--- ## author: Beck, Megan date: D:20260501083310-05'00' --- ## Planning Commission Agenda May 4, 2026 | 7:00 p.m. ## City Hall, Council Chambers The May 4, 2026 Planning Commission meeting is taking place at the Woodbury City Hall in the Council Chambers. Members of the public may attend the meeting in person and may also join the meeting using a computer, tablet, or smartphone and accessing the virtual meeting link at woodburymn.gov/VirtualMeetings. Public comments will be accepted during the meeting both in person and virtually. Virtual questions should be submitted via the online Q&A feature within the virtual meeting link. Questions regarding this meeting can be taken between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. via email planning@woodburymn.gov or by calling 651-714-3533 and leaving a voicemail message. The City of Woodbury is subject to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities. The City is committed to full implementation of the Act to our services, programs and activities. Information regarding the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act is available from the City Administrator’s office at 651- 714-3523. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 72 hours in advance of an event. Please call the ADA Coordinator at 651-714-3523 (TDD 651-714-3568) to make arrangements. 1. Call to Order ## 2. Public Input Sign-up Sheet ## 3. Roll Call ## 4. Discussion Items ## A: Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan, Project No. 2025-00604 The City of Woodbury has prepared the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan. The intent of the plan is to document existing conditions, provide guidance on lot and home types, roadway design and access management, stormwater management approach, parks and open space, and pedestrian movements. The attached report provides additional information on the master plan. ## 5. Council Report: Councilmember Donna Stafford 6. Approval of Minutes – February 23, 2026 draft 7. Adjourn ## CITY OF WOODBURY ## PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 4, 2026 ## Project No. : 2025-00604 Prepared By: Gina McCormack ## Senior Planner 651-714-3531 gina.mccormack@woodburymn.gov ## Project Name: Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan Recommendation: Approval Request: Master Plan Site Size: 370 acres ## PROPOSAL The City of Woodbury has prepared the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan. The intent of the plan is to document existing conditions, provide guidance on lot and home types, roadway design and access management, stormwater management approach, parks and open space, and pedestrian movements. The attached report provides additional information on the master plan. ## BACKGROUND City Council Directive 3.26 provides policy requirements and direction for the creation of master plans. Master plans are required: 1. Prior to opening a development phase or sub-phase. 2. Prior to the approval of a Planned Unit Development for properties with common ownership that are within the existing Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and measure more than 100 acres. The proposed plan area is highlighted in red below. ## Planning Commission Staff Report May 4, 2026 Page 2 of 6 The Cottage Grove Drive Area Master Plan (the Plan) includes approximately 370 acres of land with varied ownership, development interests and timing. The master plan contains the remaining area of Sub-Phase 2D that has not been studied with a master plan, along with some areas of Phase 3 to ensure future design consistency when those phases are opened for development. Public Engagement – - In advance of beginning the master plan work, staff sent out a questionnaire to property owners in the area to understand the current use of their property, if development was an opportunity, and timing for future plans. These questionnaires led to several individual property owner meetings with staff. Due to the variety of interests and parcel sizes within the master plan area, staff has coordinated: - Two (2) formal property owner meetings for properties within the boundary - 15+ individual property owner meetings - One (1) surrounding area formal neighborhood meeting Components – The master plan report covers a variety of considerations for the project area. For the purposes of this staff report a summary of the report highlights are included here, for additional details please review the attached report. 1. Development context The Plan identifies a study area of approximately 370 acres in both Phase 2D and Phase 3 within the southeast portion of Woodbury. The area has a variety of ownership including 19 different property owners and 13 homesteads. While some of these are anticipated to be sold to developers, other owners are interested in remaining on their properties for years to come. The utilities to serve the future development will extend from the low density residential subdivisions directly to the west. The surrounding areas adjacent to the master plan are identified within the context map below. ## Planning Commission Staff Report May 4, 2026 Page 3 of 6 2. Regional Stormwater management approach The City of Woodbury consulted with Barr Engineering for an environmental planning study to identify natural resource areas and future stormwater management approaches in areas with future development in the City. One of the subject sites was this master plan area and the findings indicated a majority of the project area (approximately 249 acres) could be served by a regional stormwater management system on one property. The regional approach has numerous benefits for the subject area including:  Removal of individual basins by development  Improved efficiency for maintenance and design  This area may contain karst topography throughout the area which would make individual stormwater management per site challenging to design and implement.  Ability to expand the adjacent stormwater management system from the development to the west (Sienna Grove).  Ability to use the regional system to expand greenway corridor viewshed. The graphic below represents the concept stormwater management for the project area with the regional stormwater basin shown in the red box: ## 3. Housing Diversity Multiple c omprehensive plans, including the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, have established a vision for Places to Live to offer housing choices to people in all stages of life. One of the consistent land use policies looks to ensure diversity of housing is provided with a mix of 50% single-family units and 50% multi-family units. The master plan proposes a range of lot ## Planning Commission Staff Report May 4, 2026 Page 4 of 6 sizes include 45-50’, 55-60’, 65’+ and 100’+ lots. The areas identified in dark orange are for townhomes or small lot single family (45 foot minimum) to meet the need for multi-family units. The housing market has identified challenges with constructing townhomes at this time due rising homeowners association (HOA) and increased insurance costs. The Plan is intended to provide flexibility to allow either 45’ lots or townhomes, within the dark orange/brown areas above, to ensure diversity of housing products and prices can be achieved regardless of market conditions. The master plan also identifies areas for the creation of 100 foot wide lots. One area is based on property owner feedback to create an area of potential custom lots for non-national builders and to establish a unique neighborhood with robust landscaping and screening from nursery plants. The other area is adjacent to Dale Road. It was identified that each property owner in this location has a variety of timing and development interests so the large lots provide two solutions:  Allow each property to create value on the property while being able to retain the existing home. 100 foot lots would be accessed from private drives on Dale Road.  Preservation of the existing high quality woodlands on the northern portion of the lots in exchange for access management flexibility through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. ## 4. Park and Open Space Network The Plan thoughtfully laid out greenway corridors, a neighborhood park and natural resource preservation within the context of the uses and surrounding property uses. ## Planning Commission Staff Report May 4, 2026 Page 5 of 6  Greenway corridor: The extension of the greenway into the master plan boundary will essentially connect Woodbury Drive to Andy’s Bark Park. The corridor will incorporate the regional stormwater management system, trunk sewer alignment, and trails before heading south to Dale Road and an existing drainage way on the properties to the south.  Neighborhood park: The comprehensive plan identifies a neighborhood park to be established north of Dale Road, east of Cottage Grove Drive. The master plan shows two potential locations where this park could be developed along with performance standards for the park including a tot lot, setback from adjacent roadways, tie to the greenway corridor and review of bump out parking stalls if feasible.  High quality woodlands: The previously mentioned Barr Engineering study identified natural resources within future development areas of the community. The woodlands located on the north half of properties 13-17 were identified as high quality and home to 300 oak trees in excellent condition. The City seeks to preserve these natural resources by providing an alternate development pattern and requirements for these lots in exchange for an easement for protection. ## Planning Commission Staff Report May 4, 2026 Page 6 of 6 ## 5. Street Typology The master plan establishes access management requirements for Cottage Grove Drive and Dale Road along with concepts of how these roads could be interconnected property by property. These connections and final roadway design will be completed with subdivision applications. The purpose of the master plan is to establish the sections for the major collector roads (Cottage Grove Drive and Dale Road), right-of-way requirements, residential road design standards and private drive standards. ## RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan, project number 2025-00604. ## ATTACHMENTS ## 1. Draft Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan ## 2. Draft Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan report ## H e r m a n ## La n e ## DALE RD ## COTTAGE GROVE DR ## COTTAGE GROVE DR ## COTTAGE GROVE DR ## DALE RD ## DALE RD ## EXISTING LARGE ## HOMES SITES ## EXISTING ## HOMES SITES ## EXISTING ## HOMES SITE ## REGIONAL ## STORMWATER ## NEEDED ## SOUTH ## PARK ## OPPORTUNITY ## PARK ## OPPORTUNITY ## POTENTIAL GRADE SEPERATED ## CROSSING OR RRFB ## COTTAGE GROVE DRIVE ## MASTER PLAN ## DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT ## STORMWATER BMP ## WETLAND ## RESTORATION ## STORMWATER BMP ## FUTURE ## INTERSECTION ## CONTROL LIKELY A ## ROUND-A-BOUT ## POTENTIAL GRADE ## SEPERATED/UNDERPASS ## - GRANT FUNDED ## Street Right of Way ## Pipeline Easment ## Trails ## Project Boundary ## Water Bodies and Wetlands ## LEGEND ## COLOR Greenway and ## Park Areas ## LOT DIMENSION ## 100’ + W 65’ + ## W ## 55’ -60’ W 45’ - 