Greetings and welcome to the June 4th regular meeting of the Planning Commission. We'll call to order. Roll call, please. >> Pearson >> Here. >> Willenbring >> Here. >> Campbell >> Is absent. >> McCauley >> Here.
>> Diada >> Is also absent. >> Wilson >> Here. >> Shava >> Also absent. >> Good. I'll offer the Pledge of Allegiance, please. I pledge allegiance to >> to the flag of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Look for approval of the agenda. Does anyone have any comments or changes to the agenda? >> Make approval.
>> Second. >> Those in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Uh approval of the minutes. Do you have any comments or changes to the minutes from last time? >> No.
>> I look for a motion to approve. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. Open forum. Now is the time when anybody who who wishes to make comment on something that is not on the agenda
come forward, state your name and identification, and make your comments. And again, that's anything that's not on the agenda for for this evening. I have to offer three times. Does anyone else wish to come forward to speak to an item not on the agenda?
It's And third time, anyone wishing to come forward to speak on something not on the agenda. Seeing none, we'll move on to the uh >> Oh, Mr. Chair. >> business of public hearing on the Marketplace Planned Unit Development Plan Amendment.
>> Mr. Chair, I just before we get into that, I you're kind of moving really quick. I I just want to make sure that we hit all the agenda items here, the the approval of the agenda and approval of minutes. >> We passed both of those. >> Okay, I'm sorry. >> That's not not having the >> speakers back, I could barely hear you,
too. >> Okay. As you were, sorry. >> Okay. Uh again, public hearing on the Oakdale Marketplace Planned Unit Development Plan Amendment. >> Yes, thank you, Chair. So, good evening, Commissioners. The city attorney is
advising that the Oakdale Marketplace Planned Unit Development Plan Amendment be tabled to the July 9th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Uh the Commission should open the public hearing this evening, receive any public comments, and approve a motion to continue the
hearing until July 9th. So, that is the next uh Planning Commission meeting that's uh getting rescheduled, too. Uh the Commission should refrain from any discussion about the amendment until the July 9th meeting. We'll do a a formal staff presentation at that time.
Provide you with a more information on this item. Uh so, the motion should be as follows. Motion to continue the public hearing for the Oakdale Marketplace Planned Unit Development Plan Amendment until the Oakdale Planning Commission meeting on July 9th, 2026.
>> Someone want to make such a motion? >> You want to have open forum first? >> Yes. Uh so, Mr. Chair, if you open the public hearing, but make sure you do not close the public hearing, please. >> [snorts] >> Leave it open for today. >> Yes, for the next time. >> Okay. I will open the public hearing
right now. Anyone wishing to make comment? And going to the motion, then. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to continue the public hearing of the Oakdale Marketplace Planned Unit Development Plan Amendment until the Oakdale
Planning Commission meeting on July 9th, 2026. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion is tabled. Uh public hearing on Cronk, 6966
40th Street North, conditional use permit for an oversized accessory building. Next. >> Thank you, Chair and Commissioners, and good evening. Um before you tonight is a request for a conditional use permit uh for the Cronk
family, located at 6966 40th Street North. This is a conditional use permit for an oversized accessory structure, in this case a shed. This is located on 40th Street, a little less than a quarter mile west of the Hadley and 40th intersection. The
property is 1.3 acres and contains a single-family home, and previously contained a shed as well. The zoning is R2 low-density housing, where second sheds uh and oversized sheds are allowed through the conditional use permit process.
The applicant here is looking to add an oversized accessory structure, uh a shed. Per the city code, um these are permitted uh one up to 200 square feet by right, and larger sheds are permitted through this
conditional use permit process. So, here we have the site plan for the applicant to add a shed. The applicant plans to use the shed primarily for personal storage. As you can see, the shed would be located northeast of the existing home, more than 60 feet from
the front property line. The shed would be 920 square feet in size, 320 of which would be a covered patio area. There is an existing power easement on the approximately eastern 75 feet of the property.
Under the applicant's plans, the building would be placed 10 feet outside of the easement, ensuring there are no encroachments. Based on the site plan, the building would meet all relevant setbacks for an accessory structure in the R2 district, including the 30-foot requirement from
the front lot line and 5 feet from other lot lines. Here we have the dimensions for the proposed shed. The shed would be approximately 46 feet by 20 feet with a 16 by 20 covered patio. The criteria for conditional use permits
requires that oversized accessory structures be under 1,500 square feet in size. Based on these proposed dimensions, this requirement is met. Here we have the elevations for the proposed shed. Based on the elevations, the building
would be approximately 11 feet tall with a 7-foot tall door. Under the city code, no individual door can exceed 10 feet in height, and the structure itself cannot exceed 25 feet in height. Based on these renderings, these requirements are met.
