[13:21] good evening and welcome to the June 30th 2025 planning commission meeting if all commissioners will please mute your [13:27] microphone until it is your turn to speak that would be appreciated members of the public may join using a PC Mac or [13:34] iPad iPhone or Android device members of the public can access the meeting online at the city's website and public can ask [13:40] questions and comments during the meeting by using the link to the virtual meeting to join and submitting the questions via the online Q&A feature [13:47] within the meeting questions regarding this meeting can also also be asked during regular business hours at city [13:54] hall if you are a member of the public and wish to speak on a topic please fill out one of the yellow forms at the back [14:00] of chambers and provide that sheet to staff you will be called on after the project in reference is presented for [14:06] residents viewing online please add your questions to the Q&A fields along with your name and address and with that we [14:12] will call the meeting to order all right so Dan would you please start [14:18] the roll call thank you chair john Jarrett here sauren Shaw [14:25] here marshia Kennedy here shannon Olsen here thomas Harrington here john Colum [14:33] here stephanie Swanson here adrina Galling here daniel Cho here chair we [14:40] have a quorum all right thank you very much uh we do have three discussion [14:46] items on our agenda this evening however one is going to be tabled until a future planning commission date that's item B [14:53] 4B on the agenda for the ranch road edition resoning preliminary plat [14:59] project number 28-2025-00574 so if anyone is here today or watching [15:05] online in regard to the ranch road edition that item has been tabled and we'll only be discussing items A and C [15:13] this evening so first item this evening then will be item A the 4255 Woodlane [15:19] Drive planned unit development concept project number 29-2025-0000582 [15:26] and the staff member presenting this report will be Eric thank you Chair land and Resources Consultant or LRC has [15:34] submitted an application for a concept planned unit development on behalf of a potential property owner Jed Schmidt for [15:41] a nine lot subdivision the property is located at 4255 Woodlane Drive on the [15:48] souththeast corner of Woodlane Drive and Hargus Parkway the property is currently [15:53] zoned R2 single family district and it is guided as rural estate on the land use plan [16:00] the application in front of you this evening is uh being processed under code section 24207 [16:07] that uh portion of code does identify an optional opportunity for applicants to [16:14] have feedback provided by the neighborhood by the planning commission and by the city council at a concept [16:22] level prior to uh incurring significant costs the concept PUD process has been [16:30] used very infrequently in the past but it is a good riskmanagement tool for [16:35] property owners that again are looking to balance the uh risk of the [16:40] significant capital costs to provide a preliminary plat application including [16:46] the civil plans and professional services that come with creating [16:51] a packet for city review the code does identify three steps it identifies a [16:57] neighborhood meeting process uh planning commission review and the city council it is important to note that the city [17:04] council will not take any formal actions when they review this at a public hearing they will not approve or deny [17:09] the application no comments suggestion remarks or observation made by city staff the planning commission or the [17:16] city council shall be binding on the city for future FA stages but this is an opportunity i encourage planning [17:22] commission to provide your feedback for the applicant they will be making decisions based on what they hear tonight and at the planning and at the [17:28] city council the property again is zoned R2 single family estate district that is [17:34] a one unit per 3 acre minimum lot size the reason for that is during the comprehensive plan process it was [17:41] identified that there would not be city sewer and water available and therefore any future lots would be served by [17:48] private well and septic to meet those infrastructure needs this evening the [17:54] applicant is requesting feedback in three areas uh the request uh would be [17:59] to have a ultimately a comprehensive plan amendment from rural estate to urban estate urban estate is the [18:05] category within the 2040 comprehensive plan that allows density at one lot per [18:11] 1 acre of land area a reduction of minimum lot size from 3 acres to just [18:17] over 3/4 of an acre and a reduction in the minimum lot depth from 160 to 135 [18:24] it's important to identify the the purpose of the urban estate district [18:30] within the comprehensive plan the purpose is a buffering district so we'll touch on that a little bit later in the [18:35] presentation but really the intent of where the urban estate has area has been used is uh in between more urban [18:43] densities which is our three and a half units per acre and more rural densities whether that's 20 acre or the one lot [18:50] per 3 acres access to the property is off of Hargus Parkway the applicant is proposing two [18:57] culde-sacs initially the western culde-sac would could be extended as [19:02] development could occur in the future again nine lots total and these lots [19:09] would be served by city sewer and water [19:14] really the driving factor for the availability of utilities was the Arbor Ridge development again as part of that [19:21] subdivision two significant events did occur that have frankly changed the highest and best use of the adjacent [19:28] lands the first was the extension as shown on the screen of Hargus Parkway that was important from a utility [19:34] extension standpoint but it was also important as it created uh additional uh [19:40] traffic movements through the community in an eastwest fashion access or reliever to Bailey Road and uh was uh [19:46] beneficial uh to having that constructed in advance of surrounding development [19:52] the second event was the construction of a municipal drinking water that uh drinking water supply well that's shown [19:58] by the red arrow on the screen due to close proximity to that city well [20:04] allowance of additional private water wells should be greatly minimized by the [20:09] city in order to reduce draw down and uh contamination risk to the aquafer the [20:17] proposed utilization of city sewer and water would mitigate those risks by uh again connecting with municipal services [20:24] versus the protrusion into the aquifer and also adding additional septic [20:29] systems as a transparency note if a subdivision is not finalized as part of the concept [20:35] PUD process in front of you this evening staff would recommend an evaluation of [20:41] density be conducted as part of the 2050 comprehensive plan this would look at [20:46] the uh uses again likely either a urban [20:51] uh estate which is what's in front of you this evening the one per uh one acre [20:57] or low density residential which is a third 3.5 units per acre in the on this [21:03] parcel that would be 35 units maximum so if the applicant does not move this [21:10] forward this likely would be something that would be looked at in greater detail as part of the 2050 comprehensive [21:16] plan the review as part of a concept PUD is [21:21] not exhaustive there are a number of things that will need to be reviewed in the future and the city has full rights [21:29] to review all of these components that are shown on the screen as part of those future review processes all requirements [21:36] within city code and the comprehensive plan also remain in full force in effect a neighborhood meeting was held in on [21:43] June 18th with 16 property owners attendance questions were raised regarding anticipated grading storm [21:48] water management perimeter tree impacts and project timelines and with that [21:54] staff recommends planning commission provide feedback to the applicant related to the questions on the screen [22:00] and any other relevant feedback that the commission may see fit the applicant is on hand for any questions thank you [22:06] chair all right thank you very much would the applicant like to add anything additional at this time [22:14] please come up and state your name and address thank you Madam Chair thank you commissioners um Todd Olen i'm with Land [22:20] and Resource Consulting um not a ton to add eric always does a really comprehensive job but I would like to [22:26] publicly thank the staff that's worked with us so far and the neighbors neighbors we had 16 neighbors on a 10acre site here that showed up took [22:32] time away from their homes