50’ W or ## Townhomes 1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 10 12 13 14151617 18 21 22 19 20 11 ## 0200400 FT ## N ## Street Right of Way ## Full Intersections ## Round-A-Bout ## Pedestrian Underpass ## LEGEND ## Street Right of Way ## Trails ## Sidewalks ## Pedestrian Underpass ## LEGEND ## Street Right of Way ## Stormwater Basins ## LEGEND ## Owner NameNet AcresNumber Minimum - 2 ## Unit per Acres Maximum - 3.5 ## Units per Acre ## 1 TMT Land Xi LLC11.672341 ## 2 LAEMMLE WILLIAM & MARLENE A16.473358 ## 3 ROACH CHARLES & EZRIEL4.27915 ## 4 TMT Land Xi LLC8.651730 ## 5 CLANCY ANNE M3.61713 ## 6 ROUSE ELISABETH D4.44916 ## 7 3M CHEMICAL OPERATIONS LLC26.225292 ## 8GEHRKE VAUGHN L & KELLY J 5.071018 ## 9 GORDON D TANK LIV TRS ETAL62.11124217 ## 10 LAMBRIDES JACOB J2.3658 ## 11 SPRINGER THOMAS J & JULIE L4.42915 ## 12 RYGH WOODBURY LLP25.295189 ## 13GLORIA J SHARP REV TRS & COLIN M 5.211018 ## 14 LIKES WILLIAM W3.15611 ## 15 MANION KARLY M3.13611 ## 16 LOE DOUGLAS MICHAEL3.09611 ## 17 MOORE KEVIN W & ROXANNE M3.8813 ## 18 TMT Land Xi LLC17.483561 ## 19 IGI 14.292950 ## 20 SPQR WOODBURY SOUTH LLC3.32712 ## 21 IGI 21.014274 ## 22 IGI 10.282136 ## Totals 259.34519908 1 ## MASTER PLAN AND ## DESIGN GUIDELINES ## COTTAGE GROVE DRIVE & DALE ROAD 04.24.2026 ## DRAFT 2 ## Acknowledgments ## Prepared for: The City of Woodbury Prepared by: ## •Woodbury City Staff •Planning Commission •City Council ## 800 Washington Ave N, Suite 207, ## Minneapolis, MN ## 8301 Valley Creek Rd, Woodbury, MN Overview 3 3 3 4 ## Project Purpose/Background ## Design Guidelines ## Plan ## Location ## Development Context 5 ## Existing Conditions 6 6 ## Master Plan Area ## Background ## Site Mapping 7 ## Proposed Development 12 Context 12 ## Proposed Plan 13 ## Master Plan Goals 14 ## Development Typologies 15 ## Lot Sizes/Products 15 ## Street Typologies 20 Streets 20 ## Intersections 22 ## Open Space Network 24 ## Trails/Park/Open Space 24 ## Stormwater 26 Appendix 27 ## Table of Contents 3 •Focused on guiding development that creates a strong sense of place. •Used alongside the required design standards in the zoning code. •May be altered in the future as part of development review. How should the design guidelines be used? •Property owners and developers should review these guidelines prior to submitting a development application. •Design guidelines and master plan elements will be reviewed via subdivision application. Consistency with the Plan will be reviewed as part of the findings of fact for future planned unit developments. ## Design Guidelines The Cottage Grove and Dale Road Master Plan (the Plan) provides guidelines for development planning. The following sections provide guidance for land development from home types and sizes, and interconnectivity between properties in terms of roadway connections, utilities and infrastructure, and trails. What are design guidelines? ## Project Purpose This master plan aligns with development phasing in the 2040 ## Comprehensive Plan, guiding properties within the master plan area for development between 2026 and 2040. The Plan seeks to align property owner goals for development with efficient extension of municipal services, anticipated transportation network needs, provide a network of trails and open space to enhance the plan area, and preserve key natural resources. ## OVERVIEW 4 ## Plan Location ## 370.41 ACRES Figure 1. Project area map ## Existing Non-conforming Uses ## The master plan area contains existing business uses in the form of greenhouses, plant nursery and a landscape contractor. These uses were established in the 1980s under the nursery, horticulture provision within the R-1, Urban Reserve District ordinance. These uses are regulated under the nonconforming uses section within City Code. The greenhouse use and nursery use are permitted to continue with normal maintenance permitted, however they cannot be expanded or enlarged and must be removed if the use is discontinued for a period of more than 12 months, or with subdivision and development of the property. The landscape business is considered nonconforming but due to ordinance requirements, must apply for an interim conditional use permit to ensure the site is being maintained in good condition until such time the property is residentially subdivided and the use is required to cease. 5 ## Development Context ## Trunk Utilities Currently, rural lots within the master plan area are served by individual septic treatment systems and private wells for sewer and potable water. Future development will require extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water utilities to accommodate increased densities and demand. Figure 22 in the Appendix PG 32 from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies future trunk sanitary sewer routes within the master plan area to support development phasing. Two gravity trunk lines will drain westward and meet at a node along Cottage Grove Drive. Figure 23 in the Appendix PG 33 from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies two future 16 inch potable water mains within the master plan area, one along Cottage Grove Drive and the other along Dale Road. ## Stormwater Study ## The City of Woodbury has contracted with Barr Engineering ## Co mpany for a environmental planning study to identify future natural resources, greenways and recommended stormwater management approach options for a variety of sites in the community, including the master plan area. The final environmental planning study recommends a regional stormwater management approach for 249 acres generally north of Dale Road within the master plan area. The study identifies the use of the property owned by Ezriel Roach for this system. The regional system is approximately 11 acres in size, and ties into the stormwater management system within the Sienna Grove development to the west. This is identified in Figure 17 in the Appendix PG 28. Refinement of stormwater management design and requirements will be completed with development applications. ## Karst Karst geology is a sub-surface feature formed by the dissolution of soluble bedrock by water, which allows cracks and fissures to form underground. The cracks and fissures expand over time, creating underground passages and caves, posing potential sinkhole risks, especially when stormwater retention ponds or other stormwater infrastructure are located in karst sites. For example, during a heavy rain event in Woodbury in 2005 that exceeded a 100-year storm event, excessive rainfall and flooding caused a sinkhole to form in a regional stormwater pond. The sinkhole was likely caused by the weight of the pond water collapsing an existing cave. Figure 9-5 from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies "Near Surface Karst Features", sites with 50 feet or less of cover to St. Peter Sandstone. Much of the master plan area is above karst features, requiring careful consideration in development siting and intensity, especially as it pertains to stormwater infrastructure which further supports the need for a regional stormwater management approach. New developments in the project site will be required to take soil borings in locations with proposed stormwater treatment systems to identify potential sinkhole risks, which may impact stormwater infrastructure siting and methods per the City’s Stormwater Guide. ## Greenway Corridor According to the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, greenway corridors should be used whenever possible to link parks and open space areas. Greenway corridors may integrate trails to allow active living or nature uses. While planning development patterns for the master plan area, identifying potential greenway corridors connecting stormwater infrastructure, wetlands, and parks, such as Andy’s Bark Park, is a priority. The design goal for the project was to connect the existing trail and greenway system at Woodbury Drive to Andy's Bark Park. 6 ## Master Plan Area & Context The area is located in the southeast portion of Woodbury and is currently owned by several property owners (19 total). The area consists of approximately 13 existing homesteads, agricultural fields, nursery/greenhouse uses and woodland or open space. Some of these rural properties are anticipated to be sold by the owners for development in the coming years when the sub-phase opens for development and municipal utilities are available. It is also identified that some of the property owners do not intend to develop regardless of these improvements. The area is surrounded by low density residential land uses to the west and north. Adjacent to the east of the area is an existing city owned dog park, Andy’s Bark Park. To the south are existing agricultural fields guided as Urban Reserve land use. ## Site Factors Natural factors impacting future development include steep slopes, k arst geology, FEMA-mapped floodplain, and existing high quality woodlands. Other factors include existing homes, utility easements, proposed and platted developments, and planned future road improvements. ## Proposed Development The area is anticipated to deliver low density residential land uses; greenways and trails; parks and open space; and stormwater management. As part of the adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Places to Shop land uses were reviewed at the intersection of Dale Road and Cottage Grove Drive. At that time, and still true today, the existing and future vehicle trip counts were not high enough to support these uses. Instead, the Comprehensive Plan identifies future mixed use (retail use opportunities) at Cottage ## Grove Drive/Bailey Road and Manning Avenue/ Bailey Road. The proposed development patterns and timeline align with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which guides the site for low density residential use and development. The maps on the following pages further articulate the existing site conditions. ## EXISTING CONDITIONS ## Master Plan Area Background Looking east off of Cottage Grove Drive towards the exiting tree farm ## Looking SW off of Dale Road 7 ## Existing Property Use ## Figure 2. Existing Land Use Map 8 ## Figure 3. Property Ownership Map ## Property Ownership 9 ## Figure 4. Natural Resources Map ## Natural Resources 10 ## Figure 5. Development Constraints Map ## Dale Rd ## Dale Rd ## Cottage Grove Dr ## Development Constraints 11 ## Figure 6. Utility Easements Map ## Utility Easements 12 ## PROPOSED PLAN ## Connection to Background ## The master plan utilized the background information of the site, maps, property owner feedback, market conditions, and staff guidance to develop a preferred plan. This Plan works around the natural features that exist on the site such as wetlands, woodlands, and topography. It incorporates the regional stormwater management planning from the BARR study as well as integrates other stormwater management best management practices south of Dale Road. There are several existing homesteads and this Plan identifies these have the ability remain in the near-term or long-term. The intersections accommodate the necessary access management for future roadways set at a 1/8 mile spacing, per the corridor design principles. ## Context Figure 7. Context map in relation to surrounding developments Surrounding the master plan area are several different uses including a nursery/container field, a ˊashington ʶounty public works facility, electrical su bstation, future developments and urban reserve land areasʡ This ˃lan is designed to align with e˫isting development points and establish areas for connection to future development areas. 