Welcome to the June 28th, 2026 Planning
Commission meeting. If all commissioners
would please mute your microphone until
it is your turn to speak, that would be
appreciated. Members of the public may
join using a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or
Android device. Members of the public
can access the meeting online at the
city's website. The public can ask
questions and provide comments online
during the meeting by using the link to
the virtual meeting to join in
submitting questions via the question
and answer feature within the meeting.
Please include your name and address
when submitting a question or comment.
Questions regarding this meeting can
also be asked during regular business
hours at city hall.
If you are a member of the public and
wish to speak on a topic in person,
please fill out one of the yellow forms
at the back of the room and provide that
sheet to staff. All questions, both
online and in person, will be called on
after the project and reference is
presented. With that, we will call the
meeting to order. Staff, will you start
the roll call, please?
>> Thank you, chair. Jim Gentiel,
>> present.
>> Jake Guzzek,
>> here.
>> Marsha Kennedy,
>> here. John Colllum,
Stephanie Swanson
>> here,
>> Saurin Shaw
>> here,
>> Shay Sebrooks
>> here,
>> Jazelle Parnell
>> here,
>> Rianne Hole
>> here.
>> Chair, we have a quorum.
>> All right. Thank you. The first item on
the agenda is the Bailey West
development comprehensive plan reszoning
and preliminary plat project number 1
19-2025-0000600
and Eric take it away. Thank you, Chair.
Bailey Nurseries has submitted an
application for a comprehensive plan
amendment, a resoning, and a preliminary plat for their project,
which measures approximately 185 acres.
The property is located to the north
side of Bailey Road and to the west of
New Life Academy. The Bailey's own close
to 300 acres spread across Maplewood,
Woodbury, and Newport. Uh the cities
have worked closely together and
collaboratively through the development
review process to evaluate things like
site access, storm water management, and
project timing.
The Bailey master plan was in front of
the planning commission at the previous
planning commission meeting and the
council did approve the master plan at
their June 24th meeting. The uh items on
the screen were a were components of the
master plan. And it is important to note
that one of the modifications that
council gave during the council uh
review and approval of the master plan
was related to the review and future
review of the connection of Century
Avenue. And I'll touch on that a little
bit further, but council did make an
amendment to the master plan that that
connection would be reviewed as part of
the 2050 comprehensive plan
transportation section review as well as
review of uh the adjacent development
review process. So, um the master plan
will now show some dotted lines that
show that that's a future determination.
In front of the planning commission this
evening is a request for a land use
change of our 2040 comprehensive plan.
On the lefth hand side of the screen is
the existing land use which identifies
mixed use and places to work. On the
right hand side is the proposed land use
and you'll see the mixed use is really
kind of wrapping now that public
semi-public use. The public semi-public
use is uh accommodating the future
expansion for sports activities and
recreation activities for New Life
Academy. And so that change would be to
public semi-public from a land use
standpoint. The city of Woodbury
utilizes two findings generally speaking
for to support a change to the
comprehensive plan. Either a mistake was
made designating the property or times
and conditions have changed. In this
case, times and conditions have changed.
Uh, and that is related to the
acquisition by New Life Academy. At the
time of the 2040 plan, it was unknown
that New Life would be looking to make
that acquisition. And with their close
proximity to this, it does make sense to
support a change. Furthermore, the
comprehensive plan does provide guidance
within their guiding principles
regarding promoting excellence in
education. and furthermore that
excellence in education is part of the
core values, quality of life and
identity of Woodbury.
Due to the land use change, a
modification for zoning is also
necessary through the resoning process.
the resoning request uh a chain a
modification to B3 for the retail area
up against Bailey Road and the R4 zoning
for the residential future uh projects.
As you'll see, the area on the far north
continues to be business campus district
and that is because we're not proceeding
with the zoning or land use changes that
would be coming post adoption of the
2050 comprehensive plan. Again,
future development reviews for this
overall project will uh be reviewed by
the planning and commission and city
council um as more information is noted
and as detailed development applications
are made. This approach was previously
utilized in for city place development,
the Benberg gardens and in the northeast
area. So again, in the future, the
planning commission will have the
opportunity likely through either the
site and building plan process, uh
potentially the conditional use permit
process to evaluate things like design,
site flow, parking setbacks,
architectural designs for the individual
projects. That information is not known
as part of this application.
As we look at the prelim preliminary
plat, we'll notice one lot, one property
is being platted into lots and block.
That's for New Life Academy. The others
will be identified in more of a broad
area as outlots and will be replplatted
in the future as project specifics are
known. So there will be a future
platting activity as developments are
reviewed in the future. The pedestrian
movements are very similar to what you
saw in the master plan. Movements along
Century Avenue from a trail standpoint
as well as sidewalk connections
throughout the future development areas.
Uh as a reminder to the planning
commission uh within the master plan, it
did identify that additional connections
from a sidewalk standpoint would occur
in the future retail area and likely in
within the future multifamily to connect
to these pedestrian spines that run
along the future private drive and
Century Avenue.
