Since the original transcript did not include timestamps, they have been omitted or can be represented as [00:00] for formatting. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** ...of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. First on our agenda tonight is the approval of the agenda. Council members, we have a slightly amended version in front of us. Can I get a motion to approve as amended? **[00:00] Council Member:** I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as amended. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? And the agenda is adopted. Next up, we have approval of the minutes. Two sets in front of us tonight. First up, Workshop meeting minutes from September 24th, 2024. Council members, any changes or corrections? Nope? I'll look for a motion. **[00:00] Council Member:** So moved. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and second. Final comments? All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? And the Workshop meeting minutes are approved as presented. Next up, we have regular meeting minutes from September 24th, 2024. Any changes or corrections? **[00:00] Council Member:** No. I'll look for a motion. **[00:00] Council Member:** So moved. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and second. Any final comments? All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? And the regular meeting minutes from September 24th are approved as presented. Sorry, I just noticed we have September 10th up there; I just want to make sure it was the Workshop minutes from the 24th. Next up, we have a public hearing on our docket for tonight regarding Tanner Lake Redevelopment. Staff presentation first. Luke, welcome. **[00:00] Luke McClanahan (Planning Manager):** Thank you, Mayor and Council. Situated here and bring up the presentation here on the screen in just a moment. So yes, we have a public hearing this evening for the Tanner Lake planned unit development and a Redevelopment proposal. So there are essentially two different requests in front of you tonight, yet they are related. So the first request is a rezoning of approximately eight acres to create the Tanner Lake planned unit development, or PUD, and the second request is for a development proposal. And these requests were heard by the Planning Commission on July 11th, and since then the developer has made updates to their plans, many of which address concerns that were raised at the Planning Commission meeting. Because I covered much of the background details for the proposal at the Planning Commission meeting and there are details in the staff report on file in the packet, I will focus mostly on the updates to the plans since the July Planning Commission meeting. So the location of the proposed PUD—it’s the area shown on the screen with the purple outline, and then the turquoise outlines are the parcels within the PUD. The purpose of the PUD is to rezone this area and enable flexibility from conventional zoning standards—so for example, parking requirements, setbacks—and this is due to the irregular shape of the property. So in exchange for flexibility given, there would be public benefit derived from requiring higher design standards for any buildings on the site and then also requiring pedestrian and site amenities. Additionally, the Tanner Lake PUD will help guide and ensure cohesive redevelopment of the site. The current zoning of the area is a mixture: it's medium-density residential, high-density residential, and community commercial. I would like to note one thing here: that Lakeview Terrace property that is included in the PUD, by doing so and by including it in the PUD, it will help bring the site into compliance with zoning regulations—for example, parking and setbacks—but beyond that, nothing changes for the Lakeview Terrace property to continue functioning as a condo building. Within the PUD area is certain property there is shown on the screen there outlined in turquoise, and that is the proposed redevelopment site. Currently, this site is vacant property; it once contained commercial uses. Just some high-level request details here: Tanner Lake LLC—that's the developer—they're here with us this evening. They are proposing a mixed-use development including a 126-unit apartment building there on the north side of the site, roughly where my cursor is. So that's located west of Lakeview Terrace. There will also be a commercial amenity building located south of Lakeview Terrace and then 12 rental townhome units on the southern portion of this development site. I would like to mention that all units are proposed as being market rate; or in other words, they are not income-restricted housing types. I will highlight this orange area; that is the flagpole portion that's currently owned by Lakeview Terrace, and I'll speak more to that in just a moment. Here’s a look at the proposed plat of Tanner Lake Second Addition. It's essentially a resubdivision of existing lots, and the subdivision will help facilitate the development proposal. A note on the orientation: the north arrow is pointing to the left of the screen. The plat proposes two buildable areas as you can see there—number one and then number two. Lot one would contain the apartment building and, assuming that the developer is able to work with Lakeview Terrace and acquire that flagpole portion, then they would also site the commercial amenity building here, again south of the Lakeview Terrace site. And then townhomes would be sited on this proposed lot two. There would be an outlot that's created here for the portion of the site that is Tanner Lake, and that would be conveyed back to the city for ownership. Oh sorry, just to go back one thing—so if the developer does not acquire the flagpole portion, then the apartment building would be situated fully within proposed lot one, and then lot two will have to be reconfigured and updated to also capture the commercial amenity building as well as the townhomes. Okay, sorry about that, I’m jumping around here. So here is a look at the site plan option one—the original site plan, if you will. Again, a note on the orientation: north arrow is pointing to the left of the screen. Because of the situation with the flagpole portion—that's an outstanding situation—the developer has prepared two site plan options. Recall that the city has processed multiple site plan options for other developments here in Oakdale in the past, in the recent past, and so this site plan option one assumes that the developer is able to acquire the flagpole portion from Lakeview Terrace. Access for the proposed apartment building here would be through the existing intersection off 120 Innovation Boulevard and the apartment building would also have a mid-block access off Highway 120. Lakeview Terrace will would continue to have access to Highway 120 via easement; so essentially the existing access that Lakeview Terrace has would be shifted south and then again there would be an easement to ensure that they would have access to their site in perpetuity. The apartment building, as I mentioned, it will have that mid-block access and that is subject to Minnesota DOT approval. And then there is another access to or on the east side of the building here; if you go through the drive and then loop around there, there's underground parking. I would like to highlight just the major buildings here on this site plan. Of course, you have the apartment building, the commercial amenity building, and then the 12 townhome units to the south of the site. Amenities: the commercial building will be geared towards water activities, but they could also host other uses such as yoga classes, birthday parties—the developer might have a little bit more to add to that. But there is also a boardwalk that will parallel Tanner Lake as well as a plaza area near the commercial amenity building. The DNR reviewed this request; in their official review, they did not have any objections to the proposal regarding impacts to the Shoreland. Parking for the site: there will be underground parking, as I mentioned, for the apartment building, and surface parking as well. So in total, there will be 170 spaces—so that includes three additional spaces that were added since the July Planning Commission meeting. Parking was one of those concerns that were brought up. So the way that the parking ratio shakes out is that it's one space per bedroom unit. So this one-to-one ratio is consistent with other apartments, similar apartments in Oakdale that have been recently approved. And also as you can see—or maybe it's probably very difficult to see actually—there's 10 spaces that will be dedicated for non-resident parking to folks who want to use the commercial amenity building. Here’s a look at site plan option two. In the event the developer cannot acquire the flagpole portion for this development from Lakeview Terrace, this alternative site plan would enable the developer to build fully on their own property. The apartment building in this scenario would be shorter in length but would be taller in height in order to maintain 126 dwelling units; so that number does not change from site plan option two versus option one. What you'll notice is that there is no direct access