[0:00] e [0:44] amended version in front of us tonight can I get a motion to approve as amended so move there's a motion as there a second second motion a second any [0:50] comments all those in favor say I I opposed the agenda is adopted next up we [0:56] have approval of the minutes two sets in front of us first up Workshop me meting minutes of August 14th 2024 council [1:03] members any changes or Corrections I'll look for motion so moved there's a motion is there second second motion a [1:09] second final comments all those in favor say I I opposed and those minutes are [1:14] adopted next up we have regular meeting minutes from August 14th 2024 uh council members any changes or [1:21] Corrections I'll look for motion so moved there's a motion is there a second second motion a second final comments [1:28] all those in favor say I I opposed and the regular meeting minutes from August 14th are approved next up we [1:35] will move into public hearings we have one in front of us tonight the helmo station plan unit development [1:41] Amendment s plan or Luke mcclanan welcome would you like to walk us through this thank you may and Council [1:47] so yes for this uh planned unit development Amendment it is uh specific [1:52] to the property address 390 helmo Avenue so this is at the Southwest quadrant of helmo Avenue in Fourth Street uh it's [1:59] located on the Northern end of the helmo station PE area near the border of the [2:04] oakrun shores neighborhood so the zoning of this site is helmo station PUD currently the property is about 3 acres [2:11] it's a vacant site and it's designated for highdensity multif family development and it does have to uh [2:17] comply with specific performance criteria so the purpose of this specific [2:22] request is um brought forth by the applicant in order to uh amend the Pud [2:28] and allow the maximum height of multif family uh a multif family building to be [2:35] to to go from three stories to four stories and this request is tied to a a [2:40] planned 133 unit multif family apartment building on the property which will be considered at a late later time in terms [2:47] of the site plan review the more technical review as we're we're familiar with so here again just I want to [2:52] reiterate the developer is looking to receive approval for the the specific PUD Amendment again going from three [2:58] stories to four stories uh prior to pursuing the site plan approval um I do want to note that [3:05] allowing the additional story for the building would not increase the density of the site as the developer proposes [3:11] keeping the apartment building within the allowed density of the Helo station PUD and uh just a little bit of [3:17] background there the existing three-story limit for the building for this parcel that was originally intended to provide a bit of a visual buffer or a [3:26] smaller visual footprint rather as a transitional space between the existing oan Shores neighborhood and the helmo [3:32] station area and in exchange for the flexibility for uh going up one more [3:38] story in height the developer is proposing to have a a larger setback from the northern lot line in order to [3:44] reduce the visual footprint of the the building so the required setback is 30 feet currently and they're proposing the [3:50] building to be set back 40 feet so this request Was Heard by the Planning Commission as a public hearing [3:56] item back on o August 1st and I just want to address a couple concerns that [4:01] were brought up during that meeting uh first in regards to storm water and flood plane the developer will need to [4:07] obtain permits through the Watershed district for storm water provisions and overall the preliminary site design [4:13] appears to be consistent with the original helmo station plan in terms of managing storm water and runoff for [4:20] traffic impacts uh staff has included a condition of approval in the ordinance that you'll see um and that is to [4:28] require the developer to update uh the original traffic study that was done for the helel station area in regards to [4:34] noise this is just a bit of a reminder if if anything it's that construction activities related to the apartment [4:40] building when that occurs uh construction activity just has to be in [4:45] compliance with our noise ordinance again I just want to rehas reemphasize that the request before the [4:52] council tonight is is strictly for going from three stories to four stories on this particular parcel doesn't affect [4:58] any other parcels um in the HL station area again the developer will have to come back for site plan review and [5:05] approval and with that staff recommends approval of the Pud amendment to raise the maximum height allowed from three [5:11] stories to four stories for the property in question as detailed in the staff report on file and staff recommends [5:17] approval of the request subject to six conditions and I am referencing ordinance number 929 that is in the [5:24] packet so the first condition is that the apartment building shall be set back a minimum of 40 F feet from the northern [5:30] property line number two viewshed analysis shall be reviewed and submitted [5:35] or submitted and reviewed at at the time of site plan to understand the visual appearance of the four-story building [5:41] from the neighboring residential property number three the four-story building shall incorporate varying roof [5:46] lines and articulations number four the developer shall install additional Landscaping uh [5:53] north of the apartment building and in between uh in between the apartment building and the uh Frontage for Fourth [5:59] Street the Landscaping screening will be reviewed at the time of site plan number [6:04] five the developer must update the Helo station traffic study to the satisfaction of the city engineer and [6:10] number six satisfaction of Park dedication requirements in accordance with the city's adopted fee schedule so [6:16] as a reminder this is a public hearing and the developer is here in attendance if you have questions otherwise staff is [6:21] happy to answer questions thank you council members any questions for Luke I have a few if I may um [6:31] Luke does the Pud Define or quantify stories so I'm a bit surprised that we [6:39] are in the Pud we're saying four stories instead of putting a maximum um height [6:44] on the overall building because I guess you know stories could be could change you know 12T ceilings versus 20 foot [6:52] ceilings you know it seems like the Pud is saying regardless of how tall those stories are four is the max well has a [6:59] big impact on sight lines and all that so is there something in the Pud that [7:05] Caps or quantifies or limits stories by height I'm fairly certain of this mayor [7:10] but the uh the Pud does not go into how tall an individual story is it just has [7:16] that three story limit for this particular area in um uh properties that [7:21] that front four street but then doesn't that condition of you know a site plan or uh the site lines isn't that sub Ive [7:29] and a bit irrelevant if we don't know what the actual height of the building is going to be if it if it's not being defined or limited well mayor if I may [7:37] no I'd like Luke to answer my question first yes U May to your uh question I [7:43] believe that's um in regards to the the vshed analysis then so [7:49] um in in a sense we did receive um quite a bit of the information to for the [7:54] viewshed analysis with this submitt there there's elevations there's the shadow study uh uh kind of delaying the [8:02] the viewshed analysis the full-blown viewshed analysis to