Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, this is a **Planning Commission** meeting. The primary presenter is a staff member named **Max** (likely a city planner). The meeting is led by the **Vice Chair**. Here is the formatted transcript with speaker names: [0:18] **Vice Chair**: Yep, the October 3rd, 2024 Planning Commission session is called to order. First call of business, roll call please. [0:18] **Max (Planning Staff)**: Sure thing. Pearson is absent, Willenbring here, Campbell absent, Stellari here, McCully here, Diata here, Hagen is absent. [1:10] **Vice Chair**: All rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. [Pledge of Allegiance] And could I get a motion to approve the agenda for tonight? [1:10] **Commissioner**: So moved. [1:10] **Commissioner**: Second. [1:10] **Vice Chair**: It’s been moved and seconded. All in favor? (I, I). Approved. Next matter of business, approval of the minutes from July 11th. August haven't been submitted yet. Could I get a motion or are there any changes you want to be made? [1:10] **Commissioner**: I have no changes. [1:10] **Commissioner**: No changes. I will make a motion. [1:10] **Commissioner**: Second. [1:10] **Vice Chair**: Moved and seconded. All in favor? (I, I). Passed. On to the next portion tonight, as every night, we open up an open forum. If you have any comments you would like to make that are not related to anything on the agenda, now is your time to do so. If you have any, we'd like you to limit your comments to about two minutes, and I will go ahead and open the Forum. [2:14] **Vice Chair**: See nobody, I'm going to ahead and close the open Forum session of the meeting. On to old business—we have none—so we'll move on to our new business. This will be a public hearing for the Kenneth Kroger conditional use permit for an oversized garage. Go ahead, Max. [2:14] **Max (Planning Staff)**: Yep, thank you and good evening. Tonight before us we have a request for an oversized garage located at 6063 Stillwater Boulevard North. This is located just east of the intersection of Highway 120 and Stillwater Boulevard. The zoning here is R1, or very low density housing, where oversized garages are allowed if a conditional use permit is obtained. The purpose here is the applicant is looking to add a new detached garage that exceeds the maximum square footage requirement for garages in the R1 District. Per the city code, garages may be up to 1,000 square feet in the R1 District, whereas the applicant's garage here is planned to be 1,200 square feet. The property as a whole is approximately 0.9 acres in size and contains a single-family home with an existing detached garage. The proposed new garage would replace the old garage, which the applicant has stated is in poor condition. [3:46] **Max (Planning Staff)**: Here we have the site plan for the applicant's plans to add a garage. The applicant plans to use the garage—and has stated—for modern vehicles, which currently can't fit in the pre-existing garage, as well as snowblowers, lawnmowers, other residential items. As you can see, the garage would be located in the rear yard on the south side of the property. The applicant has stated that the garage would not exceed height limits. Additionally, in the R1 District where this property is located, garages are required to be at least 10 feet from side property lines and 30 feet from rear property lines. Based on the provided site plan details, these setback requirements are met. As a reminder, conditional use permits are subject to certain review criteria found in the city's ordinance. Here's a summary of the review criteria we must use in evaluating it: compliance with the comp plan, compatibility of use with zoning, no nuisance effects generated, no traffic congestion or parking issues. The use must be adequately served by public services, no excessive cost for public services, minimal impacts to the environment. And specifically for oversized garages: the lot can't be further subdivided with the building on site, no barn building construction is permitted, no door can exceed 10 feet in height, and no commercial or industrial uses can occur within the structure. Staff finds that the conditional use permit review criteria of the ordinance has been satisfied as detailed on the staff report in file. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions: the applicant shall obtain a building permit, the structure shall meet setback and height requirements, and the garage shall not exceed 1,200 feet in size. As a reminder, this is a public hearing and the applicant is here with us in attendance. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions regarding this request. [5:19] **Vice Chair**: I have any questions? Seems pretty straightforward. Yeah, any comments from the public on this conditional use permit? [6:06] **Max (Planning Staff)**: Mr. Vice Chair, could we open the public comment section for this variance? [6:06] **Vice Chair**: Seeing none, we're going to close the public comment section. Is there any other discussion? [6:06] **Commissioner**: No, I don't have any discussion on this project. [6:06] **Vice Chair**: Could I get a motion then? [6:06] **Commissioner**: I will make a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for an additional garage at 6063 Stillwater Boulevard North. [6:06] **Commissioner**: Second. [6:06] **Vice Chair**: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? (I, I). Oppose? Passes. On to our next portion here for The Enclave company's planned unit development Amendment. [6:52] **Max (Planning Staff)**: Thank you Vice Chair and Commissioners. So before us tonight is a request for a new residential development titled Enclave Helmo Station, located at the Helmo Station PUD. Generally, these addresses are located as you can see in the map in the vacant land between Norhart Apartments and the Oaks Business Park. For the zoning here, it's Helmo Station PUD, which specifies several different land uses including high density multifamily on the southern half of the site as well as flex uses, medium density, and office on the northern half of the site. Here the applicant is proposing a 280-unit apartment building, a 112-unit townhome development, and a 2.83-acre public park. The housing is planned to be market rate and is not income restricted. To proceed, the developer must receive approval from the city on the preliminary plat, PUD Amendment, and the site plan. A PUD amendment is required due to the development layout being different from the original layout of the Helmo Station PUD. A concept plan was previously considered by the City Council at a council workshop on July 23rd, 2024. During this meeting, the council voiced majority support for the concept plan. [8:23] **Max (Planning Staff)**: Here we can see a general site plan. As you can see, 112 units are located just north of Third Street. The placement of the townhomes in this location is intended to provide more of a lower transitional density closer to the Oakrun Shores neighborhood. On the southeast end is a 280-unit apartment building. To promote walkability, the parking of the apartment building is located to the east so that it's not visible from the station area for anyone using the Gold Line BRT service. Additionally, a secondary entrance as well as walkout units are located on the west side of the building to improve pedestrian access. The proposed public park is also located on the southwest end of the site. Here we have a comparison of the site layout. The important points to note here are that the developer proposal does dramatically reduce the number of public roads on site. Staff was initially concerned with the impact of the loss of the planned public roads on traffic and walkability. However, staff requested that the developer complete a traffic study which found that the development itself and the loss of planned public roads would have minimal impacts on traffic. Additionally, to address walkability, the developer has added an enhanced pedestrian spine or walkway along the west side of the apartment building. Furthermore, in exchange for flexibility from the city for the site layout, the developer is proposing a park that is 47% larger than the original park. [10:40] **Max (Planning Staff)**: As you can see, the developer has increased the size of the park while removing most of the new public streets. Please note that the design of the park is still underway. Staff suggests that input here tonight focus on the apartments, townhomes, and the site as a whole. Now on screen is the preliminary plat. The developer is proposing two blocks. Block one to the north would house the townhomes and Block two to the south for the park and the apartment building. A few corrections are needed on the preliminary plat based on the city's ordinance. For one, the proposed public park is currently shown as a numbered lot; typically, numbered lots in Oakdale are reserved for private buildable lots, so the developer will want to change this to an outlot. Additionally, for stormwater, the developer will need to receive separate approvals and permits from the two Watershed districts. [12:13] **Max (Planning Staff)**: Moving on to the site plan, here we have a closeup of the townhomes. We can see the 112 units which are served by two accesses off of Third Street. In exchange for a PUD Amendment, staff is requiring that the developer extend the Fourth Street sidewalk to Ideal Avenue. In the Helmo Station PUD, buildings along Fourth Street are required to be at least 30 feet from the curb line; based on the plan, this requirement is met. It should be noted that the original site plan did not show any of the townhomes along Third or Fourth Street as having street-facing entrances, instead with rear patios facing the street. Since then, the townhomes facing Third Street have been adjusted to have pedestrian entrances facing the street, but the entrances to the Fourth Street townhomes still need to be updated. [14:29] **Max (Planning Staff)**: Continuing with the apartment building, the developer is currently proposing more parking than is allowed. The PUD requires that no more than 393 spaces be provided, and the developer here is proposing 469. As a result, the developer will need to either comply with the ratio or request