As identified previously, this is a
multi-phase project with the first phase
including site grading, utility
construction, and the construction of a
portion of Century Avenue that's shown
in the the box on the screen or the
dashed box on the screen. So, the
Century Avenue would only be constructed
to that point at this time. And again,
as directed by the city council, further
evaluation would occur on Century
Avenue, further to the north of that as
part of the 2050 comprehensive plan
process.
A regional storm water approach uh is
provided as part of this application.
The largest basin is to the west of
future Century Avenue or the alignment
of that roadway. Again, Sentry would
terminate in this location that will
provide the vast majority of storm water
management for the site. You'll notice a
small basin. This is more of an interim
basin to uh address storm water flows
through the site in advance of
development of the residential area to
the north in the future. Also shown the
third area is on the existing New Life
campus and some light grading that's
occurring. That's to prepare for future
expansion and it allows for an efficient
construction as well as managing some of
the um excess material on site and
allowing for for balancing of material
uh throughout the site area from a
grading standpoint.
There are a number of access points that
are designed to meet the needs for this
improvement. A detailed traffic study
was conducted as part of this project.
There will be some level of
signalization at access point B uh as
reviewed and approved by Washington
County as well as turn light
improvements. There's a secondary access
that will serve the uh future uh
industrial park with located within the
city of Newport located at access point
A. Access point C is a private drive
connection to the existing New Life can
uh campus. Access point D again is the
terminus of those phase one
improvements. It is identified within
the master plan that there is a
connection at Chamberlain Road as part
of access point F. That would be
carefully designed to ensure that this
is a connectivity connection, not uh a
throughway into Chamberlain. So really
looking at connectivity versus moving
traffic through the community. And
again, not to be redundant, but it is
important for the record to identify
that the improvements within A or area E
uh will be evaluated through that 2050
plan and is not identified at this uh
time to be constructed with this review.
And with that, staff recommends approval
of the comprehensive plan amendment
resoning and plunary plat for the Bailey
West project. and the applicant is on
hand for any questions.
>> Would the applicant like to add anything
at this time?
» Hi, uh Mark Kick of Alliance
Engineering. Um glad to be here. Um want
to thank staff for all their help with
everything getting us to this point. We
have a number of team members here to
field any questions you have, but
nothing to add right now. So, thank you
though.
All right, thank you for being here. I
do have a couple of yellow sheets. Sorry
if I mixed up the order. We're going to
start with Miss Ellen McPartland.
I hope I pronounced that right.
Please just go ahead and state your name
and address when you get up to the
podium.
Hello, my name is Alan McPartland. I'm
owner of 1135 Century Avenue South. Um,
a 2acre property and home for the last
eight years. Um, I moved here after
living out of state and I was previously
a Lowertown St. Paul resident where I
actually led their Lowertown master plan
task force which passed through the St.
post city council and during your
planning commission meeting this evening
I want to remind you and urge you to in
tonight's discussions and more
importantly in the future to remove the
second phase of Century Avenue South
expansion of your on your plans and in
your discussions um in Woodbury's you
know as Eric mentioned uh in Woodberry's
June 24th city council meeting they were
unified in and responsive in putting a
dis distinct pause and clause on that
road extension. All debated on the city
council and deliberately deliberately
called this portion out as not approved
until further deliberation and study for
the 2050 plan. This topic resulted in a
lengthy 10-minute discussion of the
Woodbury City Council at that meeting.
Um just one moment. Um there we urged
them not to approve the 2040 master plan
to include the Century extension pushing
through to the road on Century without
additional studies. Traffic, noise,
pollution, runoff studies were
insufficient, we believe, um and not
considering specifics of the area.
Carver Lake is protected water under the
Minnesota DNR designation 820166P,
I believe, and other factors. we were
successful uh in the removal of that
reference. Uh so thank you to the city
council for that and I just want to make
sure that is uh clearly stated by the
community. So re to reiterate we haven't
heard a lot of discussion or plan
activities in concrete terms probably
because of the timing but of the
alternative streets to century avenue
south uh the second phase um except on
the city council meeting. So, I urge the
planning commission to continue to more
deeply consider these issues in the
future. And if that's the 2050 plan,
then that's that's so be it. But, uh,
traffic and noise and safety are an
issue on that street. And anyone who
goes down it would would agree. Um, this
is one of my biggest concerns and a game
changer for everyday lives in the area
for lake visitors and for residents. all
and more importantly protecting the
long-term health of Carver Lake. The
pollution, the runoff, erosion, Carver
Lake is that in that designated
protective water area, traffic pollution
negatively impacts the lake through
atmosphere, storm water runoff,
shoreline disturbance. Our lake is
already vulnerable to blue algae and
chlorides. It's a small lake and along
with noise pollution, the atmosphere of
the area and the health of our lake can
change drastically over time. So, please
continue to keep this in mind uh for the
good of the project. Century Avenue
South land use and more most
importantly, Carver Lake. Thank you for
your time and consideration.
>> Thank you, Ellen. Next, we're going to
hear from Roger Anderson.
Good evening. Thanks for the meeting,
letting people know about it. There
wasn't a lot of notice
previous. I just got my first notice.