and lives and whatnot to come and share concerns uh several are here tonight um just wanted [22:39] to add a few details that uh the water in the sewer is currently located and stubbed in this direction on the south [22:44] side of Hargus at the northeast corner of this property uh as part of the plan [22:50] the nine lots we would plan on uh extending the path on the south side it [22:56] would mirror what's on the north side so a 10-ft asphalt batuminous or batuminous pathway and then the water and sewer [23:03] would extend over to um Woodlane uh so it' be fully improved the as it was [23:10] stated earlier the the road on the on the west um is extended the property [23:16] line for possible future expansion but uh and the neighbor to the south is here [23:21] tonight so those questions can be answered from him we I will go on uh and say that there's just no no interest at [23:28] this point by that family that owns that property to do any development but [23:33] things change and and it's there if they want to use it in the future so again we're here for questions if you have any [23:40] we appreciate it all right thank you very much have there [23:45] been any yellow sheets received or questions submitted via Teams not at this time Chair all right um the Q&A [23:51] will stay open for the duration of the project discussion please enter any questions and staff will read them for [23:56] the commission and with that we'll open it up to members of the planning commission for questions and we'll start [24:01] with you Commissioner Colin thank you Chair um I guess my first [24:08] question would be for the applicant um as you have put this concept together [24:14] how did you settle on proposing the zoning use to be changed to urban estate [24:20] versus either keeping the existing zoning or zoning to um lowdensity [24:27] residential um there are a number of factor and thank thank you for the question um [24:32] there are a number of factors uh number one there this is a transition property between what's to the south [24:39] which is apple orchard to the north is school to the west are larger lots and a lake and then to the east which is [24:44] higher density 3.5 units per acre so this transitions in just about every direction uh we figured that the the [24:51] size there is is a good transition a good buffer um and frankly over the [24:57] course of time um not that it's been completely lost but larger lots are hard [25:03] to find in Woodbury so we didn't want to go the direction of like an R4 with [25:10] smaller lots like Arbor not because those are bad or whatever or not popular they are um but there is a shortage of [25:17] like the one acre one per acre density where you get just a little more room maybe a little bit bigger house um those [25:25] types of lots and as a matter of fact since we made the uh we've been working on this we've received several calls [25:31] from other neighbors that are interested in possibly moving over uh one that was downsizing and one that was upsizing so [25:38] there there's a strong strong desire for it so that's kind of why we landed here the other item that Eric had mentioned [25:44] is the environmental impact of having uh not only on-site uh drain fields but [25:50] on-site wells for threeacre lots you probably get three or four lots here but that every time you poke a hole in the [25:57] earth next to a well you're introducing an opportunity for a contamination spot right there so and you're also uh [26:04] putting waste in a a drain field and if a drain field acts properly it fails it [26:09] chokes out eventually and fails um and has to be replaced and whatnot well what do you do in the interim it you're still [26:16] filtering waste in sand basically so this plan does provide the larger lots [26:22] less density than say what's to the east uh and it it it uh from an environmental [26:29] standpoint it's got water and sewer so it doesn't introduce those opportunities for contamination [26:35] thank you um you want me to stay up here no that's okay thank you um I may think [26:41] of something else but not right this second um I I guess question for staff so I recall a meeting relatively [26:48] recently where we approved an urban estate development at the far southwest [26:56] corner of the city right neighboring with Cottage Grove and um [27:02] that the nature of that parcel seemed very clear that that was you know the the purpose of the urban estate as a [27:09] buffering zone i guess as as the staff looks at this particular parcel and how [27:15] it's placed within the city and I think about the other undeveloped plat around [27:22] it i guess I'm have I guess I I have a harder time understanding how we one [27:28] would differentiate this from the rest of the traditional you know residential [27:33] neighborhood that's been developed to the east arbor neighborhood it seems fairly in I'm sorry it it to me [27:40] it seems fairly internal still within the city and as I look at the location map in the packet here as well i'm just [27:48] thinking about how the rest of this particular node may eventually get developed at some point in the future and how this sort of would serve the [27:56] purpose as a buffer in that regard yeah I think as the city has looked at the ability to serve a number of these areas [28:03] with city sewer and water while we can serve these pieces that are near Hargus [28:08] Parkway and likely a portion of the properties to the south at some point as we move further south and as we move [28:14] west of Wood Lane it becomes more challenging to serve those with municipal utilities so into perpetuity [28:20] the comp plan identifies those will ultimately be larger lot subdivisions so it may not be today that it looks um [28:28] these are larger parcels today but they could subdivide in the future into more 3acre lots and if that were the case [28:34] you'd have 3 acres here some level of 1 acre here and then transitioning to the [28:40] urban density here which is frankly very similar to the Cherrywood project that was reviewed before [28:47] um it it really is intending to provide again that transition or that buffer versus going directly to the 3.5 units [28:54] per acre okay so in the view of staff as you sort [28:59] of see this development moving you know west along you know Hargus and between [29:05] Bailey and Military you would see west of Wood Lane would likely remain [29:12] rural estate and then this somewhere in here maybe either directly to the west [29:17] or directly to the east where we're talking about now Woodlane would would would potentially be a transition spot [29:23] that's right [29:28] um I don't have any other questions right now chair thank you all right thank you Commissioner Kennedy i um he [29:35] took several chair thank you i have another question have there been [29:41] other neighborhoods i mean Cherrywood is one of them which is acting as the same [29:46] buffer type how has that affected the the surrounding neighborhoods i know that was recent so it's not really it's [29:52] not really a line at all yeah the the construction activity is just beginning on that site so but I can tell you that [29:59] generally speaking through the the neighborhood process it was wellreceived the concept of a larger lot that buffer [30:07] and that transition we did have six as it relates to the application in front of you this evening we did have 16 [30:12] residents i although it wasn't verbalized in an in a you know expressly [30:18] I my takeaway from the neighborhood meeting was that there was general appreciation that these were a little [30:24] larger lots versus um the urban density is the three and a half i think you [30:29] there would likely be a different level of participation if the if that moved to [30:35] three and a half units per acre because of the the surrounding properties in this location yeah it ch to my mind it [30:42] changes the the um the neighborhood the cultural context of that and the [30:48] plantings the the scenery etc in the whole area that that was my that was my [30:54] thought and actually that's it chair all right thank you very much Commissioner [30:59] Swanson yeah thank you since we're actually talking about this previous project it's [31:05] kind of a good segue for my thoughts um so I voted against that other project [31:12] that we're talking about because I felt like they were asking for too much and when I look at the screen here the more [31:20] bullet points that are there the more I'm thinking how overdeveloped is the project and so I was playing around with [31:26] some math and wondering if you would feel okay swapping [31:33] essentially swapping the acreage on lots four and five and then lot two and three [31:38] because then you could meet your lot width and you could meet the lot widths because of the the reduced