##VIDEO ID:mkD-5Ut1Zgo## e e e e e e e e e e all yep the October 3rd 2024 Planning Commission session is called to order first call of business roll call please sure thing Pearson is absent Willen bring here Campbell absent stellari here McCully here diata here Hagen is absent all rise for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the rep for it stands one nation under indis andice and could I get a motion to approve the agenda for tonight so moved second it's been moved and seconded all in favor I approved next matter of business approval of the minutes from July 11th August haven't been submitted yet could I get a motion or are there any changes you want to be made I have no changes no changes I will make a motion second moved and seconded all in favor I I passed on to the next portion tonight as every night we open up a open form if you have any comments you would like to make that are not related to anything on the agenda now is your time to do so if you have any we'd like you to limit your comments to about two minutes and I will go ahead and open the Forum seeing nobody I'm going to ahead and close the open form session of the meeting and on to Old business we have none so we'll move on to our new business this will be a public hearing for the Kenneth Kroger conditional use permit for an oversized garage go ahead Max yep thank you and good evening and tonight before us we have a request for an oversized garage located at 6063 Stillwater Boulevard North this is located just east of the intersection of Highway 120 and Stillwater Boulevard the zoning here is R1 or very low density housing where oversized garages are allowed if a conditional use permit is obtained the purpose here is the applicant is looking to add a new detached garage that exceeds the maximum square footage requirement for garages in the R1 District per the city code garages may be up to 1,000 square ft in the R1 District whereas the applicant's garage here is planned to be 1,200 square ft the property as a whole is approximately 0.9 acres in size and contains a single family home with an existing detached garage the proposed new garage would replace the old garage uh which the applicant has stated is in poor condition here we have the site plan for the appc an plans to add a garage the applicant plans to use the garage uh and has stated for modern vehicles uh which currently can't fit in the pre-existing garage as well as snowblowers lawnmowers other residential items as you can see the garage would be located in the rear yard on the south side of the property uh the applicant has stated that the garage would not exceed height limits additionally in the R1 District uh where this property is located garages are required to be at least 10 ft from side property lines and 30 ft from rear property lines based on the provided site plan details these setback requirements are met as a reminder conditional use permits are subject to certain review criteria found in the city's ordance here's a summary of the review criteria we must use in evaluating it compliance with the comp plan compatibility of use with zoning no nuisance effects generated no traffic congestion or parking issues the use must be adequately served by public services no excessive cost for public services uh minimal impacts to the environment and specifically for oversized garages the lot can't be further subdivided with the building on site no pole barn building construction is permitted no door can exceed 10 ft in height and no commercial or industrial uses can occur within the structure staff finds that the conditional use permit review criteria of the ordinance has been satisfied as detailed on the staff report in file uh staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions the applicant shall obtain a building permit the structure shall meet setback and height requirements and the garage shall not exceed 12200 Square ft in size as a reminder this is a public hearing and the applicant is here with us in attendance and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions regarding this request I have any questions seems pretty straightforward yeah any comments from the public on this conditional use permit Mr Vice chair could we open the public open the public comments section for this ordinance I I mean variance seeing none we're going to close the public comment section is there any other discussion no I don't have any discussion on this project could I get a motion then I will make a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for an additional garage at 6063 still waterer Boulevard North Second it's been second in moved and seconded all in favor I I oppose passes on to our next portion here for The Enclave companies's plan unit development Amendment thank you Vice chair and Commissioners so before us tonight is a request for a new residential development titled Enclave helmo station located at the helmo station PUD at the addresses 7600 7750 7700 7655 and 77013 Street North generally these addresses are located as you can see in the map in the vacant land between norhart apartments and the Oaks business park as shown on the map for the zoning here it's helmo station PUD which specifies several different land uses including high density multifam on the southern half of the site as well as Flex uses medium density and medium density Flex uses and office on the northern half of the site as well as a part of the helmo station uh PUD specific performance criteria is specified for each parcel here the applicant is proposing a 2080 unit apartment building a 112 unit Town Home Development and a 2.83 acre public park the housing is planned to be market rate and is not income restricted to proceed the developer must receive approval from the city on the preliminary plat plan unit development Amendment or PUD Amendment in the site plan a PUD amendment is required due to the development layout being different from the original layout of the helmo station PUD uh these differences will be shown in a few slides a concept plan was previously considered