Oh, uh
the last meeting they had, I got it in
the mail that day for this meeting was
which was what? Friday, Thursday,
whatever it was. So, not a lot of uh for
notice for the people on the road and I
think only a few of us got the letter a
few in Woodbury. Me, cuz I border it,
first address in Maplewood.
So, all the people down around Central
Avenue, nobody had any notice or sent
any letters. Nobody. Ramsey County
obviously is on deaf ears in Maplewood.
But I haven't seen anybody or heard from
anybody in Maplewood showing up to these
meetings. They weren't in the ones in
Newport and they apparently don't really
care that much about what's going on
with this. But this option of Centure
Avenue is they had a planner here at the
meeting. She said it's not a viable
thing. It's there's no way to widen the
street or put sidewalks. You're right on
the lake once you get to the bottom of
the hill.
going up to the park is a
really steep grade and wintertime
you may have a truck go down that in the
winter time. They never come back and go
try to go up it or down it. There's
always cars
stuck there. They abandon them. They
leave them in the winter time up against
the guardrail. If you don't have
four-wheel drive in the winter time, if
it's snowing, you're not going up that
hill. It's plowed by the county. Mc
Knight, Carver Avenue, and Century.
That's Ramsey County plows that, not
Woodbury and not Maplewood. So, it's the
farthest street county property road in
Ramsey County. So, the counties in Shore
View. Well, what do you think gets
plowed last? That stretch. So, it's
pretty I've lived there for 26 years, so
I've seen a lot of what's goes on. the
kids racing around the lake, which is
pretty dangerous. It's a beautiful road
to drive with a motorcycle or a hot rod
or whatever,
but it's very dangerous down by the
lake. It's super dangerous.
There's two really good viable options,
which are northeast corner, which is
Jordan Drive, and Carver Park Drive.
They go right through your park. Sure,
you can run a road right through there
and hook up four lanes. You don't have
to worry about blind driveways and a
steep hill to go up and down in the
winter time. And obviously, you got the
Chamberlain, but there's two more roads
up there to the northeast that are
certainly viable. The one Carver Park uh
place or drive that comes in, there's a
path that goes right underneath the high
tension lines and goes into the bark.
There's only two trails there that would
be in affected by it. And that would
come out in that northeast corner.
Jordan Drive and Carver Park Drive are
right there. And there's nothing in that
side of the park. It's all heavily
wooded. Don't think people really care
to walk there cuz it's so dense. It's
pretty creepy, actually. So, it's a
great area to clear out, open it up a
little bit, put some paths, walking
paths and stuff on both sides. put a
sight a pedestrian bridge to go
underneath the road just like they have
for their roundabouts out on Bailey and
13 and put a couple vitox through and
let the traffic over the top and it will
solve your problem. And then on Lake
Road,
it's four lanes. Put your stop lights,
street light there and stop stop lights
there and you have you're not
interfering with any houses because
there are no houses there. There's like
a 100 foot parcel on either side of the
road. There's nothing there except the
path going down into the park. And it's
not heavily. Most people drove to that
park. They drive and go into the park.
They don't walk to the park. So that's
just me. The concerns with the century
is that's crazy. It's just no way you're
running car traffic and semitrs
especially. The road's so beautiful
because there's no trucks on it other
than a garbage truck or somebody doing a
construction project. There's no
semi-traffic there with trailers. So,
it's it's crazy. It's just easy out
because you're only 300 ft from the
property via an easement to get to the
road. So, it's a it's an easy out.
That's what it is. But, it's super
dangerous both ways. You go down the
hill, there's a retaining pond. Me and
my wife helped. A handicap van slid out,
went over the side and down off to the
side almost into the pond. We had to
stop one winter day and help them get
him out of the van and wait for uh
Maplewood paramedics and stuff to come
to get them. So both ways, super
dangerous road in the winter time or
even if it's raining hard. So it's uh
not a good option. So, thank you and
good luck. Whatever you whatever you
plan, even 2050 still crazy. You don't
have you don't have the room
for traffic to around that lake. Just go
up there and drive it in the winter time
when it snows 4 in. Go try and drive up
that hill when it's snowing and see how
you do.
>> Thank you, Roger.
>> You won't you won't get up there.
Thanks.
>> We have one more yellow slip from
Janelle Ericson.
Once I turned 40, I needed these reading
glasses. Okay. Um, hi, good evening. My
name is Janelle Ericson and I live on
Century Avenue South as well at 1160.
Um, I actually I might have Roger Bead.
Um, my parents bought that house in 1973
and um I turned around and bought it a
few years ago, so it's been a while. Um,
first of all, I'd like to thank you all
for um all the time and effort that's
gone into planning this development. Uh,
I understand this is very significant
and I also understand that growth is of
course a part of Woodbury's future. Um,
again, when I was a kid, we had Valley
Creek Mall and that's it. So, I'm not
here tonight to oppose this development,
but I am here to ask you to preserve the
city's flexibility regarding this
specific issue and Century Avenue South
and that potential extension. So, like
Alan mentioned at last week's city
council meeting, uh several residents
expressed concerns about using that as a
primary connection into the future uh
northern development in phase 2. I
watched it on YouTube while I was out of
town attending a work conference and I
saw that council members were open to
exploring alternative access routes. Um
and I appreciate the willingness to
continue that conversation. And as I
read tonight's packet, one statement
stood out to me.