a deviation. Additionally, the Helmo Station PUD requires that buildings be set back no more than 10 feet from sidewalks; this is not currently met. Other elements not provided include trash handling, screening, and an updated photometric plan. Given the apartment's distance to Interstate 94, a noise variance with a noise study will be needed. [16:50] **Max (Planning Staff)**: Moving back to the townhomes, the following images show example elevations. One issue identified in the renderings is the material breakdown. The Helmo Station PUD requires buildings be made up of at least 70% class one materials. Based on analysis by HKGI, the city's planning consultant, the townhome building types vary from being 20% to 46% class one materials. The developer will need to either update the building materials or request an additional PUD deviation. One possible approach could be to increase the amount of class one materials visible from the public streets. Regarding the apartment building, the developer states that 79% of materials are class one; however, colored concrete masonry is not considered a class one material under the city's ordinance. Additionally, corrugated metal is typically not considered a "superior metal." Staff recommends approval of the PUD Amendment, preliminary plat, and site plan subject to the conditions detailed. [22:12] **Commissioner McCully**: Got one as far as the fire department. With no road access on the west or south of that building, do they feel it's adequate for a building that size with the access that they have at the north and east side? [22:59] **Max (Planning Staff)**: Mr. Vice Chair, that would be correct. We did run it by our fire chief and the pedestrian spine would actually be built to allow fire trucks to drive on it and be rated for that, so that they would be able to access that side of the building. [23:42] **Commissioner McCully**: So far my only concern with this is not a problem with the townhomes being in apartments, it's the outside materials and the lack of class one and how to get there. You said they could come to you and ask for forgiveness or a variance of it, but when does that happen? How does it happen? [24:28] **Max (Planning Staff)**: So we'll be taking an extended period between the Planning Commission now and the first meeting in November given how many things need to be corrected in the plans. We're hoping to work it out during that session and we would hope likely for either fully 70% class one material or something where the most visible components of the building show that from the outside. [24:28] **Commissioner McCully**: And that it goes along with the Fourth Street side of the townhomes showing primary entrances as well? [25:13] **Max (Planning Staff)**: Yes, that's something we would look to require. We're asking for approval based upon these conditions. [25:13] **Commissioner McCully**: Okay, so basically you came a little too soon but you're going to extend it on the other end. [26:00] **Max (Planning Staff)**: Yeah, we're going to allow a little bit more time. We feel that it's meeting the general land use goals, but there's still details that need to be worked out. [26:00] **Commissioner McCully**: What are we... this is where I get confused. We're approving something that may happen, but you're saying it's going to happen. Am I saying that right or wrong? [26:47] **Max (Planning Staff)**: With the conditions, the idea behind those is that the approval is not valid unless they are met. [26:47] **Commissioner McCully**: Well basically he's brought it a little too soon. But because our meeting is today, he's going to extend it until the City Council because the City Council's already approved it sort of. And we're going to allow for the deviations? We're just gonna say "subject to." I understand your angst and I have the same angst. That's my issue. [27:37] **Josh McKinney (Developer)**: Good evening, my name is Josh McKinney with Measure Group. I'm here representing the developer Enclave Companies tonight. Brian Bachmann couldn't make it tonight. We completely understand the importance of this area. Specifically to architecture, we got the HKGI report a couple days ago. It's our impression that we'll be able to meet the 70% on the building with some minor modifications. I think there were some misunderstandings relative to the architectural metals and the concrete block. We will hit the 70% minimum on the multifamily building itself. Townhomes are a little bit tricky relative to the 70% because we're trying to go for a more residential look. If there's a deviation, it's going to be on the townhomes and not on the main building. I just want to be super upfront. [29:55] **Commissioner McCully**: Do you see any problem getting the main entrances on the townhomes that face Fourth Street to be primary and not back? [30:42] **Josh McKinney (Developer)**: We actually specifically left those off for this response. It's a discussion that we need to have. Right now the 30-foot setback was intended to be a landscape buffer as a layer of protection between us and the adjacent development to the north. If we start to do a landscape