Here is the transcribed townhall meeting with speaker identifications based on the provided context and internal cues. **Note:** Based on the roll call and the nomination of "Dallas and Tom," the **Chair** is **Dallas** and the **Vice Chair** is **Tom Willenbring**. The staff member presenting is **Luke McClanahan** (Planning Manager). *** [00:00] **Dallas (Chair):** Greetings, this is the regular meeting of the Planning Commission. I call the meeting to order. Roll call, Luke? [00:05] **Luke McClanahan:** Pearson? [00:06] **Commissioner Pearson:** Here. [00:07] **Luke McClanahan:** Willenbring? [00:08] **Commissioner Tom Willenbring:** Here. [00:09] **Luke McClanahan:** Campbell noted that he will be absent. AATA also noted that he will be absent. Moli? [00:12] **Commissioner Moli:** Here. [00:13] **Luke McClanahan:** Aen noted that she will be absent tonight. And Wilson? [00:15] **Commissioner Wilson:** Here. [00:16] **Luke McClanahan:** Thank you. [00:17] **Dallas (Chair):** Luke, Pledge of Allegiance please. [00:18] **Everyone:** 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] **Dallas (Chair):** Approval of the agenda. For those who may have the old agenda, there was a modification to include elections of the chairperson and vice chairperson as item four. [00:32] **Commissioner Wilson:** Motion to approve. [00:33] **Commissioner Moli:** Second. [00:34] **Dallas (Chair):** All in favor? [00:35] **Commissioners:** Aye. [00:36] **Dallas (Chair):** Those opposed? [Silence] Then I guess we move directly to the nominations and elections of chairperson and vice chair. Anyone have nominations? [00:42] **Commissioner Wilson:** I make a motion to nominate to keep the board chair and vice chair as they are right now with both Dallas and Tom. [00:50] **Commissioner Moli:** Second. [00:52] **Dallas (Chair):** Wait a minute—no new nominations to be made? [Silence] Then nominations will be closed. This motion requires a second also. [01:00] **Commissioner Pearson:** Second. [01:02] **Dallas (Chair):** All those in favor? [01:03] **Commissioners:** Aye. [01:04] **Dallas (Chair):** Any opposed? [Silence] Thank you. Election to be used by ballot, or we can just do it by acclamation if you wish? [01:10] **Commissioner Tom Willenbring:** Acclamation. [01:11] **Dallas (Chair):** Okay. All those in favor of the motion? [01:13] **Commissioners:** Aye. [01:14] **Dallas (Chair):** Any opposed? [Silence] Motion passes. Thank you. Approval of the minutes. Any changes to the minutes by anybody? [01:20] **Commissioner:** No, I was... I personally saw none. [01:22] **Dallas (Chair):** Seeing none, I ask for a motion to approve the minutes. [01:25] **Commissioner Pearson:** Motion to approve. [01:26] **Commissioner Wilson:** Second. [01:27] **Dallas (Chair):** All those in favor? [01:28] **Commissioners:** Aye. [01:29] **Dallas (Chair):** Those opposed? [Silence] Abstain? [Silence] Thank you. [01:32] **Dallas (Chair):** Open Forum. Now is a moment for people to come forward to speak if they wish to say something that's not on the agenda already. Seeing as there's no one in the audience, I'll open it first and close it and move on to old business: Planning Commission 2025 work plan discussion. [01:45] **Luke McClanahan:** Thank you, Chair. So just for the benefit of individuals who might be tuning in on the YouTube channel, there was a discussion with the city council at the appreciation dinner, which was right before the cameras turned on here, just about the 2025 draft Planning Commission work plan. The purpose of the work plan is to help provide some guidance to the Planning Commission as we progress throughout the year. It just gives some guidance in terms of what the responsibilities are for the Planning Commission. I mentioned earlier that State Statute really well defines the responsibilities of the Planning Commission, so that helps with this work plan. A couple things I just want to note is that we have an upcoming small area plan for the 12th and Geneva area, and then we anticipate that there will be some early preparation work for the city's next comprehensive plan update. Staff will be engaging the Planning Commission for their feedback. Happy to answer any questions about the draft work plan. [02:40] **Dallas (Chair):** Anyone have any questions? [Silence] And in terms of next steps? [02:45] **Luke McClanahan:** There's nothing formal that the Planning Commission has to do for the work plan. There will be a city council action on the work plan at an upcoming meeting date. [02:55] **Dallas (Chair):** Okay. That moves us on to new business: zoning