[14:35] September 22nd, 2025 planning commission meeting. If all commissioners will please mute your microphone until it is [14:41] your turn to speak, that would be appreciated. Members of the public may join using a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or [14:49] Android device. Members of the public can access the meeting online at the city's website, and public can ask [14:54] questions and comments during the meeting by using the link to the virtual meeting to join and submitting the [14:59] questions via the online Q&A feature within the meeting. Questions regarding this meeting can also be asked during [15:06] regular business hours at city hall. And with that, we will call the meeting to order. If you are a member of the public [15:13] and wish to speak on a topic, please fill out one of the yellow forms at the back of chambers and provide that sheet [15:19] to staff. You will be called on after the project in reference is presented. [15:24] Residents viewing online, please add your questions to the Q&A field along with your name and address. And with [15:31] that, Dan, will you start the roll call, please? Thank you, chair. Uh John Jarrett here. [15:40] Saurin Shaw here. Marcia Kennedy [15:45] Shannon Olsen here. Thomas Harrington here. John Colum. [15:51] Stephanie Swanson here. Adrena Nagalling here. Daniel Cho [15:56] here. Chair, we have a quorum. All right. Thank you very much. The first item on the agenda this evening is [16:02] the Valley Creek Retail Amended Conditional use permit project number 07-2025-0000588 [16:11] and the staff member presenting this report will be Eric. Thank you, Chair. Lisa McCormack on [16:17] behalf of her client Delta VWB LLC has submitted an application to amend the [16:23] existing conditional use permit to allow a class 2 restaurant within the existing [16:28] building found within the Valley Creek retail development. The proposed site is located at 6671 [16:35] Valley Creek Road and is currently zoned B2 general business district and is guided as places to shop on the land use [16:43] plan. At their July 17th, 2019 meeting, the city council approved the Valley Creek [16:50] retail development. the project receive authorization for architectural design, landscaping, lighting, storm water [16:57] parking use, uh, parking, the overall uses, and the like. The conditioning use [17:03] permit also included a condition of approval that prohibited class 2 restaurants due to an existing deed [17:10] restriction on site that prohibited fast food uses on the site. The conditional use permit condition and deed restricted [17:17] were implemented based on previous agreements with the adjacent private property owner that owns and manages the [17:24] shared private driveway. Per the attached the letter attached to the planning commission staff report. the [17:30] property owner and the applicant have uh reached a revised agreement and those uh [17:39] with a renegotiation and the previous terms are no longer uh in play. [17:46] The application in front of you this evening does request to remove that condition of approval from the [17:52] conditional use permit to allow a class 2 restaurant from Moe's Southwest Grill [17:58] to occupy the remaining tenants space. Code section 2443 outlines the [18:04] requirements for granting of a conditional use permit. Those findings of fact remain uh in full force and [18:11] effect from the original Valley Creek retail and those are uh not needing to be amended tonight. As we take a look at [18:18] the site plan quickly, no modifications are proposed. The site plan remains as [18:24] is. The parking for the use is uh compliant with the zoning ordinance. [18:30] Today the zoning ordinance requires a requirement of one space for each two seats plus employees for class 2 [18:38] restaurants. The applicant is proposing to install 42 seats and would have five [18:43] staff on their largest shift for a total parking need of 26 spaces. The previous [18:49] approvals uh was all calculated at retail which is at a one per 185 square [18:56] ft of building area which included 35 parking totals. The applicant however [19:02] installed 46 parking stalls to allow future flexibility for tenants. The [19:08] applicant is meeting as shown on the screen the parking including the coffee shop which is Dun I'm sorry Dunkin [19:15] Donuts the retail space and proposed class 2 restaurant for Moe's. With that [19:22] staff does recommend the uh approval of the amended conditional use permit for the Valley Creek retail Moe's Southwest [19:28] Grill. And it does not appear the applicant is on hand but I am happy to answer any questions you may have. [19:35] All right. Thank you very much. Have there been any yellow sheets received or questions submitted via teams? [19:41] Not at this time, chair. All right. Thank you. The Q&A will stay open for the duration of the project discussion. If there are any questions, [19:47] please enter them and staff will read them for the commission. And with that, we will open it up to our commission [19:53] members for questions. So, we'll start with Commissioner Swanson. The one time I go first, I have no [20:00] questions. I I have no questions. It seems like it was a private disagreement that led to [20:07] the condition that has since been resolved. Everybody seems fine with it. Parking works great. No changes. Fills [20:14] an empty tenant space. Sounds good. Great. All right, Commissioner Sha. [20:20] Um, thank you, Chair. Um, I do have a couple of questions. They're probably clarification questions. So, um, so [20:29] there is already a drive-thru, correct? That that is correct. There is a drive-thru for the existing coffee shop. [20:35] Correct. And and so when I read u it says that the permission actually didn't [20:40] include um did not allow a drive-thru. So So I'm just curious as in why there is a drive-thru already in place around [20:47] this building. The deed restriction identified uh not allowing a drive-thru for a class 2 [20:54] restaurant. Coffee shops are not identified as class two restaurants. Okay. Thank you. And then I guess from [21:01] the the the site plan that you had in here uh that you had included for us um [21:08] I was just curious as in you know the entrances into each of the businesses the existing and the new one. um you [21:16] know could you identify those because the parking is essentially on one side of the building, right? So um how is [21:23] that going to work with the new business which is going to be primarily people walking in, right? Um as compared to you [21:32] know just doing a takeout for example. Yeah, it is anticipated that the majority of the parking will utilize the [21:40] areas along the eastern portion of the site. They certainly could use the western portion and access the site [21:46] through the shared uh sidewalk area. Duncan ends somewhere in this location. [21:52] You can kind of see the front door creations within this different air photo. [21:58] So the new business will be on the right side as we are looking at that plan view. That is correct. Okay. So the parking lot is there. So [22:04] the pedestrian because I I'm kind of the reason I wanted to understand that is [22:10] because there is a drive-thru, right? um you know don't want the pedestrian [22:16] walkth through to be actually uh create an unsafe situation going into this new [22:21] place when there are cars going by. Yeah, there is a proposal to stripe a [22:27] crosswalk within this location to allow safe crossing within that location, but [22:32] the movement is to come in off of that shared driveway into the parking lot area. So, there will be some level of [22:40] traffic that does cross through that location, but again, that is an existing [22:46] um drive-thru use and there is vacancy within the space. So, there is likely to have that crossover as part of the [22:51] overall design. So, the staff thinks that the the proposed striping that you pointed out is sufficient for ensuring security for [22:59] people walking across. Yeah, we we think the sightelines are um [23:05] are positive that again the movement coming in off of Weir Drive coming back [23:10] into this location. There's a straight shot to see pedestrians moving. Even if they come in off the first access point, [23:17] there's very good sight lines that are not blocking that movement into the drive lane. I think we'd be more [23:24] concerned if there was heavy movement come cutting through the exit than the entrance as well. [23:29] Okay. Thank you. That's that's all I had. All right. Thank you very much, Commissioner Jarrett. [23:37] Um I really don't have a whole lot uh to question on this except for one clarification. If this is going to be a [23:43] class 2 restaurant and the existing coffee shop were to leave, could the [23:48] existing can Mo then have a drive-thru? Would they be allowed to in this space [23:54] since it was approved with a drive-thru? I would need to receive a conditional use permit to so they come back through again. [24:00] That's correct. That's all I've got. Thank you. All right, Commissioner Harrington. [24:07] Uh, thank you, Chair. Um, I also only have one question slashc comment. So on [24:13] the site plan the the red lines indicate the allocation maybe not allocation but [24:20] just showing where the 20 six parking stalls would be for MO not [24:27] saying this is where you have to park not saying that there's going to be signs there this is like many retail [24:33] it's just everybody shares the same parking lot that's correct this is just indicated to say hey here [24:38] are the 26 that we're thinking about yeah it's a graphic representation okay great thank Thank you. That's all I [24:43] have. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Engaling. [24:49] Um the only question that I have is in the long term of the site, how would um [24:57] the maintenance for like landscaping or like shared access um affect the [25:02] development for the site in the future? I'm sorry. Can you ask that question [25:08] again? How would the um maintenance for landscaping or shared access agreements [25:14] like affect the site in the future for in the long term? Yes. Um so the existing there's two [25:21] agreements. Uh the shared access agreement and I'm going to use a different graphic here. The shared [25:27] access agreement is for this roadway. Shows it a little clearer. That is an [25:32] access with the commercial use to the south. Those agreements identify things [25:37] like maintenance um cost recovery. So there is the property owner of the south coordinates [25:44] the activities and the structure to staff's understanding of the agreement [25:49] is that there's a reimbursement for those costs as it relates to the landscaping on the rest of the site that [25:56] is completed by the property owner not by the individual tenants. Okay, that's all the questions that I [26:02] have. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Cho. Yeah, I just have one clarifying [26:08] question. Um, on the site plan, it says there's 47 total parking spaces, but then on the actual thing it says 46, and [26:14] then when I counted the individual parking spaces on the site map, I counted 46. I think there was a typo in [26:20] the bottom left corner saying there's five stalls instead of four. I will take a look at the math, but [26:26] thank you for bringing that. Thank you. That'll be all chair. All right. Thank you very much. And I [26:32] did not have any questions myself either. So I guess I will just make sure. Were there any questions at all [26:38] received via teams? Not at this time. Chair. All right. So are there any additional [26:44] questions from any of the commissioners at this time? All right. Hearing none, staff would be [26:50] looking for a recommendation for the project. I move to approve project 07-2025-0000588 [26:58] with the conditions of approval as listed in the staff report. Thank you. Do we have a second? I'll second that. [27:04] All right. We'll now vote on this motion. All in favor, please say I. I. I. [27:09] All oppose, please say nay. All right. And with that, this uh [27:14] project does earn the recommendation from the planning commission. and this will be then moving on to the public [27:20] hearing portion of the city council meeting on October 8th of 2025. [27:27] All right. So, our second item on the agenda this evening is [27:33] uh the 7086 military road project variance project number 29-2025-0000580. [27:44] And the staff member presenting this project will be Dan. Thank you, Chair. [27:51] Nick and Kelly Johnson have submitted an application requesting a variance for the R2 zoning uh for their property [27:57] located at 7086 Military Road. The zoning code identifies a minimum lot [28:03] size of 3 acres exclusive of wetlands. The variance requests to allow two buildable lots on 4.9 acres exclusive of [28:10] wetlands. The property is zoned R2 single family estate district and is guided as rural estate on the land use [28:16] plan. In order to grant a variance, city council shall rely on review from the plan commission and community [28:22] development staff to review the findings of fact regarding the merits of a variance application. These findings are [28:28] established by city code and state statutes and are intended to assist policymakers in determining whether [28:33] situations and circumstances are unique and outside of the control of the applicant. By clearly identifying that [28:40] there are unique circumstances, a city can understand and reduce the possibility that a variance decision [28:46] becomes precedent setting within a community. It is important to note that if a variance request is determined to [28:52] be reasonable but not not unique, then the more appropriate tool to address the reasonable request would be through a [28:58] zoning ordinance amendment process. The finding of findings of facts uh for [29:05] criteria for granting. In order for the city to issue a variance, the applicant must meet all of the findings of fact [29:11] identified in the city code. As shown on the screen and in the staff report, staff has identified that none of the [29:17] required findings of fact necessary to grant a variance are met for this request. The findings of fact are [29:23] adopted via the attached resolution included in your staff report and are shown on the screen. [29:32] Nick and Kelly Johnson with their variance request uh states that minimum lot area shall be three acres exclusive [29:38] of water bodies and wetlands. The city of Woodbury has had conversations with the applicant and the property was [29:44] encumbered by wetlands and that the lot could not be subdivided. The wetland delineation report indicates that there [29:50] are 1.116 acres of wetlands on the property which brings the area exclusive [29:55] of wetlands down to 4.98 acres. In addition, city code section 27-15 [30:01] protection of wetlands states that all wetland bufflers shall have a minimum 25 foot minimum undisturbed buffer from the [30:07] delineated wetland boundary, which would be additional unusable land for septic and wall sighting on the property. The [30:14] image on the screen shows the wetland and associate wetland buffers sub buffer impacts to the property. [30:22] The image on the screen identifies proposed subdivision with lot A measuring just over 3 acres at 3.03 03 [30:28] acres and lot B measuring 3.07 acres. Neither of the proposed lots would meet the required 3 acres exclusive of [30:35] wetlands requirement. A neighborhood meeting was held uh on September 15th, 2025. There were six adjacent residents [30:42] that attended the neighborhood meeting. Questions centered on timing of the process, driveway access, and overall [30:48] process of splitting a lot. There were comments from an adjacent resident or property owner that mentioned that they [30:53] would like to explore subdividing their 5acre parcel if this variance were to be approved. With that, staff recommended [30:59] denial of the variance request project number 29-2025-00580 [31:07] uh for the variance at 7086 Military Road. Subject to the findings of fact [31:12] found within your staff report. Staff and the applicant are on hand for any questions. [31:17] All right. Thank you very much, Dan. Would the applicant like to add anything additional at this time? [31:23] If you don't mind stating your name and address. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Nick Johnson, [31:29] owner of the land in question. Um 786 Military Road in Woodbury. Um [31:36] I've never done this before, so we'll uh start fresh here. Um, as far as none of [31:43] the criteria being met, I I don't necessarily think that's entirely [31:49] truthful. I I think that we do meet several factors of it, like the uh [31:55] keeping in harmony with the neighborhood. I believe anything we do with the lot if it were to be subdivided [32:02] would stay in harmony given the fact that uh our intent is to put another [32:07] house on that lot. Either be for me and my family or somebody else. Haven't [32:13] really decided that yet. And uh and to be honest with you, it's the other [32:21] my notes here. [32:29] Um we don't intend to switch zoning of any kind or stay outside of the guide [32:35] other than the the lot size designation. There are 29 other lots [32:42] within a mile radius of our home that are under 3 acres. Um, some which have [32:49] wetlands. Um, some many that don't. Um, and on that I believe, [32:58] let's see here, on military, which we border military [33:04] and woodland, there are about 17 of those 29 on those two roads. Um, [33:11] and anything we do on there would stay heavily wooded because let's face it, [33:16] trees are appeasing to the eye and are beneficial to any lot you might or any [33:22] home you might put in there. So, it would be something of our interest as a homeowner to keep the as many trees as [33:28] possible. Um, and then, uh, as far as anything else [33:33] that goes into putting a house on the lot, septic system, well, all of that would be minimally, [33:40] um, intrusive on the lot, given that an acre or a septic system maybe takes up [33:46] less than a tenth of an acre. A house takes up less than a quarter of an acre and we would have two and a halfish [33:52] acres to do something with it. Um but really the crux of of our our [34:02] um really going through with this variance is the fact that the wetland that [34:07] currently is there essentially makes that portion of the land that's west of [34:13] my current home unusable. There's no access to it. I can't go [34:19] across the wetland. I can't go into a county easement to get to it, which [34:24] would be the only other option. And the only way to access it would be to create [34:30] another access point. And so if I were to do anything with [34:35] that land, the means of access or need for an access is um an obligation. [34:42] So um in that way we think you know not that we were ever g you know when we [34:48] bought we weren't given a wetland delineation report. We didn't know where the wetland was and was not. Um you [34:55] could obviously take a look and see for yourself for the most part a pretty good idea but didn't have a realiz [35:01] realization it was that extensive. Um, so that's kind of where we say this [35:06] lot's pretty unique, uh, in the sense that it's not just five acres or [35:11] whatever of dry land that I'm trying to split. It's six acres that, you know, [35:17] half of my land is essentially unusable. And it, you know, and I'm just trying to [35:24] realize the use of the property. [35:35] All right. Anything else you want to add before questioning? Not right now. No. [35:40] All right. Thank you. All right. With that, then we will or [35:46] actually, let me double check first. Have there been any yellow sheets received or questions submitted via teams? [35:52] Not at this time, chair. All right. Thank you very much. Um, feel free to sit or stand yourself, Mr. [35:58] Johnson. Not sure if you'll get called back up, but feel free to come up and down as as [36:04] the questions arise. All right, Commissioner Swanson, we'll start off with you. [36:09] All right. Uh, I want to start asking staff the question of why are we looking at a [36:15] variance instead of the zoning amendment that was discussed in the staff report? [36:21] What led us to this process? The applicant has made an an application for a variance. We have communicated [36:27] that through the applicant that again if they have a dis they have a choice on what type of request to be reviewed by [36:34] the planning commission and council. A variance by nature is a uh narrow policy [36:41] decision. In order for a planning commission and city council to al ultimately approve a variance, it has to [36:47] identify that a property is very unique. That it's Dan, if you can put the [36:53] findings