13 ## Proposed Plan ## Figure 8. Proposed Plan 14 ## Master Plan Goals Land use patterns and development typologies The 2040 Comprehensive Plan establishes a vision for Places to Live to offer housing choices to people in all stages of life from first homes to dwellings that allow graceful aging. One of the policies within the Places to Live section establishes a policy to maintain a mix of housing which includes 50 percent single-family and 50 percent multi-family/ attainable housing types. The Plan identifies areas for townhomes or small lot single family (45-50 feet) to meet these diversity needs. The market has identified challenges with constructing townhomes at this time due to rising homeowners association (HOA) and insurance costs. The Plan builds in flexibility to allow either 45 foot minimum lots or townhomes, to ensure diversity of housing products and prices can still be achieved regardless of market conditions. Land use patterns and developments must align with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which guides the project site for Low Density Residential uses. Housing types aligning with Low Density Residential include single- family homes, twin homes, townhomes, and detached townhomes. Open space preservation/ conservation design strategies Future development should protect identified natural resources as identified in Figure 9-4 of the 2040 Comprehensive plan. Identified natural resources in the Plan include existing woodlands just south of Andy’s Bark Park. Park/open space connections and trail system To align with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, pedestrian and open space connections should be provided to achieve a relationship with the larger Woodbury community. Future developments should include connections to the nearby Andy’s Bark Park, future trails identified in Figure 8-11 of the Comprehensive Plan, and proposed greenways identified in Figure 9-4 of the Comprehensive Plan. Ideally, connections will be in the form of accessible multi-use trails, which will provide connections to the broader pedestrian network. Development magnitude and density Land use patterns and developments must align with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which guides the project site for Low Density Residential uses and identifies the density range as 2-3.5 units per acre. The proposed development patterns meet the density threshold by providing a range between 519- 908 gross units within the Plan. Further, areas will be removed from this calculation including tree protection area, regional stormwater management basin, major road right-of-way, and greenway corridors to calculate net density. ## DEVELOPMENT TYPOLOGIES Lot sizes ## Key Map ## Setbacks Dimensions ## 45-50 Foot Lot Layouts ## Figure 9. 45 Foot Lot Layout ## 45 Foot Minimum Product Type Woodbury has a commitment to housing choice diversity through multi-family and single family which supports 45 foot minimum lots/townhomes. It also allows for flexibility due to market conditions. 45 foot lots may allow for building pads (30 feet wide x 50 feet deep) while providing adequate area for future investment into the property such as additions or accessory structures. Additionally, reduced driveway width may be required to accommodate snow storage and lands cape area. Maximum Sale Price (45 to 49 foot lots) The City is committed to providing attainable housing options for residents of all income levels and backgrounds. Increasing housing costs have made it challenging for many, especially first-time homebuyers, to find suitable housing within their price point. This master plan intends to leverage single family lot width flexibility to dimensions not seen before (45’- 49’) through the planning unit development (PUD) process. In return for this flexibility, a future PUD would require a sale price cap to ensure a direct correlation between lot reduction and attainability, which is anticipated to be between 110-120 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). Due to uncertainty of when the development is known, a f irm AMI price point is not recommended, and instead should be established within the PUD. Townhomes and single family lots 50 feet and above would be required to meet PUD flexibility requirements but would not be required to have a maximum sale price. ## House Pad Front Yard ## Setback from ROW 25’ ## House Pad Side Yard ## Setback from RO ## W 20’ Garage side yard setback 5’ House side yard set back 10’ Rear yard setback35’ Major roadway setback 50’ Lot depth minimum125’ 16 ## Key Map ## Setbacks Dimensions 55- ## 60 F ## oot Lot Layouts ## 55 Foot Product Type House dimensions can vary within the 55 foot lot but space is provided to fit a building pad at the size of 35’ by 60’. 55 foot lots have been established throughout the community to allow for single family homes with 2-3 car garages and villa homes ## with HOA maintenance. The Plan identifies a variety of areas where these could be established within a neighborhood or as a standalone development. ## Figure 10. 55 Foot Lot Layout ## House Pad Front Yard ## Setback from ROW 25’ ## House Pad Side Yard ## Setback from ROW 20’ Garage side yard setback 5’ House side yard set back 10’ Rear yard setback35’ Major roadway setback 50’ Lot depth minimum125’ 17 ## 65+ Foot Lot Layouts ## 65 Foot Product Type The house dimensions can vary within 65 foot lots but is provided to fit a ˕˨i˟din ̊ pad at the size of 45 feet by 70 feetʡ ʿots ʩʨ feet and above represent a more standard single family home lot size d˨rin ̊ the last 20 years. This lot size allows for a variety of home products, garage ˦i˭e˦ , accessory structures, villas, and the like to be constructed. ## Figure 11. 65’ Lot Layout ## Setbacks Dimensions ## House Pad Front Yard ## Setback from ROW 25’ ## House Pad Side Yard ## Setback from ROW 20’ Garage side yard setback 5’ House side yard set back 10’ Rear yard setback35’ Major roadway setback 50’ Lot depth minimum125’ ## Key Map 18 ## 100+ Foot Lot Layout (IGI Ownership) ## Figure 12.1. 100’ Lot Layout ## Setbacks Dimensions ## Key Map ## 100 Foot Product ## Type Overall, the building pad dimensions can vary as these lots are anticipated as custom home sites. The property owner has identified a unique vision for this site to create 100 foot lots for non-national builders. The owner is the long time operator of the nursery and is looking to create robust landscaping and screening onsite as well. Staff respects each property owners decision to develop and establish property goals with this vision. ## House Pad Front Yard ## Setback from ROW 35’ ## House Pad Side Yard ## Setback from ROW 20’ Garage side yard setback 5’ House side yard setback 10’ Rear yard setback35’ Major roadway setback 50’ Lot depth minimum 125’ 19 ## Figure 12.2. 100 Foot Lot Layout 100+ Foot ## Lot Layouts (Private Drives off of Dale Road) ## Key Map ## Setbacks Dimensions 100 ʹoot Product Type Overall, the building pad dimensions can vary within the lot as these lots are anticipated as custom home sites. 100 foot lots are shown located off of Dale Road, allo˪in ̊ c˨rrent ˣroˣerty o˪ner˦ to ˣartially develop their property (the open areas south of the larger woodland and existing homesteads). Adding these lots will retain value in the existing homesteads and ensure the high quality woodlands can be retained. During the engagement process for the Plan, staff met with the property owners of the 10-acre properties highlighted above. During those meetings a variety of development interest and timelines were expressed and it was determined it would be a benefit to each property to control their own development and eliminate the need for all lots to be developed together. Based on that feedback, it is identified that each property would connect to City utilities, when available, and subdivide a few lots on the southern portion of their land- if development is desired. It is anticipated flexibility will be needed to allow for private driveways to serve these lots and the number of access points on Dale Road. The PUD process will be utilized for this flexibility, and in exchange staff would work with the homeowners to establish an easement over the high quality woodlands on each property. ## House Pad Front Yard Setback from private drive 35’ ## House Pad Side Yard ## Setback from Dale ## Road 50’ Garage side yard setback 5’ House side yard set back 10’ Rear yard setback35’ Major roadway setback 50’ Lot depth minimum125’ 20 ## LEGEND ## Major Collector Roads ## Residential Roads* ## Private Drives/Driveways Master plan area boundary ʹinal design and alignment of this section of ʷale Road shall be dictated by ## Minnesota State Aid (MSA) roadway standards with steep grades and other constraints consideredʡ ## STREET TYPOLOGIES ## Figure 13. Street Types Diagram *Residential roads within this exhibit are shown for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to represent actual development requirements, except for access management purposes. 21 •provides connections with and among neighborhoods •access management restrictions for driveways •no parking •trail on each side of roadway •trees within boulevards to calm traffic ## Residential Streets “Residential Streets” are identified as STl-8 in the City’s Roadway Corridor Design Principles. A residential street typically has a 60 foot ROW. Some of the principles that should be included with in these ROWs are as follows: •sidewalks on one side of roadway •trees within boulevards •50 feet of ROW for cul-de-sacs ## Private Drives A private drive is not a street type incl˨ded ˪ithin the ## Roadway Corridor Design Principles. However, the ʶity requires all private drives to be constructured at a ˠiniˠ˨ˠ of ʥʧ feet in width. ## Private Drive Example ## Major Collector Road Example ## Residential Street Example ## Street Types and Layouts ## Major Collector Roads The major collector roads in the Plan are Dale Road and Cottage Grove Drive. Based on staff review of the vehicle trips and right-of-way (ROW) needs, these roads shall be designed to meet a D1 street specification within the City's Roadway Corridor Design Principles. Dale Road is identified to need 160 feet of ROW and Cottage Grove Drive needs 120 feet of ROW. Cottage Grove Drive design provides opportunities to preserve existing trees through the use of roadway medians and meandering trails where feasible. Some of the principles that should be included with in these ROWs are as follows: 22 ## Intersections ## LEGEND Full Intersections (1/8 mile spacing) Controlled intersection likely a roundabout Pedestrian Crossing (refuge or grade separated if feasible) Master plan area boundary ## Figure 14. Intersection Types Diagram *Residential roads within this exhibit are shown for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to represent actual development requirements, except for access management purposes . Future dog park entrance re- alignment with a full access intersection. 