and subdivision code update project discussion. [03:00] **Luke McClanahan:** Yes, thank you. While I make my adjustments here on the screen, I have a presentation that I'll show in just a moment. So, the city has been working with a consultant, HKGI—they're a planning consultant based here in the Twin Cities. We've been working with them since March of last year to update the city's zoning and subdivision code. Just for a little bit of history, the last time the code had a comprehensive update, it's been over 15 years at this point, so it's well overdue for an overhaul. Recall that we've met with the Planning Commission a couple times over the past year regarding this project. The last meeting was back in November 7th, and we discussed several topics for the zoning code, including zoning districts, use and dimensional standards, development standards, parking regulations, landscaping, and exterior building materials and design. After the Planning Commission, we had a couple meetings with the city council at workshops later in November and last week just to get their feedback. As we get closer to wrapping up this project and having the Planning Commission and Council review the draft ordinances, we wanted just to touch base with you, give you a status update, and we also have just a few questions for you on some key topics. Recall there was an online questionnaire a few months back. General findings: beyond single-family homes, there was some preference for different types of housing such as two-unit dwellings (duplexes or detached townhomes), auxiliary dwelling units (ADUs), and courtyard cottages. There was broad preference for increasing accessory building size for sheds and garages. Folks thought there should be a little bit more wiggle room. There was also some moderate preference for allowing more flexibility in the development standards. This graphic shows that the least preferred housing type appears to be the small apartment buildings. Any questions about the questionnaire before I move on? [05:30] **Commissioner Wilson:** I do have a comment on this particular slide, actually. In a past life, I used to do a lot with statistics, and the question I've got—or statement I have—is I might be more interested in the actual distribution of the opinions than in an average. Because you look at that list, it looks like it's statistically identical all the way down. I'm not sure that that tells me much. [05:55] **Luke McClanahan:** Okay, no, that's a fair point. Other questions or comments? [Silence] One more slide here on the questionnaire results. The key takeaway is preference for flexibility for larger accessory structures, preference for temporary signage to be kept on property longer than 20 days, a preference for reducing required parking spaces, and a slight preference to change the exterior design standards. Here’s a look at the existing zoning map. More intense uses tend to be concentrated along major roads like the interstates and County highways. Residential is scattered throughout the city, and PUD (Planned Unit Development) is the dark green. Regarding changes: the existing R2 and R3 zoning districts would be consolidated into the proposed R2 District because there's really not that much difference between them. We're also converting the existing R4 to the R3 and R5 to the R4. Notably, the proposed R3 zoning district would allow for smaller lots—currently 80 feet wide, we are proposing 50 feet—and reduced setbacks. A key topic is exterior building materials. For commercial, industrial, and multi-family structures, they are subject to exterior design standards categorized into three classes. Class 1 is brick, stone, and glass. Class 2 is architectural pre-cast, EIFS (exterior insulation finishing system), and specialty concrete blocks. Class 3 is opaque panels, concrete blocks, and wood. Currently, office and commercial buildings must be at least 70% Class 1 material. Industrial/Warehouse requires a minimum of 60% Class 1 or 2. One recommendation from the City Council is that the city should maintain separate lists of acceptable and prohibited exterior building materials. These lists would not be codified in the ordinance but would be supplemental lists that the Planning Commission and City Council would review every two or three years to capture new materials as technology improves. I have two questions here. For non-public facing facades, are the required percentages acceptable or should they be adjusted? We've seen developments seek deviations to reduce Class 1 materials on the rear and sides of buildings. Is there an opinion