by the city council at a council workshop on July 23rd 2024 during this meeting the council voice majority support for the concept plan here we can see a general site plan uh for the propos development as you can see 112 units are located just north of Third Street the placement of the town homes in this location is to intended to provide more of a lower transitional density closer to the oakrun shores neighborhood on the Southeast end is a 280 unit apartment building to promote walkability the parking of the apartment building is located to the east so that it's not visible from the station area for anyone using the Gold Line brt Service addition Ally a secondary entrance as well as a walkout uh walkout units are located on the west side of the building to improve pedestrian access the proposed public park is also located on the Southwest end of the site just west of the apartment building here we have a comparison of the site layout in the original helmo station PUD and the proposal by the developer to make it easier to see I'll switch to a closeup of the affected area of the original PUD layout and just a moment the important points to note here are that the developer proposal uh does dramatically reduce the number of public roads on site staff was initially concerned with the impact of the loss of the planned public roads on traffic and walkability however staff requested that the developer complete a traffic study which found that the development itself and the loss of planned uh public roads would have minimal impacts on traffic additionally to address walkability the developer has added an enhanced pedestrian spine or also a walkway along the west side of the apartment building as well as additional pedestrian paths throughout the town home development furthermore in exchange for flexibility from the city for the site layout the developer is proposing a park that is 47% larger than the original Park in the helmo station layout here we have the closer look at the comparison of the site layouts as you can see the developer has increased the size of the park while removing most of the new public streets please note that the design of the park is still underway while plans for the park are shown here throughout the project and in the site layout and included in the meeting packet much of the park design will be completed collaboratively with the city and the developer if the project is approved as a result staff suggests that input here tonight focus on the apartments town homes and the site as a whole now on screen is the preliminary Ary plat for Enclave helmo station I've added approximate red lines to help highlight the exact lot Dimensions here the developer is proposing two blocks block one to the north which has one numbered lot and would house the town homes and block two to the South which has two numbered lots for the park and the apartment building the final plat is not yet ready as there remains some title work for the developer to complete a few Corrections are needed here on the preliminary plat based on the city's ordinance for one the proposed public park is currently shown as a numbered lot typically numbered Lots in Oakdale are reserved for private buildable Lots so the developer will want to change this to show as an out lot in a future revision Additionally the developer will need to ensure that Public Access easements cover any internal sidewalks for the development and determine if any of the existing easements on the site right now need to be vacated additionally for storm water the developer will need to receive separate approvals and permits uh from the two Watershed districts that serve the site including WA Washington Ramsey Watershed district and South Washington Watershed District moving on to the site plan approval here we have a closeup of the site plan for the town homes we can see the 112 units which are served by two accesses off of Third Street a sidewalk is shown on the north side of Third Street as well as on the south side side of Fourth Street in exchange for a PUD Amendment uh and the flexibility for the site layout and potentially other deviation requests staff is requiring that the developer extend the Fourth Street sidewalk to Ideal Avenue which is to the east in order to better complete the helmo station pedestrian Network and support the city's bicycle and pedestrian plan in the helmo station PUD buildings along Fourth Street are required to be at least 30 ft from the curb line to allow for additional spacing from Okun Shores based on the plan this requirement is met it should be noted that in the helmo station PUD buildings fronting public streets are required to have entrances facing the street in the original site plan the developer did not show any of the Town Homes along third or fourth street as having Street facing or entrances uh instead with rear patios facing the street since then the town homes facing Third Street have been adjusted on the site plan uh which was included in the packets and shown on screen to have pedestrian entrances facing the street but the entrances to the Fourth Street Town H home still need to be updated to show that parking for the town homes in the helmo station PUD is restricted to a maximum of two spaces per unit which is met here continuing with the site plans here we have the plans for the apartment building the 280 unit apartment building is shown with one access off of Third Street in a special pedestrian spine on the West Side between the building and the park uh parking is shown primarily as underground with two entries with some surface parking provided on site to the east as well it should be noted that the developer is currently proposing more parking than is allowed uh for the maximum parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit for high density uses in the helmo station PUD the Pud requires that no more than 393 space be provided for this level of units and the developer here is proposing 469 which is 76 more than allowed as a result the developer will need to either comply with the maximum