23 ## Roundabout The City has reviewed the intersection of Dale Road and Cottage Grove Drive and determined this will need future intersection control which is likely to be a roundabout. The traffic volumes will be reviewed and ROW will be acquired in order to facilitate this future control. The Engineering Department will lead the design and review of this corridor. ## Full Intersections ## Th e Plan establishes full movement intersections with a minimum of 1/8 mile spacing, as required by the Roadway Corridor Design Principles. ## Pedestrian Intersections The proposed trail within the Plan incorporates two different primary pedestrian crossings. At the Dale ## Road pedestrian crossing location, the City may review an opportunity to seek grant funding for a grade separated crossing, for trail user safety. If this option is not funded by grants, the trails will be directed to an intersection for crossing instead of creating a mid-block crossing. ## Intersection Amenities Typical intersection amenities could include the following: high visibility crosswalks, truncated domes, and pedestrian crossing signs. ## Intersection Types and Layouts 24 ## OPEN SPACE NETWORK ## LEGEND ## Street Right of Way ## Trails ## Roadway Adjacent Trails ## Sidewalks ## Potential Underpasses or Pedestrian crossing treatment Master plan area boundary ## Figure 15. Trails and Open Space Diagram *Residential roads within this exhibit are shown for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to represent actual development requirements, except for access management purposes. 25 •Two greenway corridors. One that connects Woodbury Drive to Andy's Bark Park and another that runs south to connect Andy's Bark Park to lots south of Dale Road. •Trail connection to Andy’s Bark Park at the northeast corner of the development through some of the existing vegetated and natural areas. •Trail connection along the utility easement. ## Greenways •Maintain 100 foot width to allow for a trail alignment with interest. •Include a minimum 8 foot wide multi-use trail. •Use native vegetation or other low maintenance plantings to provide visual interest, enhance ecological diversity, and reduce maintenance. ## Trails around Stormwater •Include a minimum 8 foot wide trail to serve pedestrians. •Provide small seating areas such as benches, picnic tables, or overlooks where feasible. ## Trails along Utility Easements •Include a minimum 8 foot wide trail to serve residential and community members •Offset the trail to one side to allow for larger native planting areas and landscaping for the trail on the outside/adjacent lots of the easement. ## Parks •New parks in the Plan are meant to enhance the existing natural aspects of the site and provide community members access to the natural areas. •The Plan identifies the creation of a neighborhood park in one of two potential locations identified. Park space should acknowledge performance standards of: -Located no less than 50 feet from an adjacent roadway. Not adjacent to a collector road or major arterial. -Tot lot component to be planned with Parks and Recreation. -Consideration for bump out or pull in parking. ## Typical Trails/Parks/Open Space Amenities New parks and trails through the Plan are meant to enhance existing park amenities and move pedestrians and cyclists through greenway corridors connected to a proposed trail and sidewalk network along streets. Parks and trails introduced in the master plan area include: 26 ## Stormwater ## Figure 16. Stormwater Location and Types Diagram *Residential roads within this exhibit are shown for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to represent actual development requirements, except for access management purposes. ## LEGEND ## Stormwater Locations ## Wetland Location ## Water Flow Master plan area boundary 27 ## APPENDIX ## COTTAGE GROVE DRIVE MASTER PLAN 04.24.2026 ## DRAFT 28 ## Infiltration Basin ## NWL = 914 NWL Area = 4.5 ac Depth = 2' (0.5 in/hr) ## Wet Pond ## NWL = 914 NWL Area = 3.5 ac Required Stormwater Treatment for 250 ac development (assumed 35.6% impervious) --Infiltration volume = 8.2 ac-ft --Infiltration top area = 4.5 ac --Wet pond dead storage volume = 19.4 ac-ft --Wet pond NWL area = 3.5 ac Total NWL area for stormwater treatment = 8 ac Existing floodplain storage to 925.5 ft = 129.9 ac-ft (not including outlot storage) Proposed floodplain storage to 925.5 ft = 190.7 ac-ft (+61.2 ac-ft) Berm Elevation = 922 Existing floodplain area west of Sienna Grove = 18.02 ac Proposed floodplain area = 11.18 ac Tie into existing ## Sienna Grove BMP ## BAI ## L ## E ## Y ## R ## D ## COTTAGE GROVE D ## R ## D ## A ## L ## E RD 95 ## BAILEY’S ## ARBOR PARK ## IDLE ACRE ## PARK ## STONEMILL ## FARMS SOUTH ## PARK ## ANDY’S ## BARK PARK ## WEDGEWOOD ## PARK ## EAGLE ## VALLEY ## PARK 01,0002,000500 ## Feet ́ ## WOODBURY CITY LIMIT ## PROJECT BOUNDARY ## STORMWATER FLOW ## 100’ WIDE GREENWAY CORRIDOR ## CITY PARK ## WOODLAND ## NWI WETLAND ## FILTRATION BASIN ## INFILTRATION BASIN ## STORMWATER POND ## DRAINS TO COTTAGE GROVE DRIVE SITE (249 AC) ## DRAINS TO SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA BMPs (238 AC) 0 1,000’ 500’ ## N ## Southeast Study Area + Cottage ## Grove Drive Site Catchments ## Woodbury Phase Three and Urban ## Reserve Environmental Planning Study ## 249 ACRES ## 238 ACRES ## BARR Study and ## Stormwater ## Calculations ## Figure 17. BARR Water Flow Diagram ## Figure 18. BARR Study 29 ## Potential ## Development ## Scenario Figure 19. Proposed Dvelopment at Dale Road and Cottage Grove Drive 30 ## Greenway ## Corridors Map from the 2040 ## Comp Plan ## LEGEND ## Figure 20. Greenway Corridors Map 31 ## Karst Map from the 2040 ## Comp Plan ## LEGEND ## Figure 21. Karst Map 32 ## Sanitary ## Sewer Map from the 2040 ## Comp Plan ## LEGEND ## Figure 22. Sanitary Sewer Map 33 ## Existing ## Water ## Utilities Map from the 2040 ## Comp Plan ## LEGEND ## Figure 23. Water Utilities Map ## New Bailey Road water tower under construction in 2026 ## CITY OF WOODBURY ## DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 23, 2026 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting was held at Woodbury City Hall, 8301 Valley Creek Road on Monday the 23, February, 2026. ## CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Swanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ## ROLL CALL Upon roll call the following members were present: Stephanie Swanson, Marcia Kennedy, , Saurin Shah, Jim Gentile, Jacob Guzik, and Riyaan Hilowle. Absent member: John Kollm, Shae Seabrooks and Gisele Parnell. ## Council Liaison Present: Steve Morris Staff Present: Eric Searles, Assistant Community Development Director/City Planner and Dan Krumwiede, Planner I. ## DEVELOPMENT ITEMS ## ITEM 1 : BIELENBERG DRIVE MULTI FAMILY, REZONING, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CONDITIONAL USE ## PERMIT, PRELIMINARY PLAT, SITE AND BUILDING PLAN, PROJECT NO. 05-2025-00594 Eric Searles, Assistant Community Development Director, City Planner stated Greco Properties LLC has submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat and Site and Building Plan. He said the application requests to construct a 150-unit multifamily project including both apartment and townhome units. He stated the project property is located north of Tamarack Road and west of Bielenberg Drive. The land is currently zoned B-1 Office Park District and is currently guided as Places to Work. Mr. Searles described the use saying the application is proposing to construct an active adult 55+ senior community including a 137-unit four story apartment building and thirteen townhomes. He said the apartment building consists of 43 one (1) bedroom units, 75 two (2) bedroom units and 19 three (3) bedroom units. He said all of the townhome units are two (2) bedrooms plus den floor plans. Mr. Searles discussed the Gold Line Development saying in February of 2024, the City Council approved the Gold Line Development. He said the first phase of the development included the construction of the Top Golf and Main Event commercial recreation uses but also identified the subject site as a possible future residential use. Mr. Searles said the Applicant is requesting a change to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use from Places to Work to Mixed Use. Mr. Searles said the City has historically required one of the following findings of fact to be made to support a change to the land use of a property via a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. • A mistake was made in designating the property Places to Work in the Comprehensive Plan. • Times and conditions have changed to warrant a change in the plan. Mr. Searles said staff identifies that the times and conditions have changed to warrant a change in the plan. Mr. Searles said on April 13, 2022 City Council approved the Gold Line Station Area Master Plan. Mr. Searles said the purpose of the City’s master plan was to determine the appropriate land uses around each of the three (3) stations, optimize existing development, prepare for potential redevelopment, create a unique sense of place with landscaping and lighting fixtures, and enhance connectivity within the area. Mr. Searles stared within the plan, the subject site was studied due to its proximity to the transit line and was recommend to be guided for high density residential use adjacent to Bielenberg Drive. February 23, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 Mr. Searles talked about the rezoning saying the existing zoning for the property is B-1, Office Park District. Mr. Searles said the application requests a modification of the site zoning to MX, Mixed Use to allow for the proposed residential use. Mr. Searles said the proposed zoning change is appropriate based on the recommend land use change to Mixed Use as State law requires a city to rezone properties consistent with their land use. Mr. Searles talked about density and said the Mixed Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan establishes a maximum density of 15 units per acre unless density bonuses are granted by the City. Mr. Searles said the proposed development density is based off of 10 acres of total developable land from the original Gold Line PUD for a density of 15 units per acre. Mr. Searles talked about general standards for PUD approval saying the City may approve the PUD development only if it finds that the development satisfies all of the following standards, found in City Code Sec. 24-206. Mr. Searles said the PUD is implemented through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP); findings for the CUP are provided in the draft resolution. (1) The proposed PUD is in conformance with any adopted master plan for the project area. The proposed PUD is in conformance with the adopted Gold Line Master Plan. That plan identified a residential use be provided as part of the development of the 500 Bielenberg redevelopment. (2) The PUD is designed to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. The site design creates a courtyard style amenity space and significant internal