This transcript is for a **Planning Commission** meeting. Based on the roll call and the context of the dialogue, I have identified the primary speakers as **Chair Pearson**, **Luke McClanahan** (Planning Manager), and the various Planning Commissioners (McCauley, Campbell, and Willenbring). [0:03] **Chair Pearson**: Good evening. March 2nd Planning Commission meeting I call to order. First order is Pledge of Allegiance. Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. [0:30] **Luke McClanahan**: [Roll call] Pearson? (Here). Willenbring? (Here). Stolarsky? (Diana is absent). McCauley? (Here). Campbell? (Present). [0:42] **Chair Pearson**: Next order of business is the approval of the minutes. Does anyone have any comments on the minutes that need updating or correction? Hearing none, I guess I'll take a motion to approve as presented. (So moved). (Second). All those in favor, aye. Any opposed? [1:05] **Chair Pearson**: The next item is a new business on the Planning Commission review, the public hearing for Baxter house, Baxter's Playhouse LLC Central Bark interim use permit renewal. Luke? [1:16] **Luke McClanahan**: Thank you, yes. I have an image here on the screen for this interim use permit request. The location of the site is on the east side of Hadley Avenue, so it's next to the Menards and the Oakdale rental center. The purpose for this request is to renew the permit for the outdoor dog play area known as Baxter's Playhouse, which is part of the Central Bark business. Zoning for the site is C2, that's our community commercial zoning district. A little bit of history on the site: the conditional use permit for the kennel as well as the initial interim use permit for the outdoor dog run area was approved in February of last year. [2:02] **Luke McClanahan**: The business, however, did not open up until January 27 of this year. So if this renewal is approved, the permit will be tied to the business and not to the land—so that's just a unique feature about IUPs. Here's a closer look at the business: on the south side of the building is the outdoor dog run area. The area is enclosed by an eight-foot fence. There is an anti-microbial turf in the play area which is designed for the dogs. The facility follows the U.S. EPA recommendations for waste disposal, and as part of the initial IUP, the applicant removed some curb and asphalt to increase the amount of grass on the property, and that helps with runoff of the site. [2:48] **Luke McClanahan**: Staff finds that the renewal request complies with the IUP review criteria of the City's ordinance as detailed in the staff report on file. So in closing here, staff recommends approval of the IUP for a two-year period, so to be valid through March 28, 2025. That's two years from the date that the city council would approve it, and it would be subject to conditions listed in the resolution. I'll just go through those really quick: first one is that the outdoor area must be cleaned up daily; next, barking and howling dogs must be returned indoors immediately; dogs that are outdoors must be supervised at all times; no more than four play areas with up to 12 dogs each and one handler per outdoor play area; and dogs are only allowed in the outdoor play areas from 6:30 a.m. to 9 p.m. And those conditions—you would find those in the original IUP. As a reminder, this is a public hearing. The applicant is here in attendance; otherwise, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. [4:05] **Chair Pearson**: Okay. First question I guess I'd have is, Luke, the way you described it makes me think that—is there a dual fence? One around the play area and then also around the extended grass area, or is it just all one around the grassy area inclusion? [4:18] **Luke McClanahan**: Yeah, I might have to defer to the applicant. [4:21] **Chair Pearson**: We'll wait for that then. [4:23] **Commissioner McCauley**: Is there a reason why we're only being asked to approve for two years when the applicant requested to just follow the business? [4:38] **Luke McClanahan**: Sure. Just because the business didn't open up until late January—so it's only been open for a little over a month now—we just want to make sure that the operations are running smoothly and that we're able to check in on this request at that two-year period. But you as the Planning Commission, you certainly have the discretion if you want to extend that review period or the permit length a little bit longer if you so choose to do so. [5:09] **Chair Pearson**: At this point, I open the public hearing. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak, please go forward. [5:22] **Applicant (Baxter's Playhouse)**: I just wanted to make a correction that we actually opened on October 17th of 2022, so we've been open for about four months. We had our grand opening on January 28th, but we were open before that. So I just wanted to clarify that, that’s all. Oh, and the fencing: we have four separate areas within the perimeter fencing, so there's fencing within... [5:45] **Chair Pearson**: I think his question was, is the grass area that you added fenced in also, or just the play area? [5:54] **Applicant (Baxter's Playhouse)**: No, the extension of the grassy area coming down into the parking lot, that's not fenced in. So you—by leash—take the dogs out there. That’s the way—no, no, we—they're within the fenced-in area where we put drain tile and then this—it's like a canine turf over it, so it's artificial. [6:15] **Chair Pearson**: External drainage outside? [6:17] **Applicant (Baxter's Playhouse)**: Yes, it was in order to trap the runoff and so it filters through the ground rather than into a storm drain, I guess. [6:30] **Chair Pearson**: Any other questions for the applicant? And since it is a public hearing, I have to ask if there's any others in the audience who wish to comment. Seeing none, we close the public hearing, come back to the panel, and is there any questions or comments from anybody else? [6:52] **Commissioner McCauley**: I guess where my head is at and where I'm thinking right now is—I think the initial one-year period for the IUP is to allow them to operate, allow them to see how this works, if there's complaints, if there's any issues, and then give us an opportunity to say, "Hey, we need to adjust something." Because they didn't open until October 17th, they've effectively been operating for four months. Is two years the appropriate amount of time or do we want to see this again in a year? I presume we haven't had any complaints in the four months that it's been operating? [7:42] **Luke McClanahan**: I checked with our code enforcement and we have not had any complaints about this use. [7:52] **Commissioner McCauley**: And I'm sorry, I know we closed the public hearing, but do you bring the dogs out every day? This isn't—it's not like it's winter and we just keep them inside the whole time, obviously unless it's really cold? [8:08] **Applicant (Baxter's Playhouse)**: For longer periods of time, you know, in our state, they're outside most of the time. [8:16] **Commissioner McCauley**: I guess that's my only concern with two years is we haven't gone through a full year cycle to see what the summer looks like. And that’ll be the reason why to extend beyond the two years as Luke has suggested. [8:35] **Chair Pearson**: So two years is probably a reasonable time at this point? [8:40] **Commissioner McCauley**: Yeah, I'm just—my point though is that if I'm the neighbors and the dogs are outside longer periods in the summer, two years might be too long because now I've got to deal with this for two years before we do anything to correct it. [8:53] **Luke McClanahan**: But I suppose in that case, Luke, if there's still code issues, it violates the IUP and we're going to see them back here anyways, or there's some enforcement mechanism, right? And if need be, we can bring the request back to the city council for reconsideration if there's ongoing complaints, things of that nature. [9:05] **Commissioner Campbell**: See her then again next year at this time? [9:08] **Luke McClanahan**: Two years. Two years from now. [9:14] **Commissioner Willenbring**: I think an important fact is between their building and the nearest residential area is the railroad tracks. So if they're going to complain about something, they've been complaining about that for years, and they finally got their way to turn off the sirens or the horns from the train, so they're happier about that. [9:39] **Chair Pearson**: Yeah. All right. Trust me, I know about sound. I'm dealing with a project in California where I've got loud sound and I'm 50 feet from the neighbors and yeah, I'm hearing about it. Any other comments, questions? Seeing none, I look for a motion to recommend approval of the interim use permit renewal for Baxter's Playhouse at 3115 Hadley Avenue North, subject to the conditions listed and read by Luke in the draft resolutions. (So moved). (Second). All those in favor, aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. [10:29] **Commissioner McCauley**: Uh, next item of business is the planned unit development ordinance amendment. Yes, before we go into it, guys, a quick question on the same subject: Is this a common thing to have a conditional use permit on all areas that have outdoor dog areas? [10:44] **Luke McClanahan**: There's only a couple of others in Oakdale, but it is common, yes. [10:52] **Commissioner McCauley**: Okay, that was my question, thanks. [10:55] **Luke McClanahan**: Luke, yes. So for this ordinance amendment that we're presenting, just a little bit of background on this: this is the 3M Imation planned unit development (PUD), so the zoning that governs the Forefront campus. In