the time of sight plan allows a developer to uh get a [8:08] little bit more creative in terms of architecture and and as staff is is recommending that that one condition for [8:13] varying roof line articulations just some incorporating some Design Elements to help soften up that that appearance [8:19] of of um being a little bit more imposing as a a four-story building um as well as the the Landscaping as well [8:27] CC Bron okay yeah I and and my question to your point would just simply be does [8:32] state law Define minimum or maximum that a story [8:38] can be does it clearly Define what a story is uh council member I guess I'm not quite well versed on on building [8:46] code um you know we can certainly look into that or consult our our building inspection staff but [8:53] okay um you know my my comment to that would be you know when we when we laid out the BR Tod plan for this entire area [9:00] you know the logic was we wanted to limit Heights along four street because of the the direct impacts on the [9:05] properties across the street you know in hindsight you know we said two stories for a different parcel to the east but [9:12] you know it has opened that question of well what is a story I mean that that can change pretty dramatically you know [9:19] and if we're making one condition you know I guess that would be Al also a condition of the site plan approval [9:25] which would be the next step at a future meeting correct me if I'm wrong of that that viewshed or what was the term you [9:32] used viewshed you know it seems like anything we create in that or that is [9:38] created in that viewshed analysis is a bit subjective and irrelevant if we're not saying like this is the absolute [9:45] maximum that it can be you know um so I'm having a little trouble there if we [9:50] aren't putting a firm cap on it other than for stories which we're saying [9:55] stories is entirely subjective and flexible that seems like a challenge um [10:01] so maybe I'll set that aside for now but my other question is you mentioned that [10:06] the um the site plan is you know attached to this or this amendment is attached to the site plan we have a [10:11] specific project that's being proposed that's why we're going through this amendment process if this project does [10:17] not move forward for whatever reason does the Pud revert back to the previously adopted language or does this [10:24] amendment remain in place even though this amendment is being attached to the site plan that we haven't that has been [10:30] presented already so um Mr Mayor if the council decides to approve the amendment [10:35] then this would run with the land okay so that would be the standard going [10:40] forward okay uh council members any anybody else have any questions for Luke yeah just uh [10:47] well and mayor maybe just a comment to one to a comment you had made um you [10:52] know when when you talked about when we had initially looked at this and and restricted it to was it two [11:00] uh the Eastern partial yeah two stories you know and what's hard for the co you know what's hard for all of us to know [11:07] when that decision is initially made is the economic reality of what what a [11:14] developer is going to need to do to make any project economically feasible um you know we're and and I [11:22] guess my point is I'm going to be voting yes on this um but I'm not doing that [11:27] arbitrarily I'm doing it because because it is important for me as an elected official to make [11:34] sure that you know property is getting developed in a timely manner and in a [11:39] way that is economically feasible for a developer so [11:45] um just wanted to make that point no I think that's a good point um you know and I would just maybe this is a [11:51] question for Luke what would be the downside in putting a maximum height on a building I know as a city we've done [11:57] it we did it for many years when you know we didn't have a ladder truck that could support it didn't really matter how many stories it was it was a maximum [12:05] height that we could provide emergency services to you know so we have a long history of that what would be the [12:11] downside of applying that standard here and then that number becomes what we use for that viewshed analysis uh so Mr [12:18] Mayor I think that maybe the the downside there would just be restricting the developer to you know a very rigid [12:26] set of plans you know not being able to deviate or if they if they did find out that their their plans would call would [12:33] require something a little bit higher than or a taller building than they would have to come back before the council again to get uh to seek some [12:40] type of V variance or deviation but isn't that assuming that [12:45] that cap is set at you know what their current plan is I mean so if their if their current plan is saying and the [12:51] viewshed analysis that we have or will have is 40t you know couldn't Council say 46 ft you know 15% you know variance [13:01] just to provide residents across four streets in peace of mind knowing that it's not going to end up being 60t [13:07] because if it fits within four stories regardless of the height well that's what the ordinance says it seems like [13:13] that's that's that's a challenge you know especially given how much work we've put into you know working with the [13:19] neighborhoods to cap those Heights along four Street I mean I'm not saying we put it right at 40 ft but isn't there some [13:26] leeway that we can bake in that satisfies the need needs and flexibility of a developer but also you know [13:32] responding to the concerns that edj and neighbors might have um Mr Mayor I suppose we you know [13:39] there could be like a the amendment allows four stories no [13:45] greater than x number of feet you know I believe that's what we've done in the past and so I was a little surprised [13:51] when I didn't see that standard similarly applied here and that's how we [13:56] got down this rabbit hole and is this the spot for that or is it [14:02] site plan the site plan approval process that that would be spelled [14:09] out I might have to defer to Andy if if I'm overstepping my where I'm at right [14:17] now so I think this would be the time to do it Mr Mayor uh with given the the the [14:22] Pud the request is in front of you and and uh the ability for the developer to comment and members of the public to [14:29] comment as well may welome thank you yeah I mean we've got the developer here so we're [14:35] having this conversation it'd be nice if the developer could come and speak to the height of the building and uh where [14:40] it lands in relation to other typical buildings Matt welcome thank you uh Matt [14:46] Yer with MWF properties 7645 uh Lindale Avenue South in Richfield uh thank you mayor AEL and [14:53] Council it's good to see you all again um yeah so a four-story residential building [14:59] um you know pretty typically you're going to have 9 to 10t ceilings for a 100% Residential Building it's not [15:07] really economically feasible nor does it make much sense to differentiate from that much so with four stories that's [15:14] about 40t and then you add some trust space and um the roof line it ends up being about 45 46 feet or um plus or [15:23] minus for a four-story flat roof building another thing to consider is the pitch of the roof you know we're proposing a flat roof M building here [15:31] which um lessens that height impact slightly as well um so I wouldn't say I [15:38] mean I me I certainly understand the point about you know maybe if it was more of a commercial use or a warehouse [15:43] or industrial