[4:32] Good evening. Welcome to the city of Woodberry City Council meeting for today, July 16th, 2025. It is 7:30 p.m.

[4:40] Uh, a couple comments about the agenda. We have had to revise the agenda. Item 7A has been revised to reflect a change

[4:46] to remove the number two close hearing from the agenda. We'll explain when we get there. Um the meeting is taking

[4:52] place here in person. We also um stream this so it's available virtually. If anyone wants to watch this in the

[4:58] future, you can just find our agenda online, click onto the green button, and you're brought right into the meeting.

[5:04] Um meetings are recorded by True Lens Community Media and are, as I said, broadcast live, also replayed on channel

[5:10] 799. You can also find these meetings on the city of Woodberry's YouTube channel.

[5:16] Um, and uh, public comments are welcome during the meeting either here in

[5:21] person. I already do have one green sheet or available online and Ashley monitors that. Um, so if you would join

[5:27] me in our pledge of allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[5:33] United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation

[5:39] under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[5:46] All right. And Ashley, our assistant city administrator, is here tonight. Um, Ashley, would you please do the roll

[5:51] call? Council member Morris here. Council member Santini, here. Council member Stafford

[5:57] here. Council member Wilson here. Mayor Bert here. We are all here tonight. So, we're able to conduct tonight's uh business.

[6:05] Um I do have an open forum green sheet. So, as a result of that, I'm going to read our open forum procedure. Uh this

[6:12] is the portion of the meeting portion of the meeting where a maximum of three persons will be allowed to address council on subjects which are not part

[6:19] of the meeting agenda. Um those wishing to speak must complete a signup sheet. Again, I have that in front of me. Um

[6:26] you can also submit your question or comment virtually. Again, we monitor that. Um, please provide your name and

[6:32] just your city of residence with a question for the official record. Just as a a note, we used to always in the

[6:37] past ask for your full address. Now, we just ask for the city of residence. We think um that's just fine. And then if

[6:44] you need us to comment or follow up, then you provide all that information on the sheet, but we don't need to make your address public. Uh the council will

[6:51] listen attentively to your comments, but in most instances, we will not respond at the meeting. Typically replies to the

[6:58] concerned express will be made via letter or phone call within a week. So I'd like to um bring up Jay Tophovven

[7:04] um who has a green sheet filled out here and um welcome again. State your name in place of residence as you three minutes.

[7:11] We do have this little clock we'll do. Don't be intimidated by it. It's don't don't worry it's only a page and a

[7:17] half. Okay. Um great but I do I did bring uh pictures to illustrate what I'm about to talk about. Can I hand them?

[7:23] Sure. Feel feel free to swipe. Okay, there you are. Thank you.

[7:31] Your honor and members of the Woodbury City Council, thank you for the opportunity to address you briefly this

[7:36] evening. I live on Afton Road and Afton Court just over here. And in front of my house, there's a strip of land between

[7:43] Busy Valley Creek and Afton Road. That's part of the Valley Creek watershed maintained by Washington County. It's a

[7:50] beautiful stretch of land, especially now when it's all in bloom with all sorts of wild flowers. And really, it's

[7:56] so important to me that every spring I devote two weekends to picking up all the trash that accumulated during the

[8:02] winter um between the area of where steeple view intersects with Afton Road

[8:08] all the way up to the top of the hill on Beenburg. And that's why I feel the need to say something when I feel that area

[8:14] is threatened. The city owns a stretch of land on steeple view between the

[8:19] Inspiri Company and Dunore on the north side of a pond and related drainageway

[8:24] that flows into this area along Valley Creek. There's a well pumping station there, but the land that it sits on

[8:31] stretches for quite a bit in either direction. It's infested with a plant

[8:37] called berdo. Berdo is also called false rhubarb because while it looks like rhubarb, it's not readily edible and the

[8:44] seed pods are covered with burrs that will attach themselves like velcro to anything. Uh birds, bunnies, humans, you

[8:52] name it. I have seen many a dog walker regret letting their dogs come even near

[8:57] it. Berdo is not on the Minnesota list of noxious weeds, so not a lot of attention

[9:04] is paid to it here. But if Minnesota had a list of obnoxious weeds, bo would

[9:09] surely be on it. As you can see by the pictures that I've I'm I've given you,

[9:15] the city property is a wall of bero plants. And in some cases, it appears

[9:20] that the berdo is attempting to overpower the pine trees that it grows under. And many of the plants are as

