This transcript features the Oakdale Planning Commission meeting. Based on the context provided, here is the formatted transcript with speaker identifications. *** **[00:00] Chair:** Call order please. Luke, could we have a call of roll please? **[00:05] Luke McClanahan:** Thank you, Chair. Pearson? **[00:07] Commissioner Pearson:** Here. **[00:08] Luke McClanahan:** Willenbring? **[00:09] Commissioner Willenbring:** Here. **[00:10] Luke McClanahan:** Campbell is absent. Stellari also absent. Moli? **[00:12] Commissioner Moli:** Here. **[00:13] Luke McClanahan:** Di? **[00:14] Commissioner Di:** Here. **[00:15] Luke McClanahan:** Hegen? **[00:16] Commissioner Hegen:** Here. **[00:17] Chair:** Pledge of Allegiance, please. *(Group recites the Pledge of Allegiance)* **[00:30] Chair:** Thank you. Uh, first question, Luke—we don’t have any minutes from last meeting, I take it? **[00:35] Luke McClanahan:** That's correct, Chair. **[00:37] Chair:** Okay, thank you. Approval of the agenda. Does anyone have any changes to the agenda that wish to propose? No? Seeing none, I ask for approval of the agenda. **[00:45] Commissioner:** So moved. **[00:46] Commissioner:** Second. **[00:47] Chair:** All those in favor, aye. Any opposed? Thank you, agenda approved. First is the Open Forum. We have this as an opportunity to be heard on things that are not normally an opportunity to debate for things that are not on the agenda. We limit it to no more than 20 minutes total, and so each speaker can have 3 minutes. So if there's anyone who wishes to speak to items that are not on the agenda, please step forward and make comment—and again, that's not on the agenda, not the two topics below. **[01:15] Brad Medve:** Brad Medve, 7601 31st Street North. Um, this is more of a general question on these agenda items—are we then can come up and make our comments, or is this the period to make our comments? **[01:30] Chair:** It's a public hearing and you get an opportunity after the reports are given and we hear from the constituents, the main people on the... **[01:35] Brad Medve:** Okay, so but after that is it a public hearing? **[01:37] Chair:** Yes. **[01:38] Brad Medve:** Okay, so afterwards would be the time we can come up and make our comments. All right, thank you. **[01:42] Chair:** Yep. Anyone else who wishes to make open Forum comments? **[01:45] Douglas Nelson:** I'll speak. Hi, my name is Douglas Nelson. I live on Fourth Street Lane North, that's the cul-de-sac that's right north of where this MWF... can you hear me okay? But my question is this: Are you talking on something that's on the public hearings that are coming up? **[02:00] Chair:** Uh, well it's actually one of the two on your Planning Commission agenda today. **[02:05] Douglas Nelson:** So you want me to wait for the public hearing part? Okay. All right. Somebody said this—I think he was an actor—I'll be back. **[02:15] Chair:** Anyone else have something that's not on the public hearings that are coming up? Seeing none, I close the public forum/open forum and bring it to Old Business, which you have none. So first order of New Business is a public hearing on the MWF Properties LLC, 390 Helmo Avenue North, a planned unit development Amendment discussion. Luke, or is it Max? Max, you're up. **[02:40] Max (Staff):** Thank you, Planning Commission, and good evening. Before us tonight is a request for a planned unit development Amendment at 390 Helmo Avenue North located at the Northern end of the Helmo Station PUD area near the border of the Oakrun Shores neighborhood. This site is zoned for the Helmo Station PUD where this 2.7-acre parcel is designated for high-density multifamily with specific performance criteria. The applicant here is proposing an amendment to the Helmo Station PUD to allow the maximum height at the specified parcel to be four stories rather than the three stories currently allowed. This request is tied to a planned 133-unit multifamily apartment building by the developer, which will be considered at a later date. A concept plan was previously considered by the City Council at a council workshop on August 8th, 2023. During this meeting, the Council voiced majority support for the concept plan. Here, the developer is looking to receive approval for the updated maximum height prior to pursuing other approvals. The existing three-story limit for this parcel was originally intended to provide a smaller visual footprint as a transitional space between the existing Oakrun Shores neighborhood and the Helmo Station PUD area. In exchange for the flexibility and maximum building height, the developer has proposed having a much larger 40-foot setback on the Northern end of the site in order to reduce the visual footprint of the site. Here we can see a rendering of the proposed 133-unit apartment building submitted alongside the PUD Amendment request. As you can see, there is a much larger setback visible than the other development in the Helmo Station PUD to help ease the visual impact of the building. As well, staff is recommending additional landscaping and screening in the setback area. Here we can see an additional view of the proposed building from the Northwest perspective. To conclude, staff is recommending approval of the PUD amendment to raise the maximum height allowed from 3 stories to 4 stories as detailed in the staff report on file. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions: The high-density multifamily building shall be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the northern property line; a viewshed analysis shall be submitted with the site plan application; the four-story building shall incorporate varying roof lines and articulations; the developer shall install additional landscaping; and satisfaction of park dedication requirements. As a reminder, this is a public hearing and the developer is here with us in attendance. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions regarding this request. **[05:15] Chair:** Thank you, Max. One question I've got—I'm not sure from the report if there were any, or when the process would be for meetings with the neighborhood? **[05:22] Max (Staff):** Ultimately, that would be up to the developer. **[05:25] Chair:** Okay. Anyone have any questions for Max? Anyone from the commission? Okay. Would the developer like to make any opening comments? **[05:35] Matt Yetzer:** Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Matt Yetzer, I'm with MWF Properties, 7645 Lindale Avenue South in Richfield. Appreciate your consideration of the request here. We feel that the proposed PUD amendment is a fit within the community given the surrounding uses in that area, the vision of the city for that area being a transit-oriented hub. We're hoping to do our best to limit the impacts on the existing residential to the north with the increased setback that we mentioned. You mentioned a meeting with the neighborhood—we haven't done that yet. After this step would be a more complete site plan application. Throughout that process, we'd be more than happy to set up a time to meet with neighbors and gather their feedback. Aside from that, thank you again for the consideration and here to answer any questions. **[06:40] Chair:** Any questions for the developer from anyone here? Thank you very much, you'll probably get some questions in a little bit, I'm sure. Anything further from staff before we open up the public hearing? Okay, with that I open up the public hearing on the planned unit development Amendment. Public comments—for rules of conduct, we usually limit it to no more than three minutes per person. Be respectful of all those present. Try not to duplicate comments from previous speakers so it doesn't get too repetitive. And with that, anyone wish to come forward? **[07:15] Jim Trudeau:** Jim Trudeau, I live at 7584 4th Street Lane North. If you have a little map here, I'm sure you—from the original plan, if I'm laying in bed, this building is directly outside my view of site, which now—because you took all the wildlife out of there, you know? No more wild turkeys running through our property, no deer. You took them with 150 trees for your little bus that you're putting a lot of eggs in one basket that this bus line is going to bring all this economic development to the city. You got 328 units in Impacts... the seven-story that you proposed, or his building, they've rented 10 so far? Boy, how can we put up with all the traffic? At 5:30 this morning I got up to use my restroom and what I hear? Beep beep beep beep from all the backup alarms on the equipment. It used to be 7 to 7 you could do building in the city. You don't start at 5:30 in the morning and then work till 8:30 at night hearing beep beep beep. How many more editions do we have that Cornerstone is going to say "I know it's three but we're not going to do it unless we can do four" and you're going to lay back and say "oh that's fine"? That's a bunch of bull. You’re looking at a plan that might be, I don't know, from 2000. What are you going to do about the 48-inch storm outlet that's running from the existing pond? Are you going to build on that? Did you put that into your new calculations? You can’t put a building on there. You’ll end up like all the problems they've had up in Duluth with the storms. **[09:45] Chair:** Jim, your three minutes is up. Doug, go ahead. **[09:50] Douglas Nelson:** Yeah, my name's Douglas Nelson. I've lived on my little piece of heaven—7560 4th Street Lane North—it was the last one to be built in Oakrun Shores. I moved in in March 2004. Just to add to what Jim is saying here, I'm concerned about the noise, about the value of my property, and most importantly, I live in a FEMA flood plane. The first three buildings are in a FEMA flood plane. The marsh behind us is also part of that flood plane that drains underneath the new Fourth Street Lane North into that pond. That's also in a FEMA flood plane. That's my concern—is flooding and the proper design by you folks from MWF properties to safeguard my property. The other thing that I'm concerned about is the impact of this development on my property. In this cul-de-sac, there are 14 Twin Homes. My twin home next to me sold in April of 2023 for $394,000. The total value of our cul-de-sac market-wise is over $5 million. So what's the impact of this high-density housing going on south of Fourth Street? Is it going to go up or is it going to go down? Thank you for listening. I see Mr. Harrington is not here? Oh, he is here? Good. Well, I'm glad. Is the Mayor here? Mayor is here? Outstanding. Mr. Mayor, thank you for listening to me. I voted for you—you're