City Council Workshop

WORKSHOP MINUTES OAKDALE CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 28, 2025 The City Council held a workshop on Tuesday, January 28, 2025 at Oakdale City Hall, 1584 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota. The meeting began at 5:00 PM. Present: Mayor Kevin Zabel Council Members: Kari Moore Andy Morcomb Gary Severson Susan Willenbring City Staff Members: Christina Volkers, City Administrator Sara Ludwig, City Clerk Brian Bachmeier, Consulting City Engineer Hannah Dunn, Community Development Specialist Jake Foster, Assistant City Administrator Andy Gitzlaff, Community Development Director Melanie Lee, Human Resources Director Max Lohse, Community Development Specialist Luke McClanahan, City Planner Nick Newton, Police Chief Lori Pulkrabek, Communications Manager Kyle Stasica, Finance Director Julie Williams, Recreation Superintendent Kevin Wold, Fire Chief Others Present: Jeff Miller, Senior Associate, HKGi ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE UPDATE PROJECT City Planner Luke McClanahan briefly recalled the project timeline and stated that this discussion is a continuation from the November 12, 2024 Workshop. He went over the items of discussion which will include the community engagement results, summary of proposed zoning district changes, exterior design standards, and tree preservation. Community Development Specialist Max Lohse gave an overview on the community engagement survey results which received 202 responses. Mr. McClanahan moved on to the proposed zoning district changes. As it relates to only allowing 1-unit dwellings in R1, Mayor Zabel asked for the reasoning behind this decision, especially if 2-unit dwellings are allowed on smaller parcels. Mr. Lohse stated that the City must consider how any potential zoning adjustments might be received by the community especially if there is longstanding history and preservation values tied to WORKSHOP MINUTES JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE TWO certain parcels. Mayor Zabel questioned whether this is a compelling interest of the City to limit the R1 District to single-family use only. Council Member Moore asked Mr. Lohse to expand upon his previous comments. Mr. Lohse explained that, from the perspective of a resident, proposing changes to the zoning laws could be seen as altering the traditional character of a neighborhood. Going back to Mayor Zabel’s original question, Jeff Miller, Senior Associate with HKGi, the City’s consultant for the Zoning Code Update project, said the scope of the current project did not initially plan to fully explore changes to R1, but to accomplish Mayor Zabel’s suggestion, the Comprehensive Plan may need to be amended first. Community Development Director Andy Gitzlaff added that the proposed changes to R2 and R3 will allow for more types of housing, but if Council desires to address R1 then staff could adjust the timeline for the zoning code changes accordingly. Council Member Morcomb questioned whether a change is necessary given the lack of resident inquiries for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in R1. Mayor Zabel pointed out that allowing ADUs by right would reduce hurdles for residents. Ultimately, the Council determined that this issue will be revisited in the future. Mr. Lohse summarized the proposed changes to the tree preservation section which include clearer, more straightforward language, in an attempt to simplify the tree preservation requirements. In response to Council Member Morcomb’s question about the feedback from the Planning Commission and the Tree Board, Mr. Lohse noted that there were concerns about residents cutting down trees on their property without replacing them. Staff had concerns about the expense for the homeowners and logistic challenges for staff to enforce if a tree replacement requirement is established for this situation. Council Member Morcomb suggested that if a major development or significant home improvement happens, in which fifty percent or more of the livable space is expanded, then the developer or homeowner should be required to make changes that benefit the community, such as preserving trees. Council Members Severson and Willenbring agreed. Council Member Moore pointed out that there are likely environmental impacts from removing trees such as stormwater runoff issues. Mayor Zabel added that there are financial impacts as well such as a decrease in property value. Mayor Zabel clarified that the current ordinance does not require a resident to replace a tree on their property unless a grading permit or building permit is required. The Council was supportive of staff researching other cities’ ordinances to determine a threshold for the tree replacement requirements and develop draft language for Council review. WORKSHOP MINUTES JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE THREE Mr. Miller went over the existing exterior design standards and asked whether additional surface materials should be allowed considering things like appearance, durability, and environmental impacts. Mr. Gitzlaff indicated that a separate, regularly updated list that categorizes materials into Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3, could be updated every year or two by the Development Review Committee (DRC) and live outside the zoning code, likely on the City’s website. Council Member Morcomb was supportive of a list of allowable and prohibited materials. Mr. Miller shared photo examples of exterior building materials and asked whether they should be added to the allowable materials list. The Council was supportive of a broader list especially including the materials identified in the presentation – architectural metal wall panel systems, fiber cement wall panel systems, veneer masonry wall systems, and exterior insulation and finish systems (EIFS). Being that the list of prohibited materials is likely smaller, the Council was supportive of staff developing a prohibited materials list for their review. The Council was also supportive of not having a maximum percentage for metal materials on buildings. Regarding granting more flexibility on material requirements for higher floors and facades that are not visible from the public right-of-way, the Council was supportive of adding language that would allow averaging to meet the percentage requirement. In response to Council Member Moore’s question about why the current language is written as is, Mayor Zabel indicated he believed it had to do with aesthetic preferences. Council Member Willenbring’s preference is to avoid lengthy, unnecessary discussions by updating the zoning code with built-in flexibility for developers. It was suggested that additional Workshop time would be needed to discuss the proposed parking requirements and other proposed zoning districts – R2, R3, and R4. VACATION AND SICK LEAVE TO PAID TIME OFF (PTO) TRANSITION INITIATIVE – REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR INITIATIVE & PROGRAM OUTLINE Human Resources Director Melanie Lee sought feedback from the Council on a proposed initiative that would allow employees to transition their sick and vacation time into Paid Time Off (PTO). Currently, employees hired after 2013 already are under the PTO leave policy, but this proposal would extend the option to other employees, both represented and non- represented, who are still using the older sick and vacation leave policy. City Administrator Chris Volkers noted that a buyout cost estimate, broken down by employee groups, will be provided to the Council. In response to Mayor Zabel’s question about a funding source for this initiative, Ms. Volkers indicated vacancy savings is planned to be used. WORKSHOP MINUTES JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE FOUR Mayor Zabel’s preference would be to have a dedicated funding source that can be easily tracked. In response to Council Member Willenbring’s question about how long this transition will take until completed, Ms. Volkers estimated 3-4-5 years. Council Member Moore pointed out the personnel costs related to maintaining two separate leave programs. The Council agreed to set aside $50,000 in the Special Project Fund in which Ms. Volkers can draw out of as this option is offered per the program document and only for those employees who voluntarily transition to the PTO program. DISCUSS AMENDMENTS RELATED TO CITY POLICY PE-014: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT – MILEAGE AND TRAINING, AND ASSOCIATED COSTS Ms. Lee stated that the City’s auditor recommended updating the City’s travel policy. The main goals for the update are to simplify the language, reorder sections for better clarity, and shift to a per diem (a set daily allowance) for meals and incidentals instead of requiring employees to submit receipts. In response to Council Member Morcomb’s question about how many staff have a City vehicle, Ms. Lee said they are in the process of reviewing this information. Additionally, a process will be established to track and audit mileage reimbursement. Ms. Volkers added that she has the authority to determine if staff is eligible to use a City vehicle. Council Member Morcomb suggested adding language related to this audit process for future staff. Regarding proposed Section 6.0, Mayor Zabel asked for clarity on the time and reimbursable mileage spent traveling to and from a training session or conference. Ms. Lee explained that IRS regulations stipulate the travel time and reimbursable mileage would be calculated to and from City Hall. FALL CLEAN UP EVENT Community Development Specialist Hannah Dunn provided a quick recap of the 2024 Fall Clean Up Event and asked for direction on the next Clean Up Event. Mayor Zabel suggested establishing a fixed day in the month of September like the third Saturday each year. After a brief discussion about whether the event should take place in the spring or fall, it was decided that the 2025 event would take place on the third Saturday in September. The Council and staff were open to both options, with a potential to adjust timing based on vendor availability and community needs. Council Member Moore expressed support for having household hazardous waste as part of the Fall Clean Up Event. Staff will reach out to Washington County and share the event date, WORKSHOP MINUTES JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE FIVE but if they are unavailable to participate then Council was open to a standalone drop off event on the third Saturday in September. Council was supportive of keeping the fees as is, but Mayor Zabel suggested that credit card payment be an option moving forward. Regarding the need for traffic control, it was determined that there is not a need for it this year. Ms. Volkers confirmed that the funding source will be Public Works carryforwards. Mayor Zabel complimented Ms. Dunn for her work on the 2024 event. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS – CURRENT ZONING AND PUD’S VERSUS UPCOMING NEW ZONING ORDINANCE Mr. Gitzlaff indicated that there has been a notable increase in development inquiries and staff is looking to streamline the process and seek high-level clarity that can help guide developers prior to concept plan presentation to the Council. Regarding the appropriateness of a planned unit development (PUD), Mayor Zabel stated that the PUD is a tool used to address complex projects where multiple uses or needs must be incorporated. It is most appropriate when the City needs to bind together multiple types of uses in a coherent and planned way. He continued, the City has shown flexibility in evolving its zoning code to meet market demands such as adjusting setback requirements and lot widths, so at times, it can seem like the developer is asking for more than is necessary, with a PUD request. Council Member Morcomb expressed concern about a PUD being used in a way that benefits the developer more than the community. Council Member Willenbring pointed out that the developer is investing a significant amount of money in the community and the City should be flexible. At this time, developers have to pay for a variance or PUD amendment in order to have flexibility from the conventional zoning standards. Mr. Gitzlaff highlighted the differences between conventional zoning and PUDs, noting a PUD is often used to address unique geographical features, like wetlands or open space, or private streets or utilities, which cannot be addressed by conventional zoning. Ms. Volkers referenced the current language in the City of Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 25, Article 16, Sec. 25-266, which explains the intent and purpose of a PUD. Mayor Zabel noted that many of the same objectives, though it may not meet the level developers want in terms of maximizing units or avoiding certain challenges (e.g., wetlands), could be met WORKSHOP MINUTES JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE SIX through conventional zoning. He added that reasonable flexibility should be applied across all zoning districts, not just in special cases like PUDs. Mr. Gitzlaff touched on the concept of balancing trade-offs when it comes to PUDs, where developers might gain flexibility in exchange for public benefits, such as preserving environmental features or offering more amenities in certain areas. In response to Council Member Willenbring’s question about whether the Council is deciding to use PUDs altogether or not, Mayor Zabel clarified that staff is seeking additional clarity on how PUDs should be used. Ms. Volkers added that the current ordinance language is vague and could lead to confusion for developers, who might interpret it differently. She suggested changing the language to provide clearer guidelines for when PUDs can be used. Mayor Zabel was under the impression that the issue is more about Council’s intent than clarity within the ordinance itself. Referencing the proposed 9th St residential development, Council Member Morcomb inquired about whether a unique lot configuration could necessitate a PUD. Mr. Gitzlaff explained that early on the development team faced difficulties with conventional zoning due to the layout of the lots, which did not allow for proper turnarounds. In this instance, a PUD would incorporate a private driveway off a cul-de-sac to serve four lots, addressing this issue. He continued, staff discussed with the developer whether this could be done under the new zoning code, avoiding the need for a private road while still allowing for the desired lot configuration. The aim was to test if the new zoning code could accommodate the development without relying on a PUD. Mayor Zabel noted that the developer would like to build more units than conventional zoning allows; however, building fewer homes would allow them to stay within the current zoning ordinance. In response to Council Member Willenbring’s question about why he is opposed to a PUD for the 9th St residential development, Mayor Zabel stated that reasonable adjustments have been made to the conventional zoning code to accommodate market demands, but at some point, there needs to be a limit to these changes, or else conventional zoning would lose its purpose, and everything would default to PUDs. Council Member Willenbring was supportive of flexibility in general, and also with the 9th St residential development. Council Member Morcomb said that while the conventional zoning code should apply to large, cohesive communities, exceptions might be made for smaller, more unique situations