requirement [31:45] for the culacs it would tinker with some shapes lot two would look a bit more like Utah uh [31:53] instead of a rectangle and it would reduce some square footages to about 75 acres instead of 77 acres [32:02] but then you're more meeting code you're still getting nine lots but you're [32:09] asking for a little less because you're swapping which side of the development [32:15] the larger lots are on just moving them from the north to the south essentially [32:20] i'm sorry I had a hard time following could you redescribe what your changes you would you recommend or do you did [32:27] you draw them well I didn't draw them i did a lot of math okay so essentially if [32:33] you move this lot line down to make lot two look a more like Utah instead of a [32:39] rectangle and shrink this one a little bit and then move this one down a little bit so you meet your minimum widths up [32:46] here you still meet your minimum widths down here because of the reduced requirement for the cul-ac and the other [32:53] thought I had was if we're talking about lot sizes and if people are [32:59] uncomfortable with going down to a 75 if you could potentially even get rid of [33:05] lot one and rotate your storm basin over here and you can expand a little bit [33:12] east and west this is very unofficial i'm sorry no this is this is great because talking about Utah informal [33:19] format on purpose so we can have these open discussions so I appreciate this a great deal but so essentially my thought [33:24] was the more bullet points the more I wonder if it's overdeveloped and I was looking at this how could we get it more [33:31] to code i'm completely in favor of this zone change i think it's very appropriate but the zone change with all [33:40] the other requests I think add a bit of a question to me so I'd love to have [33:45] this tinkered a bit i think it's going to be a really great project i don't think it's there yet this is the right [33:51] time to tinker yes the only uh boomerang in the conversation there is that the [33:56] owner currently lives at the residence of Northwest Corner and that's staying oh I see so they're going to remain [34:02] living there okay in that home and then that's going to be become a lot in the plat but all the other items comment too [34:09] well all the other items though I mean yeah we can look at all those different adjustments or whatnot to get it closer [34:15] to I really think you can get there if you tinker with lots 2 three four and five okay [34:21] thank you i have no other comments thank you all right thank you Commissioner Jarrett [34:28] thank you Chair um yeah we all seem to have the cherry uh wood or cherry um [34:36] bump-in neighborhood down there on the southwest corner of um the city next to [34:42] Newport and Cottage Grove and I also did not vote for that one these little bump [34:47] bumpin culde-sac neighborhoods I think kind of get an orphan feeling to them uh [34:54] they don't connect very well with the you know kind of the fabric of of everyone else's neighborhood they [35:00] typically don't have a neighborhood name they don't have monuments people you know like to have a monument and they [35:06] like to tell people I live in I live wherever I live in you know Sper Cove or [35:12] whatever it is um so I I was really disheartened when I when I opened this [35:19] package i think I was actually talking to myself and my wife said "What's wrong with you?" Um but then I really I [35:26] started looking at this in a little bit different context and I I agree with Stephanie that this if you tinkered with [35:32] this a little bit um there's an odd pies-shaped kind of outlot here above [35:37] number two uh and to the right of number one that I I don't know why that is not [35:43] included um I know we have some of these odd orphan lots along County Road 19 and [35:51] on Lake Road and I think if you included that in two and maybe reshape the pond a [35:58] little bit you could you could get this a little bit closer to being compliant [36:04] um I think the biggest problem I had with uh the Cherrywood uh development [36:09] was that it didn't connect well with anything and uh when we saw it in planning it didn't even have a sidewalk [36:16] so my thought was where are kids going to stand when they're waiting for for a bus in a ditch you know uh later that [36:24] was revived and I think when it did pass council they did add a sidewalk on the [36:30] west side of the development yes east side east side on the east side of [36:36] Sentry correct so I was I was really happy to see the sidewalk here uh having [36:41] the double sidewalks one on the school side and then one on the development side i would like to see some sort of a [36:49] connector and I really thought a lot about this because having orphaned deadended sidewalks or trails cause a [36:56] problem um but maybe a trail between uh four and six or five and seven kind of [37:02] in the middle i know that uh adding sidewalk or a trail uh on either side of [37:09] the culde-sac on the right between uh two and four and three and five um it [37:16] kind of it would be it would be a little bit wonky and if that street ever does [37:21] go through there's going to have to be some realignment of the culde-sac and the street so you know maybe between the [37:29] houses that would be a very nice connector to the school but again I'm on [37:34] the fence with you know are we going to have an orphan sidewalk with that goes nowhere people don't like that either um [37:42] but uh you know I think the green space is good uh you know figure out that odd [37:48] pie shaped thing and maybe tinker around as Stephanie said with the with the lot sizes so you're a little bit more [37:54] compliant and uh figure out the connectivity on it and I think it I think it would be good uh the other [38:01] thing I was going to ask is do we drop down to 52 foot widths on our streets [38:09] culdeac right ofway would be 50 ft the actual that's from a right-of-way [38:14] standpoint the width of the street is 26 feet 26 so [38:22] we're actually this is going to seem a little bit more spacious [38:29] in in reality I mean they're they're nice lot sizes i I think it's a really good buffer so I [38:35] think I think maybe tinker around with it a little bit and consider a connector point with a path and I would I would be [38:44] for it that's all I have chair thank you [38:49] sure please come on back up thank you again Mr commissioner um the odd shape of the rightway there is actually a [38:56] result of a uh in most cases in Woodbury a dedicated rightaway is is mandatory [39:02] when you're platting prop properties like we are here we would dedicate those rightaways to be public in the case of [39:08] Hargus in this it sits in an easement that was granted by the school and that's the actual shape of the south [39:14] side of the easement so it's not ours to give or take at this [39:20] point there may be some there may be an alternative with the city we can certainly investigate that see if we [39:26] could make it more uniform there isn't really a use I don't think from the city side to have that squared off that way [39:32] at this point but we can certainly look into it so it's just an easement correct [39:37] for utilities and roads so can't we have a memorialized easement on a plotted piece of property so this property is [39:44] owned by the school district so the school district would have to transfer that to the private property which I [39:50] would say is a fairly fairly large i would encourage the planning commission [39:55] members to think about what this will actually look like ignoring the lot [40:00] lines this will remain as a wooded piece lot two will look and feel like a larger [40:06] lot than it really is in reality the lot line presence will not be [40:12] identified identifiable when it's in the built environment well and I think having a [40:18] little bit of elbow room I think the lot size is nice especially for the tree preservation so right [40:26] yeah that certainly was a comment we heard very clearly at the neighborhood meeting and you can see on the air photo [40:31] there is perimeter trees here and that is one of the nice parts of the lot sizes is they should allow for grading [40:39] activities to preserve these perimeter areas obviously a tree inventory will be conducted to see what type of tree [40:45] resources are there but generally we're not starting from a standpoint where [40:50] grading impacts are immediately putting them the the existing vegetation at risk [40:59] thank you all right Commissioner Harrington [41:05] thank you Chair Olsson i think my questions um will be directed to staff [41:12] so uh the so the request you identified three items in the request here for this [41:18] concept PUD the first one changes the