doing a good job. **[12:10] Bob Beetle:** Good evening. I am Bob Beetle. I'm representing Colleen Breggs tonight who lives at 7590 on 4th Street Lane North. My background is I spent over 30 years as a condemnation commissioner for Washington County. In my opinion, based on those years of experience, the building and new construction—the noise, the dirt, the dust—all of that is compensable damages from my perspective. You will be compensating residents for loss of value. Value can be determined as to what it was pre-construction and what it will be post-construction. As a manager for Edina Realty, I believe there will be damages and loss of value. The difference will be litigated. I just wanted to bring your attention to that—the owners in this area are going to be made aware of the impact on the values of their properties. They already feel it. There’s more traffic, more noise. They have limited access on Fourth Street; they have to go only one direction, East. All of those are compensable. When you start asking for another story on the building, that's going to be more traffic and more implications on property values. **[14:20] Bill Hummer:** My name is Bill Hummer. I live at 452 Hickory Lane, in that intersection of Helmo and Fourth Street. Lived there for 25 years. We have watched the progress of the development of that property. Originally it was supposed to be an office complex. We now see this property used for housing. It looks like the development of the entire property is 826 units. If you can imagine the amount of traffic that's going to bring into that area—if you just say one car per unit, that's putting in close to a thousand more cars. I came off of 694 today at 4:00 and watched as traffic went down Helmo Avenue. All five cars went across the bridge—they looked like people looking at an easier way to get into Woodbury. One of the comments in the design was that it was going to enhance the quality of life for the existing homeowners. I see nothing that's going to improve the quality of life. We had to pay to improve the streets in that area which are now being torn up. We need to consider the impact 826 units is going to have. Adding another story is adding 25% to that building. I think you have to think of us before we think of the developer. **[16:45] Brad Medve:** Brad Medve, 7601 31st Street. While this project does not affect me, it should be noted that the Norhart apartments that these residents are referring to have had to come back to the city council to get other amendments made because when they built that building, they built it too close to the road to begin with. So that’s one concern—that these guys are adhering to their setbacks. **[17:15] Chair:** Anyone else wishing to come forward for this? **[17:18] Douglas Nelson:** Hi, Douglas Nelson. How many of you actually live south of 10th Street North between I-694 and Inwood Avenue? How many of you actually live in South Oakdale? Anybody? So nobody's really ever... have you ever seen our property, the cul-de-sac? **[17:35] Chair:** I drive by it quite often. **[17:36] Douglas Nelson:** Good. So then you know our concerns firsthand. That’s all I want to know. **[17:40] Chair:** I'll ask one more time, anyone else wish to come forward? Just quick, when's the next meeting? **[17:45] Luke McClanahan:** It would be scheduled for the August 27th City Council meeting. **[17:50] Chair:** Seeing no other comments, I'll close the public hearing on this and bring it back to the commission. Anybody have any questions further to this? **[18:00] Commissioner Hegen:** A couple comments. The first speaker spoke about noise level—as much as I understand, that’s something we don't control. There was always going to be dirt/noise issue with future development. The term "as-built" happens after the fact after the building is complete. On the value of properties—it’s a good point, but there’s no control over that. I live just north of 10th Street; I walk through this area. Yes, it is close to the road, but there could have been an office building there as well besides an apartment. **[19:15] Commissioner Di:** I just wanted to thank all of you for taking the time to come in here. This is what makes neighborhoods great. In terms of the flooding, I hope the staff looked at those issues to mitigate problems. To building height—we all know the zoning defines what the height should be, but there is a mechanism to increase it. The traffic impact... my question to staff is: would a traffic study be required as part of this or not? **[20:10] Luke McClanahan:** Ultimately, the proposal is within the permitted density that's already allowed within the Helmo Station PUD. This request is solely for the change in building height. **[20:25] Chair:** Anything else? Barring that, I look for a motion to recommend approval of the planned unit development Amendment at 390 Helmo Avenue North with conditions. **[20:35] Commissioner:** As moved. **[20:36] Commissioner:** Second. **[20:37] Chair:** Those in favor? Those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. We are a recommendation; the final decision lies with the City Council. **[20:50] Andrew Gitzlaff:** Mr. Chair, just an announcement—if folks have questions, have them contact city staff. Luke and Max are on the city website. **[21:00] Chair:** Next public