sidewalks to connect the project spaces with the broader trail network along Bielenberg Drive. (3) The development plan provides for the creation, preservation or restoration of natural resources such as native vegetation, valuable habitat, lakes, streams, wetlands, shorelands, flood plains, woodlands, steep slopes and similar areas. There are no natural amenities, woodlands or the like on the subject property. (4) The PUD is consistent with the planned and efficient provision of public improvements and would not burden the existing tax base by increasing development in areas without adequate infrastructure or public facilities. The Applicant shall construct and fund the identified pedestrian infrastructure improvements including improvements at the northern access point to enhance pedestrian connectivity for the site and corridor. (5) The PUD can be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. The uses proposed will not have an undue and adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of neighboring property and will not be detrimental to potential surrounding uses. The proposed multi-family was contemplated within the Gold Line Master Plan and is designed to harmonize with surrounding development by using complementary building materials and designs. (6) The tract under consideration is under single ownership or control. The property is under one control. (7) Single-family detached units or clustering of housing units may be allowed as a PUD in areas providing urban services, or in the R-2 Estate District, providing parks and open space are an integral part of the plan. The proposed project is for attached housing. February 23, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 (8) Each phase of the development, as it is proposed to be completed, is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation are feasible as a complete unit, and that provision and construction of dwelling units and common open space are balanced and coordinated. All proposed amenities will be constructed concurrently with the apartment use. (9) Common elements proposed as part of the PUD are appropriate for the scale, location, shape, size, density and topography of the development and must be suitably improved for the intended use(s) except that significant natural features may be preserved or restored. The project provides a number of exterior and interior common elements that will be utilized by its residents. These elements are sized appropriately, if not greater than, their needs. (10) The project area is at least ten acres in size unless the applicant can show that a PUD of less acreage meets the standards and purposes of the comprehensive plan and preserves the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city. He advised that the project area site is 10 acres in size. Mr. Searles talked about the PUD saying the Applicant requests Planned Unit Development (PUD), Conditional Use Permit, and Preliminary Plat approval for the development site. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) application requests flexibility to the Zoning Ordinance and gave the requirements. Mr. Searles said the proposed plans identify 180 spaces in the underground parking garage and 37 surface parking stalls. Mr. Searles said the applicant has also secured parking rights within the adjacent commercial parking lot that is currently shown as proof of parking. He said as stated prior, the Zoning Ordinance requires one (1) space indoor and one (1) space outside which was utilized on a number of older apartment communities in Woodbury. Mr. Searles said over the past 5 years, staff has reviewed th e parking utilization of those properties and identified that the outside surface lots are not fully utilized and the projects provide more parking than needed. Within the last 5 years, the City has routinely provided PUD flexibility based on the number of bedroom units as staff believes it is more indicative of actual parking demand which has been confirmed via site visits to newly constructed projects. Mr. Searles said the proposed project provides a total of 254 spaces. Mr. Searles said in exchange for flexibility to the standard identified, the Applicant shall construct and wholly fund pedestrian enhancements including installation of pedestrian push buttons, relocation of the crossing and signal timing. Mr. Searles talked about access saying the proposed rental development is accessed by two existing access points off of Bielenberg Drive with both points being full signalized accesses. Mr. Searles talked about amenities saying the project identifies both internal and exterior site amenities that future project residents will have access to. Mr. Searles said the interior of the building offers a variety of amenities located in the common area including: • 2 story lobby ## • Community Room ## • Yoga Studio ## • Fitness Center • Golf simulator and lounge • Café library • Hobby room • Pet wash February 23, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 • Club room Mr. Searles said the exterior of the building also offers a variety of amenities including: ## • Pickleball Courts ## • Swimming Pool ## • Gathering Spaces ## • Garden Boxes ## • Fire Pits ## • Outdoor Kitchen Mr. Searles said a Conditional Use Permit shall be required for all multi-family projects and Planned Unit Developments. City Code Section 24-43 outlines the guidelines for granting a Conditional Use Permit. Please reference the attached draft resolution for the required findings of fact. Mr. Searles said the Applicant has submitted a detailed landscaping plan that provides plantings throughout the development site with the proposed landscaping plan. Mr. Searles talked about the Preliminary Plat saying the proposed Preliminary Plat creates one residential lot for both the apartment and townhome uses. The single lot is proposed as the apartment and townhomes will be owned and operated under a single control. He said the exterior facades meet the architectural ordinance requirement of 65 percent Class I material. Mr. Searles said the graphics in the packet provided to the Commission show the proposed designs with brick, stone and glass being the predominant Class I material with material colors that were carefully selected to complement the adjacent commercial uses. He said the apartment design utilizes jogs and material transitions to break the building massing into smaller visually approachable parts. He stated the corners of the buildings and main entrance are designed via a cohesive architectural language to convey a refined and modern multifamily structure. Mr. Searles said the designs include larger parapets and canted roof canopies at key corners. Mr. Searles said the application also identifies 13 townhome units which are designed to aesthetically support the apartment building’s modern design through matching building materials and use of strong gables on each building. Mr. Searles talked about the graphics provided in the packet given to the Commission saying the graphic on is from the Gold Line PUD approvals which created the overall pedestrian connectivity approach. He added that the red dotted line is the future sidewalk to be constructed as development occurs. He said the other graphic on the right shows the proposed sidewalk system which was strategically designed to enhance accessibility and site connectivity. Mr. Searles said to the west, walkways provide convenient access to the adjacent commercial uses and to the east, sidewalks link directly to the Bielenberg Drive trail which offers connection to the greater Gold Line BRT and additional recreation trails. Mr. Searles said circulating sidewalks internal to the site strengthens the connections and creates inviting spaces for walking and outdoor activity. Mr. Searles said a neighborhood meeting was held on February 17, 2026. He stated no residents were present at the meeting and staff has not received any questions or comments following the mailing of the Planning Commission meeting notice. Mr. Searles said staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat and Site and Building Plan, Project No. 05-2025- 00594, for Bielenberg Drive Multi-Family, subject to the following conditions outlined in the Staff Report. He said the applicant and staff were available for questions. ## Par February 23, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 Vice Chair Swanson asked if the Applicant wanted to make any additional comments or if there were any questions or comments from residents in person or online. The Applicant, Josh Brandsted introduced himself stating he was the president and owner of Greco. He thanked staff and the Commission and gave background on other projects he has within the community, expressing his excitement about having another project coming to fruition. Vice Chair Swanson asked if there were any other questions or yellow sheets from residents, with none she opened it up to the Commission. Student Commissioner Riyaan Hilowle if there were any accommodations for any older tree preservation around the project area. Mr. Searles gave background on tree preservation that was conducted with the Gold Line project application that started off the plans in this area. He gave areas that were preserved with the property redevelopment and said this location had already been mass graded. Commissioner Saurin Shah asked if there was a history of other projects requesting multiple different things such as the Rezoning, the Planned Unit Development, the Conditional Use Permit, etc. much like this one is. Mr. Searles answered, giving background on other projects who requested items much like this project is requesting and said these are standard set of development review items that a project would request for a muti family project. He gave details on the process and how it works. Mr. Shah asked about the pedestrian infrastructure improvements and questioned the plan colors and asked for assistance understanding. Mr. Searles confirmed and answered the questions he had on the coloring and techniques shown for the pedestrian improvements in the plan set provided to the Commissioners. Mr. Shah asked if the access on Bielenberg shown on page four would be signalized and if they were currently signalized. Mr. Searles stated that both access points are currently signalized. Commissioner Marcia Kennedy asked about page ten, item number five, regarding responsibility for the maintenance of the private road. She noted it states that it will be the responsibility of the owner but asked if that would include future owners. Mr. Searles responded that the Conditional Use Permit would be recorded against the property, meaning it will be a condition that continues on. Ms. Kennedy asked if that was the same for condition number 11 regarding the snow removal maintenance and all of the trails. Mr. Searles confirmed. Ms. Kennedy asked if there would be a path from the townhomes to the common areas where they were located. Mr. Brandsted said the intention would be to have direct access with accessible paths. He gave direction on where the access point would be. Ms. Kennedy asked where the handicap parking would be located. Mr. Brandsted gave information on where they would