up, that all of the findings that are shown on the screen and further discussed within [37:00] the resolution and within the staff report are met. Conversely, a zoning ordinance amendment [37:07] can also be requested by an applicant and then that's looked at it globally. That would mean that every property [37:13] could then be less than in this case less than 3 acres in size if they have a [37:20] wetland. So, it's really a different question. It's in front of you this [37:25] evening as a variance because that's what the applicant requested. Was there discussions with the applicant about [37:30] zoning amendments before the application came in? From the from the beginning, we have [37:35] been from a staff standpoint very clear that ultimately the staff would be recommending denial based on the findings of fact. It is not unusual for [37:42] staff to have conversations with uh residents or prospective residents [37:47] regarding zoning related matters. We try to be very transparent with what we believe ultimately so that individuals [37:53] can make a decision. It's fully within an individual's rights to go through this process, but we want to make sure [38:00] that they're well aware of the strict test that a variance is. As it relates [38:06] to a zoning ordinance amendment, I don't know if that's any easier um to approve [38:13] that would, but we have not spent significant time from a staff standpoint to evaluate the merits of a full zoning [38:18] ordinance amendment at this time. Okay. I'm I'm basically trying to narrow down the logic of [38:26] did we talk to staff and staff said globally we're not going to go for this. We're going to recommend denial. Your [38:32] best chance is a variance if your unique pro if your property is unique enough. [38:37] And that's the question before us. Is this property unique enough? [38:43] Yeah, the uniqueness is one of the criteria. Just to be clear, in order to grant a variance, all of the [38:48] requirements of the findings of fact need to be met. Um, as it relates to again a zoning [38:54] ordinance amendment, that's a broad policy related topic that would need to be looked at from how many properties [39:00] are impacted by the decision. Um, can our infrastructure system support that? Can the rest of our goals, [39:07] some of which are similar to the findings of fact, if we are reducing the [39:12] the lot width across all of the R or lot size in all of the R2 district, I think [39:18] there probably would be some natural resources impacts. There likely would be some access management challenges much [39:25] like you're seeing as part of the variance, but again, staff has not done a detailed review of that. Okay. [39:35] I understand the desire to want to split and build another house, whether it's [39:41] for somebody in your family or to just sell the lot. Personally, I can't get [39:46] there on these findings. I [39:52] I don't feel that this site is particularly unique. It is wooded. Many [39:58] lots are wooded. It has wetlands. Many lots have wetlands. [40:04] The figure that you've brought up about 29 houses, has that been verified by [40:10] staff? Do we Is there something that led to these lots being that size? [40:16] We have not verified the 29, but I I wouldn't refute it aggressively that that number is not accurate. I It very [40:23] well could be. In the R2 district, there are properties that because of the [40:29] historic nature of the community that are less than three acres in size. In the R2 district, there are some lots [40:35] that are served by sanitary sewer, for instance, and have a septic or a well. And then the inverse of that, there's [40:41] some that are served by a well, but are on private septic that also impact the lot sizes. But it is accurate to say [40:47] that there are varying lot sizes. I think from the precedent standpoint, you have to look at the subdivision process. [40:53] That's where the precedent setting comes in. Existing lot of record is important, but the precedent aspect that this would [40:59] apply to future subdivisions is also important. Yeah, [41:04] I don't especially have questions. It's just a feeling of I can't get there on the findings and I'd like to hear what [41:11] other commissioners have to say, but that's where I am currently. So, that is all I have. Thank you. [41:17] Great. Thank you. Thank you very much, Commissioner Sha. [41:23] Thank you chair. Uh I had questions also for the staff. Only one question actually in addition to what you already [41:28] asked. Um is is this the first time that we have had um a variance request like [41:36] this for a lot similar to this? Um in Woodbury [41:41] uh in my time which is 24 years we have [41:46] had lot size variance requests at least one other time. That lot size variance [41:53] request however was due to a taking that occurred [41:59] along a county roadway where the original parcel and I don't remember the [42:04] exact details but it's generally in this like this the initial parcel would have [42:11] met the requirement but because of right-of-way takings to build a county road they drop below. When you look at [42:17] that from the lens of the findings, one of the findings is the applicant didn't cause the need for the variance. The [42:24] property was existing. The applicant there was a taking of the land and that [42:31] was able to be met. It is it to my recollection that's the only other lot [42:38] size variance that have been that has been granted. Variances have been [42:43] granted for setbacks. Uh that's the most frequent variance. [42:49] Usually the rationale for a setback variance is that the adjacent property, [42:55] we've had a few that are in this situation and along Valley Creek Road [43:01] where there is a significant amount of extra right ofway within an area that's unused. So the setback is not as [43:07] critical in that location to a major road for instance. So the actually the application that was in front of you [43:13] previously received a variance for setback as did when the [43:20] um the bank um along Valley Creek Road was also approved through a variance [43:26] process but setbacks are more frequent that than lot size. [43:33] Thank you. No other questions from me. Thank you very much Commissioner Jarrett. [43:39] Um, I guess I I tend to agree a little bit with uh Commissioner Stephanie. Um, [43:47] so we do not have city water and sewer out this far, right? That is correct. [43:52] And we don't have fire hydrants along uh Military Road either. [43:58] Also correct. Okay. Um, yeah, it's uh I I don't think [44:03] that there's any I don't I don't see any exceptions. It's just it's too it's too small. It's a wet [44:11] land. You're encroaching on it. You don't have city water available. [44:17] These rules are put into place because we don't have the city infrastructure and we don't have the city infrastructure out there. So, I hate to [44:25] say it. I just don't see any work around this one. I think they're too small and I agree. [44:30] That's all I got. Thank you, Commissioner Harrington. Thank you, Chair. Um, I want to I want [44:38] to be responsive to Mr. Johnson's comments that he made just to be sure that I'm clear, we're clear. Um, if you [44:45] don't mind, I'm going to paraphrase the points that you had made, Mr. Johnson, that you you thought that you weren't in [44:52] agreement that you didn't this isn't meeting the findings of fact or it is meeting some findings of fact. And you [44:59] brought up a couple of points. One was keeping in harmony with the neighborhood. Um, and I wonder Dan, [45:07] there's a lot of good information in your report that that maybe you could share and go into that a little bit more [45:14] into this notion of of harmony as a word and the neighborhood. [45:27] One moment here. I'm just Sure. [45:38] While you're looking, u maybe I'll stall for you just a little bit. So for time, I guess the way I read it in the report, [45:45] Harmony was maybe more about the size of the lot [45:51] and the the vegetation, the trees, the wetlands, just sort of the setting of the location [45:58] of these larger lots. To me, maybe that's what harmony is as a word. Am I [46:04] Am I getting that right? Because I'm trying to I'm trying to justify subdividing it, as Mr. Johnson may have [46:11] indicated, will maintain that harmony, but I think in the staff report, you [46:16] maybe had indicated that subdividing would sort of disturb that harmony, if [46:21] that's the right word, change the harmony of the neighborhood. Yeah, Commissioner Harrington, I I think as we walk through the findings that are [46:28] within the staff report, you see some of the as it relates to the Harmony, you [46:34] look at the intent of the zoning district, the R2 zoning district, which is that semi-ural lifestyle to provide [46:42] adequate space for private well and septic systems. The city has certainly [46:48] could approve through a zoning amendment a smaller separation in space for um [46:55] residential lands within our R2 district that are served by private well and septic systems. the but what is more [47:03] challenging to overcome is that semi-ural lifestyle. Yes. As you shrink that and as you subdivide that further [47:11] down into those areas and you reduce the encumbrances such as wetlands, heavily [47:17] treed parcels and as you incentivize the removal or impacts of those natural [47:22] areas, you will over time in staff's opinion disrupt the character that is unique to Woodbury and RR2 area. One of [47:31] the things from a staff standpoint that that we find um very interesting is when [47:36] new residents come into Woodbury, they travel with the military road or Woodlane corridor and they say, "Wow, I I didn't know Woodbury had those types [47:43] of lots." Well, Woodbury has those types of lots because of the comprehensive plan and the zoning that identify these [47:50] deliberately as a different type of product, as a different type. There is an infrastructure component to this, but [47:56] there's also a very deliberate approach to actually providing a different type of housing product here and a different [48:03] type of environment here than the rest of our R4 development patterns. And I [48:08] think that's how I would encourage the commission to look at the character side of this. And as you start to degrade [48:14] that through decision making such as a a variance, that is the precedent. And [48:21] then as you