This transcript is from an **Oakdale Planning Commission** meeting. Based on the roll call and the context of the dialogue, I have identified the speakers as the Planning Commission members (Chair Pearson, Commissioners Campbell, McCauley, Diatta, Hagen, and Stelarski), City Staff (Luke McClanahan and Max), and specific applicants/consultants (Martin Tahera, Paul Tabone, and Aaron Perdue). Note: Since the original text provided did not include timestamps, I have used placeholders in the requested format. *** **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** But but there's like four phases. Good evening, I call to order the Planning Commission, June 1st, 2023. First order of business is the Pledge of Allegiance. **(All):** 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. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** Luke, if you do the roll call please? **[00:00] Luke McClanahan (Planning Manager):** Yes. Pearson? **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** Here. **[00:00] Luke McClanahan:** Willenbring is absent. Campbell? **[00:00] Commissioner Campbell:** President. **[00:00] Luke McClanahan:** McCauley? **[00:00] Commissioner McCauley:** Here. **[00:00] Luke McClanahan:** Hagen? **[00:00] Commissioner Hagen:** Here. **[00:00] Luke McClanahan:** Diatta? **[00:00] Commissioner Diatta:** Here. **[00:00] Luke McClanahan:** Stelarski? **[00:00] Commissioner Stelarski:** Here. **[00:00] Luke McClanahan:** Thank you. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** Next is the approval of minutes from April 6th. Does anyone have any changes or corrections to make? Nope. Seen none, and I guess I ask for a motion to approve as presented. **[00:00] Commissioner Campbell:** So moved. **[00:00] Commissioner Hagen:** Second. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** All those in favor? **(All):** Aye. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** Any opposed? Thank you very much. No old business. So the first one is a public hearing for Martin Tahera, parcel ID—I'll skip reading that—conditional use permit for an additional accessory structure. Luke? **[00:00] Max (Community Development Specialist):** Or I'll be taking this one. I don't believe I've been to Planning Commission before, so I want to introduce myself first. My name is Max, I recently started as the new Community Development Specialist with the City of Oakdale. I focus primarily on housing and economic development as well as general planning support, assisting Luke in different matters. So depending on how things are looking for the city as applications come in, I may be coming to future Planning Commissions to assist. And with that, we can get started with the presentation on this conditional use permit... [Max presents the staff report regarding Martin Tahera's storage building]. Staff finds that the conditional use permit review criteria of the ordinance has been satisfied... Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions... I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** My first question would be—I think you kind of answered it in a couple of ways—the Fire Department has reviewed it and it's fine? This is acceptable for getting the vehicles in? **[00:00] Max:** Correct. We brought up this proposal at a Development Review Committee a few weeks ago and it has been looked at by our Fire Chief. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** Okay. Anyone else have any questions before I open the public hearing? **[00:00] Commissioner Campbell:** So he's going to convey the property onto one deed so that the—so there's two lots, one has his house and one is this vacant lot where this structure will be going to the property? Yes? So it has to be sold together? **[00:00] Commissioner McCauley (Lee):** Well, I think to clarify though to Lee's [referring to himself/previous query] question: you're not requiring him to do a lot merger and create one lot of the two properties? You're just saying that when he sells, he has to convey them both at one time? He can't convey one lot and then the other at a different time? **[00:00] Max:** That is correct. **[00:00] Commissioner McCauley:** And what happens if he does? **[00:00] Max:** If the applicant just sells this site with a standalone accessory structure... it’d be a non-conforming situation. We would try to work with the subsequent owner in terms of bringing it into compliance, but ideally, with this condition in place, we should have a mechanism to ensure that that doesn't happen in the first place. **[00:00] Commissioner Stelarski:** One other question I've got. It doesn't show his house and his garage that he has currently, and isn't there a stipulation you can only have like a thousand square feet? Does his house have an attached garage? There's really nothing showing anything; all we have is a Post-it note and that's all we got. [Laughter] **[00:00] Max:** I’m happy to [answer] as well. At this point, the conditional use permit is intended more to okay the use before pursuing say architectural renderings or going to a contractor. At this point, we don't require that level of detail for a site plan. **[00:00] Luke McClanahan:** So the zoning code does allow for a property owner to have a garage up to one thousand square feet and one accessory structure. Going through this process allows the applicant to get an additional structure that would also exceed size limits. **[00:00] Commissioner Stelarski:** But I guess my question is we don't really know what this gentleman has going forward because, like I said, these are pretty sketchy sketches. We have no idea if he's got an outbuilding or if he's got the thousand square feet right now. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** As a public hearing, we can allow the applicant to speak on that. **[00:00] Commissioner Campbell:** I guess I'm less concerned about that because as a 0.2-acre lot... overall what he's building is pretty small for the lot size. The reason why we normally don't have two pieces of parcel and one parcel just having a garage on it is so they don't just start living in the garage. Granted, this is two pieces of parcels that he owns, but that's why we have the laws that we have. **[00:00] Max:** I will add, while the building is planned to have electric service, it will not have sewer service, so there would be no pathway currently as planned where it could have a dwelling unit present. **[00:00] Luke McClanahan:** If the applicant did request a permit for water/sewer services, that is a big red flag to the city and we would investigate that. **[00:00] Commissioner Diatta (Yaya):** Yep, Lee had a great question and I appreciate you bringing that up about the deed part, and then Chris stepped in and got more confused, thanks. No... my understanding is if I read this resolution correctly, it becomes a single deed meaning the properties become together, is that correct? **[00:00] Max:** Yes. **[00:00] Commissioner McCauley:** But he's not doing a lot merger or anything like that? They would legally combine these two into one larger parcel? So what is this "single deed"—what does that requirement do then? **[00:00] Luke McClanahan:** Functionally, it does serve as essentially a lot merger of sorts without going through the full subdivision process. We've vetted this with City Legal and they're comfortable with this as the mechanism. **[00:00] Commissioner McCauley:** Can he sell his existing home currently separate of that lot today? **[00:00] Luke McClanahan:** Yes. **[00:00] Commissioner McCauley:** Tomorrow after construction, after everything's in place, can he sell both places separately? I would argue that he can sell it a year from now... and unless the CUP is recorded with the county when they do a title search, they will not see this. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** We're getting into the minutia. Can you convey the two lots under one deed or do you have to combine them at a future date? **[00:00] Luke McClanahan:** There's plenty of properties in Oakdale that have this type of situation—have been conveyed multiple parcels on the same deed. **[00:00] Commissioner Diatta:** No, I do appreciate the conversation here. Typically, I look at this and see two lots: one has the principal building, one has an accessory building accessory to nothing. To me, I have an issue with that. When somebody sells a property, they don't notify the city... it becomes an enforcement nightmare. Might as well combine them. **[00:00] Commissioner Campbell:** To Yaya's point, that's a great one. The house doesn't matter in this discussion... it's two separate parcels. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** I open the public hearing on Martin Tahera's parcel conditional use permit. Martin, if you'd like to speak. **[00:00] Martin Tahera (Applicant):** Well, thanks everyone. Max and Luke did a great job with going over things. When I spoke with Luke, it was the idea that yes, he went over this with the idea of combining these two lots together. I wanted to have this meeting to see if I combined these two lots, would it be approved? What I did not want to do was combine those lots and then find out it’s not approved... I've been a resident in Oakdale for 23 years. I did not do a detailed drawing because I don't want to pay for something that's not even approved. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** The only question is if you talked to the county about the process? **[00:00] Martin Tahera:** No, I did not. Just spoke with Luke. **[00:00] Commissioner Stelarski:** You would change it to become one legal tax ID number so to speak and get rid of the second? **[00:00] Commissioner Diatta:** I'll go back to what Lee has asked earlier. We have no idea how many other structures you have on those lots? **[00:00] Martin Tahera:** I have my garage, attached. No other outbuildings. I got an eight-by-eight foot small shed, but that's it. **[00:00] Commissioner Campbell:** In total, these two when combined would be 0.7 acres... it’s less than 10% lot coverage. It's just not a lot. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you so much. I close the public hearing. Bring it back, are there any final questions? **[00:00] Commissioner Stelarski:** I have a final question. I guess my thinking is maybe we should table this and have him do what he needs to do... so we can be more comfortable. **[00:00] Commissioner Campbell:** I'd like to point out though, as he said, he wants to get to know that he can go forward with it. **[00:00] Commissioner Diatta:** I would recommend that we approve it with a condition that both lots are combined into one PIN. One legal lot. **[00:00] Luke McClanahan:** If that's the commission's desire, I would suggest condition number one be replaced with a condition that the applicant formally resubdivide the three lots into a single lot. **[00:00] Commissioner Campbell:** Does that place any undue burden in the process? **[00:00] Luke McClanahan:** The applicant would have to go through the full subdivision process, come back through Planning Commission and City Council. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** I'll take a shot at that. Luke, rephrase point one before we do that and tell us what point one will be. **[00:00] Luke McClanahan:** "The applicant shall resubdivide Lots 3, 7, and 8, Block 2, Land Glade Park, onto a single lot." Period. **[00:00] Commissioner Campbell:** I'll motion to recommend approval of the CUP for an additional accessory structure with conditions including the amended condition. **[00:00] Commissioner Diatta:** Second. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** All those in favor? **(All):** Aye. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** Any opposed? Okay. Next order of business is a planned unit development (PUD) amendment for the Lennar Corporation. **[00:00] Max:** Yes, thank you. This request is for a PUD Amendment to the Willowbrook neighborhood... It is a request for accessory apartments on the single-family lots that will be located north of 40th Street. The developer is wanting to offer a "next-gen home" option for multi-generational living. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** The only question I've got is the word "certain" single family lots. **[00:00] Luke McClanahan:** It is the larger single-family lots in Willowbrook north of 40th Street. **[00:00] Max:** [Continues presentation on the floor plan and renderings]. Staff recommends that these accessory apartments must meet certain criteria found in the ordinance... Staff recommends approval. The applicant is here in attendance. **[00:00] Commissioner Campbell:** I do have a question for Luke on condition C. The owner of the residence shall occupy at least one of the dwelling units. What happens when they don't? **[00:00] Luke McClanahan:** Admittedly, enforcement is very difficult to do. The city operates on a complaint basis. **[00:00] Commissioner Diatta:** Have you maybe considered having some kind of homeowner affidavit in place filed on the property? St. Paul started it a while back. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** Would the applicant like to make any comments? **[00:00] Paul Tabone (Lennar):** Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Paul Tabone with Lennar. Commissioner Diatta, we do provide a declaration of the buyer that the use of the property shall be in conformance with local ordinances... and then it does get recorded against the property upon the sale. There's no firewall between the two units, so it's not intended to be a rental; there's one address and one HVAC system. It really is meant for multi-generational living. **[00:00] Commissioner Stelarski:** How many lots do you have north of 40th approximately? **[00:00] Paul Tabone:** I counted about 183 today. Typically the percentages [of this product type] are about five to ten percent. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** Thank you very much, sir. Final comments? **[00:00] Commissioner Hagen:** I like the idea. **[00:00] Commissioner Campbell:** I'll make the motion to recommend approval. **[00:00] Commissioner Hagen:** Second. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** All those in favor? **(All):** Aye. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** Motion passes. Next is the Glenbrook Small Area Plan. Aaron Perdue on the Glenbrook Small Area Plan. **[00:00] Aaron Perdue (Stantec Consultant):** Thank you. I’m going to talk through what we have heard since I was before you last... [Aaron presents three alternatives: A, B, and C, focusing on truck traffic issues]. Most people see truck traffic as a big concern. Generally, folks liked something like Alternative B. **[00:00] Commissioner Stelarski:** Could you explain to me what it means "the MnDOT right-of-way"? **[00:00] Aaron Perdue:** MnDOT owns the rights to use that land. This schematic shows that this frontage road would spill over into that public right-of-way. MnDOT was hesitant to say that right-of-way could be used for that purpose. **[00:00] Commissioner Diatta:** I'm going to presume that existing industrial properties that are not in conformance with today's zoning code are non-conforming. Does the city have any legal standing to require them to comply? **[00:00] Aaron Perdue:** The only legal basis would be if and when they come in to do some sort of change. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** The question for the three options... MnDOT is saying "probably not" and the other two... does the neighborhood benefit? **[00:00] Commissioner Campbell:** I don't know, the 17th Avenue intersection's a nightmare. To put truck traffic there in addition? I don't know. **[00:00] Andy Morcomb (Council Member/Liaison):** I'm not in favor of walking off the street. Even if you put in this option... what's to say the truck traffic still doesn't say "the hell with it" and still go down upper 51st? **[00:00] Commissioner McCauley:** I'm not in favor of putting a block on the road. I know this is not a question for you, more for the Councilman: when do you look at cost? **[00:00] Andy Morcomb:** Staff will typically give us two or three options to look at in a workshop and then ask for direction from there. Buying property—this is buying a business and everything else—it's at our discretion at the end of the day. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** Planning and development update. Luke? **[00:00] Luke McClanahan:** Not much of an update. Very tentative if we'll have a July meeting. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** Council Member Morcomb? **[00:00] Andy Morcomb:** Nothing for me neither. Happy to answer questions. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** At that point, do we have motion for adjournment? **[00:00] Commissioner Hagen:** So moved. **[00:00] Commissioner McCauley:** Second. **[00:00] Chair Pearson:** All those in favor? We stand adjourned. Thank you.