[4:45] Welcome to the June 28th, 2026 Planning
[4:49] Commission meeting. If all commissioners
[4:51] would please mute your microphone until
[4:52] it is your turn to speak, that would be
[4:54] appreciated. Members of the public may
[4:56] join using a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or
[4:59] Android device. Members of the public
[5:02] can access the meeting online at the
[5:03] city's website. The public can ask
[5:05] questions and provide comments online
[5:07] during the meeting by using the link to
[5:09] the virtual meeting to join in
[5:11] submitting questions via the question
[5:13] and answer feature within the meeting.
[5:15] Please include your name and address
[5:17] when submitting a question or comment.
[5:18] Questions regarding this meeting can
[5:20] also be asked during regular business
[5:22] hours at city hall.
[5:24] If you are a member of the public and
[5:26] wish to speak on a topic in person,
[5:28] please fill out one of the yellow forms
[5:29] at the back of the room and provide that
[5:31] sheet to staff. All questions, both
[5:33] online and in person, will be called on
[5:35] after the project and reference is
[5:37] presented. With that, we will call the
[5:39] meeting to order. Staff, will you start
[5:41] the roll call, please?
[5:42] >> Thank you, chair. Jim Gentiel,
[5:46] >> present.
[5:46] >> Jake Guzzek,
[5:48] >> here.
[5:49] >> Marsha Kennedy,
[5:50] >> here. John Colllum,
[5:54] Stephanie Swanson
[5:55] >> here,
[5:56] >> Saurin Shaw
[5:57] >> here,
[5:58] >> Shay Sebrooks
[6:00] >> here,
[6:00] >> Jazelle Parnell
[6:02] >> here,
[6:03] >> Rianne Hole
[6:04] >> here.
[6:05] >> Chair, we have a quorum.
[6:07] >> All right. Thank you. The first item on
[6:10] the agenda is the Bailey West
[6:12] development comprehensive plan reszoning
[6:14] and preliminary plat project number 1
[6:18] 19-2025-0000600
[6:23] and Eric take it away. Thank you, Chair.
[6:27] Bailey Nurseries has submitted an
[6:29] application for a comprehensive plan
[6:31] amendment, a resoning, and a preliminary plat for their project,
[6:35] which measures approximately 185 acres.
[6:39] The property is located to the north
[6:41] side of Bailey Road and to the west of
[6:44] New Life Academy. The Bailey's own close
[6:46] to 300 acres spread across Maplewood,
[6:51] Woodbury, and Newport. Uh the cities
[6:53] have worked closely together and
[6:55] collaboratively through the development
[6:58] review process to evaluate things like
[7:00] site access, storm water management, and
[7:03] project timing.
[7:05] The Bailey master plan was in front of
[7:07] the planning commission at the previous
[7:09] planning commission meeting and the
[7:11] council did approve the master plan at
[7:13] their June 24th meeting. The uh items on
[7:17] the screen were a were components of the
[7:20] master plan. And it is important to note
[7:22] that one of the modifications that
[7:24] council gave during the council uh
[7:27] review and approval of the master plan
[7:29] was related to the review and future
[7:32] review of the connection of Century
[7:34] Avenue. And I'll touch on that a little
[7:36] bit further, but council did make an
[7:38] amendment to the master plan that that
[7:40] connection would be reviewed as part of
[7:42] the 2050 comprehensive plan
[7:44] transportation section review as well as
[7:48] review of uh the adjacent development
[7:50] review process. So, um the master plan
[7:53] will now show some dotted lines that
[7:55] show that that's a future determination.
[7:58] In front of the planning commission this
[8:00] evening is a request for a land use
[8:03] change of our 2040 comprehensive plan.
[8:06] On the lefth hand side of the screen is
[8:07] the existing land use which identifies
[8:09] mixed use and places to work. On the
[8:12] right hand side is the proposed land use
[8:14] and you'll see the mixed use is really
[8:15] kind of wrapping now that public
[8:17] semi-public use. The public semi-public
[8:20] use is uh accommodating the future
[8:23] expansion for sports activities and
[8:26] recreation activities for New Life
[8:28] Academy. And so that change would be to
[8:31] public semi-public from a land use
[8:33] standpoint. The city of Woodbury
[8:35] utilizes two findings generally speaking
[8:38] for to support a change to the
[8:40] comprehensive plan. Either a mistake was
[8:42] made designating the property or times
[8:44] and conditions have changed. In this
[8:46] case, times and conditions have changed.
[8:49] Uh, and that is related to the
[8:52] acquisition by New Life Academy. At the
[8:54] time of the 2040 plan, it was unknown
[8:56] that New Life would be looking to make
[8:57] that acquisition. And with their close
[9:00] proximity to this, it does make sense to
[9:02] support a change. Furthermore, the
[9:04] comprehensive plan does provide guidance
[9:06] within their guiding principles
[9:08] regarding promoting excellence in
[9:10] education. and furthermore that
[9:12] excellence in education is part of the
[9:13] core values, quality of life and
[9:15] identity of Woodbury.
[9:18] Due to the land use change, a
[9:20] modification for zoning is also
[9:23] necessary through the resoning process.
[9:26] the resoning request uh a chain a
[9:29] modification to B3 for the retail area
[9:31] up against Bailey Road and the R4 zoning
[9:36] for the residential future uh projects.
[9:40] As you'll see, the area on the far north
[9:43] continues to be business campus district
[9:46] and that is because we're not proceeding
[9:47] with the zoning or land use changes that
[9:50] would be coming post adoption of the
[9:53] 2050 comprehensive plan. Again,
[9:57] future development reviews for this
[9:58] overall project will uh be reviewed by
[10:01] the planning and commission and city
[10:03] council um as more information is noted
[10:06] and as detailed development applications
[10:08] are made. This approach was previously
[10:11] utilized in for city place development,
[10:14] the Benberg gardens and in the northeast
[10:16] area. So again, in the future, the
[10:19] planning commission will have the
[10:20] opportunity likely through either the
[10:21] site and building plan process, uh
[10:23] potentially the conditional use permit
[10:25] process to evaluate things like design,
[10:28] site flow, parking setbacks,
[10:30] architectural designs for the individual
[10:32] projects. That information is not known
[10:34] as part of this application.
[10:38] As we look at the prelim preliminary
[10:40] plat, we'll notice one lot, one property
[10:43] is being platted into lots and block.
[10:45] That's for New Life Academy. The others
[10:47] will be identified in more of a broad
[10:50] area as outlots and will be replplatted
[10:53] in the future as project specifics are
[10:56] known. So there will be a future
[10:57] platting activity as developments are
[11:00] reviewed in the future. The pedestrian
[11:03] movements are very similar to what you
[11:05] saw in the master plan. Movements along
[11:07] Century Avenue from a trail standpoint
[11:10] as well as sidewalk connections
[11:12] throughout the future development areas.
[11:15] Uh as a reminder to the planning
[11:17] commission uh within the master plan, it
[11:20] did identify that additional connections
[11:22] from a sidewalk standpoint would occur
[11:23] in the future retail area and likely in
[11:26] within the future multifamily to connect
[11:28] to these pedestrian spines that run
[11:31] along the future private drive and
[11:32] Century Avenue.