It says that the development of the
northernmost residential area will not
occur until, as Eric said, until further
review as part of the 2050 comprehensive
plan process.
And so, if that area is already being
deferred for future planning, I
respectfully ask, why do we want to just
keep it on the map anyway? So, since the
city council has already expressed uh an
interest in exploring alternatives, I'm
just asking that this plan leave room
for that conversation to continue. Um I
and my neighbors are concerned that once
a roadway appears on this um uh and in
an approved preliminary preliminary
plat, it becomes much more difficult to
consider alternatives later.
So you know, I'm not asking you to
decide where the road should go tonight.
I'm just asking you not to decide that
it has to go there. So please remove
your dotted line. I can't tell if it is
or not because of my terrible eyes, but
um respectfully um you know, please
remove that potential Century Avenue
extension from the preliminary plat or
make any future extension contingent
upon a comprehensive transportation
alternatives analysis as part of that
plan process in 20 for 2050. Um, I
believe that approach supports both
responsible growth and good planning
like you guys are all so thoughtful
about um, in the city of Woodbury
and it allows this development to move
forward while preserving the city's
ability to make the best long-term
decision for everyone. And I hope you
all stayed cool today. Carver Lake Beach
was very crowded and um, yeah, maybe
some of you went swimming. So, go enjoy
the park and thank you for your time and
consideration.
>> No, you receive any Any online?
>> Forgot the button. Did we receive any
online comments?
>> Not at this time, chair.
>> All right, let's open it up to
commissioner comments. And I didn't get
a chance to ask before the meeting, but
our student commissioners are often at
the end. Would you like to go first
today?
» Be bold.
>> All right. Commissioner Hole, go for it.
>> Well, okay. So, looking through
the plan, what is the expected timeline
for each phase of the development?
» Yeah, generally speaking, we do not have
timelines for the development
activities. Uh we do do not have any uh
active development applications in right
now. Uh we are beginning conversations
with me bring up a different plan here.
Uh with some of the multifamily
developers to the north on this area. So
that could begin development as soon as
2027. So next year there was also some
initial conversations on some of the
multifamily apartment you users. So
again that could be 27. The retail has
been uh to the market for some time and
again that could also so from a
expectation side we would expect pending
approval by the planning commission and
city council that land disturbance
grading activities uh sewer and water
activities could occur this summer but
development work would anything going
vertical would likely the earliest would
be 2027.
» Okay. I have no further questions.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Parnell.
>> I also just have one question. Um, as
the future retail area develops, um, is
the city looking for businesses that
primarily serve like the surrounding
neighborhood or is the goal to attract
businesses that bring people from
outside the area as well?
>> I think what uh the ultimate goal and
what likely the market will provide are
the same. And so based on kind of where
this is in the community, it's likely to
be a service retail center. So more
serving the local area, the residential
property both to the north and the south
um within the southern portion of
Woodbury and also those that are
utilizing the Bailey Road corridor are
the likely um users of this retail area.
>> Okay. Yeah. No further questions.
>> All right. Thank you. We're going to go
this way this time. Commissioner C.
Brooks.
>> Thank you, Chair. Um, I'll make it easy
today. I feel like a lot of my questions
were actually answered at our last
meeting, um, when we discussed this
plan. Um, so I actually have no
questions at this time.
>> Easy enough. Commissioner Shaw.
>> Thank you, Chair. Um,
uh, a lot of questions were answered
last time, but there was some new things
that I actually saw in here, and so I'm
going to ask with respect to that. So, first question I actually had is um
you know if you can put up the existing
zoning versus proposed zoning the
sideway there we go. Uh so my first
question was the the the part which is
that low density housing you know uh
outlot D u u portion why is it actually
being asked for being designated as BCD?
So all lot B is not being proposed to be
reszoned at this time. It continues to
be the same zoning as it currently is.
And business campus district would be
the appropriate places to work land use
for the intended light industrial um uh
building projects that uh are
contemplated within the master plan.
>> The reason I ask is because then if you
look at right below that at least in the
printed page that we got the outlaw D
calls out as future residential.
So is that you know just asking if
that's conflict uh you know because you
outlaw D is called out as future
residential but then it shows up as BCD.
Yeah, outlaw D will within the master
plan is identified to be recommended to
be residential, but at this time we are
not recommending to change the
um zoning of the future residential area
until after the 2050 comprehensive plan
process. So the sequencing would be the
land use would be reviewed as part of
the 2050 plan and then zoning would
change from business campus district
likely to R4 after that process is
complete. So the proposed use is
something to be kind of for the future
and we are just talking about the the
designation of zoning at this point.
>> That's correct.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um did have a question
somewhat related to that is you know you
have uh in the preliminary plat
paragraph um you're talking about um
that there will be a regional storm
water pond will be constructed by the
developer but it will be owned and
operated by the city in some of the
other you know pieces that we have
reviewed before that's kind of similar
to to what we have reviewed before uh
except One thing I thought was maybe
missing maybe not or implied here is
it's not just operated by the city and
it's actually constructed by the
developer but there would be something
that the developer actually pays for a
certain number of years right for the
city to actually do the the operation or
the maintenance.