look at it when it's if you if you can't get to uniqueness finding then you're really starting down a [48:26] dangerous path that there are a number of arguments that you can make because there are five six seven 8 acre lots all [48:33] over in this area. What's leading to not allowing a different answer to that? [48:39] Great. Thank you. Um so so with that I believe Mr. Johnson had talked about um [48:46] having an interest in maintaining the vegetation or the tree the tree cover and interest there. And I wonder could [48:52] we look at the one graphic that I think is closer up that had the aerial photograph. There you go. Um so maybe if [49:01] you could help me. I'm trying to justify the graphic on the left and the map on the right. And I think it's that blue [49:08] line that cuts the two bright green properties in half is the north property [49:14] line of this project. That one, that one there jives with that yellow line at the [49:19] top of the aerial. So it's zoomed in more. So we're seeing that half of it. [49:26] So everything on the left half is what would be the subdivided lot that could [49:33] have a house on it. Based on this, it looks like the entire lot may be treed [49:39] heavily vegetated. And so right now, that currently adds to the character of [49:47] of military for me at least when I drive down there. Now, if a person built a home, they would have to of course take [49:53] some trees out for the septic and for the home. Is there a maximum [50:01] tree disturbance um when when it comes to residential property for tree removal on a on a lot [50:08] like this? So, our maximum square footage or total area 50% of it has to [50:16] remain as is. Yeah, that number is 30%. So, 30% could be removed, 70 has to [50:23] remain. Did I say that? Did I do that right? Yeah, it's 30% by right. So without any tree replacement. So you can remove up [50:31] to the 30% of the trees found on site without having to replace. You you can remove more than 30%. But you have to [50:38] then replace those on site. I see. Okay. Um and then my other Mr. [50:45] Jesse had talked about 29 lots in the vicinity that are threeacre lots. So you [50:51] clarified that they are 3acre lots because they were originally platted as 3 acre lots. This conversation, this [50:58] application is about subdividing to get a 3 acre lot or under in this case. [51:03] Correct. That is the difference. Okay. Thank you. I I just wanted to get a little more [51:10] clarity and understanding between Mr. Johnson's um comments and and findings [51:15] of fact. So that's all I have. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Commissioner [51:21] Engaling. All the questions I had were answered. So, thank you, Chair. I have no [51:27] questions. Thank you, Commissioner Cho. Yeah, I just have one question to the [51:32] applicant, Mr. Johnson. Um, if this plan were a were passed, where are you planning to build the house? Would it be [51:38] would the driveway connect to Woodlane Drive or would it connect to Military Road? [51:45] Uh, well, like I said before, I only have one location [51:50] for that land. You have to come in off of Woodlane because the wetland essentially divides the parcel in half [51:58] as is as a natural border. So, that's why I say it's unusable because I would [52:03] have to go out onto military over onto Wood Lane and then go around to get onto [52:10] this property. I can't do it any other way. So anybody else would not be able to do it any other way. So essentially [52:17] it'll just stay empty. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Um I guess again [52:24] mentioning the lot looks heavily vegetative. So I'm not sure if there is viable room to make a house plus the [52:31] driveway and all the septic tanks that are needed to build it. So they might destroy some of the vegetation to build [52:37] that kind of structure, but I'm not quite sure if it's the greatest idea, but we'll see. Thank you. That'll be all [52:44] chair. All right. Thank you very much. Um I have a just a couple of questions. Um [52:52] there's the statement in here that the city of Woodbury had conversations with the applicant that the property was [52:57] encumbered by the wetlands and could not be subdivided. Were those the conversations through this process or [53:03] were there conversations that were had when this land was being purchased? [53:09] When the property was for sale, we we received numerous calls from interested parties about the property and we we had [53:16] the same messaging for everybody that it's encumbered by wetlands. Um so the development potential on it wasn't [53:23] wasn't available. Okay. I think I do remember. Was there a sign up there that once said potential [53:28] for subdivision? It did. I thought I remembered saying that. Um [53:34] All right. Um I think the one other this item or I [53:40] guess reasons why I was asking that is um correct me if I'm wrong, but I think [53:46] when I looked up the timing of this purchase, was it December of 23 [53:52] about? So winter time, not a great time of year to be looking at wetland and [53:57] what your property is going to look like when when we're in our vegetative season. So when it does come to just [54:04] some of those, you know, is this uh the plight of the land owner, you know, was [54:09] it very clear to them? Um especially after thought I had seen some signs if there was some, you know, misleading or [54:16] something with that was what I wanted to try to clarify. Um, some questions specific on this wetland delineation. [54:24] Um, when was the last time that was completed? [54:30] I'll defer to the applicant on the timing of the wetland delineation. [54:37] Uh, that was done I believe I don't have it in front of me, but I if I remember [54:42] it, it was roughly early spring this year. Okay. And was that something that you [54:48] had paid for on your own property then? Okay. Mhm. Um [54:54] when I was also trying to, you know, creatively think to myself, [54:59] you know, could this hit the finding of facts? I think when it comes to that the first two when it comes to harmony and [55:05] this I think does get to also commissioner Harrington's point that without that clear definition of what [55:11] harmony is and the fact that there are some lots you know 29 or 17 of 29 on two [55:18] roads that one could perceive is harmonious with that. Um, but where, you [55:25] know, my biggest hangup is is is not the A or B because I think for the same reason you could then, you know, argue [55:32] that it would be consistent with our comprehensive plan since it does kind of fit in with some of the rural field, but [55:38] it's this um part C on kind of the why we're at where we're at. Um, you know, [55:44] is this what was this wetland something that the applicant was aware of? Were they misled? Um, [55:52] and then when Mr. Johnson also brought up some of the discussions around some [55:57] of the other lots, I think I've heard this clear. We've asked in the in the sense of um they were already plotted [56:04] that way. So to just ask it one different time, none of those were subdivided. There had been no variance [56:11] in the this R2 area. I'll let you guys both comment on that. Uh well, I do know [56:18] that um two of the properties of the 29 were subdivisions. One that got [56:25] subdivided into a halfacre lot and then two that got subdivided into equal 1.7 [56:31] acre lots. I I would need to research what those [56:37] two properties are, but those were not done within my tenure. Okay. [56:43] um what precedence if if those were you know 30 40 year old variants what [56:49] precedence does that set on what we're looking at today I think there is a time frame for for [56:57] precedent I think there is decision making that that would be looked at um [57:03] what are the variables in our community over the last 10 years [57:09] obviously aquafer protection has become significant significantly more of an issue than it was 10 years ago. So, or [57:16] 20 years or 30 years ago. So, I think that decision is would change a precedent type. So, you really look at [57:22] those themes or public policy issues. Um, we've had an environmental [57:29] stewardship um process that valued natural vegetation and preserving of that. Those [57:36] types of events in a community can modify precedent, past precedent, and [57:43] can set direction for the future. Um, [57:48] so I'm a strong advocate for good environmental stewardship, of course. [57:54] However, just out of curiosity and not proposing this, could the applicant fill that [58:01] wetland and get a take permit or do offsets and then split to 3 acres, 3 acres? [58:10] I would say it's unlikely that the wetland conservation act would allow for that activity. [58:16] One of the main requirement would be avoidance. [58:21] Um and then also the wetland conservation act generally looks to identify what remedies were looked at. [58:29] I think both of those would be challenging. I think it's also important to note that we have had a number and [58:35] it's referenced within the staff report a number of property owners that have acquired adjacent properties to be able [58:41] to become subdividable. M the property to the north is 8 acres in size and and there could be a [58:47] transaction that could make that in the end the ability to have 3 acres of dry by acquiring additional land in close [58:55] proximity. So that I think when you look at that from the wetland lens is has all remedies been exhausted. [59:04] I did look into that myself. Mhm. Any acreage I were to purchase from that [59:10] homeowner is actually on a pretty steep slope in a ravine. So it would be fairly [59:18] unusable in a building sense or a usability sense. Um so you know [59:24] anything that were to be done to achieve three acres would be the same as to be [59:29] done achieving it in two and a half acres or three acres with wetland. So, I mean, [59:36] the outcome would be the same. I wouldn't be able to put an access point anywhere different. I wouldn't be able [59:42] to build a house anywhere different. But I think the inference was that you could reconfigure the wetland. So, now [59:48] your wetland, you'd have more acreage that's dry to offset the But you can't do that. That's illegal. [59:54] You have to do a 2:1 replacement. So if I were to fill that in, I'd have to to [59:59] dig out two to one wetland requirement on my property to make that happen and [1:00:06] therefore you lose your you know your your acreage there. [1:00:11] That's it's actually not something you can do. I think the comment from staff was related to acquiring additional upland [1:00:17] from surrounding properties. Oh, I thought it was filling in the wetland. Surrounding upland. Okay. Hm. [1:00:27] Okay. Let's see if I had any other questions at all. Um, [1:00:37] I think that was all I had for questions at this time. Um, open it back up to [1:00:44] commissioners. Any other any other thoughts, questions, comments that you have and as we're discussing this? [1:00:50] I do. I do. Um Dan, could you bring back the findings [1:00:56] of fact sheet? So my takeaway here from [1:01:02] the report on page 307, we talked a bit about maybe a few of [1:01:10] findings of fact or sort of uh soft uh variations of this that that the [1:01:19] applicant has brought up. But I don't think it changes the fact that on the findings of fact [1:01:27] in order for the city to issue a variance applicant must meet all all of [1:01:32] the findings. And so even if one or two might be questionable, [1:01:37] we still don't meet the requirement. That's right. Thank you. [1:01:47] Yeah. Yeah. And I I think my challenges are just coming in with the practical difficulties portion of the findings of [1:01:54] fact. That's where where I think the biggest hangup is with [1:01:59] this one hitting all of them. Uh Eric, we had a project [1:02:07] maybe what's it's some time ago now along uh County Road 19. [1:02:12] Uh homeowner property had been there many many years. uh probably been there. [1:02:19] That house was there far before Woodbury and subdivided that into I think three [1:02:24] additional lots. That was not our two over there. [1:02:30] Correct. There are city services in So, so we had they had city water and sewer and then the [1:02:37] lot size. Did that include the empty vacated lot or that piece of property [1:02:43] they loaned they owned on the east side of of County Road 19? It did not. The lots themselves met the [1:02:50] requirements and no wetland on that property. Uh, correct. That's correct. Thank you. [1:03:00] All right. Any other questions from any commissioners or any uh questions [1:03:07] received via teams? Not at this time, chair. [1:03:12] All right. So, with that, um staff would be looking [1:03:18] for a recommendation for the project. I move to deny case number [1:03:24] 29-2025-0000580. We have a second. [1:03:29] Second. All right, we'll vote on that motion. All in favor of the denial, please say [1:03:34] I. I. I. All opposed, please say nay. [1:03:40] All right, with that, uh, the planning commission does recommend denial on this project. However, it will still be heard [1:03:47] as part of the lost my um [1:03:52] October 8th. Is it the public hearing section again? Okay, sorry about that. Oh, here it is. the public hearing portion of the city council meeting on [1:04:00] October 8th. All right. Thank you very much. All right. With that, we'll move to um [1:04:06] item 4 C on our agenda this evening. Uh this is the kickoff for Southwest Bailey [1:04:11] Property Master Plan and Eric will pass it back over to you. [1:04:22] Thank you again, Chair Bear with me as I get this opened. [1:04:34] So, the uh city is beginning a master plan process for the Bailey property. [1:04:40] The Bailey property is located on the screen. It is on the north side of Bailey Road. This is in the southwest [1:04:47] portion of our community. You can see where Military Road is in Woodlane Drive. just to orient this is New Life [1:04:54] Academy uh in this location. So, as a a brief background, in 2024, [1:05:00] council did authorize a council directive that requires master plans for projects and properties that are over [1:05:07] 100 acres in size. The Bailey property measures over 180 acres in Woodbury. [1:05:13] They also have holdings contiguous in the city of Newport and the city of Maplewood and we are working with all of [1:05:21] those jurisdictions as well as Ramsey County as part of this overall ma and Washington County as part of this master [1:05:28] plan. The city has done numerous master plans in its history. The first was city [1:05:33] center and then there was a bit of a break but I think you'll see more master plans in the future based on the council [1:05:38] directive. Most recently the city has done the urban village master plan. the urban village is where Jerry St. Theres uh [1:05:46] Ascend uh and a number of other residential projects are located off of [1:05:52] Radio Drive south of Bailey Road the south of Dale Master Plan which is in the Dale Road corridor [1:05:59] um surrounding Pioneer Drive and Military [1:06:04] Road. And then of course the gold line project had a master plan to guide development patterns but also [1:06:10] infrastructure landscaping placemaking as part of their [1:06:16] goals. So the purposes of master plan I won't go too deep into those but these are the [1:06:22] rationale as part of the council directive. There's a lot of good reasons to do master planning in advance of development activities. It's really a [1:06:28] proactive way to look at these sites to make sure that the community is getting what they envision while balancing the [1:06:34] needs of the private sector. That's really important. We want to have viable, commercially viable projects. Um [1:06:40] and so we work really hard as part of the master plan to get input from the private development community, from land [1:06:45] owners within the areas to make sure that the visions that are proposed within a master plan can be implemented [1:06:51] in a reasonable time frame but still have that overall vision of quality and serving the needs as well as robust [1:06:58] review of infrastructure needs proactively. So, as part of this core, the master [1:07:05] plan, the core deliveries are going to be looking at some landscaping plans. The pedestrian plans, the Carver Lake [1:07:11] Park is located to the north of this area. And on the next slide, I'll show you some general lands the land use [1:07:17] plans. So, you can start to kind of see the task at hand. Century Avenue will be extended from Bailey Road to the north [1:07:25] within this project. So, looking at the roadway designs, it's looking at the buffering and screening. There's some [1:07:30] existing residential housing within this area. There's multiple different uses that are contemplated including [1:07:35] highdensity residential, industrial, some retail. How do we buffer? How do we screen? How do we make that all um be in [1:07:43] harmony from our previous item? Um architectural themes. One of the unique things and one of the most impactful [1:07:49] things that a master plan can do is establish an architectural theme that builds on sense of place very quickly. [1:07:55] And then wayfinding as well. Again, trying to identify how all of these connection actions can make one project [1:08:01] feel a part of a larger project. And the last component will be a review that [1:08:06] ultimately will be finalized as part of the 2050 comprehensive plan. But as you see on the land use plan, the area on [1:08:14] the north side is places to work. And the this distance from Bailey Road, this [1:08:20] is unlikely that it'll be utilized for a places to work land use from a market standpoint. So the master plan will look [1:08:27] at and make a recommendation to ultimately be reviewed and finalized through the 2050 comprehensive plan, but [1:08:33] we'll review whether a residential use is the highest and best use for this [1:08:38] property adjacent to the park. So as you start again as we go kind of merge the [1:08:44] two slides start looking at this is again our land use plan. So the hashed [1:08:49] area is a mixeduse component. So that's multifamily as well as retail and then [1:08:56] places to work surrounding on the north side. You've got existing residential [1:09:01] that's been there for decades. Um the good news is is there's some tree lines [1:09:06] within this location that as we look to preserve some of those that will do a lot of the heavy lifting from a [1:09:11] buffering standpoint. So this is the plan from the Bailey [1:09:17] family. So this is one where we're starting with a little bit of an idea from a land use standpoint. And one of the first things you'll notice [1:09:24] is the green area here and that is a proposed expansion of New Life um New [1:09:32] Life. And so they would buy this for future recreation uses, sports uses [1:09:40] um to expand their campus. Really what they've identified is that if they don't [1:09:46] do that and this becomes residential or commercial development then really they're going to be uh challenged on [1:09:53] site. They have a very large wetland within the center portion. So their [1:09:58] athletic ability and ability to continue to provide the needs of their school [1:10:03] community for the next hundred years would be stunted if not for an acquisition. So that changed a little bit of land use. So going to pop back [1:10:10] and forth a little bit. You could see this was really much squared off in this location during the 2040 comprehensive [1:10:17] plan process. It wasn't contemplated that a portion of the property would be acquired by New Life. So really the [1:10:24] concept is to layer that multifamily. Just think of parcel A really kind of [1:10:29] being dropped down in here and that's really that line. It's really the same amount of multifamily in commercial. [1:10:36] It's just spread a little differently. So again the task as part of the master plan is to look at these land uses. How [1:10:42] do you connect from a pedestrian standpoint to the amenities to the north? How do you move through this [1:10:48] property? What is the design of this roadway network? Landscaping themes and [1:10:54] features throughout. And then again, they diff the different architectural decisions by [1:11:00] uh different form of each use. So again, we have commercial uses, we have housing [1:11:06] uses, we have light industrial uses within D. This overall graphic does show [1:11:12] some of the holdings within the other communities. For instance, F3 is in Newport as is F2. [1:11:19] Um F uh one portion is also in Newport. So all of these different uses, how do [1:11:26] they come together in a way that looks planful is the task at hand. So there's [1:11:32] a couple of next steps and the goal today is not to dig in too