Retail sales&service P A P P P C A A A A School,general education C C C C C School, higher education p C C C C School,specialized education C C C - C C Service station C C C C C Storage,exterior CA Studio C C I P P P C Theater,indoor A C P C Utility distribution line p pl p p p p p p p P P }' P ; P A P Utility substation C ; C Utility transmission C C C C C C C C C C 3 C C j C C C Vehicle—motorized,leasing and rentals C Vehicle-motorized,service C C Warehousing A A A A C P P C P"=Permitted; "D"=Planned Unit, ""=Not Permitted; C"=Conditional Use Permit; "A"=Accessory; "CA"=Conditional Accessory Use Permit,"I"=Interim Use Permit 1320.06 District Requirements Chart (NEXT PAGE) (revised 11125113) 10 186721 Q City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 8, 2017 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 2017 PC Agenda Item 5.A TO: Planning Commission Chair Thompson and Commissioners FROM: Matthew Bachler, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Report from the City Council February 13, 2017 City Council Regular Meeting At their meeting on February 13, 2017, the City Council approved the creation of a Task Force to investigate and recommend to the Council potential uses for the TCAAP Civic property, including a city hall, community center, recreational and fitness center, event and educational center, and other options. In evaluating options for the property, the Task Force will look at existing facilities in neighboring communities, investigate partnership opportunities, and provide input on financial and staffing implications. The Task Force will be comprised of a total of eleven members, two of which will be members of the Planning Commission. The Task Force will be supported by a consulting firm the City will select to manage the planning process for the property. A Request for Proposals for consulting services was issued on February 28. Proposals must be received by April 28 and the City Council is expected to select a consultant on June 12. The first meeting of the Task Force will be convened after a consulting firm has been selected. February 20, 2017 City Council Work Session At the Work Session on February 20, 2017, the City Council met with Metropolitan Council Member Marie McCarthy, who represents the district Arden Hills is located in. Staff from the Metropolitan Council attended the meeting and presented information on the Snelling Avenue A- Line Bus Rapid Transit route, issues regarding inflow and infiltration, and grant opportunities the City may be able to take advantage of.