Generally speaking, the only area where
the developer will have a longer term
commitment is on vegetation management.
And we have not gotten to that point
within our discussions with the
developer on whether we will accept the
pond after that work has been completed
or whether it'll get turned over the
city with some level of financial
contributions to complete that work
>> because you don't have a developer yet.
Is that the point?
>> We do have a developer. We just have not
proceeded to those conversations yet.
But there are there are two solutions
that we've successfully utilized on a
number of developments. Again, whether
it's the contribution for future uh
establishment of the the turf around the
ponding area or the other alternative is
that it's not deed until that's uh
satisfactory to the city.
>> Okay. Thank you. And um one more
question is uh when you go to the um uh
the access points um right that one um
you know one of the questions I had is
uh you said that there was a traffic
study done by the city and and there
would be some kind of intersection
planned between you know that point B
which is the Century Avenue and Bailey.
Um you know I think the there is already
a signal light intersection which is you
know Bailey and Military
right so so has as part of the traffic
study uh was it actually assessed as in
the distance between the two? Um, okay.
>> Yeah, absolutely. Washington County, uh,
is very involved in the planning and one
of their main areas of involvement, it
relates to access management for all of
the existing and planned intersections
along their corridor. So, the accents,
both access point A and B meet the
county's access um, management
guidelines
>> because the the military would be it's
actually essentially, you know, west of
A. Correct. Okay.
All right. That's that's all I had.
Chair.
>> Thank you,
>> Commissioner Kennedy.
>> Thank you, Chair. Um, Commissioner Shaw
took several of my questions. Appreciate
that. Um,
that's all right. Um, one thing is clear
with all this work, your team doesn't
sleep much, do they?
Um this uh on page 35 of the larger um
packet that we got um this may be in the
same vein and maybe have already been
discussed the intersection there with
century and um
on the on the legend at the lower left
talks about a three-leg intersection a
four-le intersection and is that it's a
simple question and uh um just wondered
here it looks like there's only going to
be a three-legg intersection which I'm
sure is enough. Is there it was this
legend just explaining it wasn't
projecting was it at all?
>> Yeah, it's just identifying what the
environment is. The the reason it's a
three-legged intersection is it's not
currently identified that Century will
be extended to the south within that
location. So that makes that
three-legged for the intersection of
Century and and Bailey Road.
>> And that's that's actually what it is
now. Kind of
>> that's correct.
>> Good. on page 36 about the retaining
walls and erosion. It looked quite hilly
of course with all the pond areas and
then there are some hills there. Um the
retaining walls and and erosion. Just a
quick question about that. It's um um I
think in any of the projects that we
um engage in Woodbury, it's an ongoing
u tracking of that erosion. um is that
there's some work that needs to be done
before any of the development happens
and I know that's going to be starting
soon by each of the three um cities
involved in in their own area. That is
that right Eric?
>> Yeah. The the first step of the
development process will be the issuance
of a land disturbance permit. The land
disturbance permit governs the erosion
and sediment control requirements. We as
a city we have uh conditions within that
permit. We also collect security to
ensure that there is not erosion. We as
a also collect a security for on-site
inspections to occur. So there are
regular inspections of the site to
ensure compliance throughout the
duration of construction.
>> And does each city do that for their own
portion?
>> That is correct.
>> Okay. All right. I I figured that but I
was I just wasn't sure. Is there an
overall project manager or each city has
their own project manager?
>> Each city will have their own project
manager, but as um it's certainly been a
collaborative effort with all of the
different members from each city and and
we'll continue to have those dialogue.
will there is an overall
uh construction team from the private
development side that city staff will be
working closely with and we've been
having joint calls for several months
together and I would anticipate that to
continue as we get into the construction
phase.
>> That's frankly to me the most exciting
part about this is that the the
collaboration of the three cities and I
think that's terrific. on page 53
of the about New Life Ponds and some of
the different things that New Life is
going to be doing. Um on page 53 talks
about the new life pond. Um is that coming or going? Is that a new pond there? I know that some of the
ponds are being eliminated and some are
being is it Eric? Is it that some are
being engaged or started?
>> Yeah, there's additional ponding, both
infiltration and quantity ponding that's
proposed to be constructed on the
screen. It's highlighted within this
blue circle and that
>> it's actually not on the screen.
>> You got
Okay. Um, can the cable caster?
» No, there's two people in there.
We're having technical difficulties with
the audio on the virtual meeting. So,
that's why
hopefully we're moving that way.
Is a cablecaster able to show the
desktop?
I can do this from the planning
commission report while we weigh.
>> I lost.
>> Fair enough. I can go into the planning
commission staff report and the same
graphics are within that document. So,
if you go into page five of the planning
commission staff report within that
storm water management paragraph, the
ponding area on the right side, the
smaller basin just south of the existing
buildings is proposed to be new.
» Okay. And that's it. It's not just um
for looks. This is for this is a um
actually facility in the area.