comprehensive plan for the zoning of [41:24] this from rural estate to urban estate which is one lot per acre then it [41:30] further uh requests reduction from that standard down to 77 those smaller lots [41:36] yet so the even though that I'm sure it [41:41] fits into the idea of transitional zoning whether it's 1 acre or 3/4 of an [41:47] acre the question to staff would be um is is that something that you would um [41:55] see maybe um needing a variance should this go from concept UD to the next [42:01] stage of review would that require a variance it would not i think it would [42:07] be processed through the planned unit development process and as part of that [42:12] um some of the trade-offs would be the construction of the trail that currently is a gap within our system so the [42:19] applicant would be required to wholly construct and fund that improvement in return for the flexibility there is a [42:26] bit of a zoning question that staff did spend a fair amount of time [42:32] thinking about the we have really three we have three residential zoning districts the R1 district which is a [42:38] 20acre minimum lot size that's intended to be a holding district in advance of development from a phasing standpoint [42:46] the next is the R2 district which is a 3 acre minimum and then the R4 which is [42:52] the the more dense um development pattern so we have a fairly [42:57] straightforward zoning approach in comparison to other cities we did spend some time thinking about [43:03] whether the resoning application should be to R4 and if it were to R4 you [43:09] wouldn't have any of these relaxations because the minimum lot width is 80 ft the minimum depth is 135 ft so it would [43:16] meet those the unintended consequence of an R4 is then by right you could have [43:21] additional densities and so really we we struggled with that a little bit from a [43:27] standpoint of the long-term ability to [43:32] um the neighborhood process and so on that if ultimately it was reguided and [43:37] the zoning was R4 there could be additional development that could be approved versus moving it towards the R [43:45] two at the 3acre minimum so there was some discussion in the end it will take would take some flexibility under the [43:50] plan unit development process but it's ju just because we have the three zoning districts [43:57] so So you're talking a zoning district versus [44:03] originally you talked about the comprehensive plan categories so I'm getting a little mixed up between the [44:09] two but let me let me ask a question back to what you had mentioned and it's listed here under land uses so in the [44:15] comprehensive plan shouldn't should this not go through sounds like you would [44:20] have um this as part of your next comprehensive plan cycle and review that [44:26] you had mentioned the most appropriate land use would be this urban estate that's the one lot per acre or the low [44:34] density which allows for was it 30 35 units that could be on this site right [44:40] if you looked into your crystal ball which which of those do you think it [44:46] might land on i think it's a buffer site i think the tool that's appropriate [44:52] because of the context that surround it is the 1acre minimum lot size which is in front of you this evening okay i [44:58] think if ultimately staff thought the highest and best use was R4 we likely would be making a different [45:04] recommendation to be patient but I think because of the anticipated development [45:10] patterns to the west at some point to the south when we can't serve those from utility standpoint [45:17] um the R the the 1 acre lot size would [45:22] be the recommendation from staff standpoint i was assuming that's what you're going to say based on when you [45:28] when you talked about the different zoning and sort of the step down of the transition and how this lot would be [45:35] transitional so that makes sense and it jives with what you think it might land on so that's a good thing um I I guess [45:42] I'm just having a little trouble then going from one lot per three acres to [45:48] one lot per one acre and that now we're down to one one lot uh what is it 3/4 [45:53] acre lots so I I can see the configuration i'm not [45:59] here to draw and help you draw lot lines i'm just here to say I I think we've [46:04] taken it down one step too too far would be my would be my preference um the [46:12] other the other question I have since it's under further review or future [46:17] review so as this moves forward you had mentioned in the report that future reviews would be needed and it related [46:25] to other items and I there are six items here does staff have any concerns [46:32] currently on any of those six items as being a non-starter for taking this any [46:38] further no we we don't we've done preliminary analysis the applicant has spent um some [46:46] resources a reasonable amount of resources evaluating um [46:52] there are because of the lots sizes they are larger so things like you know the [46:58] tree preservation and the grading that normally we would need more information [47:03] to be as comfortable as we are now okay um but again these things are needing to [47:09] be fully vetted to make sure that there are not any issues the we have fully vetted the sewer depths and the ability [47:16] to serve the property from a sanitary sewer and water standpoint but um they have not been finally designed but there [47:23] is not significant we have done uh comment letters to the applicant and um [47:30] the development is fairly straightforward storm water is probably the least vetted and what I mean by that [47:37] is storm water management is done through storm water modeling um so could [47:42] the size of the basin shrink or grow it could certainly could as the full analysis is completed and that will [47:49] inform the ultimate patterns of the lots and things of that nature but that's probably the biggest variable at this [47:55] point okay is the storm water basin and the sizing of that okay great thank you [48:00] that's my last question all right thank you Commissioner Sha [48:05] thanks Chair um so I I had um kind of a question regarding this which is you [48:12] know the the west culde-sac as shown in here and and in the language that was [48:19] said is that it's the way it's left it is it could actually have a future extension so is there like more land for [48:29] development you know to the south side of that that's why you are actually talking about future extension yeah so [48:35] the culde-sac that you're referencing is here and I'm going to move screens here in a second the parcels to the south are [48:43] larger lots so there could be a number of different development patterns again that as of right now the zoning and land [48:50] use would be a one unit per 3 acres but there is subdivision possibilities even [48:56] under the current zoning so it's appropriate to stub there are two two [49:01] access points into this property uh there is one right here that was stubbed [49:07] as part of Arbor and then another one is proposed in this location and that will provide appropriate patterning dependent [49:14] upon future decisions on whether this two is served by city sewer and water or whether it remains a 3 acre we believe [49:23] and these are things that we have not seen the final information on we believe that this portion will be able to be [49:29] served how far south do we go to be able to serve by Siri sewer and water those are that's information we're waiting to [49:34] receive as part of the final application but we want to be able to make sure that we can route traffic back to Hargus [49:42] Parkway that'll help limit the number of access points along Wood Lane as well [49:47] so and and the the lot which is to the south of one that you have highlighted [49:53] that's a different owner yes so and they there is no intention on that owner to [49:58] actually partner on development that's our understanding at this time [50:04] so we just leaving for future maybe needed this access through this uh [50:10] westside culdeac yeah it is uh standard for us to stub infrastructure provide [50:16] infrastructure to prepare for the future okay and and the next question was [50:22] actually you kind of answered part of it is you know the capacity for the city [50:27] sewer and and water u has that been sized or that could that's going to be part of what you're here to assess yeah [50:34] that's a part of that future review under the sanitary sewer and water to understand full capacities how much of [50:40] those properties could be served again under the current comp plan they are not served by city sewer and water it would [50:45] have to be able to be shown that it could be okay thank you that that's all [50:50] I have chair all right thank you Commissioner Engali um