The city code also states that a property owner may not have more than one additional oversized accessory structure via the conditional use permit process. This is the applicant's first request, so this requirement is met.
Here we have a rendering of the proposed structure, showing the covered patio as well as the general building. And as a the uh use permits are subject to certain review criteria found in the city's ordinance.
Here is a summary of the review criteria that we must use in our evaluation of the application. Compliance with the comprehensive plan, compatibility of the use with surrounding zoning, no nuisance effects being generated, no traffic congestion or parking issues,
the use must be adequately served by public services, no excessive costs shall be incurred for public services or infrastructure, and minimal impacts to the natural environment. Specific review criteria for oversized accessory structures include the
following. The lot cannot be further subdivided without the building while the building is on site. No pole barn construction is permitted. No door may exceed 10 ft in height. No commercial or industrial uses may occur within the structure. The
structure may not exceed 1,500 sq ft in size. The structure may not exceed 25 ft in height. And the parcel must not have more than one additional private garage or accessory structure. Staff finds that the conditional use
permit review criteria of the ordinance has been satisfied as detailed in the staff report on file. Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to the following. Um to the following conditions. The applicant shall obtain a building permit.
The structure shall be set back at least 5 ft from rear and side property lines and kept out of easements. The structure shall not exceed 920 sq ft. The structure shall not exceed 25 ft in height. The structure shall not be used as a
dwelling unit. Garage doors shall not exceed 10 ft in height. And no commercial activity shall occur within the structure. As a reminder, this is a public hearing and the applicant is here with us in attendance. I want to note as well that we did receive one formal written
comment in opposition to the request, which has been shared ahead of time with the commission. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions from the commission. >> Thank you, Max. Does anyone have questions for Max directly? No? It's a public hearing, so at this point
I'll open the public hearing for comments upon this issue. Please state your name and address when you come to the podium. Anyone wishing to make comments, please come forward. >> I'm Shane Cronk, 6966. My name is Shane Cronk, resident at 6966, the one submitting for
approval for the building. As you have mentioned, there was a complaint submitted and I do admit that I put the horse in front of the cart and I did start moving land. It was a misunderstanding on my part, but if I would have dig deeper, I would
have found out that I should not have done that before approval. So, while it was a mistake, I do take full responsibility and if I need to incur a further payment or anything along those lines, I do take responsibility for my actions.
>> Any further comments on the building structure and what you're doing? >> No comments on the building was covered great by Max. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much then. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else have any comments or
uh comments to make on this issue? Third time? Anybody have any issues or comments to make on on this issue? See none, I will close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission. Any further comments from anyone?
>> No. >> Then I will be looking for a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for an oversized accessory building at 6966 40th Street North. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye.
>> Aye. >> All those opposed? Seeing none, motion passes. Uh go on to the Energy Conservatory, 403 Hayward Avenue North site plan amendment. >> Thank you, Chair. The location of this request is 403
Hayward Avenue North, located just east of the 4th Street bridge over 694. And the zoning here is B3 light industrial. So, what we're looking at here is the Energy Conservatory is seeking approval for a site plan amendment to allow a new
1,140 square foot standalone building just southeast of their existing building. The new building would be used as a training center uh for participants to learn how to perform energy audits, weatherization techniques, and building
testing technologies. The new building would partly resemble a small walk-up apartment building uh with incomplete mock apartment units to provide realistic trainings for energy efficiency treatments where they can control uh energy leaks, air leaks uh
for their students. The existing building is approximately 25,000 square feet in size. If you recall, the Energy Conservatory previously requested and had approved a site plan amendment in September of last year for a building addition for the
same purpose. They would have built this mock apartment structure within the addition. In an effort to provide more realistic conditions for the testing facility, the applicant is now requesting a detached standalone building rather than a building addition.
Uh Uh, from the comprehensive plan for the city, the subject property is designated for industrial office where these uses are permitted. Here we have the applicant's site plan. Uh, you can see that it's very similar to what was approved last September and it shows the original footprint there
and takes up a smaller footprint than the approved addition from September. In general, uh, no new curb cuts or accesses are being proposed and the addition would replace a portion of the existing turf on site and parking lot.
The existing parking lot for the site is 97 spaces. As part of this addition, four spaces would be removed bringing it to 93 spaces which is well above the city's requirement of 69 spaces. As an industrial building, at least 50%
of the addition would have to be made of class one materials. The addition as shown is primarily glass and brick veneer, uh, which meets this requirement. No free new free standing lights are proposed and trash will continue to be handled internally.
