This transcription identifies speakers based on the provided city official list, the roll call at the beginning of the meeting, and internal contextual clues (such as professional backgrounds and geographic references made by the speakers). **Speakers identified:** * **Chair Pearson** (Planning Commission Chair) * **Commissioner Di** (Identified by his references to working in St. Paul) * **Commissioner Hagen** (Identified by his historical knowledge of the city and technical questions) * **Commissioner Campbell** (Identified by his background as a developer) * **Commissioner Stellari** (Identified by her interest in native gardens/tiny homes) * **Luke McClanahan** (Planning Manager / Staff Liaison) * **Max (City Planner)** (Staff member mentioned by name in the dialogue) * **Jeff Miller** (H KGI Consultant) * **Beth Richmond** (H KGI Consultant) * **Council Member Andy Morcomb** (City Council Liaison to the Planning Commission) *** **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** Sorry, call to order the regular meeting of the Planning Commission, May 2nd, 2024. Can we have the roll call, please? **[00:05] Luke McClanahan:** Yes. Pearson? (Here). Willenbring? (Here). Campbell? (Present). Stellari? (Here). McCollum? (Here). Di? (Here). Hagen? (Here). **[00:13] Chair Pearson:** Pledge of Allegiance. **[00:15] Group:** I pledge allegiance to the flag 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. **[00:25] Chair Pearson:** Approval of the agenda. Has everyone had a chance to review it? Are there any changes that are proposed? No? Seeing none, I ask for the motion to approve. **[00:32] Commissioner Campbell:** So moved. **[00:33] Commissioner Di:** Second. **[00:34] Chair Pearson:** All those in favor? (Aye). Any opposed? Thank you. Approval of the minutes. Have you reviewed the minutes, and if there are any changes, please let me know. **[00:43] Commissioner Hagen:** Motion to approve. **[00:44] Commissioner Stellari:** Second. **[00:45] Chair Pearson:** All those in favor? (Aye). Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Open Forum. Now is the time for anyone in the audience who wishes to come forward to make observations or comments. Please do. And I'll offer a second time if there's any in the audience who wish to come forward to make comment. Please do. Seeing none, I close the open forum. Come back to Planning Commission review. There's no old business. New business—if you'd like to take off, Max? **[01:05] Max (City Planner):** Yes, thank you, Chair. So the city is currently undergoing—we've initiated a project to update the zoning and subdivision code. So this is a very daunting project, as you can imagine. We're looking at updating several hundred pages of very technical information. So with that, the city has hired H KGI; they are a planning and design firm based out of the Twin Cities. They have substantial experience with these zoning and subdivision code projects as well as code audits—it's kind of their specialty. So, although we're working with H KGI, staff is going to play a very active role throughout this process. I do want to emphasize that we are just at the beginning stage of this project, and there will be plenty more opportunities—we'll be bringing back more updates to the code as we go along. So many more opportunities for your feedback throughout the process. With that, you know, we could probably talk for hours and hours about this code, but we’ll likely keep this discussion at a high level, maybe an hour or an hour and a half, just to give you an idea of what we're looking for. By all means, feel free to reach out to staff if you have questions or comments after this meeting. And I don't want to take away too much thunder from the H KGI folks here, but we have Jeff and Beth from H KGI, and I'll let them take it away with their presentation. Thank you, Luke. **[02:18] Jeff Miller (H KGI):** Great, thanks Luke. As Luke said, we're from H KGI. My name is Jeff Miller. I'm a planner and I've been with H KGI since 2005. And as Luke said, we do a lot of things, but we've been doing a lot of code work recently. It seems like that's kind of an important topic for cities at this point. Beth, you want to introduce yourself? **[02:37] Beth Richmond (H KGI):** Sure. I'm Beth Richmond. I'm also one of the planners with H KGI. I've been there about six years now and focus a lot on daily planning work and then code writing. And just in response to Luke, we have no thunder tonight because we're just looking for input. So we're not proposing anything that is going to get anybody excited probably, but it's usually pretty interesting to talk about the code and learn about the code as