be located and information on having two parking spots in the garage location. Ms. Kennedy asked if these would be available to purchase. Mr. Brandsted said that they would all be rental homes. Ms. Kennedy asked about the EPA Water Sense Smart Controllers and wanted to hear more about them. Mr. Brandsted gave information on the way they are controlled. Mr. Searles said these devices also have ways of knowing the weather patterns to alternate watering patterns. Commissioner Jacob Guzik asked the developer if he thought the proposed parking of 254 stalls was enough for the development. Mr. Brandsted said that they do think it is enough and gave details on the comparison February 23, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 they made with another development they have in Minnetonka. He provided the math data they conducted to ensure this is successful. Mr. Guzik asked city staff if there was a possibility of updating the city Ordinance. Mr. Searles stated that when staff does the next update to the zoning ordinance update that the city will look likely to adopt a bedroom count approach. Mr. Guzik asked about the rezoning to mixed use and having the vertical integration of the mixed use. Mr. Searles stated within the code it states either vertical or horizontal mixed use and gave the thought process on that. Mr. Guzik asked if the other developments in the area went through the rezoning process. Mr. Searles said they did not as they met the code requirements. Commissioner Jim Gentile asked about the large pile of dirt on site. Mr. Brandsted said that soil was left on site to surcharge the soils that are in place today but will be removed prior to taking over the site. Mr. Gentile asked if the parking agreement was something that needed to be tracked or if them having an agreement was enough. Mr. Searles said part of the conditions of approval was that the Applicant needs to have the parking spaces and proof of parking which ensures that is in perpetuity. Mr. Gentile asked if staff were comfortable with the page 11 definition for the additional items needed for the walking path, push buttons and timing. Mr. Searles said staff is comfortable as it will also be layered into a builder or development agreement that will likely be more descriptive. Mr. Gentile asked about the aerial photo and the new pathway and thought about having a path for Emergency Vehicle Services (EMS) and having quicker access to the pool. Mr. Brandsted gave details on the multiple access options and the decisions for making those access points for ambulance access. Mr. Searles said that Woodbury City Fire and EMS go to the sites well in advance to familiarize themselves with the property to ensure they are accessible. Vice Chair Swanson advised the parking flexibility made a lot of sense being it is a senior facility and enjoyed all of the trails as well as the choice of trees. Vice Chair Swanson asked about the sculpture in the front of the building and if it would be colored. Mr. Brandsted gave details on the sculpture saying it may not look the same, but said they were looking to have some sort of sculpture piece in front of the building. Vice Chair Swanson thanked them for including that. Vice Chair Swanson asked about condition number four (4) and if staff had already identified where parking would go if it is needed. Mr. Searles gave information on the general location for the proof of parking areas. Vice Chair Swanson asked about condition number twelve saying a maximum number of 150 units shall be permitted for the project and why that was needed if it said that in the project description. Mr. Searles said it is to ensure clarity for any future modification and gave prior projects situations changing as the reason. Vice Chair Swanson asked about condition number fifteen and a quick typo where a period was that should have been a colon. Mr. Searles thanked her for that. Mr. Guzik asked if the 150 was the maximum for the space or if that number could change with different configurations. Mr. Searles said this is the maximum amount unless there was a density bonus that qualified. February 23, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 He provided the statistics on the maximum on the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use being 15 units per acre being the maximum. Vice Chair Swanson asked why Staff is looking to rezone this to mixed use rather than residential if only residential is being used for the site. Mr. Searles said it is ultimately for flexibility in the future and gave scenarios that could come about. Vice Chair Swanson asked if there were any other questions or yellow sheets from residents, with none she said staff would be looking for a recommendation on the project. MOTION: Marcia Kennedy moved to approve BIELENBERG DRIVE MULTI FAMILY, REZONING, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRELIMINARY PLAT, SITE AND BUILDING PLAN, PROJECT NO. 05-2025-00594 subject to conditions as outlined in the Staff Report and adding edits to condition number 15 adding details to the walking path, push buttons and timing. ## SECOND: Saurin Shah VOTING: All in Favor: Stephanie Swanson, Marcia Kennedy, Saurin Shah, Jim Gentile, and Jacob Guzik. ## Absent: John Kollm and Shae Seabrooks ## ITEM 2: FORTY- SEVEN PINES, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ## CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRELIMINARY PLAT, PROJECT NO. 29-2025-00592 Eric Searles, Assistant Community Development Director, City Planner stated Land & Resource Consulting (LRC) has submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, and Preliminary Plat for the property located at 4255 Woodlane Drive. Mr. Searles said the application requests to plat nine (9) residential lots. Mr. Searles said the land is currently zoned R-2 Single Family Estate District and is currently guided as Rural Estate on the Land Use Plan. Mr. Searles gave background saying at their July 16, 2025 meeting the City Council provided feedback on a Concept PUD for the subject property prior to bearing the expense of preparing a full development application. Mr. Searles said the proposed application was informed by the discussions including increasing the lot width and shape of several of the lots. Mr. Searles discussed property zoning saying the proposed site is zoned R-2, Single-Family Estate District which normally allows for subdivision at a density of one unit per 3 acres of land due to the district’s reliance on private well and septic systems to meet the infrastructure needs of the lots. Mr. Searles said the R-2 District is also the appropriate zoning district for Urban Estate developments which are identified to have a maximum density of 1 unit per acre subject to the provision of public utilities. He discussed the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan stating the Applicant is requesting a change to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use from Rural Estate to Urban Estate. He said the City has historically required one of the following findings of fact to be made to support a change to the land use of a property via a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. • A mistake was made in designating the property Rural Estate in the Comprehensive Plan. • Times and conditions have changed to warrant a change in the plan. Mr. Searles stated staff identifies that the times and conditions have changed to warrant a change in the plan. The development to the east of the subject parcel is called Arbor Ridge. He said as part of the development two (2) significant events occurred that changed the highest and best use for the adjacent land. He said the first was the extension of Hargis Parkway which extended city sewer and water to the subject site but also provided a significant traffic benefit to Bailey Road by providing an additional east/west roadway connection from Woodlane Drive to Pioneer Drive. February 23, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 He said the second change was the construction of a municipal drinking water supply well in the location identified below. Due to the close proximity to the city well, allowance of additional private water wells should be greatly minimized to reduce drawdown and contamination risks. Mr. Searles said the proposed utilization of city sewer and water would mitigate the risks to the adjacent municipal drinking water supply well. Furthermore, when utilities are present the city code requires their use versus utilization of private well and septic systems. Mr. Searles said due to the lower density patterns to the west of the site and the single family development to the east, staff identifies the highest and best land use as Urban Estate as the Comprehensive Plan identifying a goal for Urban Estate properties to “provide a transition from rural to residential area” with further technical discussion on the ability of the land use category to “provide a transition between Rural Estate (3-acre lots) and Low Density Mixed Residential areas (3.5 units per acre). Urban Estate may also be used in the future in other areas as a transition from Rural Estate to an urban land use if municipal services can be provided”. Mr. Searles discussed the Planned Unit Development stating the Applicant requests Planned Unit Development (PUD), Conditional Use Permit, and Preliminary Plat approval for the development site. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) application requests flexibility to the Zoning Ordinance for the following requirements. He gave information on the application requesting zoning ordinance flexibility and provided the requirements to the Commissioners. Mr. Searles said the 3-acre minimum lot size is established for lots with private well and septic systems. He said the proposed lots would be served by municipal sewer and water services which facilitates the reduced lot sizes. Mr. Searles said the proposed lots range from .74 to .96 acres with all lots meeting minimum depth and width requirements. He gave information for context, saying the single-family lots directly to the east range from .2 to .3 acres. Mr. Searles said in exchange for flexibility to the standards identified, the Applicant shall connect the existing home and all future homes to City services to mitigate risk to the adjacent municipal well and shall construct a trail along the south side of Hargis Parkway all the way to Woodlane Drive. Mr. Searles said the city may approve the PUD development only if it finds that the development satisfies all of the following standards, found in City Code Sec. 24-206. He said the PUD is implemented through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP); findings for the CUP are provided in the draft resolution. (11) The proposed PUD is in conformance with any adopted master plan for the project area. The proposed PUD is not a part of a master plan area. (12) The PUD is designed to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. The site was carefully designed to preserve the existing home, provide future access to the property to the south and provide pedestrian connectivity to the existing network to the east. (13) The development plan provides for the creation, preservation or