[11:37] As identified previously, this is a
[11:38] multi-phase project with the first phase
[11:41] including site grading, utility
[11:43] construction, and the construction of a
[11:45] portion of Century Avenue that's shown
[11:47] in the the box on the screen or the
[11:50] dashed box on the screen. So, the
[11:52] Century Avenue would only be constructed
[11:54] to that point at this time. And again,
[11:56] as directed by the city council, further
[11:59] evaluation would occur on Century
[12:02] Avenue, further to the north of that as
[12:03] part of the 2050 comprehensive plan
[12:05] process.
[12:07] A regional storm water approach uh is
[12:11] provided as part of this application.
[12:13] The largest basin is to the west of
[12:15] future Century Avenue or the alignment
[12:18] of that roadway. Again, Sentry would
[12:20] terminate in this location that will
[12:23] provide the vast majority of storm water
[12:25] management for the site. You'll notice a
[12:27] small basin. This is more of an interim
[12:28] basin to uh address storm water flows
[12:31] through the site in advance of
[12:32] development of the residential area to
[12:34] the north in the future. Also shown the
[12:37] third area is on the existing New Life
[12:40] campus and some light grading that's
[12:41] occurring. That's to prepare for future
[12:43] expansion and it allows for an efficient
[12:46] construction as well as managing some of
[12:48] the um excess material on site and
[12:51] allowing for for balancing of material
[12:54] uh throughout the site area from a
[12:55] grading standpoint.
[12:58] There are a number of access points that
[13:00] are designed to meet the needs for this
[13:02] improvement. A detailed traffic study
[13:04] was conducted as part of this project.
[13:07] There will be some level of
[13:08] signalization at access point B uh as
[13:12] reviewed and approved by Washington
[13:13] County as well as turn light
[13:15] improvements. There's a secondary access
[13:17] that will serve the uh future uh
[13:20] industrial park with located within the
[13:22] city of Newport located at access point
[13:25] A. Access point C is a private drive
[13:28] connection to the existing New Life can
[13:31] uh campus. Access point D again is the
[13:35] terminus of those phase one
[13:36] improvements. It is identified within
[13:38] the master plan that there is a
[13:40] connection at Chamberlain Road as part
[13:42] of access point F. That would be
[13:44] carefully designed to ensure that this
[13:46] is a connectivity connection, not uh a
[13:49] throughway into Chamberlain. So really
[13:52] looking at connectivity versus moving
[13:54] traffic through the community. And
[13:56] again, not to be redundant, but it is
[13:58] important for the record to identify
[14:00] that the improvements within A or area E
[14:03] uh will be evaluated through that 2050
[14:06] plan and is not identified at this uh
[14:08] time to be constructed with this review.
[14:12] And with that, staff recommends approval
[14:13] of the comprehensive plan amendment
[14:15] resoning and plunary plat for the Bailey
[14:17] West project. and the applicant is on
[14:20] hand for any questions.
[14:23] >> Would the applicant like to add anything
[14:24] at this time?
[14:31] » Hi, uh Mark Kick of Alliance
[14:32] Engineering. Um glad to be here. Um want
[14:36] to thank staff for all their help with
[14:38] everything getting us to this point. We
[14:39] have a number of team members here to
[14:41] field any questions you have, but
[14:43] nothing to add right now. So, thank you
[14:45] though.
[14:48] All right, thank you for being here. I
[14:50] do have a couple of yellow sheets. Sorry
[14:53] if I mixed up the order. We're going to
[14:55] start with Miss Ellen McPartland.
[15:00] I hope I pronounced that right.
[15:03] Please just go ahead and state your name
[15:04] and address when you get up to the
[15:06] podium.
[15:13] Hello, my name is Alan McPartland. I'm
[15:17] owner of 1135 Century Avenue South. Um,
[15:21] a 2acre property and home for the last
[15:24] eight years. Um, I moved here after
[15:27] living out of state and I was previously
[15:29] a Lowertown St. Paul resident where I
[15:32] actually led their Lowertown master plan
[15:34] task force which passed through the St.
[15:37] post city council and during your
[15:40] planning commission meeting this evening
[15:41] I want to remind you and urge you to in
[15:44] tonight's discussions and more
[15:47] importantly in the future to remove the
[15:49] second phase of Century Avenue South
[15:51] expansion of your on your plans and in
[15:54] your discussions um in Woodbury's you
[15:57] know as Eric mentioned uh in Woodberry's
[15:59] June 24th city council meeting they were
[16:02] unified in and responsive in putting a
[16:06] dis distinct pause and clause on that
[16:09] road extension. All debated on the city
[16:12] council and deliberately deliberately
[16:14] called this portion out as not approved
[16:17] until further deliberation and study for
[16:19] the 2050 plan. This topic resulted in a
[16:23] lengthy 10-minute discussion of the
[16:24] Woodbury City Council at that meeting.
[16:28] Um just one moment. Um there we urged
[16:32] them not to approve the 2040 master plan
[16:35] to include the Century extension pushing
[16:37] through to the road on Century without
[16:40] additional studies. Traffic, noise,
[16:41] pollution, runoff studies were
[16:44] insufficient, we believe, um and not
[16:46] considering specifics of the area.
[16:48] Carver Lake is protected water under the
[16:50] Minnesota DNR designation 820166P,
[16:54] I believe, and other factors. we were
[16:56] successful uh in the removal of that
[16:59] reference. Uh so thank you to the city
[17:02] council for that and I just want to make
[17:04] sure that is uh clearly stated by the
[17:07] community. So re to reiterate we haven't
[17:10] heard a lot of discussion or plan
[17:12] activities in concrete terms probably
[17:14] because of the timing but of the
[17:16] alternative streets to century avenue
[17:18] south uh the second phase um except on
[17:21] the city council meeting. So, I urge the
[17:23] planning commission to continue to more
[17:25] deeply consider these issues in the
[17:27] future. And if that's the 2050 plan,
[17:30] then that's that's so be it. But, uh,
[17:33] traffic and noise and safety are an
[17:35] issue on that street. And anyone who
[17:37] goes down it would would agree. Um, this
[17:40] is one of my biggest concerns and a game
[17:42] changer for everyday lives in the area
[17:44] for lake visitors and for residents. all
[17:47] and more importantly protecting the
[17:49] long-term health of Carver Lake. The
[17:51] pollution, the runoff, erosion, Carver
[17:53] Lake is that in that designated
[17:55] protective water area, traffic pollution
[17:58] negatively impacts the lake through
[18:01] atmosphere, storm water runoff,
[18:03] shoreline disturbance. Our lake is
[18:05] already vulnerable to blue algae and
[18:08] chlorides. It's a small lake and along
[18:10] with noise pollution, the atmosphere of
[18:13] the area and the health of our lake can
[18:15] change drastically over time. So, please
[18:18] continue to keep this in mind uh for the
[18:20] good of the project. Century Avenue
[18:22] South land use and more most
[18:24] importantly, Carver Lake. Thank you for
[18:27] your time and consideration.
[18:30] >> Thank you, Ellen. Next, we're going to
[18:33] hear from Roger Anderson.
[18:48] Good evening. Thanks for the meeting,
[18:51] letting people know about it. There
[18:52] wasn't a lot of notice
[18:55] previous. I just got my first notice.