response to the city council's concerns about a proposed car wash at the commercial site at the Forefront campus—I'm sure that you all remember that—City staff has prepared an ordinance amendment to the PUD and the city's ordinance. Just more generally speaking about the purpose of PUDs and what do they do: the city's ordinance says that they are intended to promote aesthetically pleasing and desirable development that is in harmony with the surrounding area. [11:45] **Luke McClanahan**: As such, staff is recommending that the 3M Imation PUD prohibit car washes on the commercial site, which I'll show in just a moment. Also recall that the city adopted an ordinance amendment in late 2022 that defines licenses and permits brew pubs, brewery taprooms, and micro distilleries in the C2 community commercial and I-O industrial office zoning districts. Staff finds that this would be actually a pretty good opportunity to incorporate those uses as permitted uses in this specific PUD. [12:22] **Luke McClanahan**: Here's a look at the specific site. So to be clear, what this amendment would apply to is just the commercial site on the Forefront campus—so at the northwest quadrant of 34th Street and High Point. It's the single parcel only. The rest of the Forefront campus has not been guided for the comp plan; it hasn't been amended for the PUD to allow for commercial uses. So we wouldn't even get to that point for other parcels of the Forefront campus. I would like to note that, just for the record, the city did reach out to the property owners to inform them that the city is initiating this PUD amendment, and so they are well aware of the situation. The public hearing for this request will be heard by the city council at their meeting on March 28th. However, if the Planning Commission would like to receive any comments from the public, you certainly have the discretion to do so. I'd be happy to answer any questions about this proposed amendment. [13:28] **Chair Pearson**: I have none. Does anyone else have any questions for Luke about the proposed amendment? Seeing none, I guess I'll go to the motion to recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the 3M Imation planned unit development to prohibit car washes and allow brew pubs, brewery taprooms, and micro distilleries as permitted uses on Lot 4 Block 1, Oakdale Farm Third Edition. (So moved). (Second). All those in favor, aye. (Aye). Opposed? Motion passes. [14:21] **Chair Pearson**: That concludes our new business. So at that point, we move on to other. Luke, the Shoreland overlay zoning district? [14:28] **Luke McClanahan**: Yes, thank you. Not much for updates there, but we do expect to get rolling on this ordinance pretty soon—the zoning, I should say. And we're going to be working with the DNR very closely on this one. But yeah, just stay tuned, I guess. [14:48] **Chair Pearson**: If you could explain a little bit more what it is? [14:52] **Luke McClanahan**: Oh, I'm sorry, okay. Yes. So as a state requirement, the DNR requires that cities and other jurisdictions adopt a Shoreland overlay zoning district. Essentially, it helps protect certain public water bodies. Tanner's Lake is a really good example; we have two others—two other water bodies that per the state regulations should have additional protection, so it's Mud Lake and then Armstrong Lake as well. For whatever reason, Oakdale just needs to catch up a little bit with the state mandates and get some zoning in place for Shoreland protection. Again, it's a state requirement, and it would also help us with future development. We have some development interest in Tanner's Lake specifically, so we want to make sure that we're compliant with DNR requirements. [15:47] **Commissioner Willenbring**: Seems like they're doing some construction on Tanner's Lake on the 3M side. Is that why they're doing this, or is it more for the water conditions? Why does this overlay zoning mean—I guess I don't understand what that means. [16:05] **Luke McClanahan**: Yeah, so I guess to your first part there: there's a temporary staging area for construction equipment, I believe it's related to the Gold Line. So it's not actually construction occurring on Tanner's Lake, but it's just a staging area. But the purpose behind the Shoreland overlay zoning is just to increase the—have like increased setbacks. So make sure that you're protecting the shoreline, you're not building too close to the shoreline. It's mainly that and addressing storm water runoff from impervious surfaces for new development. So yeah, generally speaking, it's for the protection of the lakes. [16:50] **Chair Pearson**: Any other questions on that item? [16:53] **Commissioner McCauley**: I have a question. So with the DNR, the model ordinance—which I'm sort of familiar with—there are two parts of it: there's a vegetation ordinance and there's