use that had 20 foot ceilings and they wanted to stack some on top of it it could get kind of thrown [15:49] out of whack for residential building I don't anticipate that happening it's it's pretty standard because of you know [15:55] structural standards uh for cost efficienc see that you're going to be in that 9 to 9 to 10 range unless you have [16:02] some sort of for 100% residential unless you have some sort of commercial or office space so um that's where we would [16:08] expect this to land I don't have a specific number uh we haven't gotten to that level of planning yet but that's uh [16:13] that's kind of what I expect so Matt if the city council said not greater than 50 would MWF have concerns about that no [16:22] I anticipate we could do a four-story flat roof um building under 50 ft we you [16:27] know similar to you mention mentioned other puds in the city The Tartan Crossing PUD uh where we developed the [16:33] Oakdale Commons project I recall there being a specific height restriction um in that so maybe it's maybe it's matched [16:39] or slightly increased but that's a four-story flat roof building that that met the height requirement of The Tartan [16:44] Crossing PUD which was a specific number I don't recall what that was at this time [16:50] but uh council members may have any questions for Matt specifically before we go to public [16:56] hearing um maybe I'll just take temperature of council if there would be appetite to add a not grader than and [17:02] then staff can work on that while we go through the public hearing process well in the end if that were [17:08] added it would still be able the developers could come forward and propose something different but it would [17:15] have to be voted on by the council right correct and to your point if we're protecting the line of sight and the the [17:21] look of that Community I think that makes sense I'd be in favor of a 50 foot [17:27] Max anybody down here I would be supportive of that as well fine with that Jak I'd be fine with it and you [17:34] know and I would actually propose um and I I think you had thrown out an arbitrary number 50 could would [17:41] you be agreeable to 52 I just want to make sure that it sounded like the max [17:46] they would need was 46 so I just rounded to the even zero but I want I want to make sure that we're 52 is I mean yeah [17:54] and and just say four stories or 52 feet not greater than yeah not greater than [17:59] 52 ft I'm going to look to our community development director and city planner as they're typing furiously back there to [18:04] figure out what that language looks like um and where do insert that so we will [18:09] come back to them yes um so if there's no more questions from Council for Luke [18:15] or Matt um let's go ahead and open the public hearing um so at this time I'll open the public hearing to comments from [18:20] the audience this is an opportunity for anybody who is joining us to step up to the podium please state your name and address for the record we ask that you [18:26] keep your comments to three minutes um but you are welcome to share anything that is on your mind um before I get to [18:33] that we did receive one comment um or one statement written out um with the [18:38] request that to be uh read into the record so I will do that right now uh my name is Douglas g Nelson I live at 7560 [18:45] 4th Street Lane North which is a culdesac directly across from the Gold Line brt and the helmo station plan unit [18:51] development my home and other homes in my culdesac lie in a FEMA Zone a I am grateful that mayor zel city planner [18:58] Luke M Luke mclanahan and the city engineering staff have have provided my neighbors and I with information [19:04] demonstrating that our flood risk has not increased due to the Goldline brt and helmo station planned unit [19:10] development projects again my neighbors and I are grateful it is one less significant thing to worry about however [19:16] my neighbors and I do have concerns about the amendment to the city's ordinance number uh 839 for the helmo [19:22] station PUD this amendment would allow MWF properties to build multif family high density buildings along four Street [19:29] North Frontage to uh to be up to four residential stories in height we have serious concerns about the apartment [19:35] complex being set back uh only set back a minimum of 40 ft as stated in [19:42] condition number one by our calculations the northermost apartment building would be only 135 ft from the southernmost [19:49] twin Home Building in our culdesac as our Twin Homes are only one story in height with a low pitch roof line a [19:56] rectangular four-story uh apartment complex will dwarf our properties we also have concerns about condition uh [20:02] condition number two through 4 regarding the viewshed analysis the various roof lines with different articulations in [20:08] the two buildings and the additional landscaping for screening purposes between the northern edge of the high density multif family buildings and our [20:15] culdesac it is your responsibility to allow us full participation in evaluating and monitoring that the [20:21] conditions to the amended ordinance number 839 are fully met and achieved after all we did not make the changes to [20:27] this area you did respectfully submitted Douglas g Nelson and my neighbors in the Fourth Street Lane North [20:34] cuac if there's anybody in the audience that would like to provide additional comments during the public hearing [20:39] please feel free to step up to the podium as I said start with your name and address of the record and proceed with your [20:47] comments oh come on Doug I just read I just have to say publicly Douglas g Nelson thank you so much for hearing us [20:56] I know government is a series of compromises and we we it's going to change but I'm thank you for listening [21:03] to us absolutely signing off thanks [21:09] Doug [21:15] please hi uh my name is Bob Beetle I'm a uh former Washington County condemnation [21:22] commissioner and I was in that role for over 20 years I'm retired uh real estate [21:28] broker ER I managed three different Adina realy offices during my employment [21:34] I want to bring to your attention as a condemnation commissioner I'm representing Colleen Briggs who lives at [21:40] 7544 street lane north in it's right at the mouth of that uh called the saac [21:47] condominium uh organization some of the things that I [21:53] helped uh land owners settle disputes between [21:59] communities such as Oakdale Woodberry Stillwater uh Bayport um sat on a [22:06] commission of three Commissioners still sit on that commission I just don't take any cases [22:12] um the but compensable damages that you might want to be aware of number one is [22:18] noise intrusion it is a compensable damage uh these folks are backup beeping [22:25] uh construction equipment 12 hours a day six days a week um there is dirt and [22:33] dust that infiltrates upon the exteriors of decks the decks are unusable uh that [22:39] face that project during the daytime all of those intrusions are compensable you [22:46] the city of Oakdale uh will likely be brought to court if you can't come to [22:52] some sort of settlement for those kind of Damages um I've witnessed these I've sat [22:59] as a commissioner on these hearings and uh just wanted to alert you to that also [23:08] there's been some current sales in that uh little cues act area that establishes [23:15] value prior to and in one case right in the beginning of uh the work projects [23:22] that's gone out there what happens after this project is done is it will be [23:29] easily