[18:58] Oh, uh
[19:00] the last meeting they had, I got it in
[19:02] the mail that day for this meeting was
[19:04] which was what? Friday, Thursday,
[19:05] whatever it was. So, not a lot of uh for
[19:10] notice for the people on the road and I
[19:13] think only a few of us got the letter a
[19:15] few in Woodbury. Me, cuz I border it,
[19:18] first address in Maplewood.
[19:21] So, all the people down around Central
[19:23] Avenue, nobody had any notice or sent
[19:27] any letters. Nobody. Ramsey County
[19:29] obviously is on deaf ears in Maplewood.
[19:32] But I haven't seen anybody or heard from
[19:34] anybody in Maplewood showing up to these
[19:37] meetings. They weren't in the ones in
[19:39] Newport and they apparently don't really
[19:41] care that much about what's going on
[19:43] with this. But this option of Centure
[19:46] Avenue is they had a planner here at the
[19:50] meeting. She said it's not a viable
[19:52] thing. It's there's no way to widen the
[19:56] street or put sidewalks. You're right on
[19:58] the lake once you get to the bottom of
[20:00] the hill.
[20:02] going up to the park is a
[20:05] really steep grade and wintertime
[20:09] you may have a truck go down that in the
[20:11] winter time. They never come back and go
[20:14] try to go up it or down it. There's
[20:16] always cars
[20:19] stuck there. They abandon them. They
[20:21] leave them in the winter time up against
[20:24] the guardrail. If you don't have
[20:25] four-wheel drive in the winter time, if
[20:27] it's snowing, you're not going up that
[20:29] hill. It's plowed by the county. Mc
[20:32] Knight, Carver Avenue, and Century.
[20:35] That's Ramsey County plows that, not
[20:37] Woodbury and not Maplewood. So, it's the
[20:41] farthest street county property road in
[20:44] Ramsey County. So, the counties in Shore
[20:47] View. Well, what do you think gets
[20:49] plowed last? That stretch. So, it's
[20:53] pretty I've lived there for 26 years, so
[20:56] I've seen a lot of what's goes on. the
[20:58] kids racing around the lake, which is
[21:00] pretty dangerous. It's a beautiful road
[21:02] to drive with a motorcycle or a hot rod
[21:06] or whatever,
[21:08] but it's very dangerous down by the
[21:10] lake. It's super dangerous.
[21:14] There's two really good viable options,
[21:17] which are northeast corner, which is
[21:20] Jordan Drive, and Carver Park Drive.
[21:24] They go right through your park. Sure,
[21:27] you can run a road right through there
[21:28] and hook up four lanes. You don't have
[21:30] to worry about blind driveways and a
[21:32] steep hill to go up and down in the
[21:35] winter time. And obviously, you got the
[21:37] Chamberlain, but there's two more roads
[21:39] up there to the northeast that are
[21:42] certainly viable. The one Carver Park uh
[21:45] place or drive that comes in, there's a
[21:47] path that goes right underneath the high
[21:49] tension lines and goes into the bark.
[21:51] There's only two trails there that would
[21:53] be in affected by it. And that would
[21:56] come out in that northeast corner.
[21:59] Jordan Drive and Carver Park Drive are
[22:03] right there. And there's nothing in that
[22:05] side of the park. It's all heavily
[22:07] wooded. Don't think people really care
[22:10] to walk there cuz it's so dense. It's
[22:12] pretty creepy, actually. So, it's a
[22:15] great area to clear out, open it up a
[22:17] little bit, put some paths, walking
[22:19] paths and stuff on both sides. put a
[22:22] sight a pedestrian bridge to go
[22:24] underneath the road just like they have
[22:26] for their roundabouts out on Bailey and
[22:29] 13 and put a couple vitox through and
[22:33] let the traffic over the top and it will
[22:35] solve your problem. And then on Lake
[22:38] Road,
[22:39] it's four lanes. Put your stop lights,
[22:41] street light there and stop stop lights
[22:43] there and you have you're not
[22:45] interfering with any houses because
[22:46] there are no houses there. There's like
[22:48] a 100 foot parcel on either side of the
[22:50] road. There's nothing there except the
[22:53] path going down into the park. And it's
[22:55] not heavily. Most people drove to that
[22:58] park. They drive and go into the park.
[23:00] They don't walk to the park. So that's
[23:03] just me. The concerns with the century
[23:05] is that's crazy. It's just no way you're
[23:09] running car traffic and semitrs
[23:12] especially. The road's so beautiful
[23:14] because there's no trucks on it other
[23:16] than a garbage truck or somebody doing a
[23:18] construction project. There's no
[23:20] semi-traffic there with trailers. So,
[23:22] it's it's crazy. It's just easy out
[23:25] because you're only 300 ft from the
[23:29] property via an easement to get to the
[23:32] road. So, it's a it's an easy out.
[23:34] That's what it is. But, it's super
[23:36] dangerous both ways. You go down the
[23:38] hill, there's a retaining pond. Me and
[23:41] my wife helped. A handicap van slid out,
[23:45] went over the side and down off to the
[23:47] side almost into the pond. We had to
[23:49] stop one winter day and help them get
[23:52] him out of the van and wait for uh
[23:54] Maplewood paramedics and stuff to come
[23:56] to get them. So both ways, super
[23:59] dangerous road in the winter time or
[24:01] even if it's raining hard. So it's uh
[24:05] not a good option. So, thank you and
[24:09] good luck. Whatever you whatever you
[24:12] plan, even 2050 still crazy. You don't
[24:16] have you don't have the room
[24:19] for traffic to around that lake. Just go
[24:21] up there and drive it in the winter time
[24:22] when it snows 4 in. Go try and drive up
[24:24] that hill when it's snowing and see how
[24:26] you do.
[24:27] >> Thank you, Roger.
[24:28] >> You won't you won't get up there.
[24:29] Thanks.
[24:31] >> We have one more yellow slip from
[24:33] Janelle Ericson.
[24:38] Once I turned 40, I needed these reading
[24:40] glasses. Okay. Um, hi, good evening. My
[24:42] name is Janelle Ericson and I live on
[24:44] Century Avenue South as well at 1160.
[24:47] Um, I actually I might have Roger Bead.
[24:50] Um, my parents bought that house in 1973
[24:52] and um I turned around and bought it a
[24:56] few years ago, so it's been a while. Um,
[24:58] first of all, I'd like to thank you all
[25:00] for um all the time and effort that's
[25:02] gone into planning this development. Uh,
[25:04] I understand this is very significant
[25:07] and I also understand that growth is of
[25:09] course a part of Woodbury's future. Um,
[25:11] again, when I was a kid, we had Valley
[25:12] Creek Mall and that's it. So, I'm not
[25:15] here tonight to oppose this development,
[25:17] but I am here to ask you to preserve the
[25:21] city's flexibility regarding this
[25:22] specific issue and Century Avenue South
[25:25] and that potential extension. So, like
[25:27] Alan mentioned at last week's city
[25:29] council meeting, uh several residents
[25:31] expressed concerns about using that as a
[25:33] primary connection into the future uh
[25:35] northern development in phase 2. I
[25:37] watched it on YouTube while I was out of
[25:39] town attending a work conference and I
[25:42] saw that council members were open to
[25:44] exploring alternative access routes. Um
[25:46] and I appreciate the willingness to
[25:47] continue that conversation. And as I
[25:50] read tonight's packet, one statement
[25:51] stood out to me.