parking ratio or request a deviation to exceed it alternatively the developer can provide the city proof of parking for any spaces that exceed the minimum the maximum allowed showing that those spaces could be added at a later date if issues arrive additionally the helmo station PUD requires that buildings be set back no more than 10 ft from sidewalks as a result uh this is not currently met and the developer will need to either revise the plan to show them as being no more than 10 ft from the sidewalk or request a deviation from the Pud other elements that were not provided within the apartment building plan Set uh include providing information on trash handling we'll just need a bit more information there screening and locations for trash and utilities and updated photometric plan that complies with City lighting standards and a comprehensive sign package for any development signage also given the apartment's distance to Interstate 94 a noise variance with a noise study will be needed at a later date here's a closer look at the park site plan as a reminder tonight's hearing is directed more towards the residential component of the project and the project as a whole generally staff is supportive of this park though a number of improvements are necessary including reducing the size of the pond feature to allow for other amenities improving the entryway adding a central Gathering space as well as a playground additionally in the original Park design a very large parking lot was shown of about 40 spaces which staff did not support however the new design doesn't show any parking lot so generally staff feels that as well as the city's Parks consultant srf that a lot of about 5 to 10 spaces would be ideal for this site as the project progresses staff and the city's Park consultant srf will continue to refine the design moving back to the town homes uh the following images show some example elevations of the Town Home Designs the left design shows the town homes with a back patio uh at the rear whereas the right design shows the town homes fronting Third Street Street which have a pedestrian oriented entrance as well as a rear garage entrance as a reminder staff will require that the developer update the plan to show the town homes along Fourth Street uh with Street oriented entrances similar to that of the right design one issue identified here in the renderings is the material breakdown uh as a reminder the helmo station PUD requires that buildings be made up of at least 70% class one materials as identified in article 18 of the zoning ordinance based on analysis by H KGI uh the city's planning consultant the Town Home Building types vary from being 20% class one materials to 46% given this discrepancy the developer will need to either update the building materials to meet this requirement or request an additional PUD deviation one possible approach here could be to increase the amount of class one materials visible from the public streets and RightWay such that the interior Town Homes could remain under that 70% requirement additionally this could be done for more visible facades as well with regard to the apartment building uh this slide and the next display elevation renderings uh to give a better idea of the building appearance here we see the West Side alongside its proximity to the park some walkout units and park features here we see the east side of the building a portion of the surface parking lot is visible as well as amenity spaces for residents and various architectural features here we have a detailed breakdown of the exterior building standards the developer states that 79% of building materials are class one however it should be noted here uh that the colored concrete masonry is not considered a class one material under the city's ordinance additionally corrugated metal is shown here as class one but is typically not considered a superior metal which is the wording used in the ordinance as a result staff recommends that the developer share detailed manufacturer information on the corrugated metal to ensure that it can be considered a longlasting highquality class one material generally the developer will need to update the building uh to meet that 70% class one material requirement or request a pu deviation from the requirement one option we've seen in similar developments in the area is to have the developer Focus class one materials along the ground floor with class two materials located on Floors above that are less easily visible as a reminder with each PUD deviation that is chosen to be requested an explanation of the reasoning and the resulting public benefit should be provided so to conclude staff is recommending approval of the PE Amendment preliminary plat and site plan as detailed in the staff report on file staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions for the preliminary plat approval will be required of an amendment to the helmo station PUD to allow for deviations to the land use framework exterior building materials parking and setbacks execution of a development agreement approval of the site civil plans for the water sewer and storm sewer system a public access easement shall be recorded for any publicly accessible sidewalks located on the private property uh the plan should be updated to show the sidewalk on the south side of 4th Street extending to Ideal Avenue North to better complete the helmo station pedestrian Network the plans should be updated for the sidewalk on the north side of Third Street extending to helmo Avenue North to better complete the network as well vacate any unnecessary existing easements satisfaction of Park dedication requir re IR Ms including conveyance of the public park property to the city and permits and approvals must be obtained from all applicable outside government agencies and proof of approvals must be provided to the city moving on to conditions for the site plan we're requiring that approval uh be issued for an amendment to the helmo station PUD again for the deviations to the land use framework building materials parking