established what the value is before because there's been sales and [23:35] after if there is a difference there between before value if it goes down you [23:42] will be subject to compensating that loss I'm just telling you from my experience as a condemnation [23:49] commissioner for Washington County so you need to be aware of that when you're making these decisions the noise [23:56] intrusion I've heard you talk about it here it's on record you're concerned about it it's also a compensable [24:06] damage the um I don't know what the criteria for [24:14] large noise barriers are around uh freeways and highways and and that sort [24:20] of thing but I think you should consider that because the noise is not going to stop it's going to continue and possibly [24:28] it'll be different but there will be noise intrusion so these are factors that you might want to consider I [24:34] haven't seen your City Attorney at one of our condemnation commissions but I've [24:40] attended 50 to 100 of these uh commissions as a commissioner and we [24:47] have um imposed um compensation in each and [24:54] every one of the uh each and every one of the cases that has come to our commission [25:00] has been resolved with some kind of compensation for the damages that that [25:06] I'm talking about incurring I want you to be aware of that I was at your uh [25:13] previous uh whatever the committee meets before this is called subcommission or subcommittee uh and brought the same um [25:21] items forward so now you're it's on record that you know about it when you make your decisions that any losses that [25:29] are incurred by these uh residents that are directly Implement impacted by your [25:36] decisions are compensable as damages to their [25:42] properties so and you can check that out again I've done this for over 20 years [25:48] but just call A Washington County uh condemnation commissioner have a [25:53] discussion with them he might get me on the phone I don't know I've ched every one of the commissions that I've sat [26:00] on and there are commissions of three uh professionals that are have background [26:05] in construction in these kinds of projects so just wanted to alert that you to that I've also spoken now with [26:12] the neighborhood in there so they're aware of it they know I [26:18] know personally the most effective attorneys that in that are involved in [26:24] condemnation proceedings and I won't make recommendations to them on which [26:29] ones I would recommend so I don't know if you're thank you I just wanted to B more thank [26:36] you is there anybody else that would like to speak on the public hearing [26:43] tonight going once going twice all right we are going to go ahead and close the [26:48] public hearing and bring it back for Council consideration [26:54] um Luke what did the great minds in the community Development Department come up [27:00] with uh Mr Mayor so the U recommendation the language there on the [27:08] agenda um believe it would read and I'll just read it read the whole thing here [27:14] as as uh we understand it uh as the council wants to amend it so wave reading adopt ordinance number 929 [27:21] pertaining to the helmo station planned unit development to allow multif family high density buildings along the Fourth [27:27] Street North Frontage to be up to four residential stories in height and this is where we in in are inserting the new [27:33] language comma not to exceed 50 or 52 feet whichever that the council prefers [27:40] uh in height comma subject to conditions [27:48] okay okay uh council members do we have any questions about [27:54] that guys you want me to just take this one I wrote it down but as well all right I'll make a motion [27:59] wavering adopt resolution uh adopt ordinance number 929 pertaining to the helmo station plan unit development to [28:05] allow multif family high density buildings along four Street North Frontage to be up to four residential stories in height not to exceed 52 feet [28:13] in height subject two conditions Luke did I get that right all right I'm saying head's nod uh there's a motion is [28:20] there a second second motion a second final comments I'll just make one comment so [28:26] um so as Luke mentioned before you know [28:32] this is just the first step of this process you know obviously the ordinance guides what happens through the the site [28:38] plan approval process so there will be future opportunities for feedback Luke do we have a date on when site plan [28:45] approval come up not yet nope um but this is by no means the end for this [28:50] project I want to say a very big thank you to all the residents along for Street not just for coming tonight not [28:56] just for coming to the Planning Commission meeting um but for engaging with this city for my entire eight years [29:03] on the city council you know I have um I've had many conversations with [29:09] residents in this neighborhood as well as Okun Shores um and a lot of that feedback from our residents have shaped [29:14] this PUD over the years um and we take it very seriously we really appreciate it I'm glad anytime our staff or elect [29:22] officials can answer very important questions for our residents you know pertaining to their property we take that very seriously um and as this [29:28] process continues we'll continue working through concerns raised um questions [29:34] asked um to get to uh a desired end result for everybody involved as much as [29:39] we possibly can um and mayor could I add something real quick counc morham please [29:45] thank you and it's feedback that's important to us right so that 7: am. to 7 pm time where construction can take [29:51] place at the Planning Commission it was brought up that on occasion one of the properties was exceeding that and we [29:58] don't necessarily have City staff driving around town at 6:00 a.m. trying to catch someone working too early so [30:04] that feedback is really important so whenever things happen and when you see an issue that is important for us to [30:11] hear and it's important for the city to hear so we appreciate that just wanted to add that thank you uh we had a motion [30:18] second any final comments all those in favor say I I opposed and ordinance 929 [30:24] as amended is adopted um next up is open Forum this is an opportunity for people [30:31] to share whatever's on their mind with us before we get to that we have a few um presentations and proclamations to [30:37] cover uh Acorn Awards um I had a script [30:43] here somewhere hang on um they gave me a lot of paper tonight um so uh Acorn [30:49] award presentations uh each year the city accepts nominations to recognize properties in Oakdale that are wellmaintained and nicely landscaped uh [30:56] before I announce this year's I want to thank everybody who took time to submit a nomination and recognize their neighbors I'd also like to thank the [31:03] acorn award committee for visiting each nominated property and for selecting the winners in each each category the city [31:08] council was able to visit the winning properties two weeks ago on August 14th and they are incredibly impressive thank [31:14] you to our three winners for allowing us to visit and showcase their beautiful properties um I will read through all [31:20] the winners and then the city council will meet the winner uh in each category for um a photo and presenting a [31:26] certificate uh first up is our business Commercial category and this year's winner is platinum Bank Platinum bank is [31:33] located at 7667 10 Street North and offers a well-maintained classy and peaceful environment that blends in with [31:40] the