>> That is correct. This would be um a
little in advance of future improvements
that the new life is working on right
now. Um they're not to the position or
point where they made enough site
decisions, but there's a lot of
efficiencies that can be gained by
constructing those now as part of
there'll be a lot of site activity just
happening to the west. So cording
coordinating those a e efforts together
is a very effective approach.
>> Okay. All right. Good. That's all I
have. Sher.
>> All right. Thank you, Commissioner
Guzzk.
>> Thank you, Chair. Um had a couple
questions on um like condition recommend
on your recommendation letters. Uh
condition one, it references the PUD and
CUP approval. Does that does that mean
there for sure will be a PUB and and CUP
for these future parcels or what is
>> Yeah, it it is likely that there'll be a
plan unit development in a future CUP
and that's just putting in reference
that as those come they'll have a
one-year expire expiration.
>> Got it. Okay. Um
yeah, same thing with like condition
eight. We reference odor suppression
equipment for all restaurant uses. Is
that kind of just the in case future
>> Exactly. early indication as they're out
to market in advance of approvals. This
is the first approval and we want to
make sure with any future purchase
agreements or other that it's clearly
listed.
>> Okay. Um and my other question was so
we're
it's noted as mixed use in the land use
map is noted as mixed use. Why you can
explain a little bit why we aren't just
designating it mixeduse zoning as well.
>> The mixeduse zoning allows for both
commercial and residential. So from a
zoning standpoint because the master
plan identifies the area in yellow as a
residential project. We wanted to be
consistent with the master plan. So the
R4 designation delivers a multifamily
project. The B3
delivers that retail that's identified
within the adopted master plan.
>> Okay.
>> They're more specific.
>> Got it. Um
I guess my other question was so I was
digging through the city ordinances and
I don't know if this is just a if it's
an issue or not, but I noticed that the
B3
zoning requires um a 20 acre parcel
and I believe this outlot is proposed to
be 15 acres. So is that an issue at all
with
>> part ordinances
>> as part of the future? This is being
platted as an outlaw. As part of the
future platting, there will likely be
some things through the planned unit
development process to address the
overall size of the projects.
>> Okay. Um and then with Washington County
in particular, since we are kind of
setting it up for them to take over if
it does eventually connect, I noticed
we're also putting a bunch of city
utilities down. the potential extension.
Has the county
commented at all about the city
utilities within their potential future
right away?
>> We have certainly been in close contact
with Washington County is throughout the
design of this project including the
location of where the utilities would be
within the public right of way. Um they
also have full plat review. So they have
the ability to review the plan sets uh
and make comments as well.
>> Okay. And then similarly on the the
private road at the first intersection
come off a century. So it' be between
the it would be north of the future
retail and south of the school
expansion. See that? Sorry. I
>> Well, I guess the question is has there
been a discussion of that being a public
road versus a pilot road? There's also a
city utilities I believe.
>> Yeah, I will go back into the planning
commission staff report for visibility.
So this page five uh the access point
graphic um the commissioner is asking
regarding access point C and the roadway
that connects back to the west toward
Century.
Uh we did evaluate whether that should
be a public or private. But when we
looked at the the ability where the
letter C is located, if that were a
public street, we would need to install
a culde-sac in that location for the
snowplow services to turn around. and
that took a significant amount of land
area versus the ability for a private
street to connect directly into the
basically the parking area of New Life.
They can then work together as private
entities to conduct snow removal. So in
order to conduct public activities
there, it was a significant amount of
additional land within that area. The
second area is there's more right ofway
that's necessary and then the setbacks
are calculated off of that right ofway
as well. So it had a pretty significant
impact on the developability by moving
that to a public street versus private.
>> Okay. Um and then the
intersection at Sentry and Bailey
um did the study since the traffic
signals warranted was there discussion
about a roundabout instead of a traffic
signal? Yeah, there was uh and will
continue to have review of the ultimate
intersection control and that's
ultimately a Washington County decision,
but the initial evaluation identified
that the best operational because of
some of the land uses in the area as
well as the adjacent uh signalized
intersection uh improvements at military
etc. that it is likely highly likely to
be a signalized intersection versus a
roundabout.
>> Okay. Um, I bring it up too for a
thought as well since I believe we're
making the city's making improvements to
La Lake Park in the future. And so I'd
imagine anybody living here might also
want to cross Bailey and I I feel like a
roundabout would be a more safer
intersection control option. But that's
just my two cents on that one. Um
and
uh no further questions. Chair,
>> thank you. Commissioner Jen Teal. Sorry.
>> Thank you, Chair.
>> Almost had to talk twice.
>> Eric Stang on page five of the staff
report uh going into the access points.
Uh point B uh interested in the
opportunity as we compete with the city
of Newport adding in a area for the
welcome to Woodberry signage and
incorporating that as a main artery to
MSP going to and from would like to
maybe beat the city of Newport to a sign
being allocated in that area um as we
work on the the plan for Century.
I think that whether that's a part of
the monumentation
as part of the retail area or something
in that area, I think that does make
sense.