The applicant will need to provide a photometric plan at time of building permit if approved, uh, for lighting compliance. For landscaping, um, three trees would be disturbed uh, which does not meet the 25% of on site trees threshold for tree
preservation. Uh, so no tree preservation requirements would be prompted. And setbacks, uh, for this district are 20 ft uh, from property lines. Based on the provided plans, this requirement is met.
Here we have elevations for the building. You can see the majority of the building would be brick veneer and glass, again meeting class one requirements. It's worth noting that the north and east elevations more closely resemble a walk-up apartment building.
These elevations are placed intentionally as to not front uh public streets. This is intended to keep the uh residential appearance um facing away from public view and keeping the site more industrial office in character.
The south and west elevations, which do face public streets, are more institutional in appearance. Those are the bottom two there. It's worth noting that staff was originally concerned with the structure being used for residential living uh when we received an early concept.
However, the applicant's plan show that the units are for educational purposes and would not be habitable and lack some features associated with legal dwelling units. To address this concern, um staff has however added two conditions, one preventing further subdivision of the
property uh while the structure remains, and one prohibiting the use of the structure for residential dwelling units. Here we have a comparison of the site plan uh as approved in September and the current proposal for the detached structure.
Uh that's the one on the right. You can see that it's smaller and shorter in comparison to what was approved. Here we have a 3D rendering of the building shown facing south from the existing building. Um one note, we have not received information on rooftop equipment yet, so
additional rooftop screening information will be needed. Staff finds that the request complies with the zoning ordinance subject to certain conditions being met. Um staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: Approval of the civil
construction's plans by the city engineer. The building shall not be used for dwelling purposes. The parcel of land shall not be subdivided as long as the additional building is situated on the property. Providing details on the methods of
screening for any rooftop utilities. Providing a photometric plan. Permits and approvals must be obtained from all applicable outside government agencies. And that concludes the conditions. As a reminder, this is not a public hearing
as a site plan amendment. But I'm happy to answer any questions regarding this request. Unfortunately, the applicant was not able to join us tonight. Thank you. >> Yeah, thank you, Max. Anyone have any questions for Max on this? >> No.
>> Just one real quick one. The distance from the walkway on 4th Street to the edge of the building, what is that approximately? I know the setback is 30 ft 4 but I'm not too sure where that setback
is, that line is, the property line. So, I'm just trying to cuz I look at the parking lot and the number of spaces and how much it eats up based upon the building being 35 ft 48 ft from the existing building.
So, I just have a little more of a curiosity. >> Um thank you, Commissioner. We're in the process of pulling up some aerials to take a look at that. Um I believe that the walking path is situated in the right-of-way and not on the applicant's property.
>> It's got to be this certain setback away from it. It's okay. >> Yep, it would be um 20 ft from the property line and closer to 50 ft from the trail {slash} sidewalk. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any further questions?
Uh I think I just lost where I had my the motion. Someone have the motion in front of them on that page? >> Yeah. Thank you, Anna. >> Motion to recommend approval of the site plan amendment at 403 Hayward Avenue North.
>> So moved. >> Second the second. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Those opposed? Seeing none, motion passes. The site plan amendment bill passes. Uh staff liaison update.
>> Thank you, chair. So, not a ton of updates on on our side at the moment, but the July Planning Commission meeting will be shifted from the 2nd to the 9th because of the 4th of July holiday. We have a couple applications uh that we will present at that July 9th Planning
Commission meeting. But besides that, uh have a great 4th of July. Thank you. >> Any commissioner updates? Anyone have any updates? >> Really? >> Seeing none, council liaison. >> Good evening, everyone.
Uh just a couple things for you that I'm sure you're all aware of, but I'll mention them anyway. The uh the new public works facility was opened. We had the grand opening uh a couple weeks ago. Uh beautiful facility. Um and the city hall and police uh department building is now been closed,
and those services have been moved throughout uh the city to different areas. So, if you need city services, I'd recommend you go to the city uh website and you'll be able to locate where services are now being offered that were previously in the city hall. Police department, by the way, is at
fire station 2 on 15th Street now for temporarily. So, construction will begin on the uh the city hall uh renovation and the police department expansion very soon. I think they're putting up fences already. The other thing I'd mention, which I'm sure you're aware of, is uh Summerfest is coming up uh later on this month, and
I I encourage you all to partake in the some of those activities. Um we're going to have a parade this year. It's going to be a a larger parade, I think, on Saturday. So, I would encourage you to uh to attend that as well. It's really all I got. Any questions for me? >> Any questions for the
Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. Brings us to adjournment. >> Motion to adjourn. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Those opposed? We stand adjourned.