Woodbury City Council — Transcript
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
Story
Woodbury approves two major residential developments despite concerns
Story
Woodbury City Council Approves Beenberg Drive Multifamily Development
State Housing Legislation (Starter Homes Bill) Update
Votes (3)
Consideration of Approval for the 47 Pines Public Hearing (Item 7A)
Dissent: None
Moved by Mayor Bert [1:10:48] · Seconded by Council member Stafford [1:10:50]
The discussion centered on the proposed residential development, particularly the rationale for changing the comprehensive plan designation from rural estate to urban estate due to changed conditions (e.g., proximity to city sewer/water and a municipal drinking water well, making private wells undesirable). Council members inquired about the design of temporary and ultimate cul-de-sacs, the need for future road extension signage, and pedestrian safety for students walking to Bailey Elementary along new trails and narrow roads. The Planning Commission's unanimous approval was highlighted, and staff confirmed the project required multiple concurrent approvals due to its scope.
Consideration of Approval of the Beenberg Drive Multifamily Public Hearing (Item 7B)
Dissent: Council member Wilson and Council member Morris initially voted no on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, citing disappointment with the corridor's development and the age restriction. They later changed their votes to 'yes' with statements articulating their continued disappointment but support for the project itself.
Moved by Mayor Bert [2:11:59] · Seconded by Council member Stafford [2:12:05]
The council debated the proposed 150-unit multifamily development, specifically its targeting as a 55+ active adult community within the Gold Line corridor. Key concerns included the permanency of the age restriction (confirmed as a deed restriction), the adequacy of proposed parking spaces given state legislative trends, and how the project aligned with the long-term vision for the Gold Line gateway corridor. Council members expressed disappointment that the corridor's development was not fully matching previous master plan discussions, particularly regarding the mix of housing demographics. The council ultimately approved the project after a notable discussion where two council members initially voted against the comprehensive plan amendment due to these concerns, then rescinded their votes to support the project while reiterating their disappointment.
City Administrator's Report
The City Administrator provided updates on the 'starter homes bill' at the state level, noting the city's ongoing advocacy regarding concerns with preemption and mandated density. Appreciation was extended to staff and representatives for their work. Upcoming community events were announced: the Woodbury Community Expo on March 28th and the groundbreaking for the new Public Safety Building on May 8th.
Notable Quotes (9)
The applicant is requesting to modify that through a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use of the property from rural estate to urban estate. The city historically has used one of two findings of fact. either a mistake was made in the original comprehensive plan or times and conditions have changed. In this case, staff identifies that times and conditions have changed to warrant a a change in the comprehensive plan.
due to the close proximity to that well, it is highly advised that additional private water wells not be permitted. And again, under the existing zoning and land use, that would require private well and septic versus connection to the city sewer and water.
my concern was this. Um I know that when we have a lot of uh walkers from the schools, um these these roads tend to get bottlenecked up and I'm guessing this is not going to What's the width of the road? 26 feet. Yeah. Very skinny roads. And a lot of times parents have a habit of parking and having kids walk so they don't get caught in the school traffic and it creates a bottleneck for and a safety issue for pedestrians and especially these kids coming from elementary school.
it is a it is a restriction. You're correct. Uh what we've seen on our past projects it has been a deed restriction but it will be a requirement to live there um for the entirety of the project.
I would like to bring up a topic. This is a little bit on the side, but it's related to legislation in front of the state that the state is looking at right now. The state is looking at restricting parking even further... one stall per unit I would say is insufficient.
I'm a it's not for us the project we're going to on its face. I'll just say this just to say this is that I'm a little disappointed that it is 55 plus targeted. Um I'm I am disappointed because I I would like this to be an opportunity. These are this is a great product in its market rate. Um that targeting disappoints me a little bit because wherever we are access to transit this this housing is direct access to transit.
I do have concerns uh that you know that we did spend so much time on what we wanted this corridor to look like and it is not looking like what we had planned on and it's just frustrating on why do we take the time and all these council meetings to do all this stuff and then go down a path that just does um exactly uh opposite of what we said we wanted.
I will go on the record and say any additional housing in here that restricts to aging, I will be a no vote for.
The bill has come a long way uh than previous years, but we still do have concerns primarily with preeemption and uh requirement of lots of units on um one AC one one lot essentially. Um, we have the best staff working on it and because of the leadership of assistant community development director, city planner Eric Surles, uh, uh, community development director, um, Janelle Schmidtz, uh, Shelley Schaefer, who's our community relations manager, Mayor Bert, and all this council. Uh, we are at the table, um, to make an impact and hopefully get the bill to a better place that really works for the city of Woodbury.
Ordinances & Resolutions (17)
Existing zoning for 47 Pines property.
Existing land use guidance for 47 Pines property.
Proposed land use for 47 Pines property after Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Requested change to land use for both 47 Pines and Beenberg Drive projects.
Application type for both residential projects to provide flexibility in zoning standards.
Resolution for adopting findings of fact for the 47 Pines Conditional Use Permit.
Document outlining conditions for approval of the 47 Pines PUD.
Existing zoning for Beenberg Drive multifamily property.
Existing land use guidance for Beenberg Drive multifamily property.
Proposed zoning for Beenberg Drive multifamily property after rezoning.
Broader development context for the Beenberg Drive multifamily project.
City's long-term comprehensive plan.
Master plan guiding development along the Gold Line corridor, justifying the Beenberg Drive amendments.
Ordinance for rezoning the Beenberg Drive property.
Resolution for adopting findings of fact for the Beenberg Drive Conditional Use Permit.
Document outlining conditions for approval of the Beenberg Drive PUD.
State-level housing legislation being debated, concerning affordable housing, preemption, and density mandates.