>> Perfect. Uh going to then page seven of
the staff reports, item 20, traffic
signal. Just wanted to kind of confirm
the city's definition of city cameras
and if we need to allocate or include
cameras to that location, you know, as
we look at the phasing and or is it by
the approved city engineer covers covers
that? Yeah, I would say that the last
sentence covers it within condition 20.
>> Perfect. And then uh sticking with that
and then the traffic study for uh access
point B. Um being that we take the brunt
of the master plan, are we able to
negotiate with Washington County a any
timing goals between Bailey and Military
and Bailey and Century to help with peak
periods with the school? Yeah, I think I
mean I think Washington County this will
be privately constructed so there'll be
some ability to to work with some
improvements at least at the signalized
side. Future upgrades to Washington
County are you know the the one of the
first questions from the commission
tonight was what's the timing and the
timing is not known yet. So that's one
of the challenges that Washington County
has is they want to be responsive to the
future demand but not build earlier than
necessary. So those conversations will
continue as we get more information that
development applications are moving
forward. We'll be in direct
communication with Washington County so
that they can begin their um ultimate
planning work on those gaps.
>> Perfect. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.
Chair, no further questions.
>> All right. Well, I've only have one
question comment that hasn't been
addressed by other commissioners. Can we
talk about the dotted line and why it is
still in the plan? Could it be possible
to maybe just have a few little dots
within a little asterisk saying the
terminus of this extension to be
determined?
>> Yeah, I I mean I think right now the
terminus is uh back on page five, it is
identified under that access point D. So
we we were trying to be pretty
transparent about where it where it does
end. And then also when you pair that
with the language within access point E
about that 2050 that's consistent with
the master plan and the master plan will
have those dotted area areas. We could
certainly graphically show that further.
Again the master plan will show a very
um deliberate dashed line that just says
for study as part of the 20150. What I
actually meant was not point D but um
the extension part of E where what I was
imagining
if you will. Okay, there's a D
and then you just go dot dot dot dot
with an asterric there. So it doesn't
actually connect up to century
graphically, but it could if that's what
ends up happening in 2050 for the 2050
comp plan.
I mean from a technical plat standpoint
it actually ends here. So it's not
connecting actually to
>> I'm sorry I can't see what you're
saying.
>> Uh sorry habit. Um let's go to a
>> so on back to page five.
>> It ends at the property line. There's a
gap between those areas that sentry that
would have to occur. So this is really
just showing where it ends at the
planet. It's not showing all the way.
that would be done under there have to
be property acquisition there have to be
other things that occur. So that's not a
d as part of what's shown in exhibit
on page five on the access point
exhibit. It does not connect with
existing Century Avenue.
» Have has the city explored yet
connecting point D to point F going to
the east and the north?
We we have not evaluated uh any
alternatives that would be the work task
as part of the 2050 plan.
>> That's kind of my point though because
this is so unofficial. I'm sorry but we
have the road going from Bailey up to
the point D. And I understand their the
commenters's points about it looks like
it's going to connect a century. And if
we are thinking about considering other
alternatives, what if we don't have this
little swoop here where the E is and we
just have a an extension at D and then
we don't necessarily know if it's going
to go to the east and up, if it's going
to go this way.
I understand their point that it it
looks a little more official than the
text actually says it is.
Yeah, I've
I think if the planning commission would
like additional graphics added to the
record, we can certainly do that for
council to to show that in a little bit
more of a a clear fashion that the
segment from
north from where the on page five where
the letter D is to the property line is
that full area for future review. We can
certainly add that to the public record.
Mass ask a follow-up question related to
yours.
>> So I guess my question would be is
do we need to dedicate the rightway all
the way through the plat as proposed if
it if there are alternative analysis
being considered.
>> Uh we we necessarily have to this is the
preliminary plat. The final plat would
dictate what what is or is not dedicated
at this point. We do not need the road
right ofway dedicated at this time.
>> Can I conduct a straw poll? Just hit
raise your hand if you like this graphic
idea. Commissioners
on three. One, two, three. I like it.
>> No. Okay.
>> Can I ask questions?
>> Yes. with you for community motion
discussion or sorry to
>> I you know so so Eric as I understand
that F point that you are showing there
right that's already in a neighborhood
there correct
>> that is correct
>> so and and what we are talking about
here in essence what problem are we
trying to solve the problem we are
trying to solve is whatever comes in
what is outlaw D needs to have access
right can that access actually come from
a combination of D and a combination of
F as compared to anything running up to
Century Avenue um you know because we
don't know what outlot B is going to be
but let's just say it's low density
housing which is the concept that you
had kind of put in front of us that can
suffice with two different you know kind
of access point D and F and doesn't need
to actually go and connect what you're
showing here with E and the Century
Avenue going north. Yeah, I think that's
exactly what'll be looked at as part of
the 2050 transportation plan is what are
the volumes, what are the anticipated
volumes of traffic for both the area to
the south and the north. That's already
in the traffic study, but we'll look at
that further. Um, the adopted 2040 plan
does show the extension of Century
Avenue. So, the 2050 plan would have to
amend that under any scenario or as part
of a separate action, you would need to
delete that from that.