deeply, but again kind of the kickoff, if you will, [1:11:38] to the master plan process. There'll be a neighborhood meeting um as we come up with some initial drafts. So, we want to [1:11:44] have some some review from the adjacent property owners on some of the initial that'll inform this project as it moves [1:11:50] forward. Ultimately, we'll bring that back to planning commission review. They'll have an opportunity for additional comments as part of that [1:11:57] process and ultimately the master plan will be reviewed and approved by the city council. Hopefully sometime towards [1:12:03] the end of the year. But any questions from the commission? [1:12:14] I'll go ahead and make my pitch for color. I know with architectural styles, we [1:12:20] talk mostly about materials, but can we dare to imagine blue and green? [1:12:28] We we can you make make me break out a little bit into hives. I'm just kidding. I'm very much just kidding. I I think [1:12:35] that I think that is part of the placemaking. I think that is part of it is how do you add some vibrancy to the area whether that's on material pallet [1:12:42] could be or is it on some plantings robust landscaping plantings to provide [1:12:48] that splash of color signage um n you know the wayfinding signage could bring that colors. I will tell you [1:12:56] the first thing that pops into my head when we talk about colors on on buildings is I have not seen and I would [1:13:04] I really do want the commission to be thinking of this and prove me and give me examples of when it has been [1:13:09] successful but when I have seen the community select a color it has dated [1:13:15] itself quickly and that's the worry and our goal is always to have timeless design if we can. So when you pick a [1:13:22] blue or a red or a terracotta 20 years from now, you look at that and [1:13:27] go, "That's a 20-y old building when everything used to be terracotta." That's our worry when we use color. [1:13:32] That's one of the reasons why we have been less colorful. We admittedly lose a [1:13:38] little bit of the vibrancy upfront, but in the long term, we think it's a [1:13:43] worthwhile. That said, we've tried to use splashes of color, and if Gina were here, she'd be [1:13:49] talking about the yellow. the yellow. I'll do it for yellow. We have a lot of debate about that. [1:13:55] And this is on the urban village. We wanted a little splash of color on the urban village. So, there's yellow on the [1:14:01] Ascend project um as part of that project. It's it has sparked a fair [1:14:07] amount of dialogue. I don't know if it's in the community or if it's just internal, but it has had dialogue. [1:14:13] I think it's internal. Never heard anyone in the community dialogue about it. [1:14:19] But I I I think it's a fair I think it's a fair thing for us to look at. How do you how do you I think color brings [1:14:24] vibrancy, it brings excitement, it brings and that is something that certainly is going to be want to be a part of this. [1:14:30] So could I ask a question along those lines? So I know that when we see applications and and folks bring [1:14:36] buildings in here and they have a certain pallet and and we say could you put in more color or we like what they [1:14:43] have. Is this process going to be a little more flexible for staff and maybe [1:14:48] for the commission in that if we see early concepts, we can maybe effectively [1:14:56] weigh in or ineffectively can either reject our comments or or pick up on [1:15:03] them. Can can we weigh in more than we normally do on applications? Yeah, I think it's going to be an opportunity to [1:15:09] weigh in more as part of the master plan and once that material pallet gets established through the master plan, [1:15:14] there's probably a little less flexibility on the back end than we normally have for commenting. [1:15:19] Um, but I I do think yes, the idea and what will be brought forward is a is a material pallet. [1:15:25] The decision has not yet been made on whether that becomes a requirement. We have done that in the past when there's [1:15:31] actually a required material pallet that or is it complimementaryary and those are some of the decisions as that will [1:15:38] be vetted as part of the master plan process as well. Uh but I think for sure there will be a deliberate architectural [1:15:45] approach as we look to balance all of the different uses within this area so [1:15:51] that it you know this is a fair amount of development that's going to go into this area [1:15:58] that without some sort of cohesion could look really random. [1:16:03] So h how would that work? Um you're going to be working with the applicant [1:16:08] much earlier as you are now than we are. So will you weigh in on that? Will you [1:16:14] steer them in any way? Will you suggest things or do you wait until they propose some things and you can say I don't like [1:16:21] that? Yeah. Could you try this? Is is that how does that work? I think the cycle will be that from a [1:16:27] and this process has begun. Staff will generally identify a material uh [1:16:33] a vision board if you will, maybe not directly. So we'll identify projects we like from across the country. uh we've [1:16:40] already begun that process. We'll identify that. We'll take that to the applicants, identify here's the [1:16:45] direction we're generally going. Does that give you any heartburn? If it does, we may go back to the [1:16:50] drawing board. We may try to find something that still meets the overall needs. And then ultimately that will then be brought back forward to planning [1:16:57] commission to look at it at this early level of here's kind of the vision aspects before we narrow it down further [1:17:03] to more specific architectural requirements. Had you done that on other master plans? [1:17:08] Yep. Did you did you get what you wanted? We did. Beautiful. [1:17:14] We did. I think you know um the it was a little lighter version in [1:17:20] the urban village, but you can see some nods to some of the architectural choices, some of the the different [1:17:28] pallets working together within especially the multifamily. Um one of the challenges and and we [1:17:35] still need to be aware of this. St. theres came in as part of that process after the master plan and that had its [1:17:40] own unique architecture. So, you know, we also want to be aware that we don't want to not allow for really neat and [1:17:48] unique projects to be constructed either. So, there's a little bit of a balance there that that the [1:17:53] a master plan can provide. But if you look at the, you know, the the commercial center um at Benberg Gardens, [1:18:00] the first phase residential, which is the Ascend apartment project, there's definitely architectural continuity [1:18:07] between those two. And I think as well as the brewery, as well as the other businesses there and and to me, I think [1:18:13] that adds a lot of value. Is the applicant local? So the applicant there is no uh well [1:18:20] there are applicants that are emerging. So um there is not one overarching [1:18:26] developer in this project. So that's one of the other compelling reasons why a master plan becomes very important. [1:18:33] So that the city can provide that continuity element that historically can be provided by a developer. [1:18:40] But in this case it's going to be individual land sales likely that occur. So the Bailey family will transact with [1:18:47] a multifamily. They'll transact with New Life. They'll transact with a retailer. [1:18:53] Mhm. Um and then a light industrial user. So there'll be those transaction but not an overarching. Okay. [1:18:58] And they'll be bound by this master plan. Okay. So you you're saying that it's not [1:19:04] one developer. It's the land is going to be sold to different developers. [1:19:09] That's right. I I would say more sold to different users. [1:19:14] Some are developer. It depends on how you in the end it'll be closer to the end user. the transactions then at least [1:19:20] from my definition of developer is usually those who prepare the land, invest in the land and then go look for [1:19:26] a a user of that space. I think it'll be closer to the end user being the [1:19:31] individual who acquires the land. So can you put up that plan that you are showing? Um so this this one this [1:19:38] particular plan is just a proposal from the Bailey family. That's right. That that's right. [1:19:43] So they they are just saying this is how it would look like. Um the the one one [1:19:49] or two complications I see is it's actually multi-ity right it's not just [1:19:55] Woodbury I mean Newport obviously is there Maplewood uh part of it I think um [1:20:02] and so so that actually makes it quite complicated right as in would the [1:20:08] different you know people who are developing different parts of this will have to satisfy the need of the [1:20:15] different cities and what their requirements are or is you know Newport [1:20:20] and Maplewood going to let Woodbury lead the the master plan? So the master plan portions will only [1:20:26] encumber the Woodbury land so it will not input. However, one of the concerns that we all have is that if [1:20:33] we have a set of standards and then the other the Newport Maplewood is a little bit [1:20:38] they have this piece here so it is a little bit more standalone a little bit. Um but from a Newport [1:20:45] standpoint, we have met with their staff on a number of occasions. Um throughout [1:20:50] this process, um it's been a very collaborative approach to figuring out [1:20:57] it has been complicated. You are correct. This has been several years getting to this point because of some of [1:21:04] those complications, but there's a willingness to look at some of the architectural, some of the landscaping, [1:21:10] and some of the other themings uh across uh all of the municipalities. [1:21:16] So, we will be meeting as part of this master plan with Newport staff to make sure that they're aware of what these [1:21:22] requirements are. The goal is when we, you know, hit the fast forward button 10 years from now and all of this is built [1:21:29] that you won't be able to know the municipal boundary where that is. It [1:21:35] should have the same quality, fit, and finish whether it's in Woodbury, Newport. [1:21:41] And I think we all share that vision. And and the extension of Century Avenue you referred to, is that the one curving [1:21:48] down