for the apartment building off Highway 120, and rather the access will be off Fourth Street, and the Fourth Street access would lead to an enclosed drive lane that would then feed into covered parking or underground parking underneath the building. So although the drive lane will be covered for snow management, there will be no units directly above it—just want to point that out. And the covered drive lane will collect snow and drain it accordingly. There is a proposed encroachment onto Highway 120 there; it's the switchback pedestrian ramp, and the developer will either need to obtain Minnesota DOT approval for that or they will have to relocate that so it's fully on their property. Another change to this site plan is that it has more surface parking; however, the parking ratio of that one parking space per bedroom unit will be maintained. I would like to note that there are no changes to the commercial building, the townhome units, the plaza, and the boardwalk from the site plan option one. Here’s a look at the apartment building and elevations for this; this is going back to site plan option one. The middle image here is the east elevation facing Lakeview Terrace, and then the bottom image is the west elevation facing Highway 120. To assist with the review of the apartment building’s design, the city had HKG—they are a planning and design consulting firm—they evaluated the design for conformance with the proposed Tanner Lake PUD. As I mentioned, there's certain design standards or higher design standards, I should say, that are incorporated into that PUD, and their analysis is included in the packet. And there is a condition of approval in the resolutions that requires the developer to make certain updates to comply with the design criteria. Some more elevations on the next few slides: this is now looking at the alternative site plan, or site plan option two, and it, as you can see, shows the multi-story apartment building that—there’s an additional residential story, again, to make up for the lack of the property there. They have to go higher in height. The top image is the north side of the apartment fronting Fourth Street, and the bottom images are the south side of the building. Here’s another elevation of the proposed apartment for the alternative site plan; again, it would contain an additional residential story. So just to be clear, this first floor here, what you’re looking at there, that’s private amenities for the residents—so think, you know, like a community library or a gym, things of that nature. And this image is looking east from Highway 120 towards the apartment, and then just for reference, Lakeview Terrace is there in the background. I also want to note that the Tanner Lake PUD has been updated to accommodate the height and setbacks for this structure. Moving on to a few more elevations here: this is the lakeside amenity building. The top right image there is the east facade that would face the lake, and then the bottom right is the west facade. Here’s a look at the townhomes: the top right image there is the west facade that would face Highway 120, and the bottom right is the east facade facing Tanner Lake. Here we have some shadow studies for the site plan option one. As you can see, it shows various dates and times and the shadow impacts between the two buildings being the apartment building and Lakeview Terrace. The developer’s team could speak more about the images if you have questions or if you just feel like there’s a little bit more information to get from these shadow studies. And shadow study option two here for the site plan option two has again similar information here showing the impacts of the shadows from one building to another. To conclude this presentation: as mentioned, the Planning Commission reviewed both the PUD and the development proposal back on July 11th and they recommended approval. I want to acknowledge that there were a number of questions and concerns that were brought up at that Planning Commission meeting, and staff and the developer have provided responses to many of those questions. We also have a frequently asked questions or FAQ sheet that’s incorporated into the Council packet for reference. Staff recommends approval of the Tanner Lake PUD and the development proposal, including the plats and the two site plan options, subject to the conditions in the resolution. Bear with me, I’m going to go through these; I’ll try my best to summarize them as best I can. So I’m reading from the packet. This is Resolution 2024-84 for the preliminary plat and final plat, and there are nine conditions: number one, approval of the Tanner Lake PUD; number two, execution of a development agreement; number three, approval of the site civil plans; number four, the proposed outlot containing Tanner Lake would be conveyed to the city; number five, the developer must comply with the city’s Shoreland overlay zoning district and perform vegetative restoration to the shoreline; number six, an easement or agreement must be recorded for public access to the boardwalk and plaza area, and the easement and agreement must also dedicate a minimum of 10 parking spaces near the commercial amenity building for public use; number seven, the developer satisfy park dedication requirements; number eight, the final plat must be revised to comply with the city attorney's plat opinion and the developer will also have to follow the city attorney's instructions for recording and title matters; and then number nine is permits and approvals must be obtained from the Watershed District and Minnesota DOT. Moving on to the site plan resolutions: this is site plan option one, Resolution number 2024-85. 13 conditions of approval here: number one, approval of the Tanner Lake PUD; two, execution of development agreement; number three, approval of the site civil plans; number four, the developer has to update the building’s exterior design standards to comply with the Tanner Lake PUD; number five, the site plan has to be revised to show the locations of exterior trash enclosures and their methods of screening; number six, site plan revisions to show any rooftop equipment, ground level utilities, external loading areas and screening; number seven, updates to the landscape plan; number eight, approval of the site civil construction plans; number nine, approval must be obtained from the fire department for the site’s access and proposed hydrant locations and fire department connections; number 10, a photometric plan must be provided; number 11, outside agency approvals must be obtained; number 12, revisions to the plaza area to comply with the city’s Shoreland regulations; and number 13 there is conduct vegetative restoration of the shoreline. The next resolution, which is for site plan option two—they are the same conditions as the resolutions from the previous site plan resolution I just mentioned; the only difference there is the difference in the legal description. So the site plan option two would exclude the legal description for the flagpole portion of Tanner Lake. A lot of information for the Council, but staff is happy to answer any questions and as I mentioned, the developer and the developer’s team is here to answer any questions as well. Thank you. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Thank you, Luke. Council members, any questions for our city planner? That was thorough. A lot, a lot of conditions. Yes. Developer Mr. [Mclin], any comments that you'd like to make at the podium before we open the public hearing? Okay, I'll circle back with you at the end if there's anything you'd like to address. So at this time, in a little bit, I'm going to open up the public hearing. Before we do that, I just want to cover a few of our ground rules here at Oakdale City Hall. First and foremost, the City Council wishes to give everybody an opportunity to be heard on matters before the City Council. As such, we set aside this time for public comment. And it is very important and we encourage everybody to participate. But some of our identified and adopted rules of conduct include: all persons wishing to address the Council shall approach the podium and be recognized by the Mayor. And when recognized by the Mayor, clearly state their name, address for the record. We don't need to cover that part—if the speaker has indicated they would like their comment read by the Mayor, then it'll be at this time—I don't believe we've received any written comments in advance, looking at the city clerk. Nope, we're good. Comments by each individual are limited to 3 minutes. Generally, a time period of no more than 20 minutes is reserved for public comment. Council members, I'm going to suggest that we wave this tonight just looking at how many people came to join us tonight, and we want to try and accommodate as many speakers as we can. So but the three-minute time limit will be enforced. We've set up a monitor here; when your time has expired, please wrap up the sentence that you are on and allow another speaker to take the podium. Each speaker will be permitted to address the Council once during the public hearing, unless all other persons desiring to speak have had the opportunity to do so. Speakers shall address their