surrounding nature the flowering magnolia tree planters and natural Fountain immediately catch your eye upon [31:48] arrival oh I was reading through all of them if I would just follow the script I would know I was going to say every we meeting up front um our second category [31:54] is the public category and this year's winner is Transfiguration Church the grounds of transfiguration church [32:00] located at 6133 15 Street North are pridefully maintained by dedicated volunteers there is a pretty mix of new [32:07] annuals and season perennials as well as native pollinators making transfigurations displays an asset to [32:13] the community our third candidate is the residential category and this year's winner is the aonso family the aonso [32:20] family property located at 7546 upper 17th Street North offers a wide array uh [32:26] a wide variety of hydrangeas lies hostas vibrant trees and much more the property has been beautifully upkept for many [32:33] years and shows the pride the aonso family has in their Landscaping do we have anybody with [32:39] Platinum Bank joining us here tonight wonderful would you like to meet us up [32:47] [Music] front chis [32:56] pictur for [33:05] and thank you all right so workers count just okay ready ready [33:14] said cheese cheese perfect got it [33:40] next up is Transfiguration [33:47] Church all the volunteers that put that together I don't get picture that's a beautiful garden abely [34:08] you can hold that I'll Just sh I have to widen my lenss here hold on zoom [34:15] out okay let's see okay ready [34:23] cheese oh wait hold on I got another camera should yeah say something else [34:28] okay that's fine okay we don't need panoramic here there [34:35] we go okay [34:54] ready that's been online call [35:08] yeah all righty ready s cheese boom in a little [35:17] bit that's good thank you heel [35:44] um once again just a big congratulations to um all of our winners and all of our nominees um the the nominees were all [35:52] especially beautiful this year and we know how much pride and joy um many many residents put into there their natural [35:58] spaces so a thank you um to everyone for keeping Oakdale beautiful um we also [36:03] have two proclamations tonight I just need to get organized [36:08] here um first up is recognizing Suicide Prevention Awareness Month sorry I got [36:13] something in my eye too um and the proclamation reads as follows whereas suicide is a national public health [36:20] challenge that causes a measurable pain among individuals families and communities across the country and [36:25] whereas more than 800 lives are lost in Minnesota each year and whereas suicide is a top leading cause of death for [36:31] people ages 10 to 24 and whereas on average 135 Americans die by Suicide [36:37] each day and over 1.5 million attempt suicide each year and whereas public [36:43] awareness of this tragic problem is key to preventing further suffering and loss of life and whereas the risk for suicide [36:49] can be reduced through awareness education and treatment and whereas everyone in the community can play an [36:55] important role in preventing suicide and our encage to know the signs find the words and reach out and whereas [37:01] depression is a treatable illness and Approximately 80% of people who seek help for depression experience [37:06] Improvement when treated with therapy Andor medication and where our support is available by calling the National [37:12] Suicide and crisis Lifeline at 988 or 1 800273 [37:18] 8255 or the Texas uh the the crisis text line by texting home 2 [37:25] 741741 therefore I Kevin a mayor of Oakdale Minnesota do hereby Proclaim September as Suicide Prevention [37:31] Awareness Month in the city of Oakdale we also have a proclamation recognizing uh building and code [37:38] professional Appreciation Day whereas building and code professionals ensure that all aspects of building code [37:44] Administration code enforcement rental housing licensing and other Duties are performed in a timely and professional [37:51] manner and whereas building and code professionals devote countless hours keeping up with regulation changes that [37:57] affect the building and code enforcement Industries and whereas building and code professionals are primarily out in the [38:03] field where they can encounter rough terrain Heights depths narrow spaces construction equipment and activities [38:09] unfavorable weather uh sorry unfavorable weather conditions I rate persons Kines [38:15] and other potential hazards and whereas despite hazards building and co- professionals are uh sorry despite [38:22] hazards building and co- professionals are fully dedicated to ensuring that buildings are built safe strong and [38:27] secure and remain safe strong and secure and whereas the city of Oakdale strongly [38:32] supports the skilled work of its building and code professionals therefore I Kevin zel mayor of Oakdale Minnesota hereby Proclaim September 1st [38:40] as building and co- professional Appreciation Day in the city of Oakdale anybody that has driven through [38:47] our city uh in the last few years and has seen cranes or development or you know any bit of growth in our community [38:54] all of that um our building and C- professionals have a very important role in in that growth and development um so [39:01] to Greg B uh Greg Brady and everybody on his team a big thank you to the the [39:06] incredible work that they do in our city every single day we are still under open Forum so if [39:12] there's anybody in the audience that would like to um as I said step up to the podium state your name and address [39:17] for the record and share anything on your mind please feel free all we ask is you uh start with your name and address in three minutes or so welcome uh [39:26] Timothy Rick 6617 53rd Street North Oakdale uh my concern is uh Northdale [39:33] Park it's I live on 6617 53rd Street which is a dead end called a sack lot of [39:40] traffic because people miss that Park 99% of that Park is used by Asians from [39:47] I it can't be from the city it's got to be from everywhere and if maybe put a [39:54] sign up in their language or something where that Park is nobody knows where that Park is and they're constantly [40:00] going down our road on a on a Saturday on Sunday you talking probably 40 extra [40:06] cars going down that road because they missed they missed the park it's it's it's a bad sign that is at that Park I I [40:14] I am assuming they get paid to use that Park am I right do they I mean they pay [40:21] to use that park is there a fee to use the park the only thing in our parks that requires a fee are like picnic um [40:27] shelter rentals well they're all at the shelter rentals so it's it's used so [40:33] maybe they could take some of that money and put a a sign up there that is useful [40:39] I mean CU right now they miss that they miss that Park totally I mean maybe a sign before the [40:45] sign that the park entrance is so far away because our roads our roads I think [40:50] was 18 years our roads were done and nothing has been done to them roads since no no Rock tar put on with rock [40:58] nothing you know and you guys are going to come back in a few years and go we want I don't know what it costs now per [41:05] per house for I think it was 3,200 bucks back then I don't know what it is now [41:11] but I think we can stop a lot of that from happening if we put a proper sign [41:16] out there where that Park is I mean there's a lot of room where the hockey rank is there to put signs and it's just [41:23] constant traffic going by there even during the week because there's volleyball