or straight down? That's this one. Okay. That is a county road based on our [1:21:54] comprehensive plan. Yeah. So, will that get will that get a [1:21:59] design? Yeah. Streetscape. Yep. [1:22:04] Along the former note, um I just have a question on how the public engagement is [1:22:09] going to look like on the pro on the um matter of the master plan. Like would it [1:22:15] be separated from city to city like Woodbury, Newport, and Maplewood or [1:22:20] would it just all be in like one consecutive place? That's a great question. Um, Newport's [1:22:28] project F2 and F3 are a little bit ahead of the Woodbury projects. So, they've [1:22:33] already had a neighborhood meeting within [1:22:38] Newport. Um, but because some of the infrastructure and some of the areas get [1:22:45] very close to the Woodbury property owners on both the uh to the east of the [1:22:51] pro of the property and to the south. We uh asked if we could be a part of that [1:22:58] meeting and be present. And so I was able to attend that meeting and have [1:23:04] conversations very early with residents from both Woodbury and Newport on some [1:23:10] of the very early visions from a Woodbury side. So I give Newport a lot of credit that they, you know, were [1:23:16] willing to have us as part of a ad a part of their official process. Um I had [1:23:24] not done that before, but I think it was positive. Um we'll certainly are happy [1:23:30] to have residents from Newport be a part of our master planning process as we [1:23:35] move forward with with that aspect. just um to touch on a couple of the main [1:23:40] points and I'm not sure if I have a graphic cuz it's going to do this very well, but one of the things that at [1:23:46] least the initial plans show there's there's a roadway connection right here [1:23:52] and then there's another roadway connection I think it's right about here. Um that were previously planned [1:23:58] for and as part of the initial plans those are no longer necessary and that was a major concern for the residents. [1:24:05] So they were very receptive to the development patterns. I wonder if you can see it here. Here's one right there [1:24:11] and one right there. But as we go back to the plan really because of this [1:24:17] acquisition from a new life standpoint and really the power of century, it's really not critical that that connect [1:24:23] from a roadway standpoint. We would likely have trail connectivity in that location. But it was really [1:24:28] wellreceived by those residents. [1:24:33] All right. Thank you. Will Sentry Avenue ever continue to the south and connect up with the existing Sentry to the [1:24:42] southwest coordinate? I've learned long ago not to say never [1:24:47] say never. Yeah. I think there's a lot of things that have to go right for that to happen, but [1:24:52] never say never. And then did Newport, if anyone's listening from home, that does not mean that I know any [1:24:58] information that that's coming sooner. I just never say never. Did Newport explore having uh in that like F2 or F3 [1:25:06] area gas station or service? F3 is a gas station. Yep. And it's it's actually public that that is a quick [1:25:13] trip and the residents have been very favorable of that. Have they already approved that? [1:25:18] Uh I don't know the status of the approvals in Newport. I think they might [1:25:24] have concept approval, but I don't know if they've gotten full. We busy. Yeah. Was there ever any consideration [1:25:32] of like an AUR type process in this area? We've had a lot of discussion of AUR [1:25:37] versus EAWS. And so what ultimately is going to occur is multiple EAWs versus [1:25:42] an AUR. And the reason for that is the AUR process needs to be updated by municipalities every 5 years where the [1:25:48] EAW does not. It's the same level of very similar levels of [1:25:53] environmental review. But Woodbury will need an an EA. Newport has conduct it will also need an EAW as well. [1:26:00] And what's going to be the EAW trigger? Uh the total amount of development in [1:26:06] both situations trigger. [1:26:11] So maybe you said this Eric and I missed it. Sorry. So everything that we see here in all of the colors represents the [1:26:19] 180 acres. Nope. Just so the 180 acres are site E, [1:26:24] A, B1, C, and D is the 180 acres in [1:26:30] Woodbury. F1, F2, F3, and H are in uh other jurisdictions. And G, [1:26:36] Newport, Newport or Maplewood. So So you said um anything over 100 [1:26:42] acres um would require the master plan. So 180 [1:26:48] in Woodbury, well over that, but I I see everything colored in as sort of being [1:26:54] built as part of a much larger master plan. So you said that Newport maybe [1:26:59] maybe they've seen plans or they're further along with the F2 and the F3. [1:27:05] So we're not able to guide design of of those because that's in [1:27:12] another community. Is that That's right. Okay. Yeah. I mean we I mean we we are not able to have you know zoning approvals [1:27:18] or that we do have the ability to have open dialogue about shared goals and I think I think we'll get there from what [1:27:23] those goals are. Okay. But we don't have you know approval processes nor would we want the inverse [1:27:30] um from having Newport have review approvals on our on our projects. But I think it's very [1:27:37] healthy to have at the end of the day the residents who are utilizing or living in these spaces are not [1:27:43] um are not going to have strong feelings on whether they're they're on the west side of Century Avenue, meaning they're in Newport or on the east side of [1:27:49] Century. They're in in Woodbury. They want their overall area to be high quality and that's I [1:27:55] think everyone's goal. Sure. Sure. And is New Life uh that site is [1:28:02] New Life Pick that site. Is there like room in this whole thing to suggest [1:28:08] having New Life's new campus be uh straight to the west on sea along [1:28:14] Bailey? Yeah, there was a lot of dialogue with the family and and the reason for that [1:28:20] is the values are significantly different. So the value of sea land versus a land [1:28:25] value of B of what is now shown as B2 are apples to oranges. So they were able to come to financial agreement by going [1:28:32] a little stretching it a little bit north versus the value of property along [1:28:37] Bailey Road. We have such a nice um open, you know, there there's a lot of [1:28:43] education, lot of open space, lots of park, lots of athletic fields all the [1:28:49] way along Bailey, including the, you know, Eastridge High School and the [1:28:54] middle school and the new new life or math and science. [1:29:00] I do think one of the themes we have heard as growth has continued along the Bailey [1:29:07] Road corridor and Dale Road corridors is a want for more retail services. And so, [1:29:13] you know, it's really important to site those in locations that have one [1:29:18] visibility and two trip generation to support those uses. So really if we want [1:29:25] a commercially viable retail center, it it does need to be in close proximity to [1:29:30] Bailey Road. If if for instance we flip that and put it up by B1, it would have a significantly different success [1:29:38] or market success in my opinion. I think even being on the south side of Bailey Road, you know, even just being [1:29:44] able to have that morning commute of having some commercial space and the easy right in right out, [1:29:49] it matters. Yeah, it does matter. And I I see that space as a huge huge need to what you're [1:29:56] hearing on Bailey Road and the potential and I'm sure there's going to be a lot of [1:30:04] interest from people looking for commercial space in those especially especially next to a quick trip. [1:30:09] Can we limit the future commercial retail space C to exclude businesses [1:30:15] like parking lot car dealerships and Yes. Okay. Yeah, absolutely. I think [1:30:21] Tesla. Yeah. I I mean, we would I'm seeing Starbucks, Caribou Coffee. [1:30:28] We would really look at this at at core retail, community retail type uses, [1:30:33] you know, some level. We'll see if there's a fast casual opportunity, fast [1:30:39] food opportunity with the sports center there. That's something that we do hear criticism from those guests that are at the sports center is that there isn't [1:30:46] that quick service opportunity at um at Belindberg Gardens. So that might be [1:30:53] an opportunity there. We'll see if in time. Um one of the thing that's changed just I find this interesting from the [1:31:00] time we did the master plan at Beenmber Gardens and and Urban Village. reason there wasn't is not a um fast food [1:31:10] location there was at that time this was pre- pandemic um the lunch crowd in [1:31:16] Woodbury was was pretty quiet the the really the 11:00 hour was especially in [1:31:23] southern Woodbury was pretty quiet um also Eastridge is not an open campus [1:31:29] so that's another um item that was challenging fast forward for six, seven, eight [1:31:35] years. I think what we've seen and we've seen, you know, restaurant expansion due to it [1:31:41] is it's a much different lunch crowd because of work from home, flexibility, [1:31:47] other things that came from the pandemic. We'll see if that is a a trend or if that's real. But I I do think it's [1:31:54] significantly different. I think it's changed a lot. I I even 15 [1:32:00] 10 15 years ago, I'd have service people come to my home and they'd be like, "Where's the closest gas station?" Or, [1:32:07] "I want to get a sandwich." And it's like Alma School. I go over to Holiday on, [1:32:15] you know, County Road 19. Um, so yes, it has changed with the all of that [1:32:22] building to the south of Bailey with um St. trees and [1:32:27] Jerry's and the shopping and made it much more vibrant. [1:32:33] Still no gas station there. Uh Super America or Speedway is in in in that campus. Yes. [1:32:40] Yeah. Yeah. I so the you know from a Woodbury city [1:32:48] perspective right uh and there's lot of space that is Woodbury that is called out as future business park um does 2050 [1:32:58] plan actually have specific um kind of goals or objectives or you [1:33:04] know as in what kind of businesses um because that would depend on what actually becomes the [1:33:12] scope of that area, right? Yeah. As part of the all comp plans, so the next one being the 2050 plan, we [1:33:19] will look at all of the vacant commercial