hearing is on the Oakdale Marketplace Planned Unit Development Amendment and the Oakdale Station Planned Unit Development Amendment. Luke? **[21:10] Luke McClanahan:** Thank you, Chair. Prior to the meeting, the city received a letter and an email from a private attorney. Those correspondences were forwarded to the Planning Commission. The letter and email raise legal issues. Those legal issues will be addressed in due course by the City Attorney and the City Council; the Planning Commission should not address them during tonight's meeting. **[21:40] Chair:** Andrew is going to do the report? **[21:42] Luke McClanahan:** No, I'll do the report. I’m just Luke up here, I just like to be up here. **[21:45] Luke McClanahan:** For the Oakdale Marketplace and Oakdale Station PUD areas: The area is bounded to the north by 34th Street, the east by Ideal Avenue, the south by the railroad, and the west by I-694. History: it was originally designated for commercial in the mid-2000s. Oakdale Station includes LA Fitness and commercial buildings. Oakdale Marketplace goes from Pins and Ideal Storage to Target. Market changes have occurred. Notably, the Harland Apartments are under construction. In 2023, in response to a concept plan for a tire center, the Council directed staff to conduct a study. The city hired WSB. The study's findings are the basis for the amendments tonight. We are proposing additional land use options. (Luke goes through Tract A, Tract 1, Tract 2, Tract 3, Tract 4, and Tract 5). For Tract 3, we are proposing it must contain at least one Class 1 restaurant. For Tract 5, we’d welcome input on whether a fast-food option would be appropriate. Also, we are proposing a joint pylon sign off 694, 4-sided architectural requirements, and additional landscaping. After this, it goes to the August 27th Council meeting. Andy, Max, did I miss anything? **[26:15] Chair:** I've got a couple here. First one—define Class 1 restaurant for me. **[26:20] Luke McClanahan:** Class 1 restaurants per our zoning code include traditional restaurants (seated at a counter/table) and cafeterias. It shall not include drive-through windows. We have a separate definition for "convenience food restaurant," which is traditional fast food. **[27:00] Chair:** And do breweries come in under Class 1? **[27:05] Luke McClanahan:** We have a separate definition for breweries and taprooms. **[27:10] Chair:** You talk about four-sided construction. Are you telling me that you want all little boxes in there? **[27:15] Luke McClanahan:** The intent is for consistency for the facade so there is no apparent backside to the building. **[27:25] Commissioner Pearson:** I have a question too. You had in there Class 1 restaurants. The restaurant business is tough right now. If we design these for Class 1 only, we could sit on ground for another 20 years. Is there any leeway? **[27:40] Luke McClanahan:** For that particular parcel, we are proposing a Class 1 but leaving the door open for a drive-thru option there. **[27:50] Andrew Gitzlaff:** Mr. Chair, we're somewhat limited by our definitions in the code, but that's something staff can work on. If the intent is a broader definition like "fast casual," we can clear that up. **[28:20] Commissioner Hegen:** When an option 1 and option 2 are put through, are we doing one or the other? **[28:25] Luke McClanahan:** Commercial development is still valid throughout. The options provide flexibility for individual tracts. **[28:40] Commissioner Willenbring:** Most of these options are kind of your conceptions of possibilities, not anything fixed, except you're pushing for a restaurant at one location? **[28:50] Luke McClanahan:** If a developer comes through, it has to be in substantial conformance with one of those options. **[29:00] Commissioner Di:** Is there a demand for office space? It seems like there's a lot of open office space. And putting residential right next to the train tracks—sounds like an unpleasant place to live. **[29:20] Luke McClanahan:** Our consultant mentioned healthcare clinics as a type of office use that would be appropriate. **[29:35] Commissioner Moli:** On the fourth condition, Landscaping—your comment said "Evergreens." I hope the resolution spells out exactly what landscaping means for enforcement purposes. **[29:50] Chair:** I'm glad to see options here. If a restaurant wanted to come in by now, it would have been there. I'd like to see the option of commercial retail. Who owns the existing billboard site? And I've heard rumors of LA Fitness leaving—how would that impact this? **[30:20] Andrew Gitzlaff:** Staff reached out to LA Fitness and they said they were not closing, but we've heard elsewhere. We’re taking a wait-and-see approach. Regarding the billboard, it is an existing lease with a property owner. **[31:30] Chair:** Does the developer wish to make any comments? **[31:35] Dan Terwilliger:** Hi, my name is Dan Terwilliger, 13012 June Terrace, Minnetonka. I’m with Launch Properties, the developer working on Tract 3. We've been working on this for almost two years. We have been turned down by numerous restaurants. The site has sat vacant since Target opened in 2007. The city’s proposal that Tract 3 "must contain one Class 1 restaurant" seems to be spot zoning. The city has tried this in the past with no success. The