back there every night you [41:30] know I'm just I want to take care of our properties you know our [41:36] roads thank you thank you uh City administrator vkr um could you have [41:42] Public Works just look and see what the sign pattern is run the park um thank [41:48] you uh is there anybody else that would like to speak under open form [41:54] tonight all right we're going to move into consensus motions council members in front of us we have a through G as [42:00] presented uh I'm going to remove item a uh for individual consideration are [42:05] there any others that council members would like to um remove for individual [42:13] consideration can I get a motion for B through what did I just say G as presented I'll make a motion to approve [42:20] consensus motions B through G as presented there's a motion is there a second second motion and a second uh [42:27] final comments all those in favor say I I opposed and that was an echo B through [42:33] G are approved is presented I'm pulling item a for individual consideration this [42:39] is a development agreement between the city of Oakdale and Companion Animal Care um I'm pulling this to reserve my [42:46] right to vote no on this consistent with my um previous votes on the site plan and conditional uh use permit related to [42:54] this development item so um just want to reserve my right to vote separately on [42:59] this uh can I get a motion to approve I'll make a motion to approve consensus motion a as presented there's a motion [43:05] is there second second motion a second final comments yeah if I could council member morome thank you very much uh so [43:12] one of the changes as I understand it to this Companion Animal Care is uh there's a reduction in the square footage of [43:18] this property which meant that it no longer required uh sprinkler system is that [43:24] correct and if I can call on real quick uh fire chief I'm curious if you know [43:29] off the top of your head in the past 15 years how many commercial buildings have been built without a fire suppression system in [43:36] them Chief W welcome good evening mayor and councel [43:41] um I don't believe um any commercial buildings off the top [43:47] of my head that have been built um without a fire suppression system in them since we um since city council [43:54] adopted 1306 which is the fire sprinkler requirements that um we did 15 years ago [44:01] and is a follow-up question I mean the difference between a 2,000 square foot building in a [44:07] 1950 it doesn't substantially change the risk to fighting a fire at that property [44:12] right correct correct so thank you I just wanted to confirm that and for that reason I think I would be voting no on [44:19] this as well if it's the only commercial building an Oakdale without a fire suppression system um just to clarify though Council [44:27] britson will go to you first and then come over to councilman willenbring that works he had said perectly fine Jake um [44:35] ju I just want to clarify with the city administrator and the City attorney that they are within city code [44:43] correct yes I mean you know you could argue they may not be within the spirit [44:48] of the city code but they are legally within city code correct so I'll defer [44:54] to our City attorney console um my my understanding [44:59] of this is when they originally presented their concept plan they did have a building that did not um excuse me that was over 2000 sare foot and [45:05] therefore would have required sprinkling system but the application that you acted on uh not sure it was the last [45:12] meeting of the one before but for the site plan that building was below 2,000 square ft and did therefore did not [45:18] require sprinkling system the sprinkling system is part of the building code uh [45:25] and state law preempts these when regulation building code you can't change those regulations so the the [45:32] building as presented does comply with the um with the building [45:39] code so perhaps none of the commercial buildings that have been built were less than 2,000 square fet which is what I'm [45:45] assuming or else they would have had to require a sprinkling system so um [45:54] uh let me go on just a little bit further um the the item that's on tonight's agenda was approval of the [45:59] development agreement if there's a majority of the council that wants to relook at the actual land use approval [46:07] we would need to do that uh because the development agreement that's before you was the city's standard development [46:12] agreement there haven't been any major changes to it just you know like put in letters of credit amount and stuff like [46:19] that but it's the standard City development agreement so if there's a majority of the council that's interested in reconsidering its previous [46:27] approval we would need to know that because we would that's a different process than approval of the development agreement so just to clarify thenor [46:35] actually uh c will the floor next uh all I was going to say was obviously what Jim just said it's the law it's the code [46:43] it's the law and they're following it and so what you're suggesting is taking a small business [46:48] who's following the law and the code and saying no anyway that's what you're suggesting [46:55] they're following the laws codes our requirements everything and you're still going to say no well if I can clarify [47:02] real quick and that was my question so I I don't have to like the circumstance [47:07] but I'm obligated to honor the code of course which is what I voted to or [47:12] agreed to uphold when I took this office which is f i don't have to like every development that comes through but [47:19] really it would be a matter of whether or not we change the larger land use agreement which is a separate [47:25] conversation is that correct attorney yes the item before is a [47:31] development agreement okay yeah I even though I'm concerned about the public [47:37] safety staff that may be at risk for having a commercial building without a suppression system if it's in our code [47:44] AS allowed at this point then it sounds as though I my hands are tied so thank you for that clarification [47:51] I thought that was important Jim what is the what is the vehicle or the timing or [47:57] the process to Recons on a motion to reconsider a cup uh on a motion to reconsider the [48:04] previous action on this matter it would probably not motions are reconsidered can only [48:10] brought up at certain times and it without waving the rules uh that time's [48:15] probably expired but there there are other vehicles um for example on the [48:21] Roberts rules a motion to resend there are other mechanisms that can be used to [48:26] um change a previous action of the city council and in this case I think it [48:31] would probably be a motion to resend the previous approval then take a new action on [48:37] it and which of course is not on the agenda tonight but I think that'd be the [48:42] proper way to go yeah and I would like to acknowledge Chief you know the concerns that you [48:48] have and you know but unfortunately you know we're in a situation we don't have the authority [48:54] to to to proceed state law and I you know but I do want to acknowledge that [48:59] you know well aware that you have some concerns there so yeah I mean the the [49:05] code specific it's 2,000 square F feet so anything over requires a sprinkler system anything under doesn't and that's [49:11] pretty firm within the building code and we can't waiver from that so um the original plans came in over that which [49:19] then required the sprinkler system