[25:53] It says that the development of the
[25:55] northernmost residential area will not
[25:56] occur until, as Eric said, until further
[25:59] review as part of the 2050 comprehensive
[26:01] plan process.
[26:03] And so, if that area is already being
[26:04] deferred for future planning, I
[26:07] respectfully ask, why do we want to just
[26:10] keep it on the map anyway? So, since the
[26:12] city council has already expressed uh an
[26:15] interest in exploring alternatives, I'm
[26:16] just asking that this plan leave room
[26:18] for that conversation to continue. Um I
[26:22] and my neighbors are concerned that once
[26:25] a roadway appears on this um uh and in
[26:29] an approved preliminary preliminary
[26:32] plat, it becomes much more difficult to
[26:35] consider alternatives later.
[26:38] So you know, I'm not asking you to
[26:40] decide where the road should go tonight.
[26:42] I'm just asking you not to decide that
[26:44] it has to go there. So please remove
[26:47] your dotted line. I can't tell if it is
[26:49] or not because of my terrible eyes, but
[26:52] um respectfully um you know, please
[26:54] remove that potential Century Avenue
[26:56] extension from the preliminary plat or
[26:59] make any future extension contingent
[27:01] upon a comprehensive transportation
[27:03] alternatives analysis as part of that
[27:05] plan process in 20 for 2050. Um, I
[27:08] believe that approach supports both
[27:10] responsible growth and good planning
[27:12] like you guys are all so thoughtful
[27:14] about um, in the city of Woodbury
[27:18] and it allows this development to move
[27:19] forward while preserving the city's
[27:20] ability to make the best long-term
[27:22] decision for everyone. And I hope you
[27:24] all stayed cool today. Carver Lake Beach
[27:25] was very crowded and um, yeah, maybe
[27:29] some of you went swimming. So, go enjoy
[27:31] the park and thank you for your time and
[27:32] consideration.
[27:35] >> No, you receive any Any online?
[27:40] >> Forgot the button. Did we receive any
[27:43] online comments?
[27:45] >> Not at this time, chair.
[27:46] >> All right, let's open it up to
[27:49] commissioner comments. And I didn't get
[27:51] a chance to ask before the meeting, but
[27:53] our student commissioners are often at
[27:55] the end. Would you like to go first
[27:57] today?
[28:03] » Be bold.
[28:06] >> All right. Commissioner Hole, go for it.
[28:10] >> Well, okay. So, looking through
[28:14] the plan, what is the expected timeline
[28:17] for each phase of the development?
[28:22] » Yeah, generally speaking, we do not have
[28:25] timelines for the development
[28:26] activities. Uh we do do not have any uh
[28:30] active development applications in right
[28:33] now. Uh we are beginning conversations
[28:37] with me bring up a different plan here.
[28:44] Uh with some of the multifamily
[28:46] developers to the north on this area. So
[28:49] that could begin development as soon as
[28:51] 2027. So next year there was also some
[28:54] initial conversations on some of the
[28:57] multifamily apartment you users. So
[28:59] again that could be 27. The retail has
[29:02] been uh to the market for some time and
[29:05] again that could also so from a
[29:07] expectation side we would expect pending
[29:10] approval by the planning commission and
[29:12] city council that land disturbance
[29:15] grading activities uh sewer and water
[29:18] activities could occur this summer but
[29:22] development work would anything going
[29:24] vertical would likely the earliest would
[29:26] be 2027.
[29:30] » Okay. I have no further questions.
[29:33] >> Thank you, Commissioner Parnell.
[29:36] >> I also just have one question. Um, as
[29:39] the future retail area develops, um, is
[29:43] the city looking for businesses that
[29:45] primarily serve like the surrounding
[29:46] neighborhood or is the goal to attract
[29:49] businesses that bring people from
[29:50] outside the area as well?
[29:53] >> I think what uh the ultimate goal and
[29:55] what likely the market will provide are
[29:57] the same. And so based on kind of where
[29:59] this is in the community, it's likely to
[30:01] be a service retail center. So more
[30:04] serving the local area, the residential
[30:07] property both to the north and the south
[30:10] um within the southern portion of
[30:12] Woodbury and also those that are
[30:14] utilizing the Bailey Road corridor are
[30:16] the likely um users of this retail area.
[30:19] >> Okay. Yeah. No further questions.
[30:23] >> All right. Thank you. We're going to go
[30:24] this way this time. Commissioner C.
[30:27] Brooks.
[30:29] >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I'll make it easy
[30:30] today. I feel like a lot of my questions
[30:32] were actually answered at our last
[30:33] meeting, um, when we discussed this
[30:35] plan. Um, so I actually have no
[30:36] questions at this time.
[30:38] >> Easy enough. Commissioner Shaw.
[30:42] >> Thank you, Chair. Um,
[30:44] uh, a lot of questions were answered
[30:46] last time, but there was some new things
[30:48] that I actually saw in here, and so I'm
[30:51] going to ask with respect to that. So, first question I actually had is um
[30:57] you know if you can put up the existing
[30:59] zoning versus proposed zoning the
[31:01] sideway there we go. Uh so my first
[31:04] question was the the the part which is
[31:08] that low density housing you know uh
[31:11] outlot D u u portion why is it actually
[31:16] being asked for being designated as BCD?
[31:20] So all lot B is not being proposed to be
[31:23] reszoned at this time. It continues to
[31:25] be the same zoning as it currently is.
[31:27] And business campus district would be
[31:29] the appropriate places to work land use
[31:31] for the intended light industrial um uh
[31:35] building projects that uh are
[31:37] contemplated within the master plan.
[31:39] >> The reason I ask is because then if you
[31:41] look at right below that at least in the
[31:44] printed page that we got the outlaw D
[31:46] calls out as future residential.
[31:49] So is that you know just asking if
[31:52] that's conflict uh you know because you
[31:56] outlaw D is called out as future
[31:57] residential but then it shows up as BCD.
[32:01] Yeah, outlaw D will within the master
[32:04] plan is identified to be recommended to
[32:07] be residential, but at this time we are
[32:10] not recommending to change the
[32:14] um zoning of the future residential area
[32:17] until after the 2050 comprehensive plan
[32:19] process. So the sequencing would be the
[32:21] land use would be reviewed as part of
[32:23] the 2050 plan and then zoning would
[32:25] change from business campus district
[32:26] likely to R4 after that process is
[32:29] complete. So the proposed use is
[32:31] something to be kind of for the future
[32:33] and we are just talking about the the
[32:36] designation of zoning at this point.
[32:38] >> That's correct.
[32:39] >> Okay. Thank you. Um did have a question
[32:44] somewhat related to that is you know you
[32:47] have uh in the preliminary plat
[32:49] paragraph um you're talking about um
[32:53] that there will be a regional storm
[32:55] water pond will be constructed by the
[32:57] developer but it will be owned and
[32:59] operated by the city in some of the
[33:01] other you know pieces that we have
[33:04] reviewed before that's kind of similar
[33:07] to to what we have reviewed before uh
[33:10] except One thing I thought was maybe
[33:13] missing maybe not or implied here is
[33:15] it's not just operated by the city and
[33:18] it's actually constructed by the
[33:19] developer but there would be something
[33:21] that the developer actually pays for a
[33:23] certain number of years right for the
[33:25] city to actually do the the operation or
[33:28] the maintenance.