space within the community and identify what the highest and best uses [1:33:25] of those properties will be. So the way that land use works within the comprehensive plan is those are the [1:33:31] broadest CA categories. So the future business park here in purple would be shown as places to work. But then as [1:33:38] part of the implementation coming out of the 2050 plan, you do a zoning analysis and that's similar to [1:33:46] what um um Commissioner Jarrett was asking about. Can we narrow what type of uses [1:33:53] are allowed on that piece? That's done through the zoning more than through the land use. The land use is the broad [1:33:58] category. The zoning is the more deliberate narrow of what type of businesses. You can guide a little bit [1:34:04] through the creation within the the comp plan. You can indicate some of those [1:34:09] vision aspects by some of the goals and policies that get put into um the plan. [1:34:15] And I think we will certainly do this I think as part of the evaluation of E is is that really a viable commercial space [1:34:22] in the long term or should that be a housing um a housing use? [1:34:28] I mean reason I'm asking is for example if you look at um you know Hudson road [1:34:33] right and that whole area starting from Kandeva you know all the way to [1:34:39] essentially Manning it primarily looks like it's a place to work but it's like [1:34:44] more like you know warehousing and you know mixed use kind of facilities right [1:34:50] um and I'm just curious as in Woodbury thinking about like businesses that [1:34:56] actually make things you know, as compared to businesses that transport things. I mean, what what what is the [1:35:03] future vision? Yeah, I think that the what I'm going to bring up here is a a great example of [1:35:10] what the 2050 plan will have the opportunity to give. And so, there was very deliberate discussion as part of [1:35:17] the 2040 comprehensive plan about what the northeast area will be. And I I'm [1:35:22] going to bring up a a bullet area here. Um, and hopefully you can, this is more [1:35:29] than I remember it being, but really you can see that, you know, the goal of that area, if you read this, maybe I can zoom [1:35:37] in or not, but hopefully you can read that on your screen, but it did identify [1:35:42] the warehouse distribution, light industrial. So, the goal of what you're [1:35:47] seeing today, that was the goal of the 2040 plan. And my point of showing this [1:35:53] is I would envision a very similar dialogue and opportunity to shape the vision as part of the 2050 plan. [1:36:00] So, so that that's great. I mean, so it is what you're saying is that it was defined to be what it is now being [1:36:06] realized and I'm just asking a different kind of question which is um what are [1:36:12] what are we as Woodbury envisioning that we want to have as businesses in [1:36:18] Woodbury in future? That's the question for 2050. Agreed. Okay. Yeah, that's exactly what [1:36:23] it's not answered yet what you're saying. Okay. That would be answered as part of the 2050 comp plan process that kicks off [1:36:29] actually this week. Uh we received what's called system statements from the metropolitan council this week. [1:36:36] And that is the really the beginning tangible beginning part of the 2050 [1:36:41] comprehensive plan process. So over the next several years, we'll be digging into those exact questions of and the [1:36:47] planning commission will assist the the task force. It'll be a task force that's that will be appointed by the council [1:36:54] that will help guide some of these that ultimately then will be reviewed by the planning commission. But really, it will [1:37:00] look at the vacant pieces of property within the city and being very tangible, similar to what was done here on what is [1:37:07] the vision for those last pieces. What type of businesses are we moving away? Maybe we're now at the point where we [1:37:12] checked that box about the diversification of light industrial warehouse in the northeast area. Now the [1:37:18] remaining parcel should be focused on something different. Correct. Okay. Thank you. [1:37:25] Pickle ball parks. Yellow pickle ball parks. [1:37:31] Curling clubs. More to come on this without a question. [1:37:37] More to come. All right. Thank you. Exciting stuff. Yeah, very exciting. [1:37:43] All right. Um, so thank you very much for that uh kickoff of that master plan, [1:37:49] Eric. Um, the next item on our agenda, we had council report from council member Jennifer Santini. She's [1:37:56] She's online. She's online. Wonderful. I was going to ask if she joined us there. So, we have [1:38:02] councilini. We can hear you. Perfect. Perfect. Well, I'm actually going to move my report around because [1:38:08] you just everybody segueed so well, which is um just a reminder that we are [1:38:14] having the uh deadline for our commissioner our advisory commission applications is on October 5th. Um and [1:38:21] to highlight that there this year there will be these two additional um advisory groups. So one is that we will be going [1:38:28] through the process about selecting who will be on the 2050 comprehensive plan task force. Um and I do think it is a [1:38:36] really unique um process to be part of. Um I also know that it is also helpful [1:38:41] to have some background um general knowledge about the city as well. So it doesn't mean that somebody couldn't [1:38:47] serve on it if they they're sort of new, but it does uh add well to the to the [1:38:53] process. Um and I say that as somebody who served on the 2040 comprehensive plan task force. So, um I do think it is [1:39:00] um a very worthwhile experience and um a really um insightful to to the city [1:39:05] planning. Um as well as we're doing the parks and facilities long range planning [1:39:10] focus group. Um and so we're actually going to be discussing this a little bit more in detail on Wednesday during our [1:39:17] workshop. But again, this is going to be a group this I would say the time [1:39:22] commitment is a little bit more limited. I believe the thought process being about a year versus the comp plan uh [1:39:29] task force will be it's usually about a three-year um commitment. Um Eric can [1:39:34] correct me if I'm wrong. Um but the long-term uh range planning is to really [1:39:40] dive in to say what are what are the gaps in our parks um and facility uh [1:39:45] system? What do we need? Again, we obviously had over the years um just established the parks and trails [1:39:52] replacement fund. Um, so just really analyzing a lot of that from that long range planning. So did really want to [1:39:58] put that on people's radars. Just because you're on the planning commission and maybe your term is not up doesn't mean that if you have an [1:40:04] interest in these, you can't apply for those either. So um, but as well as if you have some friends or neighbors that [1:40:10] you believe uh would also be uh worthy applicants. Um, and then just uh regroup [1:40:17] uh the fact that we did just have our budget meeting on the 10th. So we did go through that process. Uh on Wednesday, [1:40:23] we will be setting the preliminary levy um which is basically to say we cannot [1:40:29] exceed that amount um when we do our full adoption of the budget in December. Um so it sets you know that ceiling. Um [1:40:37] but we are trying to still fine-tune a few items here and there and hopefully as best as we can try to to rein some of [1:40:44] it in a little bit. But um one of the big items that were part of the budget which uh will go to show also then [1:40:51] what's happening on Wednesday um is that last budget year budget cycle we had [1:40:56] sort of uh put out the task to to staff to really focus on full staffing with [1:41:02] regards to and our public safety department um and they really sort of call uh you know answered the call for [1:41:09] that. And so there is a huge um increase with regards to the fact that we are um [1:41:15] going to be budgeting um for uh uh fully six new officers and actually we're [1:41:20] swearing in seven new officers um this Wednesday. Uh so we are really uh have [1:41:26] been focusing our efforts to make sure that we are being fully staffed and that it's not just on that um officer side [1:41:33] but really also fire and EMS as well and making sure that with the population we are having enough staff [1:41:40] enough crews to be able to respond to the calls that we need. So uh and then lastly sort of more of the fun stuff is [1:41:47] that we are going to get to do a tour of Central Park on Wednesday uh for our workshop. So, uh, which are always fun [1:41:54] field trips. Um, and I personally have yet to see a sneak peek. So, this is going to be really fun fun for me to [1:42:00] see. So, it'll be fun to see that it is, uh, really come to fruition. [1:42:05] But that is my report. All right. Thank you very much, Council Member Santini. [1:42:11] Yes. All right. Next on our agenda, we have approval of the minutes from the August [1:42:16] 18th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. Are there any comments or edits at this [1:42:21] time? I found two. Um, on page three, five [1:42:27] paragraphs up from the bottom, Commissioner Kennedy's last name was just misspelled. It was just typo. [1:42:33] And then I just had a question on formatting. On pages [1:42:41] pages 10 and 11, uh, when commissioners are first introduced, it'll say Chair Olsson, and [1:42:48] then it might say Miss Olsen, Commissioner Colum, Mr. column, but then at the very bottom here, uh, Tom and and [1:42:56] my first names came in, and it just surprised me to see my first name. So, I just wanted to make sure it was a [1:43:02] formatting issue or consistency. I think we probably want to have [1:43:07] consistency on that. So, we'll update that back into the same cadence. Okay, that was it. [1:43:13] So, you want to be on? Yeah, we'll switch. Yeah, it'll be fun. [1:43:20] All right. Any other comments or edits? All right, with that, we'll entertain a motion for approval. [1:43:26] I move to approve with the suggested edits. All right, second. I'll second that. [1:43:31] All right, thank you. So, we'll vote on this motion. All in favor, please say I. I. I. [1:43:36] All oppose, please say nay. All right, with that, the minutes are approved with the edits as noted by [1:43:43] Commissioner Swanson. All right, with that, the meeting is adjourned.