>> Okay. The way to delete that or amend
that is through detailed study and
that's exactly what's being proposed as
part of the 2050 plan.
>> All right. Thank you,
>> Commissioner.
>> Sorry I interrupted.
>> I just and just a note um if if D does
connect over onto the roadway with F. Uh
if you take a look on at the legend,
there's concern that it would drive
right through the neighborhood. They
want it to be local connectivity versus
moving background traffic through the
site. So, you've got to balance the two.
What's the lesser of two evils perhaps?
I know that probably means another
traffic study or just engaged. I I don't
know what that means.
>> Yeah, I would advise the commission that
access point F has been has a future
street extension signed there, but from
a a routing standpoint is likely not a
efficient way to move trips to an
ultimate destination. It makes sense as
a neighborhood connectivity standpoint.
That is certainly the best practice.
Access point E and the connection to
existing Central Avenue is in our 2040
plan, but as the council directed and
the master plan now has been updated to
direct is that'll be looked at as the as
part of a needs analysis as part of the
our next planning exercise.
>> Thank you, chair.
>> Did anybody have any other thoughts
about this very beautiful sketch as
presented?
I think
>> okay
>> chair if you would I mean from a staff
standpoint I think with for the
residents that are in the audience or
the and for anyone we want this to be
clear and and our goal within some of
the design and purpose was to to add
that level of clarity because as people
look at this one two six years from now
we wanted to make sure and we'll have
minutes from this meeting as well we can
add some graphics to better show what
the intent of the dialogue has been
which is this what I'll call segment E
is a future study
Maybe that's a simple future study goes
below it.
>> I I think the text makes that clear.
It's the graphic that I think is
throwing residents off because frankly
people like pictures and they're going
to look at pictures first.
>> I I I think you know it's a balance
because we also it there could be under
that analysis that it is recommended
that it occurs and if we delete it
you're going to have a lot of residents
saying well we didn't know we didn't
know that that was even a possibility.
So it's a balance. We're trying to
balance and it is going to be a thorough
review. It is not a review that is uh
that that that's going to be done to
with rigor to see what ultimately is
best for the community.
» You know, from my standpoint, it
actually depends on what is the density
of like people needing to go into outlaw
D area, whatever that turns out to be,
right? Um that's kind of what is going
to drive the access piece.
my opinion
>> and those land use decisions will be
done as part of the land use chapter of
the 2050 plan and so that's the stacking
of decisions. So you start with the land
use to get those inputs ultimately then
look at it through the transportation
lens.
>> What about if under the design and
purpose legend for um E where it talks
about the 2050 comprehensive plans just
in parentheses including alternative
routes. Sure.
>> That if the commission is supportive of
that, staff would not have any issue
with that. And
>> is that going to go over better than my
little sketch?
» Second.
>> Okay.
All right. Do we have any other public
comments come in? Any other um questions
online?
>> Not at this time, chair.
>> Okay. Does anybody have any other
questions, comments, concerns?
All right. I can't do it. Look alive,
people. We're looking for a motion.
I move to approve the project number 1
19202500600
the um Bailey West comprehensive plan
amendment resoning and preliminary plot
with the um additional I think two um
conditions signage as um suggested by
Commissioner Gentiel and um to perhaps leave room for further
exploration of the Century Road
connection, including alternative access
paths.
>> Do we have a second?
>> I second.
>> All right, the motion passes. Oh, no, it
doesn't. Wait, we need to vote.
All in favor, say I.
>> I.
>> All right, now it passes. It will be
going to the
July 8th city council hearing.
And with that, we are ready to move on.
Have has anybody had uh Oh, council
member Stafford is here for our council
report.
This is kind of interesting the way
these graphics are going here. Um, this
is my last planning commission meeting.
Uh, council member Santini will be with
you the next quarter. We alternate them
quarterly.
Um,
what have we been up to? We have been
looking at
drafts of solicitor permits, the
doortodoor sales people,
as we've had a lot of concern and have
thought about it. So, we've got staff
working on drafts for that. We're making
progress with a draft of backyard
chickens.
Um, so the part of it, a big part of it
is listening to the community as you
have done tonight with the people in
Century Avenue. Is it this is where
government works slowly, but it's
because we're listening to get it done.
And then last but not least is the uh
Fourth of July hometown celebration and
it's at M Health Fairview this year on
the 4th of July and there's lots of
activities. It's going to be one of the
biggest ones we've ever had and we're
all very excited.
So I hope to see you all out there and I
hope it's a little cooler than it is
today.
Thank you, Council Member Stafford.
Next, we have approval of the minutes
from June 16th. Does anybody have any
questions, comments, concerns about the
minutes?
So, I have one
on page six, very first line, if we
could just add the word asked.
Uh, Miss Swanson said that she had a
parking concern in the high density
residential area. And if
and asked if that would be a
subterranean garage for the residents.
Just the one this time.
All right. We will entertain a motion
for the minutes.
» I'll make a motion to approve the
minutes.
>> Do we have a second?
>> I'll second.
>> All in favor say I.
>> I. I.
>> The minutes are approved and we are
adjourned. Thank you.