we're getting started on making updates. **[03:01] Jeff Miller (H KGI):** So tonight we're going to give you an overview of the project and how we're approaching updating the zoning and subdivision, and then we're going to spend most of the meeting kind of going over key topics in the code and giving you a chance to give us input on things that you feel like are issues or opportunities for us to make the code better. And then we're going to talk quickly about the strategy for community engagement and then next steps. **[03:26] Jeff Miller (H KGI):** Project overview... H KGI, I think Luke kind of covered this, so I won't talk about it again. Code update objectives: This is coming from the RFP. What's driving us is that the city wants to update and modernize the code. You adopted your comprehensive plan a few years ago, so aligning it with that plan as well as other plans staff has made us aware of, including the Glen Brook small area plan, the pet and bike plan, and there may be others. We want to improve user friendliness, ensure consistency with State statutes and federal laws, and facilitate the city's goals for new development and redevelopment. **[04:10] Jeff Miller (H KGI):** Our understanding of the needs is that it's an outdated code. Your last update was 2008. That's not nearly as old as a lot of other cities we've worked with. We do realize the city is transitioning from PDFs to a digital platform this year as well. The project targets specific chapters: zoning, subdivisions, trees, and planning/development (specifically escrow language). There are four phases: diagnosing the issues (where we are now), drafting the revisions in four modules, review, and then adoption. Schedule-wise, we’re looking to wrap up by the end of the year. **[05:24] Jeff Miller (H KGI):** The main things we want to talk about tonight are zoning districts, exterior building materials, parking, landscaping, screening, lighting, and signs. **[05:27] Commissioner Hagen:** I think I know what it means, but in a sense—you may have alluded to it in your list there—but in your first paragraph you talk about three main reasons for what you're doing, and one of it is "contemporary development." It can mean a vast array of things. I just wanted to know what your definition of contemporary development is? **[05:43] Jeff Miller (H KGI):** Yeah, so I would say some examples of contemporary development is mixing of uses. For instance, the current code does not have a mixed-use district. We're updating codes to accommodate mixed-use development. Another one would be just more flexibility in the code rather than having everything so separated, whether that's housing types or commercial from residential. And then just how new developers are developing their properties; we’ll be talking to them as stakeholders. **[06:21] Commissioner Hagen:** I did have a question about the RFP you mentioned? **[06:26] Jeff Miller (H KGI):** Yeah, the city issued a request for proposals to hire us as a consultant. **[06:33] Jeff Miller (H KGI):** So, as we walk through, keep these questions in mind: Which parts are hard to understand? What issues arise during development proposals? What do you envision for Oakdale in the next 10 years? And how can we simplify processes? **[06:53] Jeff Miller (H KGI):** First, we look at zoning districts. You have 14 base districts and overlay districts like Shoreland and Floodplain. PUD is a planned unit development district. **[08:08] Commissioner Hagen:** I just wanted to know: what's the difference between GS, HS, and WB? **[08:14] Jeff Miller (H KGI):** I think I have them memorized, which is scary: Greenway Station PUD, Helmo Station PUD, and Willowbrook. Is that right? **[08:23] Luke McClanahan:** That's right. Those are kind of the exceptions—the PUDs that are codified in our code. But we have a good number of these going back to the 70s and 80s. PUDs allow flexibility so you don't have to get a bunch of different variances. Willowbrook is the neighborhood, Tartan Crossing is by Hy-Vee, Greenway Station is the peaceful living location, and Helmo Station is the seven-story apartment building going in off 94. **[08:58] Commissioner Hagen:** One that’s not labeled except just as P is the golf course up in the North End between 36 and 694? **[09:05] Luke McClanahan:** Yes, that area is also a PUD—Silver Greens of Silver Lake. **[09:12] Commissioner Hagen:** I remember some action on that a couple of years ago, but there hasn't been any mention since. **[09:18] Luke McClanahan:** We haven't received any active land use applications for that one, but that is a good example of a large PUD area. **[09:28] Jeff Miller (H KGI):** Regarding