comments and/or statements and questions to the Mayor. The Mayor in turn will refer any questions or research requests to staff. Speakers should strive to provide only factual information and refrain from repeating comments made by other speakers. I think that's about it. Oh—should a member or members of the audience be identified as disorderly, the Mayor reserves the right to declare the meeting temporary recess and call for the removal of said persons from the audience. Persons not recognized by the Mayor shall refrain from commenting, interrupting a speaker at the podium, conducting conversations with other members of the audience, or creating any other type of disruption that may distract a member of the City Council, City staff, or the speaker at the podium. That's a lot of words. What we really want the takeaway to be is we want to hear from our residents, but this has to be a place of respect. We are committed to hear every resident out as we have on this development application since the very beginning. I'm just going to leave it at that. So at this time, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Anybody that would like to step up to the podium, please feel free to do so. As I mentioned, please begin with your name and address for the record and proceed with your comments. **[00:00] Ryan Shreder:** Mr. Mayor, Council, thank you for the opportunity. I'm Ryan Shreder. My wife and I own a property at 329 Geneva, apartment 204. I have six minutes of comments so I'm going to cut them in half, so this won't be as smooth as I had intended. But I want to start with this: this development is not properly in front of you this evening as a PUD proposal. In order to make application for PUD, the developer, in accordance with your PUD ordinance, must have control over the entire development parcel. He did not at time of application; he still doesn't. You really weren't even permitted to take the application for a PUD. I have a number of other ways that the application does not comply with your PUD ordinance and later, if you want to hear them, I'd be happy to go over them. But assuming that I'm wrong—not, but assuming that I'm wrong—that the pre-thresholds have not been met, you still need to meet the demands of the PUD ordinance. And the PUD ordinance demands that the underlying zoning requirements, such as setbacks, must still be met. This doesn't. The comp plan requirements must be met. This doesn't come even close to it. And further, the development isn't on contiguous parcels, because Lakeview Terrace is in between. So as a non-contiguous plat, it's basically block one lot one, block two lot one. So each lot has to stand on its own. I can go through all the areas of zoning where it doesn't comply; I won't do that. But as one example: under your zoning ordinance, as proposed option one proposal, it requires a 7-acre minimum. Option one is a 1.9-acre parcel for the apartment building; option two is a 0.9-acre parcel. Neither one comes anywhere close to what your zoning ordinance requires. Through all of our conversation with staff when we've pointed out that you're not telling the Planning Commission, you're not telling the Council what zoning code requires, they have said "doesn't matter, it's a PUD." It matters. The public needs to know; you need to know what zoning requires even if it's a PUD. They should start with "here's what the chapter 25 requires, here's how we're varying, here's why we think it makes sense." They haven't done any of that, ever. I do have a few requests if I can go through those requests; it’s just five contingencies... **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Mr. Shreder, your time has expired. Is there anybody else that would like to speak under the public hearing tonight? Welcome. **[00:00] Michelle Stoltz:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council. I'm Michelle Stoltz. I live at 329 Geneva Avenue North, Apartment 306, Oakdale, 55128. As I said, my name is Michelle Stoltz. I serve as president of the board and am an 18-year resident at Lakeview Terrace. Lakeview Terrace was very surprised when we learned about the proposed development less than two weeks before it was on the Planning Commission agenda in July. Since then, we have been trying to catch up on what is being planned and how it will impact the condo owners at Lakeview as well as the neighbors near us at Tanner Lake. We did not ask to be, nor do we care to be, a part of a PUD. We have lived next to blighted properties owned by the city for the past 17 years and had hoped for a development that would serve as an amenity to us and to others as it relates to viewing the lake, as had been the case with having had two restaurants in the past. We had assumed that any new building on the property between us and 120 would be commercial retail, as that is how it is zoned. We didn't understand that a PUD means "anything goes." What would make us happy? Well, here are some things that have not made us happy. We are not happy that we were not involved in the planning process more than a year ago in May when proposals were first introduced to the city. We are not happy to have a looming structure with insufficient setbacks overshadowing our building. Many are not happy or don't care about a boathouse that serves no purpose but to block some of our views. And with only 10 parking spots available to the public, we are concerned about family housing in the homes that don't seem to be the best use for most people adjacent to us. We are not happy with being told that something will happen regardless and our only options are to accept one of few options, none of which are desirable. We are worried about the density to this area, which is extreme on a small parcel of land. We are worried about the safety of all with so many cars pouring out onto the small side of the street and 120 daily. We are worried about our home values. Yet none of these issues have been considered nor seem to matter to the city of Oakdale. Lakeview Terrace, with the short notice after one meeting with the developer, put together our counter-proposal that he did not respond to for 3 weeks. We provided the necessary time for vote—oh, is there a reason why it's not working again? Okay, I need a couple more seconds then. The developer, the day before the vote, counter-proposed with fewer items than he originally agreed to and minimal compensation for land or use of the parking lot. The vote was still one-third agreeing to the development with the caveat of both initial and ongoing funding services, one-third opposed regardless of any compensation fees or services, and one-third not voting with some confused all about all that was going on due to such short notice. We have been told that this is a good thing for Lakeview Terrace, but we are hard-pressed to see how it benefits us. We are taxpaying citizens to the city of Oakdale who want consideration, too. Thank you. [Applause] **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Thank you. Is anybody else that would like to speak under the public hearing tonight? Welcome. **[00:00] Florence Bugger:** Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I just... I do have a question... [adjusting microphone] is this better? No? A little bit better? Yeah. Okay. My name is Florence Bugger. I live at 329 Geneva and in unit 217, Oakdale. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I want to make a reference to the PUD requirements that are listed. The PUD includes Lakeview Terrace, and I'm just wanting a clarification: is the intention that the requirements apply to Lakeview Terrace? It's a long list of requirements and it looked like they are primarily aimed at new development, and I think we would have a tough time complying with all those requirements. Another thing I want to mention is the density calculations. In your Q&A, it mentions that Lakeview Terrace is 1.3 acres, 75 units at 57.5 units per acre. The new development is specified to be 3.25 acres, 138 units at 42.5 units per acre. But that excludes Lakeview Terrace in that 3.25 acres. So the real number should be 138 plus 75, which is 213 units at 65.5 units per acre. The type and size of development is not right for this property. It is already a congested area with busy intersections nearby. Two Lakeview Terrace residents have lost their lives crossing or walking on Highway 120 nearby. Any development of vacant areas should not impact the property owned by Lakeview Terrace homeowners. The driveway and parking lot are designed to provide ingress and egress and for our parking our vehicles and guest vehicles. Underground parking spaces are deeded with the units and are not accessible to people that don't own them, and they don't come close to serving all of the owners. Thank you. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Thank you. Anyone else like to speak under the public hearing tonight? Welcome. **[00:00] Julie Ulot:** Mayor, Council, my name is Julie Ulot. I live at 410 Gentry Avenue South in Oakdale, which is right across from where this planning building is supposed to go. Right now, my major concern is traffic on Fourth Street. We've got Tartan students, we've got people from 3M, and we have people coming off of Century cutting through the parking lot of old Harmons down Fourth. Nobody obeys the speed and traffic. As the woman previous to me mentioned, the congestion—I've got kids that live behind me, I've got nephews that live in the condo across from me. There are kids that play in that parking lot at Lakeview Terrace. Nobody takes into consideration what we—even though we owned houses in our part of Lakeview Terrace, nobody took into consideration of letting us know anything about this until all of a sudden the developers decided to talk to Lakeview Terrace. I, as a citizen of Oakdale, have noticed that that lot—I appreciate you wanting to get rid of it, but please consider what not only Lakeview Terrace needs but what the residents need, and it's not more traffic congestion on Fourth Street. And that's exactly what this development will bring, especially in the winter and the way the snow plows come through on Fourth Street. It's totally unacceptable. So please take into consideration the homeowners that live in this area. Thank you. [Applause] **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak under the public hearing tonight? Welcome. **[00:00] Tony Dubay:** Hi, Mr. Mayor, Council. Thank you for letting me speak for a minute. Tony Dubay, 329 Geneva Avenue North, number 418. I just want to make one quick point and then get to my request. Luke's presentation was very thorough. What he kind of glossed over is that in site plan number one, that garage empties out onto Lakeview Terrace property. I don't know if everyone was clear on that, but the exit for the garage turning east is our property. So that won't be part of any easement or purchase agreement or anything like that. So that's my point, as long as everyone took note of that. By trade, I'm a real estate appraiser. I'm not opposed to development. I guess I would humbly request that we don't... that we just give a little more time to talk to the developers, reach an agreement that's acceptable to everyone. That we don't absolutely need to push this through right now. The process feels rushed and I completely understand the development process, but I guess my humble request would be that we just maybe not go with formal approvals tonight. Just give a little more time for everything to play out. Thanks for the time. [Applause] **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Thank you. Who would like to speak next? Welcome. **[00:00] Jason Shy:** Hi, I'm Jason Shy. I live at 662 Gentry Ave, so I kind of live down the street. You know, as I drive around Minnesota, there's so much development; there's commercial property and there's, you know, these big housing complexes that all look the same. But none of it looks like a New York City; none of it looks like a high-rise. So to think that right in Oakdale, around the corner from the Horseshoe Park, is what appears to be like... I don't know, it looks like Minneapolis. It looks like it'll crush those people. They're going to look out their window on the third floor and see somebody else's window. It just doesn't make sense in this little area. Not to mention that, you know, you got one house, one car per bedroom, and then when that guy's girlfriends come over, where are they going to park? In front of my house. And then if you have 120 apartments or whatever it is, 150, and you know everyone has a girlfriend with a car, where are they all going to go? I mean, are we going to be—the cops going to go around and tagging people? You know, the density is like obscene. It doesn't make sense for this area. And when I drive around Woodbury and I see huge housing tracks being put up because people must be moving to Minnesota, they're low to the ground and there's a tree next to them in a yard. This is kind of a freakish, like, dystopian city-like structure that seems to be like... almost looks like a punishment for Lakeview Terrace. Like it blocks them in so they can't see the sun. I don't live there, but I'm sure there'll be people parking in front of my house. That's it. [Applause] **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Who's up next? Anybody? Welcome. **[00:00] Fay Coolen Kamp:** I'm Fay Coolen Kamp. I live at 461 Gentry Avenue North, halfway down the block. Again, I'm kind of repeating what they're saying about Fourth Street. That entrance is really bad. I don't know if you've ever tried going down Fourth trying to get onto 120; you can't go north or south. It's very bad unless you plan on putting some type of signals in or something, that might work, I don't know. I do believe people will be parking down our street. We had a big assessment, I don't know how long ago—10, 15 years ago—and you probably remember they did the street, Gentry Avenue, only to shut—we paid this big assessment only to lose Fifth Street entrance to 120. They shut that altogether. Now we're actually going to lose Fourth Street, and I'm really concerned on the safety. It really is not safe. And as far as our police go, we hardly have any police coming down our street patrolling at this time. How are you going to patrol and keep the people safe? It just... you know, it's a big building. I feel sorry for the people at Lakeview Terrace where I actually lived there what, 20, 30 years ago... was on their board. And I'm really concerned even for the people that would be going into those apartment buildings. It's very dangerous turn; it's very hard to get out on Fourth Street. And I also feel that we're ruining the looks of Oakdale. As the other gentleman mentioned, I mean, Woodbury is so nice. I think couldn't we find something else we could use that property for? And I'm sure the developers could make something really nice; it doesn't have to be a big apartment building. Or put it someplace else down the area if they could. Instead of maybe those townhouses, put a big apartment, put the parking... it would be more, I think people would be... it'd be more inviting to see the lake and the big building than just sitting there with a busy street and another building next to you. So I would hope that you would reconsider this and think that there might be some creative opportunities that we could do with this property better than what we're going to use it for now. Thank you. [Applause] **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak under the public hearing tonight? Thank you. Hi, welcome. **[00:00] Keegan Anderson:** So my name is Keegan Anderson. I live at 1908 Heath Avenue North. I was going to bring up something completely irrelevant, but I realized tonight's probably not the night to do so. I just want to echo some concerns because they seem valid. I'll bring up some of those other things maybe on another night. I just wanted to speak that, though. Thank you. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Thank you. I would add, right after this, we have Open Forum where the topics are wide open. So if you'd like to step up then, you're more than welcome to. Anybody else that would like to speak under the public hearing for the Tanner Lake Redevelopment PUD tonight? Anybody else? Another shot? Yep, go for it. It's still three minutes. **[00:00] Ryan Shreder:** Thanks for the second opportunity. I just wanted to suggest a couple contingencies that Luke didn't include that I think you should consider. Throughout the process—I'm still Ryan Shreder—throughout the process, we've been told that approvals will be contingent upon an access agreement with Lakeview Terrace. I did not hear that in the contingencies. Maybe it was there, I didn't hear it. Second, there will be damage, regardless of anything else or regardless of whether somebody uses our parking lot or not. There’ll be damage with the parking lot, if for no other reason than the retaining wall construction will create it. That repair of that damage has to be—it should be a contingency. The developer... you know, we've always been concerned about parking not meeting requirements. It comes close, but it doesn't get there. We believe there’ll be problems that will result down the road. When those happen, there has to be a mechanism in your approval that does not negatively impact your ability to handle that problem. So you know, proof of parking or whatever it needs; you need to be able to pull the trigger without a problem. So that's the third suggestion. And then finally, your PUD ordinance does require that the utilities are undergrounded. There's existing overhead. What our expectations are is that when they underground those utilities, they're undergrounded for Lakeview Terrace as well at no cost to Lakeview Terrace. We think that should be a contingency. Thank you for the additional time, Mayor. [Applause] **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Thank you. Is there anybody else? Welcome. **[00:00] Amy Cheney:** I'm Amy Cheney. I live at 662 Gentry Ave North. I'm just concerned about the ecosystem of the lake both during the building and afterwards. There's going to be a lot of stress on it. There's already a lot of traffic there; there's almost not enough room for the traffic that's currently there right now. There's backups every day because there's construction, but just the lake being safe, being clean, and not looking like a city street is really my main concern. So I hope you'll take that into consideration. Thank you. [Applause] **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Anybody else? Going once, going twice. I am going to go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back up for Council consideration. I'm going to look to our city planner to see if there were any questions that were raised that you would like to address or clarify. Maybe Community Development Director Gitzlaff, you're welcome to come up too. It's a party, come on. **[00:00] Luke McClanahan (Planning Manager):** There was one question about the PUD requirements, Mr. Mayor and Council, about the PUD requirements for single ownership. So I don't know if this was clear in the report, but this PUD is also city-initiated. And as a city has its own zoning authority, we're able to do that. And we also have a legal opinion; I could defer to Rachel if she has any additional information to provide. But I just want to get that clarified. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Okay. Rachel, did you want to tack on anything to that about the PUD process, the city initiating it, not necessarily a developer? **[00:00] Rachel (City Attorney):** Well, I did speak with Mr. Thompson, your City Attorney, before the meeting briefly about this, and he said that he did look into the code and make sure that the process that's required by the code has been followed. I can't speak too intelligently on section and verse, but I did confirm that with him before I came. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Thank you. Luke, there were a few questions about the conditions on the approval. Of course, all I wrote down was "conditions." The conditions addressed... oh, I believe one was conditional approval of the site plan contingent on, I think it was, access off of 120. Is that correct? Is there something in there that says that access agreement? **[00:00] Luke McClanahan (Planning Manager):** Mr. Mayor, the access agreement with DOT that has to be ironed out. That is a condition already. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** I think you wanted the access agreement with Lakeview Terrace, right? **[00:00] Luke McClanahan (Planning Manager):** Yeah. Okay, so yeah, Mr. Mayor, to clarify: so site plan option one works on the assumption that the developer is able to work through an agreement with Lakeview Terrace and acquire that flagpole portion. And then site plan option two is the contingency; if the developer is unable to acquire that flagpole portion, then they will take that site plan and move forward with their development. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Got it. Okay. Council members, were there any questions you had that you wanted to follow up with City staff on before we move forward? Anything you want to call up? No? **[00:00] Council Member Morcomb:** I know to the last comment—the health of the lake is important and I believe Amy shared that, thank you for sharing that. And I know during this process over the past few months the DNR has been involved in shoreline setbacks, and the fact that there's no boat launches is a part of this; it's just a boardwalk adjacent. So that was helpful to clarify and something that's important to me too, so thank you. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Yeah, maybe to piggyback off that a little bit: as far as environmental concerns in the lake, if the DNR... I mean, the DNR is so—and you know, I've been on the Council six years, not the first time we've dealt with the DNR—they are so thorough. If there were any concerns at all with that, we would have to address them before even getting to this point. So I'm very comfortable with the fact that that's been explored and dealt with. Council members, we have six actions in front of us. Typically, each one would include a carve-out for comments on that individual action item. If you're okay with it, I think maybe we'll just open it up to comments from Council now on a broader scope, and then as we go through we'll just go action item and then call for the vote if that's okay. So if anybody wants to offer general comments on these items overall, please feel free. **[00:00] Council Member Moore:** I have nothing. **[00:00] Council Member Morcomb:** Just the fact that if this does go through and is approved, obviously the conversation continues between all parties involved, right? Because there's a lot that has to be ironed out, a lot of conditions for these buildings. So just something to keep in mind. Thank you. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** My comments: first and foremost, I want to thank all of the residents who have reached out about this. These projects of this nature are incredibly complex. Adding to the complexity are these parcels themselves. You know, I've been here eight years now; the city has owned these parcels or most of these parcels for 16, 17 years now. In my tenure, you know, I can recall conversations with developers looking at medical office space, a five-story hotel, possible retail... you know, we've had so many different options come forward and they've all fallen apart for a variety of reasons. In my time alone, I think we've been through three economic recessions, which is incredibly difficult. The fact of the matter is this: these parcels are incredibly challenging because of the shape, because of the location, because of space constraints. There have been many times when we wish something else would go here, frankly. You know, we wanted office space, we wanted retail, we wanted any number of things, and the financial feasibility for those types of projects... just the math never worked out. So when this project came forward, not only was it feasible, it was tangible; you know, it can be done. We understand that there are... it is a very big change in this area, especially for an area that has been vacant for 16 years. That is... it’s been a parking lot for 16 years. When we hear concerns about the environment, yes, we really hope that the environmental impact on the lake will actually improve because we won't have two-plus acres of just water runoff off of these busted-up asphalt parking lots that have been sitting there for years. We hope that improves. I hope, regardless of how the vote comes out tonight, I hope our residents feel like our staff has been accessible and facilitating concerns and answering questions as we go. That is always what we want. I hope... Michelle, I see you there—we had a great conversation at National Night Out. I was very pleased to come down; you and your neighbors were incredibly welcoming to me. You know, I hope the feeling was mutual, that you were glad that I was there just, you know, trying to answer as many questions because that's how this building works. This process—the end result may not always be what we want, but we want the process to be a positive experience for our residents. And so regardless of what happens, whether this project materializes or not—we all have very different feelings on that—I hope our residents come away from this understanding that this process... we have built it in this city for residents to be heard, for ideas to be vetted, and more importantly, for questions to be answered. With that, we're going to go ahead and move into the recommendations presented on the agenda. Let's just take them right down the list. Can I get a motion on the first one? **[00:00] Council Member Severson:** I'll make a motion to wave reading and adopt Ordinance Number 932, rezoning of certain property on the west side of Tanner Lake from R3 low density housing, R5 high density housing, and C2 community commercial to Tanner Lake planned unit development. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? And Ordinance 932 is adopted. How about Ordinance 931? **[00:00] Council Member Moore:** I'll make a motion to wave reading and adopt Ordinance Number 931, amending the code of ordinances for the city of Oakdale Chapter 25 Article 16 to add Section 25-10, adopting the Tanner Lake planned unit development district, Tanner Lake PUD. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? And Ordinance 931 is adopted. **[00:00] Council Member:** I'll make a motion to approve the official summary of Ordinance Number 931 and authorize publication of the title of the ordinance and the official summary. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? And title and summary is adopted. **[00:00] Council Member Wrich:** I'll make a motion to wave reading and adopt Resolution 2024-84, approving the preliminary plat and final plat for Tanner Second Addition with conditions included in the attached resolution. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? And Resolution 2024-84 is adopted. **[00:00] Council Member:** I'll make a motion to wave reading and adopt Resolution 2024-85, approving site plan option one for the Tanner Lake redevelopment site with conditions included in the attached resolution. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? And Resolution 2024-85 is adopted. **[00:00] Council Member:** I'll make a motion to wave reading and adopt Resolution 2024-86, approving site plan option two for the Tanner Lake redevelopment site with conditions included in the attached resolution. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? And the resolution is adopted. [Topic Shift to Open Forum] Same rules as before, we'll just get rid of the clock though now. We're okay. Thank you, Sarah. Yeah, all right. So I think the cord screwed up, breaking our microphone. Yeah, right. Welcome back. Hi, Keegan. **[00:00] Keegan Anderson:** I just... I know there was an initiative over the summer for a community garden. I just... new to this whole thing so wasn't aware of it, but I think that that should be looked into again for something maybe next summer. And then the second thing is: I know you guys already have kind of like a free library thing around Oakdale. I'm an electrician and also kind of do woodworking on the side, and I think it'd be fun project to just build some of those and wondering... you know, curiosity about just putting some more of those around as well. So maybe thinking about that too. So thank you. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Did we get Keegan's address for the record? All did we get his address for the first time? We're good, you got it. Okay. We don't typically comment, but a few things just because... you know, why not. So we are finishing up our Park systems study; it's been a six-month process looking at all of our parks. Community gardens are the proposed concept for Preservation Park—sweet! That hasn't been adopted yet, but I think that was really the only suggestion for that park, so that'd be an awesome addition. For the little libraries, I know some people build them and like donate them to like the 622 Foundation, like their auction, and people can get them and then install them in their yards. That's kind of a cool thing. I know we have one here at City Hall, also one I think at the Nature Preserve, but I know at least a handful of residents that have them in their yards throughout the city. So that's something we encourage residents to do because it's pretty cool. **[00:00] Council Member Morcomb:** And Mayor, if I could just comment: I was acquainted with the guy that started the little library. His name was Todd Bol; unfortunately passed away a few years ago. I used to go to the gym with his daughter Allison, so ironically I saw her at the Summerfest parade this summer. So this world is too small. But shout out to Todd. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Is there anybody else that would like to speak on our open forum tonight? Welcome. **[00:00] Carol (Resident):** So I am an Oakdale resident. I moved here a couple years ago about the same time that I started volunteering for a group called Be Smart. And I've been told I need to get City Council permission for our group to either do a presentation here or allowed to table at different events in the city. So I wanted to tell you a little bit about Be Smart. It's called "Be Smart for Kids" and we're a non-partisan... we promote securing guns in homes and vehicles and keeping them away from children and teens. We are all volunteers and non-profit, like I said. And so I've been working for about two years with this organization—or I should say volunteering. One of the things that we do when we table is we present information to parents, to the community, to schools, churches. And what we'd like to do is ask for approval or provide like a 20-minute presentation, get on your schedule, and how we do this is we come, possibly have a presentation PowerPoint, and it would be great if we could get the approval. I have handouts; I think I left handouts with all of you folks and I'm just hoping to kind of squeak my way in. I'm not the primary speaker for our group, so just coming along and trying to wedge my way in as an Oakdale resident. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Great, thank you. I'm going to break the rules again just because we have you. So first and foremost, we all received your email. I want to apologize—I was tasked with responding to you and I got sidetracked. So I really do apologize for that. **[00:00] Carol (Resident):** No worries. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** I am familiar with your group. We had a presentation from Be Smart at the Regional Council of Mayors a few months ago when we had a joint meeting with the Metro superintendents. So we had talked through then how cities might be able to partner. I took your flyer and I gave it to our police chief to look and see how from the public safety element we may be able to partner. So I believe City staff will be in touch in the near future on next steps after our staff have a chance to look into Be Smart. **[00:00] Carol (Resident):** Hey, that's great! This was easier than I thought. Thank you. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Thank you, Carol. Is there anybody else that would like to speak under open form tonight? All right, seeing none, we're going to keep things going. Moving to consensus motions. We have three in front of us, A through C. Council members, are there any motions you'd like to pull for individual consideration? **[00:00] Council Member:** Would I be allowed to just ask a question about one? **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Yeah, pull it and then we can tackle it. Let's pull A. Can I get a motion to approve consensus motion B and C as presented? **[00:00] Council Member:** So moved. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and second. All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? B and C are approved. Jake, tee up a brief description of Item A and then go with your question. **[00:00] Council Member (Jake):** Yeah, so I'm not getting any younger, so if my memory is bad here, but was this the dealer license that we briefly pulled due to compliance issues? **[00:00] Christina Volkers (City Administrator):** Yes. **[00:00] Council Member (Jake):** Is that a yes? **[00:00] Christina Volkers (City Administrator):** Yes. **[00:00] Council Member (Jake):** And have we had any complaints recently? **[00:00] Christina Volkers (City Administrator):** Part of the licensing process, Mr. Mayor, City Council, is that we go through and we do a light background check to make sure there's no violations or anything, and then every other year we background check the owners. If this was a year either one or the other was done, so when the license request came in, it had already been reviewed by the Police Department. **[00:00] Council Member (Jake):** Okay. **[00:00] Christina Volkers (City Administrator):** And it would have been noted in here if there was anything. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Okay. Simple answer is no; the issues were code enforcement issues, you know, maintaining fire lanes, that type of stuff—zoning related issues. So. **[00:00] Council Member:** Can I get a motion to approve consensus motion A as presented? **[00:00] Council Member:** So moved. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? And consensus A is approved. Next up is our opportunity checking with Advisory Boards and Commissions. The only one that met was Planning last week. Council Member [Severson], you are their liaison. **[00:00] Council Member Severson:** Yeah, they discussed, I believe, a CUP on an additional garage in somebody's yard, which I think we will be voting on tonight. And also, was it the site plan for part of the development at Lake... or the concept plan? We have the one at... and so, yep, good conversation there as well. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Perfect. Nothing under awarded bids, so we'll go into staff report. Community Development, we got a few items tonight. Luke, cliff notes version. **[00:00] Luke McClanahan (Planning Manager):** Yes, Mayor. Much shorter presentation this time around. So we have a conditional use permit request for an oversized garage—so it's 1,200 square feet at the property address 6063 Stillwater Boulevard North. The property is zoned R1 where garages are allowed to be 1,000 square feet, and they can be larger through the CUP approval process. And staff finds that the oversized garage meets the criteria for the CUP (conditional use permit) and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to three conditions: number one is that the applicant shall obtain a building permit for the use; number two, the structure shall meet setback and height requirements; and then number three, the garage shall not exceed 1,200 square feet in size. Happy to answer any questions. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Thank you. Council members, any questions for Luke? All right, I look for a motion. **[00:00] Council Member Moore:** I'll make a motion to wave reading and adopt Resolution 2024-81, approving a conditional use permit for an oversized garage at 6063 Stillwater Boulevard North with conditions included in the attached resolution. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion is a second. Final comments? All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? And 2024-81 is adopted. Willowbrook Commons... Andy. **[00:00] Andrew Gitzlaff (Community Development Director):** Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council. The item before you tonight is change orders and project budget amendment for city project 2023-04 Willowbrook Commons. Before jumping into the item, I just wanted to commend and thank Council and Administrator Volkers for setting the vision for a really great park and really great asset to the city of Oakdale and to complement the Willowbrook neighborhood. That being said, there is some business to take care of tonight, which is approval of some change orders. What I'm going to do is walk through each batch of those change orders and provide brief rationale for why they're included and a value add to the project. I also have Jonathan Filmore here from SRF who's been our construction manager out there on site reviewing a number of these, so if there are detailed questions, we certainly can bring him up as well. And then at the end, we'll explain the actions that are before Council today and why they're here at this point. That being said, change order one is a $38,421 change order and that actually includes a bucket of different items. You could break those into soil and prep being the first one, and that included some work along the wetlands to regrade and the soil so that under a separate contract with RES, the prairie restoration work could not only begin but could stick and stay there for a long period of time. There's additional soil work done for areas under the trail where there was poor soils; if that work didn't get done then those trails could heave or sink later into the future. On the other side of the bucket would be utility-based changes. One was moving a fiber line; this fiber line was supposed to be within the right-of-way of 40th, it was actually placed somewhat south within the pond right-of-way. So they had enough slack in there they were able to move it without having to replace it. The bigger ticket item was related to the plumbing/electrical for the restroom building. Originally it's been envisioned as a three-season type building and it did not have a water heater component. When we went through the Bureau of Labor review, which actually took almost four months to get their review, they did require the water heater. So there was a change there in the field, and that is not just the water heater, but then that's the electrical that goes with that, that's the valves, that's the pipes and things—so that was the driving piece of change order one. Change order two was adding light fixtures to enhance the gathering shelter. There was lighting in the original plans, but because the sign was delayed from the park naming, we didn't have the part that illuminates the sign, so that was the add-on for change order two. Change order three is the restroom building did not include a metal fascia on the side; basically it has a piece of treated lumber, so when it got put together, it just doesn't... one, it doesn't look right, and so an aesthetic improvement to put metal on there. But the metal is also going to help with long-term maintenance of that restroom facility. So those are change orders one through three. Change order four is work done by Veit that was really the responsibility of Lennar, the home builder, which is seeding and within the boulevards. So they didn't complete that work, but Veit is able to do it within the time frames allotted and Lennar has agreed to reimburse for that change order. Financial considerations: change order one through three, you add those up, that's about $46,000. That would require approval here tonight. With that, the overall budget for the project was $3,020,000. So with approval of those change orders, this project is still within that overall budget; there's actually approximately about $25,000 or $27,000 that'll be remaining near the end. Now, we're almost to the end, but pretty confident that that number is going to change. So that's one of the actions. The other action is for change order four. Because this is an increase in expense but also an increase in revenue, the path being followed here is the budget amendment path, essentially amending the budget, increasing the overall budget to $3,045,000 approximately in order to cover that. I will note too that even with Veit's amendments related to the project that are increasing, we do expect an $8,000 to $10,000 savings that's going to come at the end of the project, and that's primarily due to some quantities that come in underneath and some roadwork because of the change orders that was avoided that would otherwise needed to be done underneath 40th Street. The third part of the action here tonight is giving authority to for the City Administrator to approve change orders up to $24,999, provided those change orders are within budget. And this aligns with city policy and purchasing authority. So one question you might have is why we're asking for that now and not at the beginning of the project. Should have asked for it at the beginning of the project and clarified what was within our policy, because a lot of this work has already been completed to date. But that being said, we want to make sure that right language is in here for the remainder of the projects and we'll learn from that and make sure that future park work doesn't follow that same path. But that being said, we started with a 10% contingency at the completion of the design phase; when the project was bid and bids were awarded, that contingency was roughly at about 6%, which was a healthy amount going into construction. And we've been able to manage that and keep that right around at 3% contingency remaining at the project with the hopes to bring this in under budget so Council can have some money left over to allocate as they see fit. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions, and as I mentioned, Jonathan's here as well. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Council questions? Okay, I'll get a motion. **[00:00] Council Member:** I'll make a motion to authorize the City Administrator to sign and execute change orders 1 through 4 for city project P223-04 Willowbrook Commons Park and approve individual change orders up to $24,999, provided that the change order is within the project budget. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second. Final comments? All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? And that is approved. Next recommendation. **[00:00] Council Member:** I'll make a motion to wave reading and adopt Resolution 2024-82, amending the 2024 budget for city project P223-04 Willowbrook Commons Park. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second. Final comments? All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? And 2024-82 is adopted. Thank you, Andy. **[00:00] Andrew Gitzlaff (Community Development Director):** Thank you. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Engineering... initiate city project. I don't want to talk about 2025 yet, so can we just like... not? Brian, welcome. **[00:00] Brian (Staff/Consultant):** Good evening, Mayor and Council. Request to initiate Street improvements 2025. This is a neighborhood that was identified based on age, pavement condition, maintenance condition, utility condition, and maintenance costs associated with maintaining this area. So we always like to initiate the project this time so we have an opportunity to collect the field data while the weather is still pleasant before there gets to be too much snow on the ground, and then also to conduct the neighborhood meetings and finish the report so that the hearings can be held in January. Again, this is consistent with the CIP that was reviewed by the Council earlier this summer. So it's our recommendation, our request that you consider initiating the project at this time. You know, we understand that this could change subject to any changes to the CIP that will be adopted by the City Council in November. With that, I'd stand for any questions the Council may have. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Council members, any questions for Brian on the 2025 Street Improvement project? All right, I'll look for a motion. **[00:00] Council Member:** I'll make a motion to wave reading and adopt Resolution 2024-83, initiating city project R225-01, the 2025 Street reconstruction, and city project R225-02 Street overlay program, and authorizing the preparation of a feasibility report. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second. Final comments? All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? And those two projects are initiated. Can I get another motion? **[00:00] Council Member:** I'll make a motion to authorize the City Administrator to enter into a service contract with an engineering consultant for the preparation of feasibility reports to improve the pavement, utility, and lighting conditions on the aforementioned roadways with the assumption that these projects will be approved in the 2025 CIP. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second. Final comments? All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? And City Administrator is authorized. Next, oh—we have Human Resources with us tonight. Oh, it's never good when HR’s here. **[00:00] Melanie Lee (HR Director):** Good evening to you too, Mayor and council members. Thank you for having me. Melanie Lee, I'm the HR Director. I have before you tonight a request to amend city policy PE-020 regarding our Paid Time Off policy. Two amendments that we are recommending: the first one is to remove a paragraph that references a limitation on staff taking time off in the first six months of employment. We've discovered that that's been a barrier for recruitment for our new employees. The second provision that we'd like the Council to consider is cleaning up some language and making some minor, sort of administrative changes to how we administer the PTO conversion program, which allows staff to cash in PTO at the end of the year if they meet certain criteria. So within your packet, those details are outlined, but I’d be happy to answer any questions. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Council members, any questions for Melanie? All right, I'll look for a motion. **[00:00] Council Member:** I'll make a motion to amend city policy PE-020 Paid Time Off and annual leave, specifically related to the annual leave conversion provision and the elimination of the prohibition of probationary employees using PTO during their first six months of employment. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** You nailed it. What did I... no, you guys got to explain this to me. Okay, there's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second. Final comments? All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? And the policy is amended. It’s been a long night; we’re starting to crack, I guess. So, yep. Did I completely butcher that? No, you nailed it. It's a tongue twister. I think we had money on the opposite, but there are a lot of P-words. Yes, a lot of syllables in there. Yeah. Okay. City Attorney Rachel, anything for us tonight? **[00:00] Rachel (City Attorney):** Oh, I... we’ll talk later. Oh, great. Okay. Thank you. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Anybody have any questions for Rachel? All right, look the other direction. Administrator Volkers, one item tonight. **[00:00] Christina Volkers (City Administrator):** Thank you, Mayor and Council. What's before you is in regards to adopting a recodification of the city code of ordinances for the city of Oakdale. This may not be the most exciting topic—I don't know if anybody here or listening or in the audience would find this exciting, but Sarah and I do (the city clerk and I do). So this is a big deal. We have undertaken this project on with Civic Plus—it’s a vendor, it's our vendor that we use for our website and so forth—to convert to online code, to an online code with searching capability versus every chapter is a separate PDF now, and then any updates and every article for chapter 25 are separate... and this is one continuous document that is searchable as a single source. And so we’ve been working on this a long time. Mostly Sarah, the city clerk, has done an amazing job managing this project and working with the vendor to take all hundreds and hundreds of pages, reformat them, get them in the right order, get a good index, make it searchable, etc., etc. There’s a new link that is included in the materials and it will... is it live? It is, but it will be... okay, so it'll be live. We did post the proposal for this proposed ordinance change on September 27th announcing it. So what's before you is a request to wave reading and adopt Ordinance Number 930 for this project, and I’m glad to take any questions. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Council members, any questions for Chris? All right, let's hit it. **[00:00] Council Member:** I'll make a motion to wave reading and adopt Ordinance Number 930, adopting the recodification of the city of Oakdale code of ordinances. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's motion and a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second. Final comments? All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? And Ordinance 930 is adopted. Do we need to have a title and summary with that item, or no? It's within the ordinance in there, yep, perfect. Council presentations. Andy, anything? **[00:00] Council Member Andy Morcomb:** Yeah, just we've got four students from Tartan here that came to watch the meeting. Just want to welcome them and say thank you for coming and being a part of local government. It's fascinating, isn't it? Yeah, thank you for being here. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Jake, anything tonight? **[00:00] Council Member (Jake):** Yeah, I got two actually tonight, which is rare for me. Number one, today we broke ground on... hey, I got that tough. Do you want to read what they wrote for me? I guess I could, and then I'll add my own comments. Earlier this afternoon, a groundbreaking was held for our new Public Works facility located at 3200 Granada Avenue North. This is a historic day for our community, as we have officially begun the process of constructing our first new city facility in over 20 years. The new Public Works facility will include 75,000 square feet of thoughtfully planned space to help our city provide top-notch services to our community. You know, and I'll tell you too, that when I'm done on the Council in a couple months and when I think about the impact that what we do up here has on our residents in the city, obviously today is going to be near the top of my list in terms of making a difference. And I do want to thank the residents for their support, especially on the local option sales tax; made the whole thing a lot easier for us to handle, figure out, and pay for. So absolutely huge day for all of us and all for City staff too, everybody that was involved. Let's get that built. Second thing... Willowbrook playground at Willowbrook Commons is now open. Drove by last weekend and texted the City Administrator and said, "The fences are down, can my kids go play there?" And sure enough, the answer was yes, and we went later in the day Saturday and there were probably 25, 30 kids there. So the memo was out before I saw it. And I did talk to a couple of adult residents, and the feedback was unanimously, at least from what I heard, that it was well worth the investment and it is an awesome playground. So it's bought and paid for—get out there and use it, would be what I would say. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Well, I mean, we're still paying the bills, but yeah, they'll get paid. It's built, anyway. Yes, thank you. I've got a few: final Oakdale Farmers Market of the season is tomorrow, Wednesday, October 9th, 2:00 to 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall parking lot. Stop by, stock up on gourds, squash, mums, apples, and more. Jake mentioned this—Willowbrook Commons is officially open. But we're going to throw a party this weekend. So we want to invite everyone to join us at the grand opening of Willowbrook Commons this Saturday, October 12th from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. The park is located at 3800 Henna Avenue North in the Willowbrook neighborhood. It is open to the public; there will be an official ceremony and a ribbon cutting beginning at 1:00 p.m. We really want people to come out, stay to play, and explore, enjoy family activities, treats, and more. It's going to be a great event. This park has so many amenities that you will not find in any other park in Oakdale, so that's pretty cool. We are very proud of how this park turned out, and this park reflects the feedback we got from our residents; they really decided what was going here. So we really appreciate everybody who helped steer this project and excited to see it now done. Nominations for Oakdale's Volunteer of the Year are now open. Each year, the city recognizes an individual or group that has gone above and beyond in their efforts to get involved in our community and help others. If you would like to recognize that deserving volunteer, please complete the online nomination form at OakdaleMN.gov by October 31st. Halloween! Finally, a reminder: the city of Oakdale has two questions on the general election ballot to extend the current half-percent local sales tax for five additional years, from 2048 to 2053. This extension is requested to cover the funding gaps caused by inflation for two projects: the expansion and remodel of our police department and construction of our new Public Works facility. For more information about the local sales tax extension, please visit the city website, OakdaleMN.gov. We're going to move into the claims roster. Claims roster September 25th through October 8th: 1.98 million in change. Council members, were there any claims that you wanted to pull for additional information? I'll look for a motion. **[00:00] Council Member:** I'll make a motion to approve claims as presented. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion is second. All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? And the bills are paid. Can I get a motion to adjourn? **[00:00] Council Member:** So moved. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[00:00] Council Member:** Second. **[00:00] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and second. All those in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you and good night.