buffer with sidewalks penetrating it, we kind of get into some security or safety issues of people being able to hide behind trees. We're happy to work with you and city staff, but do we really want front doors fronting on Fourth or do we want a buffer? [32:15] **Commissioner McCully**: I would like to see the primary entrances on Fourth. You've turned it over on the third. The "hiding behind a bush" aspect—that would be an issue for me. [33:01] **Commissioner**: Is there on the multi-building first floor a differential between the first floor and the above floors architecturally as well? It's supposed to be distinctive. [33:01] **Josh McKinney (Developer)**: I do believe that there's been some... I might actually call Colin up to speak about architecture. I think we'll end up right in that 78% area. [33:51] **Commissioner**: When do you plan on starting this project? [33:51] **Josh McKinney (Developer)**: This would be a spring start. We recognize there's a lot of engineering work we need to do still. [34:39] **Commissioner McCully**: I wonder why we have them here now if they're not going to start until next spring? They have time to actually get all this information correct without us saying "subject to." [34:39] **Josh McKinney (Developer)**: I can speak to that. If we can get our financing lined up, there's an opportunity for us to start construction on the townhome portion yet this fall. That's why we're here tonight—to preserve the option to start the townhomes in the fall, while the main building starts in the spring. [35:25] **Commissioner McCully**: I see. [36:11] **Commissioner Diata**: Development is super complex. So many players. Sometimes you line up things and they don't sort of jive, so I do understand. [36:50] **Vice Chair**: Okay, I'd like to open up the meeting to the public comment section for this proposal. Please keep your comments to about two minutes. [Pause] Second chance, anybody have any comments? The public comments section is now closed. [36:50] **Josh McKinney (Developer)**: I'm sorry, there's one other question regarding trash. The trash for the townhomes will be individual bins in garages. The trash for the multifamily building will be in the basement and brought out on trash day. [37:36] **Commissioner McCully**: I just have a hard time with everything saying "allow for deviations." I know that you're going to work with it, but I don't know what we're agreeing to. We're very early in the process and I'm not as comfortable with this. [38:22] **Max (Planning Staff)**: Mr. Commissioner, if I may. Generally, we would look to make sure that these conditions are fully satisfied. If there is anything the Planning Commission would like to add to ensure we meet your concerns, we would be happy to take that. [38:22] **Commissioner McCully**: Well you are addressing them real well, it's just that everything we get down to the resolutions are all stating "allow for deviations." That's just my opinion. [39:07] **Vice Chair**: I guess in the end City Council will be the final say on it. They've had a preview of this. It's messy, I agree with you there, but it is what it is. Do I have a motion on the Enclave plan unit development? [39:53] **Vice Chair**: Could I get a motion on the amendment to the Helmo Station PUD subject to conditions? [39:53] **Commissioner**: I will make a motion to recommend approval of the PUD Amendment to the Helmo Station PUD subject to conditions as stated. [39:53] **Commissioner**: Second. [39:53] **Vice Chair**: Motion has been moved and seconded. All in favor? (I, I). Opposed? (I). Motion passes. [40:40] **Commissioner**: I will make a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for The Enclave Helmo Station subject to conditions as stated. [40:40] **Commissioner**: Second. [40:40] **Vice Chair**: All in favor? (I, I, I). Oppose? [40:40] **Commissioner McCully**: I'm opposing it. [40:40] **Vice Chair**: Okay. I will make a motion to recommend approval of the site plan on The Enclave Helmo Station subject to the conditions as stated. [40:40] **Commissioner**: Second again. [40:40] **Vice Chair**: All in favor? (I, I). Opposed? [40:40] **Commissioner McCully**: I. [40:40] **Vice Chair**: Okay, motions pass. And now, any staff liaison updates? [41:27] **Max (Planning Staff)**: Yeah, so not too much for tonight. We will look to have a Planning Commission meeting next month. We don't have land use applications, but we are looking to bring back the comprehensive zoning update project to get additional input from you. With that, I'd be happy to take any additional questions. [42:13] **Vice Chair**: Any questions for Max? No. All right, any commissioner updates? No. Would our Council Liaison like to make any updates with us? [42:13] **Council Member (Liaison)**: Absolutely not—he never [laughs]. Thank you for the discussion on that. I have nothing, but if you have questions I'd be happy to try to answer them. [42:13] **Vice Chair**: Got nothing. All right, thank you. Motion to adjourn? [42:13] **Commissioner**: I make a motion to adjourn. [42:13] **Commissioner**: Second. [42:13] **Vice Chair**: All in favor? (I). Meeting's adjourned. Good job.