[33:30] Generally speaking, the only area where
[33:31] the developer will have a longer term
[33:33] commitment is on vegetation management.
[33:36] And we have not gotten to that point
[33:38] within our discussions with the
[33:40] developer on whether we will accept the
[33:42] pond after that work has been completed
[33:44] or whether it'll get turned over the
[33:46] city with some level of financial
[33:48] contributions to complete that work
[33:50] >> because you don't have a developer yet.
[33:52] Is that the point?
[33:53] >> We do have a developer. We just have not
[33:55] proceeded to those conversations yet.
[33:57] But there are there are two solutions
[33:58] that we've successfully utilized on a
[34:00] number of developments. Again, whether
[34:02] it's the contribution for future uh
[34:06] establishment of the the turf around the
[34:10] ponding area or the other alternative is
[34:13] that it's not deed until that's uh
[34:15] satisfactory to the city.
[34:17] >> Okay. Thank you. And um one more
[34:22] question is uh when you go to the um uh
[34:27] the access points um right that one um
[34:32] you know one of the questions I had is
[34:34] uh you said that there was a traffic
[34:36] study done by the city and and there
[34:39] would be some kind of intersection
[34:41] planned between you know that point B
[34:43] which is the Century Avenue and Bailey.
[34:46] Um you know I think the there is already
[34:50] a signal light intersection which is you
[34:52] know Bailey and Military
[34:55] right so so has as part of the traffic
[34:59] study uh was it actually assessed as in
[35:02] the distance between the two? Um, okay.
[35:05] >> Yeah, absolutely. Washington County, uh,
[35:07] is very involved in the planning and one
[35:10] of their main areas of involvement, it
[35:13] relates to access management for all of
[35:16] the existing and planned intersections
[35:18] along their corridor. So, the accents,
[35:21] both access point A and B meet the
[35:24] county's access um, management
[35:26] guidelines
[35:28] >> because the the military would be it's
[35:30] actually essentially, you know, west of
[35:32] A. Correct. Okay.
[35:36] All right. That's that's all I had.
[35:37] Chair.
[35:39] >> Thank you,
[35:40] >> Commissioner Kennedy.
[35:41] >> Thank you, Chair. Um, Commissioner Shaw
[35:44] took several of my questions. Appreciate
[35:46] that. Um,
[35:49] that's all right. Um, one thing is clear
[35:52] with all this work, your team doesn't
[35:53] sleep much, do they?
[35:55] Um this uh on page 35 of the larger um
[36:02] packet that we got um this may be in the
[36:06] same vein and maybe have already been
[36:09] discussed the intersection there with
[36:12] century and um
[36:16] on the on the legend at the lower left
[36:19] talks about a three-leg intersection a
[36:21] four-le intersection and is that it's a
[36:24] simple question and uh um just wondered
[36:28] here it looks like there's only going to
[36:29] be a three-legg intersection which I'm
[36:31] sure is enough. Is there it was this
[36:34] legend just explaining it wasn't
[36:35] projecting was it at all?
[36:37] >> Yeah, it's just identifying what the
[36:39] environment is. The the reason it's a
[36:40] three-legged intersection is it's not
[36:42] currently identified that Century will
[36:44] be extended to the south within that
[36:45] location. So that makes that
[36:47] three-legged for the intersection of
[36:49] Century and and Bailey Road.
[36:50] >> And that's that's actually what it is
[36:52] now. Kind of
[36:53] >> that's correct.
[36:53] >> Good. on page 36 about the retaining
[36:56] walls and erosion. It looked quite hilly
[36:58] of course with all the pond areas and
[37:00] then there are some hills there. Um the
[37:02] retaining walls and and erosion. Just a
[37:06] quick question about that. It's um um I
[37:09] think in any of the projects that we
[37:12] um engage in Woodbury, it's an ongoing
[37:17] u tracking of that erosion. um is that
[37:24] there's some work that needs to be done
[37:26] before any of the development happens
[37:28] and I know that's going to be starting
[37:30] soon by each of the three um cities
[37:33] involved in in their own area. That is
[37:36] that right Eric?
[37:37] >> Yeah. The the first step of the
[37:39] development process will be the issuance
[37:41] of a land disturbance permit. The land
[37:43] disturbance permit governs the erosion
[37:46] and sediment control requirements. We as
[37:48] a city we have uh conditions within that
[37:51] permit. We also collect security to
[37:53] ensure that there is not erosion. We as
[37:56] a also collect a security for on-site
[37:59] inspections to occur. So there are
[38:01] regular inspections of the site to
[38:03] ensure compliance throughout the
[38:04] duration of construction.
[38:06] >> And does each city do that for their own
[38:09] portion?
[38:10] >> That is correct.
[38:10] >> Okay. All right. I I figured that but I
[38:12] was I just wasn't sure. Is there an
[38:14] overall project manager or each city has
[38:18] their own project manager?
[38:20] >> Each city will have their own project
[38:21] manager, but as um it's certainly been a
[38:24] collaborative effort with all of the
[38:26] different members from each city and and
[38:28] we'll continue to have those dialogue.
[38:30] will there is an overall
[38:33] uh construction team from the private
[38:35] development side that city staff will be
[38:38] working closely with and we've been
[38:39] having joint calls for several months
[38:42] together and I would anticipate that to
[38:44] continue as we get into the construction
[38:45] phase.
[38:46] >> That's frankly to me the most exciting
[38:48] part about this is that the the
[38:50] collaboration of the three cities and I
[38:52] think that's terrific. on page 53
[38:57] of the about New Life Ponds and some of
[39:00] the different things that New Life is
[39:03] going to be doing. Um on page 53 talks
[39:07] about the new life pond. Um is that coming or going? Is that a new pond there? I know that some of the
[39:17] ponds are being eliminated and some are
[39:20] being is it Eric? Is it that some are
[39:22] being engaged or started?
[39:24] >> Yeah, there's additional ponding, both
[39:26] infiltration and quantity ponding that's
[39:28] proposed to be constructed on the
[39:30] screen. It's highlighted within this
[39:32] blue circle and that
[39:34] >> it's actually not on the screen.
[39:37] >> You got
[39:41] Okay. Um, can the cable caster?
[39:49] » No, there's two people in there.
[39:54] We're having technical difficulties with
[39:55] the audio on the virtual meeting. So,
[39:57] that's why
[40:06] hopefully we're moving that way.
[40:17] Is a cablecaster able to show the
[40:20] desktop?
[40:26] I can do this from the planning
[40:27] commission report while we weigh.
[40:30] >> I lost.
[40:31] >> Fair enough. I can go into the planning
[40:32] commission staff report and the same
[40:34] graphics are within that document. So,
[40:37] if you go into page five of the planning
[40:39] commission staff report within that
[40:41] storm water management paragraph, the
[40:43] ponding area on the right side, the
[40:46] smaller basin just south of the existing
[40:49] buildings is proposed to be new.
[40:56] » Okay. And that's it. It's not just um
[41:01] for looks. This is for this is a um
[41:04] actually facility in the area.
[41:06] >> That is correct. This would be um a
[41:09] little in advance of future improvements
[41:11] that the new life is working on right
[41:14] now. Um they're not to the position or
[41:17] point where they made enough site
[41:18] decisions, but there's a lot of
[41:19] efficiencies that can be gained by
[41:21] constructing those now as part of
[41:23] there'll be a lot of site activity just
[41:25] happening to the west. So cording
[41:26] coordinating those a e efforts together
[41:28] is a very effective approach.