from the Planning Commission? [09:20] **Commissioner Tom Willenbring:** My opinion is just keep them the same because you're basing it on what is only on the public side of the street. A good example is the one that was just passed off of Helmo—the Companion Animal hospital. If you drive up and down Helmo going south, based upon where that building is, you're going to be able to see those fences and everything. Same thing on the other side. You're going to see it. Reducing that requirement just based upon what is on the "street side" to me is not what it should be. It should be looked at maybe more for every project separately based upon what can be seen from the streets. [10:15] **Commissioner Pearson:** But the question was on the rear side, which in that particular case was facing the rental area. [10:20] **Commissioner Tom Willenbring:** It is, but I will point out to you if you drive east on 15th, because there's a large space there, you will see the back of that building very clearly. [10:30] **Commissioner Wilson:** One other thing—you've got to build in a little bit of wiggle room because if you're talking about the Companion Animal project, part of the thing was they wanted to use kennel doors. Using the 70% materials requirements, would that have allowed them to use those in a proper way? Sometimes I think we're looking at form over function. [10:50] **Commissioner Tom Willenbring:** That's what I'm saying—every situation should be taken separately and not have a blanket rule. [11:00] **Commissioner Moli:** I think if you codify it, do like 70/30, but with the backs you could do less or leave it up to discussion so you don't lock the whole building in right away. [11:15] **Luke McClanahan:** Other thoughts on that question? [Silence] If not, regarding the proposed supplemental list of materials, does the commission have any suggestions? [11:25] **Commissioner Wilson:** Did we talk about in the November 7th meeting like "Superior Materials"? Is that going to be added to this? [11:30] **Luke McClanahan:** In the current code, "Superior Metals" are allowed. That's very difficult for us as staff to pick and choose which metal is "superior," and that's where this list would come in handy. At the Council workshop, one item suggested as a prohibited material is corrugated metal. [11:55] **Commissioner Tom Willenbring:** If you're talking visual materials as opposed to structural, some of that pre-cast concrete can look as good as Class 1 material. It depends on what they're using. I think there should maybe be considered a cross between both of them. [12:15] **Commissioner Wilson:** I would imagine that that kind of material is going to become much more popular too as time goes on. [12:25] **Commissioner Pearson:** You were talking about reviewing every two to three years; I think you should have a way to review it more often because material science is a growing science. Changes come a lot quicker than every three years. [12:40] **Luke McClanahan:** What about prohibited materials? Are there strong opinions? [12:45] **Commissioner Wilson:** Corrugated metal is, while unattractive, if you're doing something like a car wash, pretty much mandatory. I'm not sure how you draw those distinctions. [13:00] **Commissioner Tom Willenbring:** You can't think of anything off top besides going plastic or whatever. There's numerous materials out there we don't know about. Maybe that's where the idea of having a list is a good thing and updating it frequently. [13:15] **Luke McClanahan:** Moving on to parking. Are there any specific uses throughout Oakdale that appear to have excessive amounts of parking spaces that are underutilized? [13:25] **Commissioner Tom Willenbring:** The parking lot over by Taco Bell going toward Helmo, in front of Cub—well, not in front of Cub, but the other side by the axe throwing place. That whole section there. Taco Bell’s parking lot is never full. The axe throwing place, I've never seen it full. It's like only 20% of that parking lot is used; it's just wasted area. [13:50] **Commissioner Moli:** I think that's more of a multi-use area. You have Caribou right there and The Burrow. I've seen it full at nights—every single night. They even have pickle ball clubs there. I’d respectfully disagree with you on that; I don't think that parking lot is underused from what I've noticed. [14:10] **Commissioner Tom Willenbring:** We're there at different times of the day. [14:12] **Commissioner Wilson:** I would say on the intersection of Stillwater Boulevard and Hadley, going north, directly west of Canvas Health. There's just an