restoration of natural resources such as native vegetation, valuable habitat, lakes, streams, wetlands, shorelands, flood plains, woodlands, steep slopes and similar areas. The existing tree line along the south property line is proposed to be preserved with this application. (14) The PUD is consistent with the planned and efficient provision of public improvements and would not burden the existing tax base by increasing development in areas without adequate infrastructure or public facilities. The existing public infrastructure constructed as part of the Arbor Ridge development is sized appropriately for the future demands. The connection to City services mitigates against potential impacts of private well and septic systems in the areas which could become a burden on the tax base if contamination or drawdown occurred. February 23, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 (15) The PUD can be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. The uses proposed will not have an undue and adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of neighboring property and will not be detrimental to potential surrounding uses. The proposed land use designation of Urban Estate is proposed as it creates a transition of the development intensity from the urban development within Arbor Ridge to the more rural development patterns seen to the west of Woodlane Drive. The proposed single-family development will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. (16) The tract under consideration is under single ownership or control. The property is under one control. (17) Single-family detached units or clustering of housing units may be allowed as a PUD in areas providing urban services, or in the R-2 Estate District, providing parks and open space are an integral part of the plan. The application does not identify a cluster development pattern, and the proposed single- family development is a permitted use in the R-2 district. (18) Each phase of the development, as it is proposed to be completed, is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation are feasible as a complete unit, and that provision and construction of dwelling units and common open space are balanced and coordinated. The infrastructure to support this project will be constructed in a single phase. (19) Common elements proposed as part of the PUD are appropriate for the scale, location, shape, size, density and topography of the development and must be suitably improved for the intended use(s) except that significant natural features may be preserved or restored. These are no common elements proposed. (20) The project area is at least ten acres in size unless the applicant can show that a PUD of less acreage meets the standards and purposes of the comprehensive plan and preserves the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city. He said the subject is slightly less than 10 acres in size. Mr. Searles said the proposed land use designation as Rural Estate was selected to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the city. He said the proposed connection to city facilities versus private sewer and water protect against impacts to groundwater. He said furthermore, the proposed density will serve as a transition zone between the existing densities found to the east and west of the property. Mr. Searles said a Conditional Use Permit shall be required for all school uses and Planned Unit Developments. City Code Section 24-43 outlines the guidelines for granting a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Searles said the proposed Preliminary Plat creates 9 single family lots with lot 1 being the existing homestead and a single outlot for stormwater management that will ultimately be owned and maintained by the City. He said t he plat further conveys right of way for Woodlane Drive. Mr. Searles said access to the property is proposed off of Hargis Parkway with two (2) cul-de-sacs proposed. He stated that it is anticipated that the westernmost cul-de-sac could be extended in the future to provide access to the properties to the south. Mr. Searles said a trail is proposed on the south side of Hargis Parkway which would extend the existing trail to connect with Woodlane Drive. He said a sidewalk is proposed on the west cul-de-sac as it is identified to be extended in the future to serve the properties to the south of the development. He said the proposed lots are larger than the lots located to the east but smaller than the lots located to the west across Woodlane Drive. He added that Bailey Elementary is located to the north. Mr. Searles also discussed landscaping, and stormwater management saying the Applicant has submitted a detailed landscaping plan that provides plantings throughout the development site with specific focus on February 23, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 providing significant landscaping along Hargis Parkway to create additional screening and separation. He said as a condition of approval, the final landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by staff including the addition of a minimum of three trees on each lot. He said the proposed plat will be required to meet all City requirements related to stormwater management. He stated the submitted designs identify construction of a two-cell stormwater system located in the southwest corner of the site to meet infiltration, quantity and quality requirements. Mr. Searles gave information on a neighborhood meeting saying it was held as part of the concept PUD review on June 18 th with 16 property owners in attendance. He advised that questions were raised regarding anticipated grading, stormwater management, perimeter tree impacts and project timelines. He added that an additional neighborhood meeting was held on November 17, 2025 with 9 residents in attendance. He said questions were raised regarding timing of the project, landscaping along Hargis Parkway and removal of barbed wire fencing. Mr. Searles said that staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat, Project No. 29-2025-00592, for Forty-Seven Pines, subject to the following conditions outlined in the Staff Report. He said the applicant and staff were available for questions. Vice Chair Swanson asked if the Applicant wanted to make any additional comments. The Applicant, Todd Olin with Land and Resources Consulting, gave information on the project and advised the Commission that he was there for any questions. Chair Swanson asked if there were any questions or comments from residents in person or online. Greg Novak a resident who resides at 4460 Woodlane Drive, commented on the plan to provide good opportunities to the surrounding properties. He advised the water drainage and watershed to be important to him and that the engineering works well. He also discussed the fence removal and possible options in that. Vice Chair Swanson thanked Mr. Novak and then opened it up to the Commission for questions. Mr. Guzik asked about Arbor Ridge and the street stub that was showing there. He wondered if there was any plan for it. Mr. Searles advised it is there to provide future access to the property to the south. He gave details on the zoning and municipal utilities being available to the stub. Mr. Guzik asked if Engineering has reviewed this project being it didn’t have sewer and water in Hargis Parkway. Mr. Searles said this has been fully reviewed by the City’s Engineering group including the locations of the proposed utilities. Mr. Shah asked about the new trail along Hargis Parkway and asked if there was already an existing walking path. Mr. Searles confirmed that yes, there was an existing walking path on the north side. Mr. Shah gave concerns about students crossing the road from Bailey Elementary. Mr. Searles gave information on the Engineering team looking at this closely and details regarding the best practices for the student crossing. Mr. Shah asked how much city water and sewer capacity at the current location if the lots on the South also went in the same direction. Mr. Searles said there have been preliminaries done that show capacity to serve the area to the south, but the full verification is done through the system analysis in the Comprehensive Plan process. He said the analysis should be complete sometime in 2027. Mr. Gentile asked who owns lot one (1). Mr. Searles said the property owners are in attendance and said they have been the owners for several decades. February 23, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 Mr. Gentile asked about the south side of the property stating the trees are proposed to be preserved and wondered why the language didn’t state that they will be preserved. Mr. Searles said those mean the same and confirmed that they will be preserved and said he will clean up that language to be clearer. Mr. Gentile asked about the cul-de-sac design and how the trash service and EMS service would happen. Mr. Searles said the size of the cul-de-sac is reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division as well as the Public Works Division to ensure it is sized appropriately for the turning movements both on the interim side which is designed appropriately for larger vehicles to turn around. Ms. Kennedy asked if the changeover from well to city utilities is impactful to the residents and what that entails and if this is common. Mr. Searles said it is not unusual for parcels that are retained during development to ultimately connect their systems and said there is a period of time that they do need to manage but advised it is not a long-time frame and gave the details for it. Ms. Kennedy asked about the current storm water problems and how significant that has been and is currently. Mr. Novak gave information on the water flow that occurred historically. He advised of times where the elevation has changed and the water flow changes that occurred with that. Mr. Novak elaborated that with good engineering it should be addressed. Ms. Kennedy asked about the comment stated in the plans C3-4 stating the contractor visually checks and photographs the discharge at least every 24 hours. She asked because of the expanse of this project if this is normal to do. Mr. Searles provided details from the notes within the stormwater prevention plan and pollution prevention plan and said they are fairly standard comments. Ms. Kennedy reiterated her question based on the oil water separator with the paving if asked if that is normal and how that works. Mr. Olin said there won’t be an oil water separator structure on this and said there is a two-step process for treatment of the water in the pond. He said one of them is a filtration basin where the water goes into the first pond then through sand then through a pipe to the next pond. He gave details on the water letting sediment out and then being released into the structure that goes to the north. He said through this process, this is how separation occurs. Ms. Kennedy asked about trees and if there are fewer trees even if there are more significant trees planted. Mr. Olin gave information on the trees and being they are custom homes, the architect will look at site lines once development to locate gaps and rearrange for better site lines