Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-04-14 PC Minutes Approved: July 9, 2014 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2014 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Clayton Larson called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Brent Bartel, Andrew Holewa, Steven Jones (Alternate), Roberta Thompson, and Clayton Zimmerman. Absent: Commissioners Angela Hames and Sam Scott. Also present were: Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; City Planner Ryan Streff; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; and Councilmember Brenda Holden. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – JUNE 4, 2014 Chair Larson stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 7, 2014 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Holewa requested the minutes be corrected to reflect the changes he presented to staff and be brought back to the Commission at the July meeting for approval. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Thompson seconded a motion to table action on the May 7, 2014 meeting minutes to the July Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 14-017; Variance; 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard – Not a Public Hearing ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 2 City Planner Streff stated that the applicants in this case own the property located at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. The property is zoned R-2 Single & Two Family Residential and is generally positioned north of Noble Road, south of Grant Road, east of Fairview Avenue North and west of Lake Johanna/Lake Johanna Boulevard. The property is located on a through-lot between Fairview Avenue and Lake Johanna Boulevard and consists of a conforming single-family dwelling and a nonconforming detached accessory structure. City Planner Streff indicated that the applicants are proposing to reconstruct and expand the nonconforming accessory structure on the property from twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet, an increase of 140 square feet. Along Fairview Avenue, the proposed structure would encroach at the same distance along the entire length of the garage as a new alignment is being proposed to align the structure with the western property line. As proposed, the roofline of the accessory structure would also change from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation in order for the garage to be accessible from the existing driveway. City Planner Streff reported that the applicants have indicated within their narrative that the façade and roofing materials to be used on the new detached accessory structure would match the materials on the existing single-family dwelling. Following the construction, an addition to the existing driveway would be added so that the new garage would be accessible from the current access to the property. Site Data Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-2: Single Family & Two Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: .35 Acres (15,241 Square Feet) Topography: The property has a fair amount of grade change as the lot slopes toward Lake Johanna. The area around the existing garage is fairly flat. City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Variance Evaluation Criteria. City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings 1. The property is in the R-2 Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The lot is 15,241 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 100 feet in width, and 165 feet in depth. 3. The existing accessory structure is a nonconforming structure within the R-2 Zoning District because of its existing setbacks to the south and west property lines. 4. Because the existing accessory structure is positioned at an angle relative to the west property line, the structure encroaches between twenty-five (25) feet six (6) inches and twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the west property line, leaving a setback of four (4) feet six (6) inches at its furthest point and eight (8) inches between the structure and the west property line at its closest point. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 3 5. The existing accessory structure encroaches three (3) feet eleven (11) inches into the ten (10) foot setback along the south property line, leaving a setback of six (6) feet one (1) inch between the structure and the south property line. 6. The existing accessory structure does not encroach into the north or east property line setbacks. 7. The proposed accessory structure encroaches twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the entire length of the structure. 8. The proposed accessory structure encroaches an additional two (2) feet into the south property line setback. 9. The proposed accessory structure increases the footprint from twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet, or 484 square feet, to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet, or 624 square feet. This would amount to an increase of the building footprint by 140 square feet. 10. The proposed accessory structure would be rotated approximately fifteen (15) degrees to align the garage with the western property line and the angle of the existing home. 11. The proposed accessory structure would change the direction of the roofline from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation. 12. The existing single family dwelling and attached garage meet all property line setbacks. 13. The proposed structure and landscaping coverages are within the zoning district requirements. 14. The proposed accessory structure would not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. 15. Detached accessory structures are permitted structures within the R-2 Zoning District. 