[41:30] >> Okay. All right. Good. That's all I
[41:32] have. Sher.
[41:34] >> All right. Thank you, Commissioner
[41:35] Guzzk.
[41:38] >> Thank you, Chair. Um had a couple
[41:41] questions on um like condition recommend
[41:43] on your recommendation letters. Uh
[41:45] condition one, it references the PUD and
[41:48] CUP approval. Does that does that mean
[41:50] there for sure will be a PUB and and CUP
[41:55] for these future parcels or what is
[41:58] >> Yeah, it it is likely that there'll be a
[41:59] plan unit development in a future CUP
[42:01] and that's just putting in reference
[42:02] that as those come they'll have a
[42:03] one-year expire expiration.
[42:05] >> Got it. Okay. Um
[42:12] yeah, same thing with like condition
[42:14] eight. We reference odor suppression
[42:16] equipment for all restaurant uses. Is
[42:18] that kind of just the in case future
[42:21] >> Exactly. early indication as they're out
[42:23] to market in advance of approvals. This
[42:26] is the first approval and we want to
[42:27] make sure with any future purchase
[42:28] agreements or other that it's clearly
[42:30] listed.
[42:31] >> Okay. Um and my other question was so
[42:35] we're
[42:36] it's noted as mixed use in the land use
[42:40] map is noted as mixed use. Why you can
[42:44] explain a little bit why we aren't just
[42:46] designating it mixeduse zoning as well.
[42:50] >> The mixeduse zoning allows for both
[42:52] commercial and residential. So from a
[42:54] zoning standpoint because the master
[42:57] plan identifies the area in yellow as a
[42:59] residential project. We wanted to be
[43:01] consistent with the master plan. So the
[43:03] R4 designation delivers a multifamily
[43:06] project. The B3
[43:09] delivers that retail that's identified
[43:11] within the adopted master plan.
[43:13] >> Okay.
[43:13] >> They're more specific.
[43:15] >> Got it. Um
[43:18] I guess my other question was so I was
[43:20] digging through the city ordinances and
[43:22] I don't know if this is just a if it's
[43:24] an issue or not, but I noticed that the
[43:26] B3
[43:27] zoning requires um a 20 acre parcel
[43:32] and I believe this outlot is proposed to
[43:35] be 15 acres. So is that an issue at all
[43:37] with
[43:38] >> part ordinances
[43:39] >> as part of the future? This is being
[43:41] platted as an outlaw. As part of the
[43:42] future platting, there will likely be
[43:43] some things through the planned unit
[43:45] development process to address the
[43:47] overall size of the projects.
[43:49] >> Okay. Um and then with Washington County
[43:52] in particular, since we are kind of
[43:55] setting it up for them to take over if
[43:57] it does eventually connect, I noticed
[43:59] we're also putting a bunch of city
[44:01] utilities down. the potential extension.
[44:05] Has the county
[44:07] commented at all about the city
[44:09] utilities within their potential future
[44:11] right away?
[44:13] >> We have certainly been in close contact
[44:14] with Washington County is throughout the
[44:16] design of this project including the
[44:19] location of where the utilities would be
[44:20] within the public right of way. Um they
[44:22] also have full plat review. So they have
[44:25] the ability to review the plan sets uh
[44:27] and make comments as well.
[44:29] >> Okay. And then similarly on the the
[44:33] private road at the first intersection
[44:36] come off a century. So it' be between
[44:39] the it would be north of the future
[44:40] retail and south of the school
[44:44] expansion. See that? Sorry. I
[44:47] >> Well, I guess the question is has there
[44:49] been a discussion of that being a public
[44:50] road versus a pilot road? There's also a
[44:52] city utilities I believe.
[44:53] >> Yeah, I will go back into the planning
[44:55] commission staff report for visibility.
[44:57] So this page five uh the access point
[45:00] graphic um the commissioner is asking
[45:03] regarding access point C and the roadway
[45:05] that connects back to the west toward
[45:07] Century.
[45:09] Uh we did evaluate whether that should
[45:11] be a public or private. But when we
[45:13] looked at the the ability where the
[45:16] letter C is located, if that were a
[45:18] public street, we would need to install
[45:20] a culde-sac in that location for the
[45:22] snowplow services to turn around. and
[45:24] that took a significant amount of land
[45:26] area versus the ability for a private
[45:29] street to connect directly into the
[45:31] basically the parking area of New Life.
[45:33] They can then work together as private
[45:35] entities to conduct snow removal. So in
[45:38] order to conduct public activities
[45:40] there, it was a significant amount of
[45:43] additional land within that area. The
[45:45] second area is there's more right ofway
[45:47] that's necessary and then the setbacks
[45:49] are calculated off of that right ofway
[45:50] as well. So it had a pretty significant
[45:53] impact on the developability by moving
[45:55] that to a public street versus private.
[45:57] >> Okay. Um and then the
[46:02] intersection at Sentry and Bailey
[46:06] um did the study since the traffic
[46:09] signals warranted was there discussion
[46:12] about a roundabout instead of a traffic
[46:15] signal? Yeah, there was uh and will
[46:18] continue to have review of the ultimate
[46:21] intersection control and that's
[46:22] ultimately a Washington County decision,
[46:24] but the initial evaluation identified
[46:26] that the best operational because of
[46:28] some of the land uses in the area as
[46:30] well as the adjacent uh signalized
[46:34] intersection uh improvements at military
[46:36] etc. that it is likely highly likely to
[46:39] be a signalized intersection versus a
[46:41] roundabout.
[46:42] >> Okay. Um, I bring it up too for a
[46:46] thought as well since I believe we're
[46:47] making the city's making improvements to
[46:49] La Lake Park in the future. And so I'd
[46:52] imagine anybody living here might also
[46:54] want to cross Bailey and I I feel like a
[46:57] roundabout would be a more safer
[47:00] intersection control option. But that's
[47:03] just my two cents on that one. Um
[47:08] and
[47:12] uh no further questions. Chair,
[47:15] >> thank you. Commissioner Jen Teal. Sorry.
[47:18] >> Thank you, Chair.
[47:19] >> Almost had to talk twice.
[47:21] >> Eric Stang on page five of the staff
[47:23] report uh going into the access points.
[47:26] Uh point B uh interested in the
[47:29] opportunity as we compete with the city
[47:31] of Newport adding in a area for the
[47:34] welcome to Woodberry signage and
[47:37] incorporating that as a main artery to
[47:39] MSP going to and from would like to
[47:42] maybe beat the city of Newport to a sign
[47:44] being allocated in that area um as we
[47:47] work on the the plan for Century.
[47:51] I think that whether that's a part of
[47:52] the monumentation
[47:55] as part of the retail area or something
[47:57] in that area, I think that does make
[47:58] sense.
[47:58] >> Perfect. Uh going to then page seven of
[48:01] the staff reports, item 20, traffic
[48:04] signal. Just wanted to kind of confirm
[48:06] the city's definition of city cameras
[48:10] and if we need to allocate or include
[48:12] cameras to that location, you know, as
[48:14] we look at the phasing and or is it by
[48:17] the approved city engineer covers covers
[48:20] that? Yeah, I would say that the last
[48:22] sentence covers it within condition 20.