and setbacks execution of a development agreement revising the site plan plan to show the locations of any exterior trash enclosures and their methods of screening revising the site plan to show any rooftop equipment ground level utilities and external loading areas and their methods of screening updating the plans to show uh the sidewalk on the south side of Fourth Street extending to Ideal as well as having the Third Street sidewalk extending to helmo update the apartment building plans to feature the architectural features for the ground floor to help differentiate it as noted in section CD3 of the helmo station PUD update the plans for the town home development to include primary entrances facing the public RightWay for Town Homes Froning Third Street and Fourth Street installation of a curb extension or bump out on Third Street North at The Pedestrian Crossing obtaining approval from the city council on a noise variance approval of the site civil plans approval from the fire department department for the proposed hydrant locations and fire department connections a photometric plan must be updated that complies with the city's lighting requirements and submission of a signage package for Council review as a reminder this is a public hearing tonight and the developer is with us here in attendance and with that I'd be happy to take any questions regarding this proposal got one as far as the fire department with no Road access on the west or south of that building building do they feel it's adequate for building that size with the axis that they have at the north and east side Mr Vice chair that would be correct uh we did run it by our fire chief and The Pedestrian spine would actually be built to allow fire trucks to drive on it um and rid for that so that they would be able to access that side of the building so far my only concern with this is not a problem with the town homes being in their departments it's the outside materials and the lack of class one and how to get there yes you said they could come to you and ask for forgiveness or an ordinance or a variance of it but when does that happen how does it happen so we'll be taking an extended period between the Planning Commission Now in the first meeting in November given how many uh things need to be corrected in the plans uh so we're hoping to work it out during that session and we would hope likely for either fully 70% class one materials or something where the most visible components of the building show that from the outside and that goes along with the Fourth Street side of the town homes showing primary entrances as well yes that's something we would look to require and for reference we have uh with the nor heart development we did something similar where we required the ground floor to be 70% class one whereas the rest of the floors are primarily ephus which is a class two material so you're asking for approval of this based upon hoping to have that done correct yes uh we we are seeing it as a condition so we would not approve it without the conditions met so basically you're you came a little too soon but you're going to extend it on the other end yeah we're going to allow a little bit more time uh we have had things plenty of developments in the past before where we feel that it's meeting the general land use goals uh but there's still details that need to be worked out with some of those components like materials so our motions will be subject to all these conditions correct what you're asking for to be to allow for deviations to the land use framework exterior building materials parking setbacks as example you're asking for that already prior to my concerns of it having not having it done thank you for pointing that out commissioner um right now if you take a look at the narrative component in the packet uh they only requested it for the layout so we would need those formal deviations requests worked out in the next month we would expect those likely in the next week and the city council would have the final say to say yes these conditions have been met we can go forward with approving this but what are we this is where I get confused we're approving something that may happen but you're you're saying it's going to happen so with is I am I saying that right or wrong so with the conditions um the idea behind those is that it the approval is not valid unless they are met well basically he's he's brought out a little too soon yeah but because our meeting is this today he's going to extend it until the city coun because the city council's already approved it sort of and going to allow for the deviations yeah we're just going to say well I subject to I understand you're angst and I have the same Ang that's that's my issue yeah I have the same angst but that's that's the way they're presenting it to us so it is what it is and I do believe the developer as well would be able to speak to some of those deviations and perhaps provide Clarity good evening uh my name is Josh mckin uh with measure group uh I'm here representing the developer Enclave companies tonight Brian Bachmann who is with Enclave companies couldn't make it tonight he had some family issues so uh I can speak to a couple of the items uh but first I would just like to say you know we completely understand the importance of this area and or this particular development relative to the success of the helmo station area plan like it's we're we're a major component of this is part of this development so we we don't take that responsibility like uh uh we don't take that responsibility lightly excuse me um and also would just say you know we've worked really closely with staff and are coordinating um kind of with the adjacent developments for you know how that Park works and some other things and making sure that our development kind of works architecturally as well uh within norhart development um and so uh specifically to architecture uh it is I mean we got the the H KGI report relative to some of these percentages and some deviations relatively I mean a couple days ago really so