[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.

Woodbury Planning Commission 6-29-26

Transcript