once a visual is detected. Ms. Kennedy asked if the homeowners can decide where they would like the trees placed or if that is something decided prior and asked if some of those trees would be placed on the road. Mr. Olin said the owner does have say as to where they want trees but there is some structure going into the plans. Ms. Kennedy asked about condition number five (5) and it saying, “final park dedication” and what that meant as she didn’t see a park planned in the project. Mr. Searles said there’s two ways park dedication to be collected, saying one is a portion is dedicated to the city for park use or a payment in lieu occurs. He said condition number five (5) is saying there will be a payment in lieu to the city for park dedication. Ms. Kennedy asked who pays for the landscaping maintenance after three (3) years. Mr. Searles stated that in this case outlot A will be deeded to the city which means the city will be doing the long-term maintenance on outlot A, which is why it is critical to have a three-year maintenance while the storm water will be publicly owned. Vice Chair Swanson asked if there were any other questions or yellow sheets from residents, with none she said staff would be looking for a recommendation on the project. February 23 , 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 MOTION: Marcia Kennedy moved to approve FORTY-SEVEN PINES, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ## AMENDMENT, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRELIMINARY PLAT, PROJECT NO. 29-2025-00592 subject to conditions as outlined in the Staff Report. ## SECOND: Jim Gentile VOTING: All in Favor: Stephanie Swanson, Marcia Kennedy, Saurin Shah, Jim Gentile, and Jacob Guzik. ## Against: None ## Absent: John Kollm and Shae Seabrooks ## ITEM 3: PUBLIC SAFETY EXPANSION, PROJECT NO. 16-2026-00609 Eric Searles, Assistant Community Development Director, City Planner stated The City of Woodbury Public Safety Department is requesting approval of a renovation, expansion, and redesign of the Public Safety building located at 2100 Radio Drive. He said the city is proposing to construct new and remodel spaces to serve the Fire, EMS and Police services to meet the current and future needs of the community. He said the property is zoned CC, City Center District and is guided as Public/Semi Public on the Land Use Plan. Mr. Searles said the current Public Safety building was constructed in 1975 and last renovated in 2010. Since that time, Woodbury’s population has grown by over 20,000 residents. He said voters approved a 0.5 percent sales tax through a November 2024 referendum to help support the expansion and remodel of this facility. He said the 0.5 percent sales tax began in April 2025. The collection of the Woodbury sales tax is being completed by the Minnesota Department of Revenue and funds from this sales tax will be dedicated solely to the project and will end when funding reaches $50 million or in 20 years, whichever comes first. Mr. Searles gave information on the project scope saying the Woodbury Public Safety Campus project, set to break ground in Spring 2026, represents a comprehensive transformation of the city’s emergency infrastructure by integrating police, fire, and EMS services into a single, modernized almost 100,000-square- foot hub. He said from a Fire and EMS standpoint, the scope includes the complete demolition of the former Washington County Service Center (2150 Radio Drive) to make way for a new, multi-story fire station wing. He said this new construction will feature high-speed bi-fold fire bay doors for faster deployment, advanced "hot zone" decontamination areas to protect firefighters from carcinogens and significantly expanded 24-hour living quarters to accommodate a growing full-time staff. Mr. Searles said conversely, the Police Services standpoint focuses on a significant interior remodel of the existing 43,000-square-foot building (2100 Radio Drive), which is being stripped of its existing administrative layouts to create specialized, secure zones. Mr. Searles said the remodel will provide dedicated suites for the K9 and drone (UAS) programs, private interview rooms for mental health professionals and social workers, and an expanded, secure evidence processing wing. Mr. Searles said the most visible external change will be the removal of the current inefficient site access, replaced by a streamlined vehicle response path that aligns directly with traffic signals at Central Park Place to ensure safer and faster access to Radio Drive. He said it is anticipated that the new access points and site flow will allow the site to run more efficiently onto Radio Drive, as emergency response vehicles will be moved to the south side of the campus to align with the traffic light. The site plan below identifies the existing and proposed building footprints. Mr. Searles discussed site access saying the proposed site plan has two access points off of Radio Drive. He said the site plan below is shown in the correct north/south orientation while the majority of the graphics within this report are rotated for readability and report formatting purposes. Mr. Searles said access point A is designed as a ¾ access point as further illustrated on the supportive graphic below that shows the available traffic movements. He said access point A is designed to provide access to the employee and training room February 23, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 parking and visitor parking. He said access point B is a full movement signalized intersection that provides access to the relocated fire apparatus bay (fire station), visitor parking via the north/south one way access drive, parking for staff and access to the rear of the facility and parking garage. Mr. Searles also discussed architecture saying brick, limestone, and glass are the predominate materials used on the exterior of the proposed building with materials matching the existing portions of the building that are identified to remain (training room). He said translucent glass and a glass clear story are used to breakup the masonry materials and to provide natural light into the new spaces. Building materials and building designs were carefully selected to complement the adjacent City Hall, Central Park and other buildings in the City Center District. In total, the proposed project exceeds the City’s minimum requirement of 65 percent Class 1 materials. Mr. Searles discussed parking saying the Zoning Ordinance does not provide required parking allocations for government use and therefore parking allocation shall be reviewed and approved via the Planning Commission and City Council. Public Safety and the architect team carefully studied existing parking demand and evaluated the future staffing needs for the facility to identify the necessary parking for the facility. Mr. Searles said it is important to note there are opportunities to add additional parking in area A in the future. He said that overall, there are four (4) proposed surface parking areas to serve the expanded facility. Mr. Searles said the previous expansion also included the construction of a parking garage which houses and protects public safety vehicles. He further discussed the location and number of parking stalls are further identified them. Mr. Searles talked about landscaping saying a detailed landscaping plan has been provided which includes softening of the north parking lot, beautification and streetscape plantings along Radio Drive and overstory trees along the southern portion of the site. Mr. Searles said staff recommends approval of the Amended Site and Building Plan for the Public Safety Campus Project, Project No. 16-2026-0609 subject to the following conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Vice Chair Swanson asked if there were any questions or comments from residents in person or online, with none, she opened it up to the Commission for questions. Ms. Hilowle asked if the city staff would relocate to other locations during the construction. Mr. Searles gave a number of options where staff would be relocated to during the construction and gave that information, including the locations. Ms. Hilowle asked how the building design would complement the other surrounding buildings including Central Park. Mr. Searles gave information stating it was given careful consideration. He compared the two buildings and how the design elements are tied together. Mr. Gentile asked about the site access and the eleven visitor stalls. He asked the thought process on having access point B and the lighted drive to get to that access point. Mr. Searles said there was a lot of discussion that happened regarding this and the need. He gave specifics on the reason for the design and how Radio Drive is a County Road and the County having a strong recommendation from the Washington County staff and their reasoning for it. Ms. Kennedy asked if there was an elevator in the plans. Mr. Searles said there would be an elevator. Mr. Shah asked about how the police exit the site. Mr. Searles said they could exit at access point A but said also dependent on where they park, they can exit from access point B. Mr. Shah asked if the Hero Center would have any facilities that would also be included at this facility. Council Member Morris said there are very few elements included in the site given the Hero training facility exists for training etc. Mr. Shah asked about the canine areas. Council Member Morris said there are bathing areas that would be included for the canines and provided information on it. February 23, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 Vice Chair Swanson asked about the parking and asked if the 43 stalls include additional available parking. Mr. Searles said it did not. Vice Chair Swanson asked about the gate and asked for reasoning on the choice of gate. Mr. Searles gave information on the gate and reasoning for choosing the gate. Vice Chair Swanson asked if there were any other questions or yellow sheets from residents, with none she said staff would be looking for a recommendation on the project. MOTION: Jim Gentile moved to approve PUBLIC SAFETY EXPANSION, PROJECT NO. 16-2026-00609 subject to conditions as outlined in the Staff Report. ## SECOND: Saurin Shah VOTING: All in Favor: Stephanie Swanson, Marcia Kennedy, Saurin Shah, Jim Gentile, and Jacob Guzik. ## Against: None ## Absent: John Kollm and Shae Seabrooks ## COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Steve Morris provided an update of Council activities and meeting which was held last as well as other discussion topics. For further information about the Council meeting, refer to the minutes. ## APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Saurin Shah moved to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission held on February 2, 2026 as submitted as well as removing Thomas Harrington from the voting and the roll call and changing the spelling in the student Commissioners first name. ## SECOND: Marcia Kennedy VOTING: All in Favor: Stephanie Swanson, Marcia Kennedy, Saurin Shah, Jim Gentile, and Jacob Guzik. ## Against: None ## Absent: John Kollm, Shae Seabrooks ## ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m.