it's our impression uh that we'll be able to meet the 70% on the building without with kind of some minor modifications I think there there's some un misunderstandings relative to the architectural metals and kind of what we were putting on the building versus their review and the same things with this concrete block so we will hit the 70% minimum on the multif family building itself and then we'll work with kind of to to kind of work through the hkg and City comments relative to the town homes Town Homes themselves are a little bit tricky relative to the application of the ordinance on the 70% we've got a relatively you know we're trying to go for a more residential look on this and less of a commercial you know look but the class home materials um in terms of what they're stated in the ordinance aren't necessarily that more residential look so we'll have to come up with some sort of medium or kind of like as Max mentioned you know even on the first level kind of meeting some architectural standard that that's kind of you know set with the city uh and then kind of come to some sort of agreement relative to the city's ordinance and our so if there's a deviation it's going to be on the town homes and not on the the main building I just want to be super upfront of kind of what our strategy would be we do have our architect Colin C from C Wilson here if you have specific questions on the architecture but I just want to be transparent with what our kind of our plan would be moving forward here uh you Happ to stand for any other questions but just you note that you know we're we will continue to work with uh with the planning staff to kind of address these items on the conditions of approval uh and then hope to listen tonight between you know your comments and the Public's comments as well and see if there's anything else we need to change between now and council do you see any problem getting the main entrances on the town homes that face Fourth Street to be primary and not back so uh we actually specifically left those off for this this response uh it's a discussion that we need to have and maybe would be interested in your opinion frankly too uh as planning Commissioners so right now the way the the helmo station PUD is written is that that 30 foot buffer or that 30- foot setback that was that Max had mentioned um on the north side of our town homes was intended to be kind of a landscape buffer uh to to as another kind of layer of protection between us and the adjacent development to the north um and so you know we're really planting that up with a whole bunch of trees and shrubs and that kind of thing um and so we can we can put sidewalks you know to the sidewalk that we're building on the north side of or the South side of fourth rather but it's really kind of what are we looking for are we looking for a buffer that is kind of a a break between this development and and you know the existing development are we looking for you know the front doors to kind of front on to forth I think those are two kind of different feelings uh in terms of how that development wants to be or and really my concern is uh and the kind of the discussion internal has been you know I don't want to do half I don't want to kind to go halfway with one of those I don't want to to do a do a sidewalk that's sort of good or like that front entrance feeling that's halfway so to speak and I also don't want to go half with a with a uh a buffer because if we start to do a landscape buffer with sidewalks penetrating it we kind of get into some security or more um Safety and Security issues of you know people being able to hide behind trees and that kind of thing so we're happy to work with with you and City staff that's not the problem at all it was more of a a point of discussion of like is this really what we want here let's take it a second and examine it I would like to see the primary entr is on Fourth you turned it over on the third um the buffer whether you put buffers there or not you could have that hiding behind a bush aspect of it so that's um but that would be an issue for me okay is there a on the multi um building first floor differential between the first floor and the above floors architecturally as well supposed to be um distinctive uh you know I I might actually call Colin up to speak about just kind of some architecture I I do believe that there's been some special I don't think it's showing that and then correct me if I'm wrong on that uh could we get the PowerPoint up on screen so this building I think we were was it 78% was class one that we submitted I think it's we'll end up right in that you know in that area it's just a matter of kind of how those materials are applied so we're happy to work with City staff that way too so I thought there was supposed to be a requirement of between the lower floor to the Upper Floor is a distinctive um separation of materal materials or look we can look into that with staff okay when do you plan on starting this project this would be a spring start spring start yep we we recognize there's a lot of engineering work we need to do still uh the Watershed you know that process uh on this particular deal the other piece that was not talked about tonight but I just I think it's valuable is that there's a whole bunch of met counsil work that's occurring in the area to the south of this project so we've worked closely with the Met Council too of making sure that this project wouldn't impact theirs and vice versa and even you know going to the degree of you know looking at a revising some construction easements to make sure we kind of they can use the the Future Park as a lay down area and so on and so forth so we're we I think we're making progress that way and kind of trying to be as nice of a neighbor as we can while it's trying to make progress in the spring so I guess back to Max I I I wonder why we haven't here now if they're not going to start this project until next spring they have time to actually get all this information correct without us saying subject to ordinances I know there's