most of my questions were already answered like the [50:58] um tinkering with lot sizes and the concern with the storm basin but the only other question that I have is that [51:05] um will the trail along Harus Parkway how will that be managed or will it be [51:11] like maintained seasonally and will it be lit up in the dark i could probably answer that um it would be owned by the [51:17] city so it' be maintained by the city um so that would be maintained [51:23] likely unless there's a policy change uh 12 months a year um we do not light [51:29] trails generally outside of intersection lighting okay that'll be all chair [51:35] all right thank you Commissioner Ch um same thing all my questions were [51:41] basically answered but I do have a suggestion for that little weird slice of pie over there maybe there could be a little park in there possibly no there [51:50] is a that could certainly be reviewed there is a a public park right in this [51:55] location okay with uh just down the street mhm so it does have good access [52:01] to public park okay um that'll be all chair thank you all right thanks um just [52:08] a few thoughts um I think just going um off what Commissioner Angalling said so [52:14] this is a trail and it's a trail to the east rather than a sidewalk [52:20] uh it's a it's a trail in both directions trail in both directions okay if it were a sidewalk would it be lit [52:26] i'm just kind of curious okay um [52:32] so I think just some general feedback and I know we've got work to do on the storm basin but I'll just say it now to [52:38] generally soften it and not rectang rectangulate it [52:43] um access of lot one is that that's off Woodlane Drive that is correct and just [52:49] if they are going to go back and look at any of these lots um guess a couple of thoughts i don't know if there's an [52:56] ability to put a second lot that would have access off Wood Lane Drive and move the storm basin and I'm not a a design [53:05] expert by any means of those basins but if it's at all advantageous to get that basin a little bit more centralized to [53:11] the lot just I I also don't know how contours and things are going to be also [53:17] people like to live on storm basins even though they're storm basins so it would add to kind of that lake feel [53:24] um I remember commenting this on the Cherry project as well i love the lack of the [53:31] neighborhood feel i love the large lot sizes i don't want an HOA i don't want monuments i don't care if I have grill [53:39] outs with my neighbors so this is the type of property that would be most advantageous to me so just lots of [53:46] different opinions out there and just here to say that I am one of the isolated folks that would would like my [53:52] lack of neighborhood sorry to my neighbors if you're watching um [53:59] let's see i think we've done a good job with screening thus far [54:07] with the So Commissioner Jared also said something that um kind of made me start to think but these 60 foot widths of the [54:15] culde-sac could those widths be smaller to allow for larger lot sizes yeah I [54:20] believe the easterly culde-sac would likely ultimately be 50 feet in right away the western should remain at 60 [54:27] because that is if it does ultimately become an extended public street 60 ft [54:33] okay so then the other thought if if we genuinely think that's going to become a rightaway I don't know if we want to [54:39] take away the circular part of the culde-sac and just kind of have it stop also could allow for some larger lot [54:46] sizes and not have that weird bump out if it does eventually go through yeah [54:51] the the question ultimately what would happen and and it could be removed in the future if it does extend um for now [54:58] it's for stone plowing purposes makes sense um [55:05] so on the drawing you have up right now it's not marked on there but there's a kind of [55:12] hatched blue line that cuts through lots two and three and it's marked the thousand foot shoreland offset from Law [55:17] Lake what does that line indicate as it relates to development there are some standards as it relates [55:24] to the amount of open space there's some uh storm water regulations all of which [55:30] because of the patterning that you're seeing here will be more than met as part of this application okay [55:37] um I think [55:43] Oh the other just bit of feedback for the applicant um in the future if this [55:49] were to become um separated plots like this would highly recommend no parking [55:55] signs on the culde-sac um I believe no Hargus is marked that way with all the ball fields just a note for the future [56:02] to protect kind of their their private street there very good point [56:08] um I think then that's all I had [56:15] um so with that uh were there any additional questions from commissioners [56:20] at this time or any other feedback rather car just one question for staff um the [56:27] applicant mentioned that in their analysis of why they made the request they just they looked at the market [56:33] demand and there's a lot of demand for this type of use in Woodbury right now um from a city perspective as you think [56:40] about a zoning change from a to the highest and best use um is there any discernable difference [56:48] in terms of property tax evaluation in an urban estate uh use versus a low [56:55] density residential use that would influence um anybody's decision-making [57:01] one way or the other so I think um as it relates to the [57:08] overall cost it it's hard to know exactly although the urban density could [57:14] allow to up to 35 units as I look at this plan because of the access [57:19] management along Hargus i don't think you'll ultimately get 35 units of development within that location you can [57:26] start to see how if you look at you know the lot widths within so these [57:33] are in the Arbor Ridge you're at a 65 foot [57:38] lot width so you'd likely double the number of units but I don't know if [57:44] you'd see significant changes in how the development is patterned with that said I would say the [57:52] anticipated value of these properties because they are larger lots are going to be probably in the million dollars in [58:00] north range average 65 ft lot can range anywhere from 550 up to Arbor Ridge has [58:08] 65 foot lots still in the millie so it is a little hard for us to speculate on [58:13] that but I can tell you that there is you know as we look at it from an [58:19] overall standpoint we look at it from a lens of housing choice and so we do want [58:25] to make sure that we have different variety of housing and certainly the more urban product is more readily [58:31] available throughout the community and will be more readily available through multiple different existing and new [58:37] subdivisions that occur as the city continues to develop the larger lot [58:42] subdivisions are a little bit more of a niche product we will have now two of these going um if this were to move [58:49] forward um including the Cherrywood project that's fairly [58:55] normal from the city standpoint to have somewhere in the range of 20 to 25 of these lots at any time available um at [59:02] the same time we have 550 or more traditional lots in inventory so if you [59:08] look at it from that perspective it becomes very much a niche product but it's important to have move up housing [59:13] opportunities that are available within communities [59:18] thank you all right thank you um have there been any additional questions from [59:24] any members of the public not at this time chair all right so this is my seventh year in [59:31] the planning commission and the first time I've also seen this concept plan so I'm going to assume that if we have all [59:37] questions and comments we just table the discussion and this does not have to go to a motion to recommend approval that [59:43] is correct the the process in front of you this evening was to provide feedback and commissioners have had an opportunity to do that appreciate uh [59:50] this is I will admit my first time with it and I've been on staff for 24 years so this is a little bit new i just while [59:57] I was sitting here I I did draw it if you'd like it if it okay [1:00:03] please take that is for you enjoy my Utah drawing [1:00:09] you're not even charge there you go yeah am I going to [1:00:16] All right um so thank you to the commissioners for all the feedback and look forward to seeing how this prog or [1:00:24] this project progresses and good luck with all the planning [1:00:29] all right with that this evening um we were going to move on to item 4 C of the [1:00:35] agenda uh this item is the indoor pickle ball 390 Commerce Drive conditional use [1:00:40] permit project number 03-2025-00581 [1:00:46] and we have Dan on this project all right thank you Chair snf Corporation [1:00:52] has submitted an application for a conditional use permit for commercial recreation use over 5,000 square feet [1:00:58] the applicant is proposing to install eight indoor pickle ball courts with the exist within the existing building the [1:01:03] project is located at 390 Commerce Drive uh and the property is zoned I1 light industrial district and guided as places [1:01:10] to work on the land use plan at the July 26 1995 meeting city council approved [1:01:15] the 53 acre 9 lot preliminary plat for the Woodbury Commerce Center the 65,000 [1:01:21] foot building at 390 Commerce Drive was constructed in 1998 [1:01:28] indoor pickle ball club is proposing to occupy 22,000 square ft for commercial recreation use the applicant is [1:01:34] proposing to install eight pickle ball courts uh within the existing building uh the city has identified that [1:01:39] commercial recreation space is a supportive use uh to the places to work land uses however it is intent of the [1:01:46] comprehensive plan to deliver places to work uh uses within the I1 zoning district and therefore the building [1:01:52] shall be capped at 34% total tenants space for use is considered commercial recreation no additional commercial [1:01:59] recreation uses uh shall be printed above the proposed 22,000 ft unless an amended conditional use permit is [1:02:05] approved by city council the applicant is proposing to utilize [1:02:10] the two existing full access points uh from Commerce Drive and Rivertown Drive into the site for vehicle access there [1:02:17] are turn lanes for both points of access the building has 171 parking stalls on [1:02:22] site the proposed pickle ball use is anticipated to take 22,000 ft which equates to 73 required stalls for the [1:02:29] proposed commercial recreation use given a one stall per 300 uh square foot ratio [1:02:36] the applicant has indicated that they will occupy the remaining building space to to be used as office and warehouse [1:02:42] based on the uses presented an additional 89 spaces will be needed for the office and warehouse uses it is [1:02:48] anticipated the peak times for pickle ball will be opposite from the business park uses and the shared parking field will be available for evening events [1:02:56] with that staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit project number 03-2025-0000581 [1:03:04] for the indoor pickle ball club subject to the conditions found within your staff report staff and the applicant are [1:03:10] on hand for any questions all right thank you very much would the [1:03:15] applicant like to add anything additional at this time [1:03:21] um nothing to be added at this time all right thank you very much have there [1:03:27] been any yellow sheets received or questions submitted via teams not at this time J all right the Q&A will stay [1:03:33] open for the duration of the project discussion so please enter any questions and staff will read them for the commission and with that we'll open it [1:03:39] up to members of our planning commission for questions you can you can stand you can sit if you'd like okay all right and [1:03:46] we will start with Commissioner Colum okay thank you Chair um [1:03:54] I I think just one of the clarifying questions I had either for the applicant or staff is that um the the current [1:04:02] building uh the current use of the building today is exclusively office and [1:04:08] warehouse and is this proposal converting some of that office and warehouse space to this recreational use [1:04:16] or is there another use for this particular part of this 22,000 square feet Hey [1:04:23] I'll defer to the applicant to u mention what the current use is i know you're in conversations with Right so the current [1:04:29] uses uh we are not occupying this building as of right now okay so we are [1:04:35] in an active lease negotiation with the landlord so but we are being proactive to uh get the pickable ideas passed with [1:04:43] the commissioner first before we move on so that is actually one condition before we sign the lease okay our core business [1:04:51] is SNF Corporation right at the bank of Sam's Club i mean you probably seen it [1:04:56] so our core business is in uh e-commerce and also third party fulfillments and we [1:05:02] have currently right now 15,000 square ft of uh office and then about 40,000 in [1:05:09] our warehouse all right so uh because of how e-commerce landscape [1:05:15] had changed since 2012 when we were in that building so uh our need for the [1:05:22] warehouse isn't that huge anymore so we we kind of just want to scale it down [1:05:27] but we kind of looking overlooking at that building for like the past 13 years [1:05:33] so yeah we kind of know about what's going on so that's why we we kind of thought about okay can we actually make [1:05:38] it into a multi-use uh space if that's possible so that's where the whole idea [1:05:43] come from yeah so uh yeah I hope I answer your question about that and so [1:05:48] you would be signing a lease for the entire 65,000t building and you would [1:05:54] have a lease that would have the permitted uses laid out which would include if approved obviously this as a [1:06:00] recreational use in addition to the office and warehouse use exactly and you would be able to control the entire building under the lease exactly yes [1:06:07] great thank you um I I guess he's for staff you know and [1:06:14] sometimes when these kinds of um applicants come forward we take it as an [1:06:19] opportunity to look at the building and determine you know this is building I think Dan you mentioned built in 1998 so [1:06:26] um I I drove it uh you know over the weekend it looks like honestly it's in pretty good shape overall just from a [1:06:33] superficial lens but are there any is there anything that staff has noted in [1:06:38] the in the condition of the building or anything that if that building was being built today wouldn't be code compliant [1:06:44] that is worth discussing there was a fairly significant amount of [1:06:51] investment during the last tenant on the interior and exterior of the building so [1:06:56] it it's in to your point in pretty good shape um as part of overall our building [1:07:01] permit and overall review will evaluate condition of landscaping and things of that nature as part of that there is uh [1:07:08] like many sites there's some refreshing that's necessary in that but that would be handled as part of our overall [1:07:14] process okay um and then I guess this is goes back to the applicant since we're looking at the [1:07:20] site plan here um and looking at the design that you put together is the for [1:07:27] the pickle ball customers they would be accessing the facility [1:07:33] through that northern northeast entrance exactly is that correct yeah and what [1:07:40] would be the hours that that those facilities would be open to pickle ball [1:07:46] members for right now in our application we would like to open between 6:00 a.m [1:07:51] to 12 midnight okay and and will it be are you thinking of [1:07:57] this as a membership concept or is it open play to the public that they could [1:08:02] come in during that time right so membership uh is not required so we will still have the open play drop in play [1:08:10] yeah uh pay as you play uh concept as well okay um [1:08:16] I noticed there are some parking lot lights right um kind of on the perimeter [1:08:22] of the lot um but uh you know having the [1:08:27] having I guess more of a retail operation here um is there anything we need to do to enhance the lighting in [1:08:35] the lot from a public safety perspective i didn't see it mentioned in the staff [1:08:41] report so just asking if that's a an open item to review i think that's a fair question it's an item that we did [1:08:48] not review the application under but I think that's something that staff could take a look at and see if there um in [1:08:54] many cases with the designs that you can see here the wall lighting on the [1:09:00] building can handle a portion of that first row if you will of parking spaces and then they do have perimeter lighting [1:09:07] but we can take a look at whether or not there are any portions of the of the internal kind of the middle row of the [1:09:13] parking that is not illuminated to a level that would be appropriate [1:09:19] so I'll let my fellow commissioners uh weigh in but I would propose um when we [1:09:24] go to move that we would add a condition that the lighting the overall lighting plan for the building and parking lot [1:09:30] area be added as part of the review process sounds good thank you thank you chair [1:09:36] that's all I have for now all right thank you Commissioner Kennedy yes i just have one um clarifying [1:09:43] question um in in how you're going to use the whole space that back part of [1:09:50] the