[48:23] >> Perfect. And then uh sticking with that
[48:26] and then the traffic study for uh access
[48:29] point B. Um being that we take the brunt
[48:32] of the master plan, are we able to
[48:35] negotiate with Washington County a any
[48:38] timing goals between Bailey and Military
[48:40] and Bailey and Century to help with peak
[48:43] periods with the school? Yeah, I think I
[48:46] mean I think Washington County this will
[48:47] be privately constructed so there'll be
[48:48] some ability to to work with some
[48:52] improvements at least at the signalized
[48:54] side. Future upgrades to Washington
[48:56] County are you know the the one of the
[48:58] first questions from the commission
[49:00] tonight was what's the timing and the
[49:01] timing is not known yet. So that's one
[49:03] of the challenges that Washington County
[49:04] has is they want to be responsive to the
[49:08] future demand but not build earlier than
[49:10] necessary. So those conversations will
[49:14] continue as we get more information that
[49:17] development applications are moving
[49:19] forward. We'll be in direct
[49:20] communication with Washington County so
[49:22] that they can begin their um ultimate
[49:24] planning work on those gaps.
[49:25] >> Perfect. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.
[49:27] Chair, no further questions.
[49:31] >> All right. Well, I've only have one
[49:33] question comment that hasn't been
[49:35] addressed by other commissioners. Can we
[49:37] talk about the dotted line and why it is
[49:40] still in the plan? Could it be possible
[49:42] to maybe just have a few little dots
[49:44] within a little asterisk saying the
[49:47] terminus of this extension to be
[49:50] determined?
[49:51] >> Yeah, I I mean I think right now the
[49:53] terminus is uh back on page five, it is
[49:57] identified under that access point D. So
[49:59] we we were trying to be pretty
[50:00] transparent about where it where it does
[50:02] end. And then also when you pair that
[50:05] with the language within access point E
[50:08] about that 2050 that's consistent with
[50:10] the master plan and the master plan will
[50:12] have those dotted area areas. We could
[50:16] certainly graphically show that further.
[50:18] Again the master plan will show a very
[50:21] um deliberate dashed line that just says
[50:24] for study as part of the 20150. What I
[50:26] actually meant was not point D but um
[50:29] the extension part of E where what I was
[50:33] imagining
[50:35] if you will. Okay, there's a D
[50:39] and then you just go dot dot dot dot
[50:41] with an asterric there. So it doesn't
[50:43] actually connect up to century
[50:45] graphically, but it could if that's what
[50:48] ends up happening in 2050 for the 2050
[50:51] comp plan.
[50:53] I mean from a technical plat standpoint
[50:56] it actually ends here. So it's not
[50:58] connecting actually to
[50:59] >> I'm sorry I can't see what you're
[51:00] saying.
[51:01] >> Uh sorry habit. Um let's go to a
[51:06] >> so on back to page five.
[51:11] >> It ends at the property line. There's a
[51:12] gap between those areas that sentry that
[51:16] would have to occur. So this is really
[51:18] just showing where it ends at the
[51:20] planet. It's not showing all the way.
[51:21] that would be done under there have to
[51:23] be property acquisition there have to be
[51:25] other things that occur. So that's not a
[51:26] d as part of what's shown in exhibit
[51:31] on page five on the access point
[51:33] exhibit. It does not connect with
[51:36] existing Century Avenue.
[51:41] » Have has the city explored yet
[51:43] connecting point D to point F going to
[51:47] the east and the north?
[51:50] We we have not evaluated uh any
[51:53] alternatives that would be the work task
[51:55] as part of the 2050 plan.
[51:58] >> That's kind of my point though because
[52:02] this is so unofficial. I'm sorry but we
[52:04] have the road going from Bailey up to
[52:08] the point D. And I understand their the
[52:13] commenters's points about it looks like
[52:16] it's going to connect a century. And if
[52:18] we are thinking about considering other
[52:20] alternatives, what if we don't have this
[52:23] little swoop here where the E is and we
[52:26] just have a an extension at D and then
[52:30] we don't necessarily know if it's going
[52:32] to go to the east and up, if it's going
[52:35] to go this way.
[52:37] I understand their point that it it
[52:39] looks a little more official than the
[52:42] text actually says it is.
[52:45] Yeah, I've
[52:48] I think if the planning commission would
[52:49] like additional graphics added to the
[52:52] record, we can certainly do that for
[52:54] council to to show that in a little bit
[52:58] more of a a clear fashion that the
[53:00] segment from
[53:02] north from where the on page five where
[53:06] the letter D is to the property line is
[53:09] that full area for future review. We can
[53:12] certainly add that to the public record.
[53:14] Mass ask a follow-up question related to
[53:16] yours.
[53:17] >> So I guess my question would be is
[53:20] do we need to dedicate the rightway all
[53:23] the way through the plat as proposed if
[53:26] it if there are alternative analysis
[53:30] being considered.
[53:32] >> Uh we we necessarily have to this is the
[53:35] preliminary plat. The final plat would
[53:37] dictate what what is or is not dedicated
[53:40] at this point. We do not need the road
[53:43] right ofway dedicated at this time.
[53:47] >> Can I conduct a straw poll? Just hit
[53:50] raise your hand if you like this graphic
[53:52] idea. Commissioners
[53:55] on three. One, two, three. I like it.
[53:58] >> No. Okay.
[54:00] >> Can I ask questions?
[54:01] >> Yes. with you for community motion
[54:04] discussion or sorry to
[54:05] >> I you know so so Eric as I understand
[54:08] that F point that you are showing there
[54:10] right that's already in a neighborhood
[54:13] there correct
[54:14] >> that is correct
[54:15] >> so and and what we are talking about
[54:17] here in essence what problem are we
[54:18] trying to solve the problem we are
[54:20] trying to solve is whatever comes in
[54:21] what is outlaw D needs to have access
[54:25] right can that access actually come from
[54:28] a combination of D and a combination of
[54:30] F as compared to anything running up to
[54:33] Century Avenue um you know because we
[54:37] don't know what outlot B is going to be
[54:38] but let's just say it's low density
[54:40] housing which is the concept that you
[54:42] had kind of put in front of us that can
[54:46] suffice with two different you know kind
[54:48] of access point D and F and doesn't need
[54:51] to actually go and connect what you're
[54:54] showing here with E and the Century
[54:56] Avenue going north. Yeah, I think that's
[54:59] exactly what'll be looked at as part of
[55:00] the 2050 transportation plan is what are
[55:03] the volumes, what are the anticipated
[55:04] volumes of traffic for both the area to
[55:07] the south and the north. That's already
[55:08] in the traffic study, but we'll look at
[55:10] that further. Um, the adopted 2040 plan
[55:14] does show the extension of Century
[55:16] Avenue. So, the 2050 plan would have to
[55:18] amend that under any scenario or as part
[55:21] of a separate action, you would need to
[55:23] delete that from that.
[55:24] >> Okay. The way to delete that or amend
[55:26] that is through detailed study and
[55:28] that's exactly what's being proposed as
[55:29] part of the 2050 plan.
[55:31] >> All right. Thank you,
[55:32] >> Commissioner.
[55:33] >> Sorry I interrupted.