16. All structures on the lot are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. Variance Findings: 17. Detached accessory structures are permitted and a reasonable use within the R-2 Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District. 18. The lot has rather unique characteristics as the property slopes towards Lake Johanna approximately 18 feet from west to east leaving limited options for expansion or movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the setback regulations. 19. The proposed accessory structure would be visible from neighboring properties; however, the proposed design and the use of quality materials for the detached structure that match the single family dwelling should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. 20. The proposed plans and requested variances for the accessory structure do not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. City Planner Streff stated that the findings of fact for the variance do not specifically support a recommendation for denial or approval. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, Staff recommends the following ten (10) conditions: 1. That 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 proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to encroach no further into the west and south property lines than the existing structure, leaving a setback of four (4) feet six (6) inches from the west property line and a setback of six (6) feet one (1) inch from the south property line. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 4 3. That the proposed accessory structure shall not exceed the footprint of the existing accessory structure that is twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet. 4. That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to be rotated so that the alignment matches that of the western property line and the angle of the existing single family dwelling. 5. That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to change the direction of the roofline from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation. 6. That the exterior façade and roofing materials of the proposed garage shall match the colors and materials used on the single family dwelling. 7. That the existing driveway apron leading to the accessory building shall be removed and that any damage to the right-of-way shall be repaired by the property owner. 8. That no living quarters shall be constructed within the proposed accessory structure and that the attic area shall be used for storage purposes only. 9. That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. That building and demolition permits for the construction of the new accessory building and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required. 10. That the applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before the building permit is issued. City Planner Streff 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 Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Larson questioned what the rear yard setback would be. City Planner Streff explained that after the garage structure was completed, the rear yard (Fairview) setback would be 8 inches. Commissioner Zimmerman questioned the age of the current garage. City Planner Streff deferred this question to the applicant. He noted the home was replaced in 2010, but the garage was pre-existing. Commissioner Bartel inquired if any variances were requested in 2010 for the home. City Planner Streff stated that the property owner at the time requested a variance for the home, however, this request was denied. Commissioner Zimmerman indicated that the proposed 24’ x 26’ foot garage was reflective of modern garage design. Chad Meyers, 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard, thanked the Commission for considering his variance request. He noted he has lived at the property for the past year and was not the party ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 5 that reconstructed the home. He believed that the existing two car garage did not suit the home and was an eyesore for the neighborhood. He requested the Commission allow him to rebuild the garage to meet the needs of his family on this lake lot. He believed the conditions recommended by staff were too restrictive. He discussed the current encroachment of the garage was nine feet and four inches and he explained he was not asking to encroach further to the west property line. He reported he would be working with the same contractor that was used to build the house. Commissioner Jones asked if the power pole would be moved. Mr. Meyers stated that Xcel Energy would be moving the transmission pole to the other side of the garage. Commissioner Thompson questioned what options were available to build a structure that would be in conformance with City setbacks and asked why this was not pursued. Mr. Meyers explained that after discussions with staff, it was determined that the rear yard (Fairview Avenue) setback for an accessory structure was 30 feet. He commented this setback would make a new garage impractical. He stated with a 10 foot setback a garage would be more feasible, but would require 250 cubic feet of fill and would be located on a drainage field. Commissioner Thompson inquired if the drainage field had been reviewed by staff. City Planner Streff stated the Assistant City Engineer had reviewed the request and determined the drainage would not be affected with the current proposal. However, staff did not provide comment on how a different placement of the garage would impact the property. Chair Larson questioned if the variance were to be approved, if the new garage would become a conforming use. City Planner Streff indicated the garage would be nonconforming in terms of setbacks, but would be permitted due to the variance. Chair Larson stated he was not typically in favor of expanding nonconforming uses; however, he believed turning the garage made sense. Commissioner Thompson commented she was torn by this request. She stated setbacks were established for a reason. She then discussed the unique aspects of this lot noting it had two front yard setbacks and had topography issues to deal with. She explained that by turning the garage, the structure would look better on the lot. Commissioner Zimmerman concurred with Chair Larson regarding the expansion of nonconforming uses. He struggled with approving the expansion, but was supportive of the proposed reorientation of the garage. Commissioner Bartel stated the existing garage was an eyesore, but he did not believe the increased garage size was necessary. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 6 Commissioner Thompson understood that two car garages were normal, but she did not believe that a three car garage was a requirement. Commissioner Holewa understood why the homeowners wanted to replace the garage; however, he did not support all three variances. He questioned if the Commission should table action to allow the applicant to reconsider his request, or make a motion for denial. Chair Larson stated the expansion of a nonconforming use was a concern for the Commission. He suggested the owner provide comment on why the garage needed to be expanded. Mr. Meyers believed that the proposed garage would allow him reasonable use of his property. He stated the garage would cost him $50,000 to reconstruct and he wanted the garage to become reasonably useful. He commented that Condition 2 should be revised to reflect that the setbacks would be changed. He reported that he was not interested in building a garage if he had to follow these conditions, as one stall of the garage would be unusable. Mr. Meyers questioned whether the Commission would be supportive of a plan to rebuild the garage so as not to encroach further into the rear and side setbacks, but rather expand the garage towards the house. Chair Larson believed the consensus of the Commission was to not expand a nonconforming use. He asked if Mr. Meyers was willing to reconsider his request. Mr. Meyers was willing to reconsider his garage expansion. Chair Larson questioned how the Commission would like to proceed with this variance request. Commissioner Zimmerman stated the easiest solution would be to rebuild the existing garage on the current footprint. Commissioner Bartel feared that tabling action on this may not allow for this matter to be resolved as the applicants were hoping for a garage larger than 22’ x 22’. Chair Larson stated tabling the matter would allow Mr. Meyers to continue with the request without making Mr. Meyers reapply for a variance. Commissioner Holewa was in favor of the applicant rebuilding on the existing footprint. He indicated he could go either way on this request but noted he would support the matter being tabled. Commissioner Bartel recommended the request be tabled. Commissioner Jones stated this was a unique lot and discussed the number of homes that have been rebuilt along this street. City Planner Streff discussed the setbacks as determined by the City for through-lots. Staff believed that a 40 foot setback was appropriate for the lakeside and front of the home. It was determined that a 30 foot setback was appropriate for the rear yard along Fairview Avenue. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 7 Commissioner Bartel moved and Commissioner Holewa seconded a motion to table action on Planning Case 14-017 for a Variance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard to allow for further examination of the request by the applicant and staff. City Planner Streff requested the Commission provide staff comment on what setbacks would be acceptable. Chair Larson believed that eight inches was not a desirable setback. He stated he could entertain a lesser setback than 30 feet; however, the size of the structure should not be overly expanded. He recommended a reasonable setback from Fairview be created. Commissioner Bartel agreed stating the size of the garage was more of a concern than the setbacks. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. Planning Case 14-019; Zoning Code Amendment – Lighting Regulations – Not a Public Hearing Associate Planner Bachler stated that the 2014 Planning Commission Work Plan was discussed and adopted at the March 17, 2014, City Council Work Session. One of the items on the plan concerns light-emitting diode (LED) lighting. Compared to incandescent lighting, LED lights produce a greater amount of luminosity, or brightness. The City Council asked staff to review the City’s existing regulations on lighting and to update relevant ordinances if necessary to address the potential impacts associated with brighter LED lights. This memo provides an overview of the sections in the Zoning Code that regulate lighting and also discusses ideas for additional regulations that could be considered. Based on the direction provided by the Planning Commission, staff will draft an ordinance that would amend the Zoning Code to update the City’s lighting regulations. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that provisions on lighting are generally confined to Section 1325.05 Design Standards in the Zoning Code. Lighting is required to be directed away from adjacent lots and streets and the source of illumination must be controlled in such a way that light is only directed onto the site. The Zoning Code restricts light trespass by stipulating that light cast onto adjacent travel lanes or roadways cannot exceed 1.0 foot candle and 0.4 foot candles on adjoining residential properties. No more than 25 percent of non-residential façades that are visible from residential properties can be illuminated by direct light from a source such as a flood light. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that Section 1320 District Regulations includes special requirements for specific districts in the City. The Neighborhood Business, B-4 Retail Center, Gateway Business, and Civic Center Districts all have special requirements regarding lighting that go beyond the provisions in Section 1325.05: • In the Neighborhood Business District, accent lighting is only permitted when used to delineate the main entrance into a building. Parking lot lighting is restricted to a maximum of 14 feet in height. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 8 • In the B-4 Retail Center District, the source of illumination must be concealed so as not to be visible from adjoining lots and streets. Accent lighting of buildings and sites may be permitted by the City. A lighting plan including the location, type, and design of light fixtures is required when development that involves new construction, redevelopment, or significant modification to an existing building is proposed. • In the Gateway Business District, the source of illumination must be concealed so as not to be visible from adjoining lots and streets, or residential areas east and south of Round Lake. Accent lighting of buildings and sites may be permitted by the City. A lighting plan including the location, type, and design of light fixtures is required when development that involves new construction, redevelopment, or significant modification to an existing building is proposed. • In the Civic Center District, exterior lighting is required to be consistent in type, design, and scale to create unity in the district. The source of illumination must be concealed so as not to be visible from adjoining lots and streets, or residential areas south of Highway 96. Light washing of buildings is prohibited and wall packs are only allowed at building entrances. Accent lighting of buildings and sites may be permitted by the City. A photometric plan and a lighting plan including the location, type, and design of light fixtures is required when development that involves new construction, redevelopment, or significant modification to an existing building is proposed. Associate Planner Bachler reported that the Additional Design Standards for the B-2 and B-3 Districts (Section 1325.05 Subdivision 8) also include lighting standards that only apply to building or site elements being developed or altered. For example, the lighting standards could come into effect if the remodeling of a parking lot was proposed. A lighting plan including the location, type, and design of light fixtures is required in all cases, and a photometric analysis is needed for new construction or redevelopment. Consistency in lighting in terms of type, design, scale, and color is required to create unity in the district, and the City may require certain types of lighting color. Excessive lighting is not permitted for any building or parking lot lighting. For gasoline stations, canopy lighting must be recessed so as not to be visible from the street. Light washing and accent lighting may only be allowed if it does not negatively impact residential areas or traffic safety. Staff has begun to research how other cities regulate lighting in their communities and has come across four general approaches to addressing the impact of exterior lighting on adjoining properties. These approaches are not mutually exclusive and can be used in combination with one another: 1. Limit the total overall amount of light that can be used on a site • This is typically addressed by setting an allowance for the total initial luminaire lumens allowed using a Parking Space Method (# of lumens per parking stall) or a Hardscape Area Method (# of lumens per square foot). ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 9 • In order to determine compliance, a lighting plan would be required that includes the lumen output for each light fixture on the site. 2. Limit the maximum lumen level for individual exterior light fixtures • This can be addressed by setting a maximum allowable lumen rating for backlighting, uplighting, and glare for each light fixture. Communities that have taken this approach have set their standards based on recommendations made by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). • In order to determine compliance, a lighting plan would be required that includes the specific ratings for backlighting, uplighting, and glare of each light fixture. 3. Limit light trespass from a property onto abutting properties • This can be addressed by setting a maximum footcandle level at or near the property line. Typically, specific maximum levels are set for residential properties, commercial/industrial properties, and public streets. • In order to determine compliance, a photometric analysis would be required that includes footcandle readings for the entire property area. 4. Limit light pollution, such as glare or sky glow, as viewed from abutting properties and public streets • This is addressed with prescriptive requirements on how light fixtures are designed. For example, lighting for a parking lot may be required to be “full cut-off style”, which describes a fully hooded light fixture that directs light straight down, or an accent light may need to be fully shielded to direct light only at the object being illuminated and not beam onto adjacent properties or skyward. • Cities that have adopted this type of requirement also prohibit light fixtures that produce glare that is clearly visible beyond a property line or that creates a sensation within the visual field that causes impairment or discomfort. Associate Planner Bachler explained that other common regulations in