and then has been modified to get below that 2,000 um so that's what we address but [49:27] 2000 is and um it's no different than anybody else coming in and doing the same thing as far as 2000 is that magic [49:34] number so yep at the same time you know I would note that you know council member Bron [49:42] you're right we we can't we can't take action based on the sprinkler requirement but we did as a body offer [49:49] flexibility to this applicant on exterior building materials and it's not lost on me that that initi conversation [49:57] about you know do we want to be flexible and deviate from what is required by our city code occurred on the original site [50:05] plan which was over 2,000 sare F feet and had sprinklers it wasn't until the last second that a change was made to [50:13] avoid I'm sorry a public safety mechanism that's all that that is all [50:19] that is at um at stake here is it a design a design plan was changed for the [50:27] sole purpose of avoiding a safety mechanism that's it so I as you know I [50:33] question whether this city should still provide the same flexibility with that in mind um granted to to City attorney [50:41] Thompson's point we probably should have asked that question before we approved the CIP but that question Still Remains [50:48] I don't think we have any duty to provide flexibility when the end product [50:53] is going to be a building that is fundamentally less safe for employees for the animals there and any public [50:59] safety personnel that might have to respond to a call there Mr Mayor if you don't mind um Chief W is the 2,000 [51:08] square fet um something that is proven that it it's going to be more safe by [51:14] having a fire suppressing system or is a 2,000 sare F feet more arbitrary and a [51:20] number that was just selected out of thin air yeah I I don't know how 2000 [51:26] was I mean that was done in the building code and people much smarter than me had um figured that as the calculation that [51:32] that seemed to be the appropriate size that would trip that mechanism where a sprinkler system would be required um [51:38] that standard across the board whether it's this community or other communities is at 2,000 threshold and I'm sure [51:43] there's statistics and data to support that um what the difference is if it's under that or over that so um I don't I [51:50] don't know why that was but that's that's the number that was chosen so so people smarter than you determine that a [51:58] 2,000 sare ft that's what he I'm just reiterating what you said here you know [52:03] that that 2,000 square feet is it doesn't need it and so if this client if [52:09] this uh business owner wants to design something that is just under that you [52:15] know I I would have to side with council member wenber and and saying hey you [52:20] know I would make that same decision too if there was a financial impact there and um to me I [52:27] I I am not again you I am not at all concerned [52:32] and I am in support of U this business uh going in so I have one more comment please so [52:39] mayor zabble you literally just two minutes ago accused the client and the [52:46] developer of some pretty nefarious Things based on what speaking with the [52:53] speaking with the developer and the client did they specifically tell you based on [52:59] an email I received from the applicant in December 2023 asking how do I get around this fir sprinkler requirement is [53:05] there a variance process because on the sole basis of cost I think you should make that public then because you just [53:11] did if you would like that I can provide that to the city administrator I would yeah thank [53:16] you you know but but you know even you know even with that you know if you want [53:23] to call it I mean you know and Jim maybe you can divide def find legal loophole [53:28] better than I can but I you know that's what this is loopholes are me are are [53:35] meant to be used and you know and again [53:40] it's above our Authority here and you know I said at the outset the [53:47] spirit of the law may not have been but but that doesn't mean that you know [53:55] anything underhanded or wrong was done um you [54:01] know and at this point I excuse me I am not [54:06] prepared um to backtrack on this I'm just you know and if Council if there's [54:11] Council consensus to do that so be it um we can certainly go back and have the [54:18] conversations if there is but uh I will be voting to move forward with this [54:23] tonight I'd like to say one more thing please I I can't imagine being a small business owner and not having to come up [54:31] with these types of decisions to save money to excuse me save money when you're [54:36] especially devel developing a brand new building I mean there's a lot of cost [54:42] involved to that and they're providing a great service to our community and surrounding [54:47] communities and so I don't think that cutting cost the way you presented it is [54:54] is somehow nefarious I don't I'm sure there's thousands of small business [55:00] owners that have had to make choices like this in in in when there's establishing a [55:06] business and I don't think it's fair the applicant is not here to defend [55:12] themselves that's all let's remember her I I assume that we've seen other development projects where they've made [55:19] changes throughout the process and uh I I feel like this change would be in line with you know a developer who's looking [55:25] to make make a change in some of their plans to to make it more accommodating or or or make the numbers financially [55:32] make sense so you know I again I just you know I I I I am in support of [55:39] moving forward and I think um you know that's what I would be wanting to do here so council member herf your [55:46] question was you know changes to project plans that remove a safety [55:52] mechanism like a sprinkler system I think the answer is no I'm talking with City administrator vkr we couldn't come [55:58] up with a single example of a building in Oakdale that a commercial building that would be under that 2,000 sare feet [56:04] or so let's rephrase question or change to get under 2,000 square F feet to that would that that's that requirement [56:11] wouldn't apply to so how many buildings in the city of Oakdale was built under 2,000 square ft commercial buildings yes [56:17] in recent memory I I literally cannot think of a single one this is the first one and and [56:25] so part of me feels like hey the stat you gave uh just now it was based on the [56:32] premise that there's 2,000 ft or less commercial buildings being built all the time and because there isn't there is no [56:40] precedence for this and so to me I almost feel like that's a mute point in [56:45] the sense that hey people smarter than us have made the determination that a [56:51] building that is 2,000 ft or more should require a spring system thus negating [56:58] any issue with safety again if I would like to see the [57:04] data if if if that's wrong then let's bring forward the data and let's argue that point and I would side with you but [57:12] I think because that 2,000 sare ft is the threshold and this applicant is [57:18] putting in a building plan making modifications changes uh to be under [57:24] that I think they are just simply following the rules and and and what we have laid out to be the [57:31] standard and yeah um you know and one thing to add too and and Jim if this wouldn't be [57:38] legal for some reason please let me know but you know if if if if this council is [57:45] interested in having all build requiring all buildings have sprinkler systems you [57:52] know there's actually a pretty simple way to do that that would be not allow commercial buildings in Oakdale under [57:58] 2,000 square ft that's you know that's you know if if this is a concern for us [58:04] I mean maybe we look at that going forward that doesn't help us tonight but [58:09] um I'm sure we can do that well I yeah and I don't I don't know the answer to that but you know that would be a Simple [58:15] Solution if if going forward we want to avoid this um maybe I'm you know maybe [58:21] now is not the time to you know to bring that up but I did so [58:28] um uh final comments all right let's call the question all those in favor say I I I [58:34] oppose no and consensus motion a is approved as [58:40] presented next up is our opportunity to check in with advisory boards and commissions first one that met was the Environmental Management commission they [58:46] met on August 19th 2024 I am the leis on for the group uh the big ticket item on [58:52] their agenda was they had a presentation from resilient cities and communities um talking about different ways that cities [58:58] can go about um you know altering operations and programs that we can [59:04] offer to make our city more environmentally friendly the excellent news is we do most of them already so it [59:10] was a very quick presentation but um things are moving along and that group has a very active rest of the year uh in [59:17] terms of their workload so uh the only other one that would have met was parks and wreck and their meeting was [59:24] cancelled more to bid nothing staff reports City attorney Jim anything uh Mr Mayor M Council nothing specific [59:31] to report tonight but happy to answer questions anybody have any questions for Jim let's look the other way and check [59:37] in with our city administrator Chris anything for us tonight no Mr Mayor city council I don't have anything to report [59:44] alrighty uh anybody have any questions for Chris uh Council presentations council [59:51] members do you have any tonight let's look over here Susie Noah anything all [59:56] right Jake Andy all right actually I do want to give a shout out [1:00:01] to our Public Works uh employees uh you know after the storm last night uh just [1:00:06] seeing uh just everyone all hands on deck throughout the entire day today in our community and the our bordering uh [1:00:13] communities as well just uh going out just helping each other out uh thank you guys uh for picking up the slack for [1:00:20] helping out residents who have uh trees down in their yards uh in the street um [1:00:26] you guys really helped make our place a place to live so thank you uh to our Public Works team there thank you Noah I [1:00:32] think we all share in the that those sentiments um there was a lot to clean up I'm not even sure if they're done I [1:00:39] mean they're going to be clean up for a while so um maybe this is also a good time to [1:00:44] plug uh residents can drop brush off at public works that's available year round [1:00:50] um so if you have down brush in your yard you can take it to uh 1900 Hadley is that the address 1900 00 Hadley um [1:00:57] there is a nominal fee associated with it so just pop into the front office they will direct you where to go um you [1:01:03] can pay the fee there um but that is a good opportunity to get rid of your uh brush that may have come down in the [1:01:08] last few um well the day um I have a few updates from the city uh city offices [1:01:15] will be closed this Monday September 2nd in observance of Labor Day City facilities will open at 8: am uh on [1:01:22] Tuesday September 3rd as always emergency services are always available uh join us for oakdale's annual Touch a [1:01:28] Truck Event on Tuesday September 10th from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. and in the City Hall Parking Lot kids can climb and [1:01:33] explore Public Safety Vehicles snowplows garbage trucks street cleaners semi- trucks and more this event is free and [1:01:40] ice cream treats will be provided concessions will also be available for purchase uh a sensory tent will be [1:01:46] available to provide a safe non-stimulating space for children as well one of the most popular events of [1:01:52] the year Family Fund flatables will be held on Saturday September 14th from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Walton Park [1:01:58] this free event will feature Inflatables uh for the whole family to explore including a bounce Castle obstacle [1:02:04] course and a giant slide there will also be a kids DJ and concessions available for purchase save the date for a city-wide [1:02:11] cleanup event on Saturday September 21st from 9:00 a.m. to 1: p.m. at Oakdale Public Works we are excited to bring [1:02:17] back this event after almost 15 years this is a great opportunity for Oakdale residents to get rid of unwanted items [1:02:22] for a small fee please see the City website oakdale.com of for a full list of items being accepted as well as the [1:02:29] fee associated with those items finally uh a good luck message to [1:02:34] our students they are back to school next week um so we wish them well in their their studies in the year ahead as [1:02:40] well for the teachers um I always like to add a me mention you know there will be more kids on the streets so if you [1:02:46] are driving through our community please slow down please be observant um safety you know to and from school is um [1:02:53] everybody's top goal so um please keep an eye out for for kids that might be getting on and off the bus or walking to [1:02:59] school claims let's pay some bills we have claims roster in front of us August 15th through August 27th in the amount [1:03:04] of 1.8 million in change council members are there any claims you'd like to pull or get more information on if not I will [1:03:11] look for motion make a motion to approve claims as presented there's a motion is there a second second motion is a second [1:03:17] final comments all those in favor say I I opposed and the bills are paid at this [1:03:23] time we are going to go into close session uh this agenda item is to conduct a closed meeting with the city [1:03:30] attorney uh to discuss matters protected by attorney client privilege relating to threaten litigation over proposed [1:03:36] amendments to the Oakdale Marketplace PUD at this time I'm going to turn things over to City attorney Jim Thompson for brief comment uh thank you [1:03:43] Mr may members of the council uh I requested that this item be put on the agenda tonight so that I can meet in a [1:03:48] close session with you to discuss uh confidential uh advice concerning the [1:03:54] threatened uh litigation over the amendments to the uh um Oakdale Market [1:04:00] PUD uh I've concluded that the need to give confidential advice outweighs the [1:04:06] uh need to have the public present during that uh and we will only be [1:04:12] discussing we will only be discussing uh legal advice relating to the threat and [1:04:17] lawsuit we will not be discussing any merits or or the status of the actual application itself so that's that's the [1:04:24] purpose of my request thank you Jim at this time I will look for a motion to close the meeting pursuant to Minnesota [1:04:30] State Statute section 13 d. 05 sub subdivision 3B to discuss matters [1:04:35] protected by attorney client privilege related to the threat and litigation of the proposed amendments to the Oakdale Marketplace PUD can I get a [1:04:43] motion so moved there's a motion is there a second second all those in favor say I I [1:04:49] oppos the meeting of the Oakdale city council is now [1:04:54] closed e