warehouse section will be the pickle ball courts yes okay and then the front section had I noticed a lot of it's it's [1:09:57] a large it's a beautiful section of the building with lots of windows and and your outline said lots of different [1:10:04] offices is this a a mixeduse structure are you going to uh that [1:10:11] e-commerce is that still part of the concept is that do I understand that correctly yes yeah the whole idea which [1:10:17] we are still planning to do that we are thinking that well first of all the office use is being approved for um [1:10:26] that's one thing that we're still considering is we might be actually opening up some of the office space for [1:10:32] rent yeah because like you say that the south uh the southwest corner has very good [1:10:41] appearance for for a very nice office um nice office look and although we we may [1:10:48] not be able to occupy the entire space but we seriously uh been considering [1:10:54] that mixed use which um their need for just like lifetime has been promoting [1:11:01] co-working together with fitness i mean it's like coming you you you because of [1:11:06] the current landscape people how people work so they can work wherever they want [1:11:12] um we we are thinking to potentially have that uh mixed use so that people [1:11:19] can actually come in co and then have the membership to use uh the pickle ball [1:11:24] club as well yep okay so the So just one last question [1:11:29] this would be um your not just your company's employees in that office area [1:11:36] but but almost as a boutique or um um uh [1:11:42] probably not in a retail kind of like skin care kind of business well we [1:11:47] mostly just for people who who would just rent an office like probably [1:11:52] insurance uh and some financial advisors yeah so yeah office [1:11:59] not not a retail office yeah we don't think so yeah just an indep independent business or individual business [1:12:07] would there be a one one last last question um would there be a a dual name [1:12:14] to the corporation that sounds like a stupid question but yeah yes yes we [1:12:19] think so the the pickle ball club will have its name to to promote the business [1:12:24] so and so as SNF will still will still be the Dow bag version we don't usually [1:12:30] promote our business a lot except to the business customers yeah but the pickle [1:12:35] ball club is a retail facing business so that will have its own branding okay [1:12:42] thank you very much all right thank you Commissioner Swanson [1:12:49] first and foremost I just want to thank staff for condition 4 i have been saying [1:12:55] it for like six hearings and it finally says gross square footage on the maximum [1:13:00] so thank you and to the applicant I just wanted to ask um do you anticipate anything like [1:13:09] tournaments being at the pickle ball court do we need to consider bus parking or anything like that um typically [1:13:16] pickle ball tournament um let me answer the first part yes but typically for [1:13:21] pickle ball tournament they don't usually have big transportation like buses would come uh we probably would [1:13:29] just do regional which is just within uh where uh like in the twin cities yeah [1:13:35] and typically because of how um pickle ball tournament usually conducted they [1:13:40] they are they don't usually go by I'm not sure whether the school would actually have school team yet we haven't [1:13:48] seen seen it like school team will have to take the bus to come yet um yeah I [1:13:54] hope I'm not sure that answer your question on this and we were at 171 [1:13:59] parking spaces is that right so we're not really anticipating any kind of parking problems [1:14:05] yes I mean we definitely can cater for at least um a few buses all right I have [1:14:11] other questions thank you thank you thanks Commissioner Jared thank you Chair um I actually like this [1:14:19] kind of mixed use with this uh it's a lot better fit than we've seen with some of the more traditional warehouse [1:14:25] warehouse buildings it's got a kind of a natural break and kind of blends well uh [1:14:31] the parking is separated um with some of the other warehouses i think that the [1:14:37] cars for or the traffic for the pickle ball park just felt odd with the the [1:14:43] large trucks semi-trail u you know motor court type things so I think this [1:14:49] probably has a lot more appropriate parking for it and I don't think that the uh change here is uh it's really not [1:14:57] that big of an ask um I did kind of think a lot about some of these other businesses you know I think I think we [1:15:04] have a few businesses that have um you know handball court inside or a gym or a [1:15:10] yoga studio so I I I just I don't think that this is really [1:15:17] that out of a an ask i actually think this is a really good use for this building so that that it's all I've got [1:15:24] thank you thank you so much commissioner Harrington thank you [1:15:31] Charles and um questions to staff um [1:15:36] let's see under the use Dan there was a sentence that talks about no additional commercial recreation uses shall be [1:15:44] permitted above the the proposed 22,000 square feet um unless it's amended so is [1:15:51] that limit this particular applicant that they can not go beyond the 22,000 [1:15:58] square ft that's correct if they were looking to add additional cores and square footage then they would need to [1:16:03] amend the conditional use permit could another entity come in and ask for [1:16:09] no it would require amended conditional use permit okay so that that kind of gets me to the to the question and I [1:16:15] think we've seen at least two other projects like this whether it's pickle ball or it's some indoor recreation park [1:16:23] where there's a building in and the first person in is is uh got a [1:16:29] recreational use and so we cap it at exactly what their percentage is and I think we've had this dialogue and I [1:16:35] think I've asked this question before it seems arbitrary i didn't even bring it up this morning [1:16:41] it it seems yes it seems arbitrary and it and I think about okay so the pickle [1:16:47] ball it's a great it's a great use but what if somebody comes in and is looking for a place to put in competitive chess [1:16:56] 500 square feet and this is the perfect building for it they can't do that [1:17:03] they could it's a strange question but I just I'm trying to make a point that [1:17:08] Go ahead they could and so again what the framework of the condition does is [1:17:13] set that there needs to be additional city review through an amendment process okay and one of the reasons why that is [1:17:21] uh set from a cap standpoint and that cap has varied is because under zoning [1:17:29] commercial recreation uses less than 5,000 ft² are a permitted use so your [1:17:34] 500 square foot could come in without this condition that says we're going to [1:17:40] make sure that the community has their fingerprints on the decision-m i would think if we had a 500 ft user that would [1:17:47] not be an issue right but there are some uses that I would caution against on this building that are in commercial [1:17:54] recreation some fitness uses you've got very high quality office use within this [1:17:59] area one of the conflict points that we have seen in the realm of commercial recreation is is fitness uses with loud [1:18:07] music certain some of the um some of the fitness uses that have heavy weights or [1:18:14] or other things that they're moving around can have can be a not as high [1:18:19] quality of a fit and so that's why from a staff standpoint we wanted to create a [1:18:25] system and this is the the third time going through this process that if there is a [1:18:32] future request it they can make an application and go through the city process and if it's a reasonable request [1:18:38] it's likely going to move through fairly seamlessly but it does give the city the [1:18:43] ability to protect some of the core uses here some of the core assets and they're [1:18:48] different building to building commissioner Jarrett pointed out that some of the truck courts and some of those other things those are assets to [1:18:54] those buildings we want to protect that principal use to make sure that we're not having a accessory use kind of [1:19:02] dominate the future uses and same can be said on this property well that's that's a great explanation thank you i think [1:19:07] what trips me up and I think we have picked up on this word before capped [1:19:13] that's that's the part of all of this that sort of it seems so finite it seems [1:19:18] so thou shalt not go beyond and I if that's the word that needs to be here [1:19:26] given there's flexibility should someone come in and and ask to [1:19:31] bring more recreational use to the building