Planning Commission approves apartment tower despite neighborhood opposition
The Oakdale Planning Commission voted to allow a four-story, 133-unit apartment building at 390 Helmo Avenue North on August 1, despite strong objections from nearby residents who raised concerns about traffic, noise, flooding, and neighborhood character.
The commission approved the amendment to the Helmo Station Planned Unit Development with no audible dissent from commissioners, though the public hearing revealed a sharp divide between the developer and the Oakrun Shores neighborhood residents who would live nearby. The project would increase the maximum building height from three to four stories, adding 25% more units to the site. To address visual concerns, developer MWF Properties proposed a 40-foot setback on the northern end of the building, with staff recommending additional conditions including a viewshed analysis, varying roof lines, and enhanced landscaping.
Residents raised multiple objections during the public hearing. Douglas Nelson noted that his property on Fourth Street Lane North sits in a FEMA flood plain and expressed concern about how the development would affect drainage. Others worried about increased traffic congestion, early morning construction noise, and impacts on property values. Jim Trudeau criticized the city's reliance on a planned bus line to justify development, saying the project would destroy wildlife habitat. Bob Beetle, a former condemnation commissioner, suggested the city could face legal liability for damages to neighboring properties.
Commissioners acknowledged some concerns but noted the limits of their authority. One commissioner stated that construction noise regulations exist but are enforced by other agencies, not the planning commission. Another emphasized that the proposed density already falls within what the existing Helmo Station PUD permits—the amendment only addresses building height, not the total number of units allowed.
In a separate vote, the commission also approved an amendment to the Oakdale Station Planned Unit Development by a 3-1 vote, allowing greater flexibility for residential and commercial uses in previously commercial-only areas. However, a related amendment to the Oakdale Marketplace PUD failed to advance, with commissioners voting 3-2 against recommending approval. That proposal included a controversial requirement for a "Class One restaurant" in one area, which developers argued was economically unfeasible after 17 years of market failure.
Our proprietary artificial intelligence agent analyzed publicly available documents including meeting agendas, minutes, and transcripts to write this story to help inform local residents. Feedback helps us improve, so please consider rating how we did with the thumbs up or down below.
Go deeper on this topic
Research related meeting documents and build a brief — without rewriting the story.
Full analysis
Votes (3)
Public Hearing: MWF Properties LLC, 390 Helmo Avenue North, Planned Unit Development Amendment
Dissent: No audible dissent from the commission during the vote, but strong public opposition was voiced.
Moved by Unknown [31:52] · Seconded by Unknown [32:05]
Staff presented the request to increase the maximum building height to four stories for a 133-unit multi-family apartment building, noting the developer's proposed 40-foot setback and staff's recommendation for additional landscaping and a viewshed analysis to mitigate visual impact. Public speakers expressed significant opposition, citing concerns over increased noise, traffic congestion, negative impacts on property values, potential flooding in FEMA flood plains, disruption from early morning construction, and the overall change to the character of the Oakrun Shores neighborhood. The developer stated a willingness to meet with neighbors at a later stage.
Public Hearing: Oakdale Marketplace & Oakdale Station Planned Unit Development Amendments
Dissent: Commissioners Pearson, Moli, and Hegen voted 'Nay', while Commissioners Willen and Di voted 'Aye'.
Moved by Unknown [1:32:59] · Seconded by Unknown [1:33:01]
Staff introduced proposed amendments for two PUDs, aiming to increase land use flexibility (including residential) and update design standards based on a consultant's study. A key area of contention was Tract 3, where the city proposed mandating at least one 'Class One restaurant.' Developers and property owners argued against this restriction, citing 17 years of market failure, the city's own study showing low demand, and potential legal issues like spot zoning and regulatory takings. Residents expressed a desire for more local commercial options, including restaurants and breweries, but also concerns about the impact of residential growth on schools and traffic. The city attorney advised the commission not to address the legal issues raised during the public hearing.
Public Hearing: Oakdale Station Planned Unit Development Amendment
Dissent: One commissioner cast a 'Nay' vote, though specific identity was not recorded.
Moved by Unknown [1:32:33] · Seconded by Unknown [1:32:36]
This PUD amendment, presented concurrently with the Oakdale Marketplace PUD amendment, focused on providing greater flexibility for land uses, including medium to high-density residential in certain vacant parcels (e.g., Tract A, south of LA Fitness), alongside continued commercial options. Property owners expressed support for broadening uses to meet current market demands, particularly for multi-family residential, given the historical difficulty in developing the area for purely commercial purposes. Concerns about the nearby railroad for residential uses were noted by one commissioner. This item was less controversial than the Oakdale Marketplace amendment.