like this one. Council Member Severson agreed. In response to Council Member Moore’s inquiry of staff’s professional opinion, Mr. McClanahan noted that PUDs were originally created as a tool to provide flexibility in situations where there are unique site constraints, such as wetlands, easements, or other environmental or physical challenges, but have since expanded to allow for mixing different types of land uses (residential, commercial, etc.) in the same area. WORKSHOP MINUTES JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE SEVEN In response to Mayor Zabel’s question about what benefit a PUD would provide to the 9th St residential development that current R4 would not, Mr. McClanahan indicated that an early proposal included a private street, which would not be allowed under the conventional zoning code. Touching on a previous concept plan – Eberhard Site – the general feedback from Council was that a PUD would not be appropriate for this development. Council Member Moore indicated that it is important to offer diverse housing options to cater to different preferences and needs, particularly in this case, younger people or those who may not want large homes and yards. Council Member Willenbring stated that setting PUD parameters for staff, in advance of seeing a concept plan, is not achievable as every development is different. Mayor Zabel recapped his opinion that PUDs will remain a development option used primarily in cases where external factors like environmental constraints or other unique conditions require more flexibility than what conventional zoning can provide. The Council was generally supportive of PUDs as noted above. WORKSHOP RECESSED FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 6:54 PM WORKSHOP RECONVENED AT 7:49 PM after the Regular City Council Meeting ADMINISTRATOR UPDATE Ms. Volkers brought up an uncharacteristically high resident water bill, and asked the Council if they are supportive of staff’s approach to resolve the situation and collect payment. Mayor Zabel clarified that the only formal process known to him to resolve an outstanding utility balance is the certification of delinquent utility accounts to Washington County for inclusion on property taxes. Finance Director Kyle Stasica confirmed that no utility customer is on a payment plan nor does the City offer that as an option. In response to Mayor Zabel’s question about an appeal process for utility customers, City Attorney Jim Thomson explained that the appeal process for a commodity bill is not administrative, but can happen through the Council during Open Forum, or at the public hearing when the delinquent accounts are being certified to Washington County. If the utility customer is still not satisfied then they can pursue further action through small claims court. The Council was supportive of staff’s approach to follow the standard process of certifying the delinquent utility account to Washington County for inclusion on property taxes, with the WORKSHOP MINUTES JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE EIGHT understanding that the resident is welcome to address the Council on the matter during Open Forum. Ms. Volkers reported that the restroom building for Willowbrooke Park West will not be constructed until spring 2026, but other aspects of the park will be completed as planned in fall 2025. Regarding Council name badges, Ms. Volkers stated she is putting in an order if anyone needs another one. Council Members Moore and Morcomb indicated they need one. Mayor Zabel requested that the Oakdale Area Chamber of Commerce make a name badge for each Oakdale Council Member. Ms. Volkers confirmed that the tree lighting event will be merged with the Firetruck Santa event and likely will take place on the first Thursday in December. COUNCIL TOPICS Council Member Morcomb noted that the Parks and Recreation Commissioners will be doing ice rink tours on February 1st and 8th in an attempt to seek feedback from residents. Secondly, Council Member Morcomb shared his priority list for 2025, and encouraged other Council Members to share their priorities with Ms. Volkers to help determine which projects should be prioritized. Regarding Ms. Volkers’ annual performance review, Mayor Zabel suggested with concurrence of Ms. Volkers that a broader, more open discussion be done this year, to which the Council agreed. He continued, the topics of discussion, and format (open versus closed) will be finalized prior to the meeting which is slated for the second meeting in March. Ms. Volkers will send out the 2024 goals and her employment contract ahead of the meeting, along with last year’s summary of her closed session performance review. Mayor Zabel brought up the scheduling and logistics of the annual Touch a Truck event, raising the question whether it should be moved from a Tuesday Council night. The Council was open to moving the event, keeping it separate from the Ladders and Squads event, but asked that the Executive Team discuss options for alternative dates. Ms. Volkers stated she would report back after the discussion. ADJOURNMENT The workshop was adjourned at 8:18 PM. Respectfully submitted, Sara Ludwig, City Clerk