the 14 districts, allowed uses are currently "cumulative." What that means is when you get to the R4 District, it says all uses allowed in R3 are permitted in R4. That gets confusing. We also found the commercial districts are overly specific—listing every type of store rather than using general categories like "retail." We also noted there are no "Mixed Use" or "Public" zoning districts yet, though they are in your 2040 Comp Plan. **[11:15] Commissioner Hagen:** On your business district map, I'm curious as to why the purple for "Gateway" is on the west side of 694? **[11:23] Luke McClanahan:** Mr. Chair, so as far as I know, that was privately owned. It covers the vacant Regan property and the Bible Institute. That is a legacy zoning. Along 94 there was some Gateway zoning on the east side, but that got rezoned to the Helmo Station PUD. It just isn't used much these days. **[11:51] Commissioner Hagen:** The reason I asked is because the main station is going to be on the east side. I'm surprised that isn't purple. **[11:56] Jeff Miller (H KGI):** The PUD map does show the Helmo Station (HS) on the east side. One thing we'll figure out is if we should keep specific PUD names in the code or just use a general PUD label. **[12:15] Jeff Miller (H KGI):** For business districts, we see some like "Limited Business" or "Gateway" are only applied to one or five parcels. If there’s opportunity to streamline those into other similar districts, we will. We also want to look at "Missing Middle" housing—townhouses, small apartments, and senior housing—which aren't well-identified currently. Any input on the residential or business districts before we move to specific topics? **[14:14] Chair Pearson:** It seems like, just in what you've told us, there's certainly opportunities to combine some of those districts. C1 seems like it's unnecessary. Seems like you're on the right track. **[14:24] Beth Richmond (H KGI):** Thanks, Jeff. I’ll talk about Exterior Building Materials. Staff feels the current language is outdated. Right now, materials are in Class 1 (brick, glass), Class 2 (stucco, specialty block), and Class 3 (wood, glass block). There are percentage requirements for commercial and industrial, but the code is silent on residential dwellings, accessory buildings, and public buildings in residential zones. **[14:58] Commissioner Stellari:** If there's no nothing there to choose from, it's harder for the builder as well. They don't know what they're coming up against. Having something in there to choose from is a good idea. **[15:13] Chair Pearson:** I would respectfully disagree with you. I think if to me it seems like we haven't—it hasn't been an issue to not have those class material standards on housing or accessory buildings. So if we haven't historically seen it be a problem, I wouldn't want to make it overly burdensome. **[15:34] Commissioner Campbell:** The limitations would bother me. But I think one of the reasons why we haven't seen it is because it's been filtered by staff talking to them before it ever gets to us, which tells us that the process works. **[15:52] Chair Pearson:** With respect to your commercial, I question the need for the number of mixes. To say you need three materials of Class 1—I don't know that we need to go to that length. **[16:04] Beth Richmond (H KGI):** Moving on to pre-engineered metal buildings and pole barns. Currently, these are prohibited for most uses, but the code is silent on residential accessory buildings. **[16:22] Commissioner Stellari:** Well, I know one of the reasons they're becoming popular is because they're affordable. I know they use them a lot for tiny homes—I'm kind of fascinated by them. For an accessory use, I could get on board with that. **[16:34] Commissioner Campbell:** I'm on the fence for residential. I think a lot of places are now going to architectural metals, and that should be allowed. **[16:40] Commissioner Hagen:** I'm reaching back 40 years in my memory on this, but I think a lot of the discussions back then revolved around aesthetics—what was going to look nice. You don't want it to make all the houses look "cookie-cutter." **[17:03] Beth Richmond (H KGI):** Parking. Right now, parking regulations are spread through the code. We recommend grouping them. Also, are we requiring more parking than developers want? **[17:35] Commissioner Campbell:** I think you should go back to your first bullet point. Because there's been places where a company says we only need 50 spaces and city code says no, you got to have 175. The person building their business probably knows better. **[17:48] Chair Pearson:** I was going to say that whatever you put in for the