WSB report stated it would be very difficult to attract sit-down restaurants to this location. We are open to restaurants, but they just do not work. I ask that you deny the recommendation. **[34:10] Dan Regan:** Good evening. My name is Dan Regan, principal of Launch Properties. We brought a concept plan in 2023 for a bank and a tire shop. It was clear there were negative opinions about those uses. I grew up in North St. Paul; I live near Inwood and 10th. I understand the micro-trade area. We feel this PUD amendment is roadblocking a good development. The WSB study clearly states there isn't demand for Class 1 restaurants here. Why are we trying to further handcuff this site? We are very much opposed to the amendment when it comes to that specific change. **[36:50] Brad Medve:** Brad Medve, 7601 31st Street North. I live directly south of this new Harland apartment building. I’m disappointed we didn't get notice that there was going to be a PUD amendment to allow this. I don't think there's enough parking for 156 units. I totally oppose any change to the existing commercial buildings. I want restaurants and commercial buildings; I don't want housing. **[38:45] Resident:** Can you hear me? I moved my daughter into college in Iowa today and drove back for this. Years ago we were promised restaurants. That apartment building was a slap in the face. I want to see restaurants and businesses so I don't have to go to Woodbury anymore. I want to spend my money here in Oakdale. Thank you for finally coming to the people. **[40:50] Alan Dale:** Alan Dale, owner of Oakdale Station. I appreciate the city looking at expanding uses. For our parcel south of LA Fitness, the primary use will be multifamily or industrial. I suggest it be as flexible as possible. **[41:30] John Rous:** My name is John Rous. I'm the broker for Mr. Dale. We cannot—nor can Dan Regan—make a restaurant come just because of the zoning. The world's changed after COVID. Flexibility is the result we're looking for. **[42:30] Michelle Cosgrove:** Michelle Cosgrove, 7680 31st Street Plaza. We attended the last session where we voiced concern about more residential. My concern is the capacity of Eagle Point Elementary. It’s already at max. What will all these new buildings do to that school? **[43:15] Tim Keane:** Good evening. My name is Tim Keane, office at 6 South 6th Street, Minneapolis. I am here on behalf of Oakdale Marketplace LLC. I was the City Attorney that negotiated this PUD agreement originally. A PUD agreement is a binding contract. One party cannot unilaterally amend it; it must be by mutual agreement. This narrowing of restrictions is not contemplated in the PUD agreement. I think you've got an issue of potential regulatory takings by hemming in one of the sites to a specified restaurant. The moratorium looks like a targeted moratorium to delay a single project. I request you recommend denial and reboot the process. **[46:10] Alan Dale:** I have a question—these are two separate PUDs? We are supportive of the PUD for Oakdale Station. **[46:30] Chair:** Public hearing is closed. Bring it back for comment. **[46:40] Commissioner Hegen:** I have an issue with the restaurant requirement. To hold a project up for a restaurant—I don't agree. I’m concerned about moving ahead because of the legal issues. Maybe it needs a reboot. **[47:30] Chair:** I'll throw my two cents in. I don't agree with withholding the rights of property owners. I urge the City Council to take that out. That said, we'll take each ordinance individually. Oakdale Station first. **[47:50] Commissioner:** So moved. **[47:51] Commissioner:** Second. **[47:52] Chair:** All those in favor, aye. Any opposed? That one passes to the City Council. Next is the Oakdale Marketplace PUD. **[48:05] Commissioner:** So moved. **[48:06] Commissioner:** Second. **[48:07] Chair:** All those in favor, aye. *(Mixed response)* **[48:10] City Attorney:** Chair, I think you should take a roll call vote on that one so you know exactly what the count was. **[48:15] Luke McClanahan:** Pearson? **[48:16] Commissioner Pearson:** Nay. **[48:17] Luke McClanahan:** Willenbring? **[48:18] Commissioner Willenbring:** Aye. **[48:19] Luke McClanahan:** Moli? **[48:20] Commissioner Moli:** No. **[48:21] Luke McClanahan:** Di? **[48:22] Commissioner Di:** Aye. **[48:23] Luke McClanahan:** Hegen? **[48:24] Commissioner Hegen:** No. **[48:25] Chair:** That one would appear to fail 3 to 2. It will be taken up by the City Council as we only make recommendations. Staff update? **[48:35] Luke McClanahan:** Murray conditional use permit was recommended for approval by the City Council. Tanners Lake is still in limbo. Not sure if we will have a September meeting. **[49:00] Chair:** Council Liaison update? Kevin? **[49:05] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I want to thank the commission and everybody who's attended. This commission has done extraordinarily well in welcoming conversation. In terms of work, it's budget season. We are working on departmental requests and park projects. Preliminary levy adoption is in mid-September. Happy to answer any questions. **[50:10] Chair:** I look for a motion to adjourn. **[50:12] Commissioner:** Motion to adjourn. **[50:13] Commissioner:** Second. **[50:14] Chair:** Those in favor? Seeing none, we are adjourned.