municipal lighting ordinances include height limit restrictions and the prohibition of certain types of lights. Height restrictions apply to both parking lot light poles and exterior lighting mounted to a building wall. Some cities set a lower height limit for lights within a certain number of feet of a property line to help reduce light trespass. Currently, Arden Hills only has an established height limit for lighting in the Neighborhood Business District. Common types of lights that are prohibited by other cities include lights that blink, flicker, flash, and change in intensity or color. There are no specific limits on the types of lights allowed in the Zoning Code. Associate Planner Bachler stated that in order to get a better sense on how the Planning Commission would like to proceed in the review and revision of the City’s lighting regulations, staff is requesting feedback on the following questions: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 10 1. Of the four different approaches used by other cities to regulate the impact of exterior lights on adjoining properties, which approaches would best address the City’s concerns about LED lights? 2. How should the City balance the need to create stricter lighting regulations with the need to ensure that property owners can easily interpret and implement these requirements? 3. Should the City consider setting a height limit for exterior lights? 4. Should the City consider establishing a list of prohibited types of exterior lighting? Associate Planner Bachler requested the Commission provide further direction on how the Zoning Code could be updated to improve the City’s regulations regarding exterior lighting. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Larson favored an approach that would create regulations to limit light trespass. Commissioner Holewa supported regulations that would limit light trespass as well as setting prescriptive requirements on the design and arrangement of light fixtures to limit light pollution. Commissioner Bartel agreed with this recommendation. Commissioner Jones discussed the Holiday gas station sign and stated glare was a concern for him in residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Thompson also supported the approach to regulate the lumen level of individual light fixtures. Associate Planner Bachler discussed the Ordinances adopted by the cities of Bloomington and St. Louis Park regarding exterior lighting, noting that additional research could be conducted on neighboring communities. Commissioner Holewa commented that up lighting would have to be allowed on American flags in the overnight hours, as this was a federal regulation. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the City has investigated how neighboring cities address lighting regulations. He anticipated that each zoning district would have to have specific lighting regulations. Discussion ensued regarding lighting regulations for different zoning districts. Chair Larson believed the City should set a reasonable limit for the height of light fixtures. Commissioner Thompson agreed. She questioned if the City could restrict fixture heights on MnDOT and County roads. Associate Planner Bachler stated he would investigate this further. Chair Larson believed it would be difficult for the City to prohibit certain types of exterior lighting. He explained that lighting was creative and was an ever changing market. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 11 Commissioner Bartel indicated language addressing temporary Christmas lights that may blink or flash could be included in the lighting regulations. Commissioner Holewa recommended the City encourage the use of LED lights because of the energy efficiencies associated with this type of lighting. Associate Planner Bachler thanked the Commission for their input. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Planning Commission Comments and Requests None. B. Report from the City Council Councilmember Holden updated the Planning Commission on City Council activities stating that at the May 27, 2014, City Council Meeting the Council approved Planning Case 14-015, which was a request from Boston Scientific for a PUD Amendment allowing for the construction of a 730 square foot addition on the south side of Building 10. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this case 5-0 at their meeting on May 7, 2014. The City Council also reviewed Planning Case 14-014 for a variance at 1850 Venus Avenue to construct a garage addition that would encroach thirty feet into the secondary front yard setback. A motion to table this request was approved and the applicant was instructed to revise their plans for the addition in order to reduce the overall encroachment into the required setback area. At the Planning Commission meeting on May 7, 2014, the Commission recommended approval of this case 5-1 (Holewa opposed). Councilmember Holden invited the Commission to attend the 70th Anniversary of D-Day Celebration that would be held at TCAAP on June 6th. C. TCAAP Update Community Development Director Hutmacher reported that the City Council has been meeting to discuss topics related to the approval of the TCAAP master plan land use map as follows: • Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee recommendations for park needs and amenities (April 21) • Surface water amenity (April 21) • Residential development and densities (May 19) • Flex space land use (May 19) ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 12 Summaries of Council direction at the April 21, 2014, work session meeting were provided to the Planning Commission in the May 7, 2014, TCAAP Update. Community Development Director Hutmacher reported that the City Council discussed residential densities and the flex space land use on May 19, 2014. The City Council chose not to set a maximum number of dwelling units at this time, although the Council may revisit a maximum unit count during the regulations and policies component of the master planning process. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated that the City Council did not make changes to the amount of land designated for the flex space land use. The City Council discussed their preference for office development and that this type of development should be allowed and encouraged in the flex space area. The City Council will consider regulations that limit the amount of warehouse/distribution uses at TCAAP. Based on City Council direction on May 19, 2014, revisions have been made to the draft master plan land use map, which can be summarized as follows: • Parks in the Creek, Hill, and Town neighborhoods have been adjusted slightly to accommodate recommended amenities. It is important to note that the exact size, dimensions, and layouts of parks will be determined at a later date. The PTRC recommendations focused on the amenities required in each park; how those amenities are accommodated at each site will be determined during park design. • The town neighborhood park adjacent to the existing water treatment facility has been more clearly identified as a park. The civic area adjacent to the park contains the water treatment facility and space for another civic use such as a small amphitheater or a historical marker/display. • In the Creek neighborhood, the park location has been shifted to be closer to the entrance to the neighborhood. This has been done to limit the amount of program-related traffic driving through the neighborhood. In the case of the Hill park, this was not possible due to the terrain. The ball fields need relatively flat surface areas, and there are limited locations in the Hill neighborhood where this is possible. • Pocket parks were removed as they are too small to be maintained and programmed by the City. Developers will be encouraged to include pocket parks that will be privately owned and maintained. • An adult athletic facility (softball, ice rinks) has been added to the flex space area west of the Spine Road. Because this facility will need to be lighted and will attract primarily adult users, it is appropriate that it be located outside of residential neighborhoods and along the County road. Shared parking with adjacent businesses will be considered, similar to what is currently in place at Cummings Park. • A block of residential development at the north end of the town neighborhood was removed to accommodate anticipated storm water management needs in that area. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 13 Community Development Director Hutmacher reported that the City Council will review the revised draft master plan land use map on June 16, 2014. Planning Commission comments on the revised map will be conveyed to the Council at that time. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to approve the master plan land use map on June 30, 2014. Community Development Director Hutmacher explained that the public comment period for the draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan ended on May 28, 2014. Comments were received from Mr. Lyle Salmela, the City of Shoreview, the Minnesota Department of Health, MnDOT, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Metropolitan Council. City staff and consultants are reviewing the comments to determine how they should be reflected in the final draft document. The City Council will review the final draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan on June 30, 2014, and is tentatively scheduled to approve the final document on July 28, 2014. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that the team of Kimley-Horn and Associates and Wenck Associates was selected by Ramsey County and the City of Arden Hills for the development and design of the TCAAP Redevelopment Site Infrastructure. Their scope of services addresses design of public infrastructure including roadways, drainage, and stormwater management features, and utilities to support the redevelopment. The consultants will spend the next several months developing preliminary design layouts for the Spine Road, thumb road connection to County Road I, regional stormwater management system, grading plan, mitigated wetlands, and sanitary sewer and water supply systems. Their work will require close coordination with ongoing planning and remediation activities and development of the adjacent interchange on County Road H at I-35W. Community Development Director Hutmacher noted that the preliminary designs will enable the consultant team to develop refined construction cost estimates to assist in the development of an infrastructure financing plan. The consultant team will also ultimately prepare construction documents for public bidding of the site infrastructure improvements. Community Development Director Hutmacher commented that with City Council approval of the master plan land use map tentatively scheduled for June 30, 2014, staff and consultants are beginning to schedule work for the regulations and policies component of the master planning process. Topics for Planning Commission and City Council work session discussions will be identified in the next month. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated that the JDA approved the issuance of an Energy Plan that would review energy redundancy and alternative energy forms on TCAAP. She explained a task force would be appointed to assist with this initiative. ADJOURN Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to adjourn the June 4, 2014, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:24 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0).