a 60-day rule and if they would have waited one more month they probably would have had all the stuff done and yeah and I can speak to that too of why why we're here tonight I so there was um and frankly there still is uh a if we can get our financing lined up there's an opportunity for us to start construction on the town home portion of this project yet this fall um it's going to take kind of all you know everything to go right to do that I just want to be super clear that you know we're trying to get that done but I don't want to promise you that hey we're digging foundations in the fall on the town homes that's the goal is like to give us preserve the option for that to happen uh and so that's why you're here tonight so you're here tonight because you want to be able to hopefully start through financing a the town home portion correct well you just told her you're you're going to start in the spring the spring is the spring start on the is on the main building but y the apartment building correct the town homes are the ones that you want to start y I see questions for no just make a comment development is super complex so there so many players so sometime you line up things and they don't sort of uh Jive so I do understand and yeah yeah and I would say you know we're looking I'll I'll take a seat and let the public uh comment and if they have any questions that you'd like me to address please let me know happy to do that thank you thank you okay i' like to open up the meeting to the public comment section for this proposal please keep your comments to about two minutes and we are now open Second Chance anybody have any comments the public comment section is now closed I'm sorry there's one other question that you guys had uh or Max had regarding trash I just I wrote it down I wanted to make sure I addressed it so the the trash for these buildings are actually located the trash for the town homes are like individual bins that will be in people's garages just like a typical you know home uh the trash for the multi family building will actually be in the basement and then there's uh on both um on both ramps that people go down there's there's a place right outside the garage that essentially they'll be brought out on trash day and then the trash company will take it from them so that it's been addressed it wasn't clearly in the narrative but we'll get that cleaned up okay thank you thank you any other discussion um I just have a hard time with with everything saying allow for deviations from required exterior building materials I know that did you're going to work with it but I don't know what we're agreeing to that's my issue I said we're asked to agree to something that we don't know and you come to us to for this it seems like we're like Lee said we're very early in the process and so I'm I'm not as comfortable with this as um we have in in past projects with this uh Mr commissioner if I may um generally we would look uh to make sure that these conditions are fully satisfied and if there is anything that the Planning Commission would like to add or recommend to add to ensure that we can meet any concerns that you do have um we would be happy to take that from you as well if there's something you feel that we aren't sufficiently addressing through these conditions well you are addressing them real well and I get that and everything you're narrative was real good it just that everything we get down to the ordinance and to the um resolutions are all stating allow for deviations you're talking about it in the front end but the back end we're going to allow for have an opportunity to allow for it and that's what I'm afraid of so that's just my opinion of this that's all I got and I guess in the end city council will be the final say on it which they always are and they have had preview on this beforehand in a in a meeting with with people so they're just trying to get this to go through obviously and I it it's messy it's very I agree with you there but it is what it is makes you wonder what we're here for yeah I guess we're that's what we're here for we're bodies it's to uh so okay do I have a motion on the enide plan unit development which one are you taking them what are you doing first three different motions there three of them could I get a motion on the amendment to the helmo station PUD subject to conditions conditions I will make a motion to recommend approval of the Pud Amendment to the HMO station PUD subject to conditions as stated second motions been moved and seconded all in favor I I opposed I motion passes I get another I will make a motion to recommend an approval of the preliminary plat for The Enclave helmo station subject to conditions as stated oh second it's been moved in seconded all in favor I I I oppose I okay are you opposing I'm opposing it opposing it yes okay I will make a motion to recommend approval of the site pan on The Enclave helmo station subject to the condition as stated I second again all in favor I I opposed I okay motions pass and now any staff leas on updates yeah so not too much for tonight um we will look to have a Planning Commission meeting next month uh we don't have any land use applications for that one um we didn't receive any applications within the deadline uh but we are looking to bring back the comprehensive zoning update project to get additional input from you so we can help structure that to uh take a look at some of the residential zoning commercial and see if the direction in which we've started to draft it is matching up with what you'd like to see for the city with that I'd be happy to take any additional questions though any questions for Max no all right any commissioner updates no would our counil leaon like to make any updates with us absolutely not he never thank you for the discussion on that uh I have nothing but if you have questions be happy to at least try to answer them got nothing all right thank you thank you y motion to adjourn I make a motion to adjourn all in favor meetings adjourn good job good made a couple little FL no e