we have the opportunity to review that so be it i get that great [1:19:38] thank you it's only question all right commissioner Shaw [1:19:44] thank you Chair um so I think most of the questions that I had they already [1:19:49] been asked and you answered them uh one that I did have is you know given what [1:19:55] you're showing about a north entrance and a south entrance you know for different purposes [1:20:00] uh and you know the the hours of operation for the pickle ball that you [1:20:05] mentioned um you know what what would the security look like in in in both [1:20:12] sides of the building um the whole building will be access control so um [1:20:19] like on the pickle ball site the members or whoever players non-members they they [1:20:25] do actually need to sign up for the app to use so with with them in the app they [1:20:30] will create an account with the hours that they reserve um and then they will [1:20:36] receive a code that punching into the access panel that's when the door open for them yeah in the same way on the [1:20:42] southside wishes uh for the office our employee or in the future potential uh [1:20:49] other tenant who might rent the office they will also have the the touchless key card to have access into the [1:20:56] building yeah and typically uh there are some other time maybe if we actually [1:21:01] have like open hours like really open with the door unlocked those would [1:21:07] typically happen during uh the regular daytime towards the evening but I would [1:21:13] like to say that anytime after 900 p.m we will have the access control [1:21:18] okay thank you yeah I generally like the the whole idea and you know having kind [1:21:23] of a mixeduse facility like this um so and if I understood correctly what [1:21:30] you're saying is that you have you're going to lease the whole building but the conditional requirement for you to [1:21:37] lease a building is approval of the pickle board um that's actually our condition with the landlord or your [1:21:44] condition yeah yeah so it's it's our condition that we we would like uh the pickup ball club to pass first before we [1:21:50] sign the lease okay yeah so that's the item yeah all right thank you that's all [1:21:56] I had all right thank you Commissioner Going [1:22:01] um Commissioner Swanson already answered my question about the tournaments and how that would affect the parking but in [1:22:07] general I really like the idea um especially after school I usually go to the YMCA and I've just like seen the [1:22:14] like growing popularity of pickle ball and every time like the gym is like reserved for pickle ball it's always [1:22:21] like packed so I just think it's going to be a really good idea and that'll be all chair thank you thank you [1:22:27] Commissioner Cho yeah um I just got one single kind of silly question when if assuming that the [1:22:34] pickup ball courts are all full how loud would you think they'll be just not going to answer would you think so some [1:22:41] of the few offices that are adjacent to the pickle ball pickle ball courts excuse me will be able to hear some of [1:22:46] the activity from the other side yeah that's a very good question that we did actually consider uh the architectural [1:22:52] design in that building they actually have fire rated wall like with bricks of [1:22:58] like probably about 16 in thick uh in between the office to the warehouse i [1:23:04] think the whole reason was that building previously was actually Quest building they have they have they have two [1:23:10] drive-in doors with I'm not sure whether you remember Quest like Comcast truck [1:23:16] going into the building yeah so they have trucks in the building in in the [1:23:21] warehouse so which can actually be pretty loud so I think they did very good sound dampering and also soundproof [1:23:28] control which we actually like that's a very good question yeah thank you [1:23:34] all right thank you very much i do not have any additional questions myself um are there any other additional questions [1:23:39] from any commissioners any other questions come in online not [1:23:45] at this time Chair all right with that staff would be looking for recommendation for this project [1:23:51] chair uh I would move that we approve project number 03-2025-0000581 [1:24:00] uh as stated with the additional conditional or recommendation additional [1:24:06] condition uh number five added for the applicant to provide to staff a full uh [1:24:14] lighting and security plan for the exterior of the building and parking area thank you do we have a second thank you [1:24:21] all right we'll now take a vote on this motion all in favor please say I i i i [1:24:26] all oppose please say nay all right and with that the planning commission does recommend approval of [1:24:32] this project and it will be heard um as part of the public portion public hearing portion of the city council [1:24:38] meeting on July 16th so want to sincerely thank you for your application and your project in Woodbury and good [1:24:45] luck with the rest of your project thank you very much all right next item on our agenda this [1:24:52] evening we have um city council member Donna Stafford here to give our council [1:24:58] member report thank you for having me mhm um we [1:25:05] started out our last council meeting with honoring and [1:25:11] extending condolences to the Hortman's and the Hoffman families with the [1:25:17] horrendous news that we had and it was very heartfelt from all of us on the [1:25:24] council um we have been [1:25:29] fielding a lot of calls and commentary with regard to the construction [1:25:35] um we're recommending that people go to Insight for the current and for the most [1:25:43] part we're hearing very very positive comments about the construction yes there's delays but they all know it's [1:25:49] for the good of the whole community after if ever we get done [1:25:55] um we have been able to view the [1:26:01] ever evolving Woodbury public safety building plans and those are coming [1:26:06] along what they're working on right now is arranging to move operations [1:26:14] so I believe it's the in September is when the county service building will [1:26:21] open and then a good majority of our administrative staff from police fire [1:26:27] and EMS will be going over to the old DMV building and then they'll be doing [1:26:34] some things in the different fire departments so they they seem to have a really good handle on how they're going [1:26:41] to manage it without really the general population knowing or affecting services [1:26:47] that would be offered either police fire or EMS and we're looking forward on July 28th [1:26:54] to the start of our new city administrator Jeff Dah i believe when I was here last I knew who it was but I [1:27:01] couldn't say um he is he comes to us from the city of Weisetta [1:27:08] as we do a national search for a city administrator [1:27:13] we end up hiring someone who actually lives in Woodbury and used to has spent a few years I [1:27:20] believe working with Eric you uh Mr dah was a community [1:27:25] development intern and in fact has presented in front of this planning commission 20 plus years ago wow [1:27:36] and the other bit of good news great news [1:27:42] that happened this week is Thursday much to her surprise she was absolutely [1:27:47] astounded the League of Minnesota Cities gave Mayor Anne Bert the emerging [1:27:54] leadership award for this year um we all knew about it and couldn't say [1:28:00] anything and her we worked with her husband to get her there and she was just stunned so we're really really [1:28:06] quite proud of everything that she has done and [1:28:13] how this the the the obstacles that she has encountered since becoming mayor [1:28:19] um let's see what else have we got going on don't forget the 4th of July we'll [1:28:25] all be at Healthy Sports Center for a big celebration most of us will be in [1:28:30] town um and we are just beginning to take a [1:28:36] look at doing our five-year comprehensive plan review [1:28:42] uh project implementation projects and [1:28:48] I think that's it [1:28:55] all right well thank you very much Council Member Stafford for your update [1:29:00] um and next item on our agenda this evening we do have approval of our minutes from our June 2nd 2025 meeting [1:29:09] uh do we have any comments or edits to the minutes at this time all right with that we'll entertain a [1:29:15] motion for approval i move to approve the June 2nd 2025 minutes as uh stated [1:29:21] thank you do we have a second i second that all right all All in favor of approval of the minutes from the June [1:29:27] 2nd meeting please say I i i all oppose please say nay with that the minutes are [1:29:32] also approved without any men any edits and with that the meeting is adjourned