Notable Quotes (19)
Before us tonight is a request for a planned unit development Amendment at 390 helmo Avenue North located at the Northern end of the helmo station PUD area near the border of the oakrun shores neighborhood.
In exchange for the flexibility and maximum Building height the developer has proposed having a much larger 40ft setback on the Northern end of the site in order to reduce the visual footprint of the site.
you took all the wildlife out of there you know no more wild turkeys running through our property no deer you took them with 150 trees for your little bus that you you're putting a lot of eggs in one basket that this bus line is going to bring all this Economic Development to the city.
I live in a FEMA flood plane I don't have a wand here or the map of the where we live but the first when you enter our four Street Lane North cuac the first three buildings are in a FEMA flood plane the marsh behind us is also part of that flood plane that drains underneath the new four Street Lane North into that pond which Jim just mentioned that's also in a female plan female flood plane.
all of that is compensable damages from my perspective as a condemnation commissioner who worked for Washington County for 30 years.
I just think that we need to consider how much of an impact that 826 units is going to have and the developer today adding another story he's adding 25% to that building.
The first Speaker spoke about um noise level as much as I understand the noise level that's something we don't control it's something that um with construction is going to happen but there are the limits of between seven and whatever time we hope that they'd adhere to it but we do not control that.
ultimately The Proposal is within the permit Ed density that's already allowed within the helmo station PUD uh this request is solely for the change in Building height the density already Falls within the permitted density in the helmo station PUD.
the overarching goal of the study is to determine appropriate land uses for both of PE pey areas there and the proposed amendments that we're bringing forward tonight are based on the study's findings the Consultants recommendations and guidance from the city council and overall we are proposing allowing additional land use options for this area.
so class one restaurants per R zoning code definitions they include number one traditional restaurants and number two what we call cafeteria.
I went on to Cornell Law school's website defining spot zoning spot zoning refers to when a piece of property or groups of property have special zoning laws applied to them that differ from the zoning laws surrounding them.
but as the applicant on the one corner that is being further handcuffed now and is being prohibited by what is being proposed on that corner is Road blocking a good development that is ready to go right now.
I want restaurants I want commercial buildings in that space I don't want housing I the rest of my neighbors are the same way we want commercial buildings.
I don't want to go to Woodberry anymore to go take my wife on a date to a restaurant I would like to go a few blocks over do a nice restaurant or Brewery or some type of business even Healthcare.
one party cannot unilaterally uh amend the Pud and the Pud agreement it's got to be done by mutual agreement of the parties and the planned unit development agreement is very clear at section 16.
I am concerned about moving ahead with this because of the background I don't want to use legal issues um but question out there um unanswered I guess if we don't know that yet so for us to approve something without knowing what could happen doesn't seem make sense someone used the word reboot kind of like that idea myself reboot till we come back to better answers.
designating land use options throughout the area and in uh including allowing residential uses on certain Lots.
the primary use will be multifam or industrial so I appreciate uh the Pud opening up the uses and I just uh suggest that it be as flexible as possible and let the future developer come in and tell us what really is going to work there instead of trying to force feed um the uses.
so just by by narrowing down the Zoning for a restaurant is not necessarily going to make it happen there so um we appreciate you broadening the the Pud zoning as is being proposed by the city staff and if you were going to you know do something with the restaurant we'd ask that you maybe separate the the two considerations making multif family and allowed use on the 16 Acres we've seen a lot more interest in that uh world than we have anything else.
Ordinances & Resolutions (10)
The specific type of application under review for both major agenda items.
The existing Planned Unit Development guiding the Helmo Avenue area, subject to amendment.
A future step for the MWF Properties LLC project, following the PUD amendment.
A consultant's report commissioned by the city to inform the proposed Oakdale Marketplace/Station PUD amendments.
The contractual agreement governing the Oakdale Marketplace PUD, cited by legal counsel regarding amendment authority.
Document referenced for park dedication requirements for the MWF Properties LLC project.
A required study for the MWF Properties LLC project to assess the visual appearance from adjacent neighborhoods.
City plan requiring internal pedestrian infrastructure in the Oakdale Marketplace/Station area.
The source of definitions for different classes of restaurants and zoning regulations.
A planning device enacted by the city on the Oakdale Marketplace area, cited as problematic by legal counsel.
Source document
Was this story helpful?
Other Topics from This Document
Oakdale Marketplace and Oakdale Station PUD Amendments
Want to know when new stories arrive?
Enter your email to receive updates.
We will not use your email for any other purpose. You can unsubscribe at any time.