empty parking lot there. [14:22] **Luke McClanahan:** That's part of Canvas Health's parking lot actually. Overflow. [14:25] **Commissioner Wilson:** I don't see that it gets much use. And I don't think I've ever seen the Home Furniture parking lot full. [14:35] **Commissioner Moli:** I just had one more point. North of Carlyle Fluid Tech, I think I saw their parking lot—maybe it's overflow—but I think I saw donut tracks in their North lot. [14:50] **Commissioner Wilson:** Fleet Farm’s probably got a lot of excess parking too. [14:55] **Commissioner Tom Willenbring:** The question is, why is it based off a square footage of the building? Why not base it upon what will actually be there? You could have a 10,000-square-foot building and not need that many parking spaces. [15:10] **Luke McClanahan:** Is that because that building use could change? Yes, that's a big part of it. If you just have a shell of a commercial structure, it could be converted into a number of different uses. The other part is that it can be tricky if you use number of employees because that can change. We do, in some cases, look to the occupancy load, which is based on building code. But for retail, square foot just seems to work pretty well. We did modify it for Home Furniture because it used to be a movie theater; we basically allowed two other buildings in that parking lot now. [16:00] **Commissioner Moli:** With people working from home... I'm thinking of Forefront. I'm not sure what their parking looks like, but maybe eventually employees all come back and they need that parking. [16:15] **Commissioner Tom Willenbring:** Forefront changed a lot of the parking and they've sold off a lot of that land as well. [16:25] **Commissioner Pearson:** For me, whatever you can do to reduce the amount of parking space needed—I just don't see many places overflowing. Reducing would be nice; I'm sure it would be a cost savings for the builder as well. Is it state law for the amount of handicap spaces? [16:45] **Luke McClanahan:** Yes, the ADA parking spaces are a state law requirement. But determining how many spaces Fleet Farm or Taco Bell needs is up to the city. We have seen deviation requests to lower parking requirements, mostly for multi-family proposals. Any other topics you would like the project team to research? [17:15] **Commissioner Wilson:** Next time you give us a grid, give us a legend. That would be nice so I can figure out what the difference is between "P" and "PS." I'm assuming P means permitted, but I have no idea what a PS is. [17:28] **Luke McClanahan:** Permitted with Standards. [17:30] **Commissioner Wilson:** Since we only see these once every three months, we forget. The only other comment I've got—I'm sure you'll get it from the fire department—is on your first page, the change in the mixed-use district heights. That's going to impact their equipment. I can't remember if the fire truck they bought was 75 feet or 110 feet. [17:55] **Luke McClanahan:** The new fire truck can extend over 100 feet. When we met with Fire Chief Wold, he explained that the more important thing is having a good setback from the building to actually extend the ladder at an angle. [18:15] **Dallas (Chair):** Anyone else have questions for Luke? [Silence] [18:20] **Luke McClanahan:** Last thing: we've been drafting the code since June. We're hoping to finish in the next few weeks, then the City Attorney will review it. The Planning Commission and City Council will review the draft ordinances in April. The public hearing and adoption is anticipated for May. That’s all I have. [18:45] **Dallas (Chair):** Thank you, Luke. That brings us to the "Other" category. Staff Liaison update? [18:50] **Luke McClanahan:** Yes. I would expect a March Planning Commission meeting because currently we have one conditional use permit application. Besides that, happy to answer any other questions. [19:05] **Dallas (Chair):** Anyone have any questions for Luke on that? [Silence] Commissioner updates? [Silence] County Liaison? [19:15] **Susan (County Liaison):** Susan back again. Sorry, I'm having to fill Jake's shoes—big shoes to fill—but we'll see how I do. I'm happy to answer any questions if you guys have any right now. Welcome back. [19:30] **Dallas (Chair):** No questions? Cool. Thanks for everything you do. Which brings us to adjournment. We have a motion? [19:35] **Commissioner Wilson:** So moved. [19:36] **Commissioner Pearson:** Second. [19:37] **Dallas (Chair):** All those in favor? [19:38] **Commissioners:** Aye. [19:39] **Dallas (Chair):** Any opposed? [Silence] We are adjourned. [Applause]