also a sort of a land disturbance ordinance. How far behind is Oakdale in sort of being in compliance with that? [17:23] **Luke McClanahan**: Sure. Because we don't have an ordinance in place, I would say in that aspect we're a little bit behind, but we do have other requirements, just like our general setbacks, which the DNR kind of acknowledged—that does provide some protection for that vegetation for land disturbances. But just having an actual overlay zoning district will help things be more robust in terms of our protection of the lakes. [18:03] **Chair Pearson**: By overlay, you mean that you've got—you're considering it kind of as two zoning districts? Whatever the land basically is for zoning, and then since it's near a lake, we're calling another region a zoning district? [18:12] **Luke McClanahan**: Exactly. Yep. To provide increased protections or increased restrictions, if you want to consider it that way. [18:14] **Commissioner Campbell**: So would this impact people that are living on a lake right now if they want to rebuild or expand, I should say? [18:22] **Luke McClanahan**: Then they would have to make sure that they're in conformance, that they're not increasing the non-conformity of the site. [18:29] **Commissioner Campbell**: But if they're not within the conformities? Because a lot of the houses are from the 50s, right? And so they're a little closer than what the boundaries are at this point. [18:38] **Luke McClanahan**: They're grandfathered in at this point. They would be grandfathered, yes. It's legally non-conforming. [19:01] **Commissioner McCauley**: But as a follow-up though, I believe there's a deadline by which all the municipalities should be sort of aligning ordinance, right? How far back is Oakdale for that? [19:12] **Luke McClanahan**: Years. Ideally, it should have been adopted years ago. I can't speak to the history of why that didn't happen, but yeah, there is a date and time where the DNR required that cities adopt the zoning ordinance. I don't remember off the top of my head what year that is, but... [19:41] **Commissioner McCauley**: Thank you. [19:48] **Chair Pearson**: Okay. Anything else? At that point, we'll go on to the update of Glenbrook small area plan, please. [19:54] **Luke McClanahan**: Yes. So just a quick update there: draft alternates for the plants or different scenarios of how this area could develop. That's where we're at right now, working with our consultant. So the next step is to present those draft alternates to the city council at their workshop meeting on March 14th. And then we're just getting into brainstorming ideas for future engagement opportunities for the area residents and business owners. [20:25] **Commissioner Campbell**: I know there was some issues at the first engagement meetings with the neighborhood. Have we reached everyone and been able to speak to them on that one issue? [20:39] **Luke McClanahan**: Yeah, so the city council kind of raised that concern as well, just how are we going to be more engaged with the residents. So we are brainstorming different ways to meet these folks where they're at. So, not making them travel too far; if we're able to host a meeting or two in the area, that's something that we're looking at right now. [21:05] **Commissioner Campbell**: And then again with just the fact—I don't know what's happened since—but there was a delay in the business engagements where you had meetings set up and had to cancel. Have those taken place for the businesses? [21:25] **Luke McClanahan**: Okay, yep. Good question. So this was a few months back; we had a scheduled Zoom meeting or Teams meeting with different business owners. We had technical issues there. So what we did to remedy that is we met one-on-one with those business owners. In many cases, we went out to those businesses, met them at their offices, and discussed the plan and what their vision is for the area. [21:55] **Commissioner Campbell**: Okay. That was just one of the main things I wanted to make sure had happened before we proceed on anything. [22:01] **Chair Pearson**: Any other questions for anyone else? Seeing none, I guess we move on to the planning and development update. [22:07] **Luke McClanahan**: And just one update there: we do plan to have a Planning Commission meeting on April 6th. We have one application on file, probably another one. So yeah, plan on an April 6th meeting. That's it. [22:15] **Chair Pearson**: And then for the city council update: the council liaison informed me that he had nothing specific but urges anyone to go to the website for the city and research what things are going on right now. At that point, is there anything else? [22:28] **Luke McClanahan**: Nope. [22:30] **Chair Pearson**: I look for a move to adjourn. (So moved). (Second). All those in favor, aye. All those opposed? We stand adjourned. Good night.