[55:35] >> I just and just a note um if if D does
[55:39] connect over onto the roadway with F. Uh
[55:41] if you take a look on at the legend,
[55:44] there's concern that it would drive
[55:45] right through the neighborhood. They
[55:47] want it to be local connectivity versus
[55:50] moving background traffic through the
[55:52] site. So, you've got to balance the two.
[55:54] What's the lesser of two evils perhaps?
[55:56] I know that probably means another
[56:00] traffic study or just engaged. I I don't
[56:03] know what that means.
[56:04] >> Yeah, I would advise the commission that
[56:06] access point F has been has a future
[56:10] street extension signed there, but from
[56:13] a a routing standpoint is likely not a
[56:17] efficient way to move trips to an
[56:19] ultimate destination. It makes sense as
[56:21] a neighborhood connectivity standpoint.
[56:22] That is certainly the best practice.
[56:24] Access point E and the connection to
[56:27] existing Central Avenue is in our 2040
[56:29] plan, but as the council directed and
[56:32] the master plan now has been updated to
[56:34] direct is that'll be looked at as the as
[56:36] part of a needs analysis as part of the
[56:39] our next planning exercise.
[56:42] >> Thank you, chair.
[56:44] >> Did anybody have any other thoughts
[56:46] about this very beautiful sketch as
[56:50] presented?
[56:52] I think
[56:52] >> okay
[56:53] >> chair if you would I mean from a staff
[56:55] standpoint I think with for the
[56:57] residents that are in the audience or
[56:58] the and for anyone we want this to be
[57:01] clear and and our goal within some of
[57:03] the design and purpose was to to add
[57:04] that level of clarity because as people
[57:06] look at this one two six years from now
[57:08] we wanted to make sure and we'll have
[57:10] minutes from this meeting as well we can
[57:12] add some graphics to better show what
[57:14] the intent of the dialogue has been
[57:16] which is this what I'll call segment E
[57:19] is a future study
[57:21] Maybe that's a simple future study goes
[57:23] below it.
[57:24] >> I I think the text makes that clear.
[57:26] It's the graphic that I think is
[57:28] throwing residents off because frankly
[57:32] people like pictures and they're going
[57:33] to look at pictures first.
[57:34] >> I I I think you know it's a balance
[57:37] because we also it there could be under
[57:39] that analysis that it is recommended
[57:41] that it occurs and if we delete it
[57:43] you're going to have a lot of residents
[57:44] saying well we didn't know we didn't
[57:46] know that that was even a possibility.
[57:47] So it's a balance. We're trying to
[57:49] balance and it is going to be a thorough
[57:51] review. It is not a review that is uh
[57:54] that that that's going to be done to
[57:57] with rigor to see what ultimately is
[57:59] best for the community.
[58:04] » You know, from my standpoint, it
[58:06] actually depends on what is the density
[58:07] of like people needing to go into outlaw
[58:10] D area, whatever that turns out to be,
[58:12] right? Um that's kind of what is going
[58:15] to drive the access piece.
[58:18] my opinion
[58:19] >> and those land use decisions will be
[58:21] done as part of the land use chapter of
[58:23] the 2050 plan and so that's the stacking
[58:25] of decisions. So you start with the land
[58:27] use to get those inputs ultimately then
[58:29] look at it through the transportation
[58:30] lens.
[58:31] >> What about if under the design and
[58:33] purpose legend for um E where it talks
[58:38] about the 2050 comprehensive plans just
[58:40] in parentheses including alternative
[58:43] routes. Sure.
[58:46] >> That if the commission is supportive of
[58:48] that, staff would not have any issue
[58:49] with that. And
[58:50] >> is that going to go over better than my
[58:52] little sketch?
[58:56] » Second.
[58:56] >> Okay.
[58:58] All right. Do we have any other public
[59:01] comments come in? Any other um questions
[59:04] online?
[59:06] >> Not at this time, chair.
[59:07] >> Okay. Does anybody have any other
[59:09] questions, comments, concerns?
[59:13] All right. I can't do it. Look alive,
[59:15] people. We're looking for a motion.
[59:20] I move to approve the project number 1
[59:24] 19202500600
[59:28] the um Bailey West comprehensive plan
[59:32] amendment resoning and preliminary plot
[59:36] with the um additional I think two um
[59:40] conditions signage as um suggested by
[59:43] Commissioner Gentiel and um to perhaps leave room for further
[59:51] exploration of the Century Road
[59:53] connection, including alternative access
[59:56] paths.
[59:58] >> Do we have a second?
[59:59] >> I second.
[1:00:01] >> All right, the motion passes. Oh, no, it
[1:00:03] doesn't. Wait, we need to vote.
[1:00:07] All in favor, say I.
[1:00:09] >> I.
[1:00:10] >> All right, now it passes. It will be
[1:00:13] going to the
[1:00:16] July 8th city council hearing.
[1:00:21] And with that, we are ready to move on.
[1:00:24] Have has anybody had uh Oh, council
[1:00:27] member Stafford is here for our council
[1:00:30] report.
[1:00:34] This is kind of interesting the way
[1:00:37] these graphics are going here. Um, this
[1:00:39] is my last planning commission meeting.
[1:00:43] Uh, council member Santini will be with
[1:00:46] you the next quarter. We alternate them
[1:00:48] quarterly.
[1:00:50] Um,
[1:00:52] what have we been up to? We have been
[1:00:53] looking at
[1:00:55] drafts of solicitor permits, the
[1:00:59] doortodoor sales people,
[1:01:02] as we've had a lot of concern and have
[1:01:04] thought about it. So, we've got staff
[1:01:06] working on drafts for that. We're making
[1:01:09] progress with a draft of backyard
[1:01:11] chickens.
[1:01:15] Um, so the part of it, a big part of it
[1:01:18] is listening to the community as you
[1:01:20] have done tonight with the people in
[1:01:22] Century Avenue. Is it this is where
[1:01:25] government works slowly, but it's
[1:01:27] because we're listening to get it done.
[1:01:30] And then last but not least is the uh
[1:01:33] Fourth of July hometown celebration and
[1:01:36] it's at M Health Fairview this year on
[1:01:38] the 4th of July and there's lots of
[1:01:41] activities. It's going to be one of the
[1:01:43] biggest ones we've ever had and we're
[1:01:45] all very excited.
[1:01:48] So I hope to see you all out there and I
[1:01:50] hope it's a little cooler than it is
[1:01:52] today.
[1:02:01] Thank you, Council Member Stafford.
[1:02:04] Next, we have approval of the minutes
[1:02:06] from June 16th. Does anybody have any
[1:02:10] questions, comments, concerns about the
[1:02:12] minutes?
[1:02:22] So, I have one
[1:02:26] on page six, very first line, if we
[1:02:30] could just add the word asked.
[1:02:34] Uh, Miss Swanson said that she had a
[1:02:36] parking concern in the high density
[1:02:38] residential area. And if
[1:02:41] and asked if that would be a
[1:02:43] subterranean garage for the residents.
[1:02:48] Just the one this time.
[1:02:52] All right. We will entertain a motion
[1:02:54] for the minutes.
[1:02:59] » I'll make a motion to approve the
[1:03:01] minutes.
[1:03:03] >> Do we have a second?
[1:03:04] >> I'll second.
[1:03:07] >> All in favor say I.
[1:03:08] >> I. I.
[1:03:10] >> The minutes are approved and we are
[1:03:13] adjourned. Thank you.