code, I think there needs to be a mechanism where the Commission or Council can vary and deviate from that. I've had projects where the city said our code says you need 850 parks, so we had to buy an extra acre of land just to put blacktop down that nobody used. They were truly handcuffed. **[18:14] Beth Richmond (H KGI):** Some cities use "Proof of Parking," where you reserve the space but don't pave it until it's actually needed. **[18:33] Commissioner Di:** I'm just thinking—in the jurisdiction where I work, in St. Paul, we got rid of parking requirements entirely a few years ago to incentivize carpooling, biking, and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. Parking is a premium and developers pass that cost to tenants. It’s worth thinking about not imposing it, or leaving it to the developers to say what's targeted for their demographic. **[19:18] Commissioner Stellari:** Just thinking of our lifestyles—people just pick up things and leave. I think of the movie theater with so many parking places and it's just this big concrete. Things have changed. Can you require them to put in green space within the parking? **[19:25] Beth Richmond (H KGI):** Yes, we have Landscape Architects on staff who can help with that. **[19:30] Commissioner Di:** To piggyback on that, St. Paul partnered with Move Minnesota. When a development needs 100 or more spaces, they work to incentivize people not driving. Maybe a lower rent for people without a car. It's something to think forward about for housing affordability. **[20:17] Beth Richmond (H KGI):** Landscaping. Again, it’s spread throughout the code. Staff currently only applies section 175. Current requirements are one boulevard tree per 50 feet and one tree per 800 square feet of "landscaped green area." **[20:47] Commissioner Hagen:** I honestly can't remember a time where landscaping was an issue. **[21:12] Commissioner Campbell:** I think of the Impact Apartments. They had a lot of green space and were going to be required to have a lot of trees. That ended up going into a PUD which gave us flexibility. **[21:35] Commissioner Stellari:** I'm really interested in the residential prairie gardens. I want to get rid of grass. **[21:40] Beth Richmond (H KGI):** There's actually a state requirement now that we have to allow native vegetation if a property owner wants it. **[22:04] Commissioner Di:** Typically what I've seen is that for residential, landscaping isn't as strictly required as it is for commercial parking lots to respond to "heat islands." **[23:05] Commissioner Hagen:** All those elements to be screened can be summed up as aesthetics. **[23:17] Commissioner Di:** When we talk about mechanical equipment to be screened, are we talking about stuff on the roof? **[23:22] Beth Richmond (H KGI):** Yes, HVAC on the roof or side of the building. **[23:44] Commissioner Hagen:** Where screening has often come up is in light screening—making sure light doesn't get from a parking lot into a residential area. **[23:55] Beth Richmond (H KGI):** Lighting. Currently, we only have a 30-foot height limit and foot-candle limits at the property line. We could look at "Dark Sky" compliance, which directs light downward. **[24:43] Commissioner Di:** I'm thinking about signage lighting—blinking signs bugging the neighbors. I've been involved in investigations where the light spills over. We require shielding so it shoots down and doesn't exceed a certain foot-candle at the line. **[25:12] Chair Pearson:** I'm more concerned about just the full cut-off. If you've got the foot-candle standard at the property line, we shouldn't need to dictate whether you shield it or not, because if you're near the property line, you'll *have* to shield it to hit that number. **[25:34] Commissioner Hagen:** I've got a situation right now—I sit in my living room and a neighbor turns on their patio light a block and a half away and I'm blinded. But at their property line, it's probably only half a foot-candle because it’s directional. How you measure it plays a role, and that’s undefined. **[26:34] Chair Pearson:** The challenge in practice is nobody's going out with a light meter. It's all a photometric plan generated by a computer. If it doesn't work once built, then it's a code issue for staff. **[27:08] Commissioner Hagen:** When they put in the street lights, several lights were so bright the world went white when you drove by. I brought that to Brian Bachmeier's attention and he made an adjustment. **[27:35] Beth Richmond (H KGI):** Signage. We need to update for "Content Neutrality." Following court rulings, we can no longer regulate signs based on what they say (e.g., "Advertising" vs "Political"). It must be based on objective things like height and location. **[28:34] Beth Richmond (H KGI):** Pylon signs: Currently allowed only along interstates. Should they be allowed along County Highways? **[28:44] Chair Pearson:** Are you distinguishing a difference between a static and a dynamic sign? Because that makes a difference on a pole sign too. **[28:55] Commissioner Campbell:** To answer that question for me, I'd defer to staff. If it hasn't been an issue, don't fix it. **[29:05] Commissioner Hagen:** I can recall once a store owner wanted blinking lights but called them "gently pulsing." We don't allow blinking lights. **[29:28] Beth Richmond (H KGI):** Temporary signs: Right now they are limited to two 10-day periods. Should they be longer? **[30:26] Chair Pearson:** I brought this up last meeting. I think of Hy-Vee. When I counted, there were 38 total signs on the site. I'm not opposed to signage, but there's a balance before it becomes clutter. **[30:57] Commissioner Stellari:** I would never have thought there were 38 signs on Hy-Vee. All I noticed was the Hy-Vee sign. **[31:07] Commissioner Di:** I'm thinking the mom-and-pop businesses need those signs to survive. Maybe three times a year for 30 days. **[31:40] Commissioner Hagen:** I don't think we have any mom-and-pop businesses here... oh, there's a couple. **[31:54] Commissioner Stellari:** When I lived in a townhouse development, we were told we couldn't put a "For Sale" sign out. **[31:58] Chair Pearson:** That was likely the homeowners association covenants, not the city. **[32:56] Chair Pearson:** [Regarding Billboards] I'm happy with how things are working. **[33:04] Commissioner Hagen:** I would argue that with a 30-second display, that's why we haven't seen more. It's hard to monetize if you aren't getting 6 to 10 seconds. **[33:38] Luke McClanahan:** To be clear, Oakdale doesn't actually have any dynamic billboard signs currently. **[33:43] Commissioner Di:** Is a billboard allowed by right in Oakdale? **[33:48] Luke McClanahan:** You need two things: a conditional use permit and a license for the operator. **[33:58] Commissioner Di:** In St. Paul, you have to remove six traditional paper billboards before you can have one dynamic billboard face. **[34:42] Commissioner Hagen:** This graphic here—I don't know what P and S mean? **[34:46] Jeff Miller (H KGI):** P means permitted, S means special or conditional use. **[35:10] Commissioner Campbell:** I didn't hear you talk about sound or noise at all? **[35:18] Luke McClanahan:** That's actually a separate chapter in the code beyond the scope of this project. But staff is aware of the concerns about the noise ordinance. **[35:41] Commissioner Hagen:** You mentioned parks zoning. In your stakeholder list, you don't have the Parks and Rec Commission? **[35:55] Jeff Miller (H KGI):** Right now we aren't recommending a change yet, but if there's interest in creating a specific public/park zoning district, we would bring them in. **[36:44] Jeff Miller (H KGI):** We’ll use a software called "Conveo" for drafts so you can put comments directly on the text online. **[37:12] Chair Pearson:** Could you have a key to what all the terminology means? Especially for the public. **[37:48] Commissioner Hagen:** One question on the developers: I presume you're going to solicit feedback from past and current developers within the city? **[37:55] Jeff Miller (H KGI):** Yes, working closely with staff on that. **[38:13] Luke McClanahan:** Yes, thank you Chair. Just three things: May 7th is the development bus tour. Expect a June Planning Commission meeting for land use applications. And the July meeting is moved to July 11th. **[38:37] Chair Pearson:** Commissioner updates? Seeing none, I move to... Councilman Morcomb? **[38:40] Council Member Andy Morcomb:** Commissioner... I have nothing, but I'm happy to take any questions. **[38:46] Commissioner Stellari:** Any updates on Public Works and Police Department expansions? **[38:52] Luke McClanahan:** Groundbreaking is coming soon on Public Works. For the police expansion, we're reassessing architecture as needs have changed. **[39:18] Council Member Andy Morcomb:** One thing I will add: Mayor Zabel said today at the Chamber meeting that we are 10 months into collecting the sales tax and we've already collected more than we anticipated for the first year. That indicates it's not impacting our businesses negatively. **[39:41] Chair Pearson:** Barring that, I look for a motion to adjourn. **[39:44] Commissioner Campbell:** So moved. **[39:45] Commissioner Hagen:** Second. **[39:46] Chair Pearson:** All those in favor? (Aye). Thank you very much, we are adjourned.