[9:26] tall as I am. I spoke to Ben in the environmental department and I'm grateful for the time that he gave uh

[9:34] and for his patience as we discussed city policy toward eradicating bo. In short, there isn't one. He explained

[9:40] that the plants along the northern edge of the pond and drainage area are cut down every four years, but otherwise

[9:46] there is really no special effort made to control bock on city property. Your

[9:52] honor and council members, as you can see, bo is an aggressive and prolific weed. If it reaches the watershed area

[9:59] on Valley Creek and becomes established, it would be a disaster to an area that I hold dear. I understand that there are

[10:06] many demands on funding and you must allocate resources wisely, but I feel compelled to request respectfully that

[10:13] this body do two things. First, please consider adopting a berdo eradication

[10:19] policy when it is found on city land. Second, please consider ways of clearing

[10:24] the bo infestation on this particular parcel of city land as soon as possible,

[10:29] such as cutting down more often or other measures that the environmental department may deem effective. Thank you

[10:36] very much. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that with the pictures. Um I'm just wondering

[10:41] if there's a way that may be valuable to our public works team and all. Is there a way that you could end up emailing

[10:48] those or something? Uh sure. or just some way to share those along with your comments that would be

[10:53] beneficial. Thank you. It's interesting that it actually looks attractive. I mean, the way it grows, it hasn't it has a

[11:00] pleasant look to it from a distance for sure. But yeah, if you get up, it's a little scary

[11:05] because it's coming into seed right now. So, all those barbs are like right there. Yeah. But from a distance,

[11:11] yeah, it looks okay. Well, thank you. Uh I have no expertise in that topic whatsoever. So, this is why we often

[11:17] none of us do here at this table. We don't address it now with your with your dog with me as I'm walking my dog.

[11:24] Thank you for coming and sharing your comments. We appreciate that. We will now move on to the consent agenda. All items listed under the

[11:31] consent agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will be enacted by one motion and an affirmative

[11:38] vote by roll call of the majority of the members present. There be no separate discussion of these items unless a

[11:43] council member or a citizen so request in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered a

[11:49] separate subject of discussion by the council. So with that we have items 6A through 6H tonight. Does anybody from

[11:55] the public want anything removed? Seeing none anybody online Ashley? No. Council

[12:01] members, anything from you? May I just want to make sure that I know

[12:07] we have um some public here tonight. I just want to make sure that they understand because sometimes we understand it but sometimes the public

[12:13] doesn't quite understand that if there's anything in that consent agenda with the six before it if you want to if you want

[12:19] it removed to discuss it you have to fill out the sheet and bring it forward.

[12:24] Okay. Um council members if there's nothing else would somebody like put forth put forth a motion.

[12:30] Sure. I'll move to approve consent agenda item 6A through 6H. Second.

[12:35] Motion is second. Any further discussion hearing? None. The roll call, please. Council member Santini,

[12:41] I. Council member Stafford, I. Council member Wilson, I. Council member Morris.

[12:46] Mayor Bert. I. Those consent agenda items pass. We have uh three public hearings tonight. I

[12:54] don't have any green sheets, but maybe somebody wants to put one forward. So, as a result, I'm going to read what we

[12:59] do about public hearings. In order to allow full airing of all speaker comments, individual remarks may be may

[13:05] not exceed 10 minutes each. If a speaker determines that more time is necessary, they're advised to make a request in

[13:10] writing um prior to the meeting. If there are more than three green sheets

[13:16] at a hearing, we ask you to work together to reduce the time. We essentially allow 30 minutes per public

[13:23] comment for each of the each of the hearings. Remarks or points already made by someone else should be not re should

[13:29] not be repeated. Uh limit to the subject at hand. Speakers are encouraged to coordinate presentations to all extents

[13:35] possible. And those in attendance at the public hearing will will refrain from applause or other expressions of emotion

[13:41] whether in favor of or opposition to any particular application or argu or argument. Inappropriate language,

[13:48] outburst or criticism aimed at individuals or groups are not allowed. It's a very calm audience tonight. So, I

[13:54] don't think we need need to get too worked up about any of that stuff. But with that said, um uh we now are going

[14:01] to open the hearing for uh the continued RA road branch road additions. It's a reasonzoning and preliminary plat. And

[14:08] Eric, would you like to share more about this? Uh this item is being continued to the

[14:14] August 13th city council meeting. Okay. So, with that, that hearing is

[14:20] open. We will not close the hearing until we have that follow-up meeting on the 13th. Just need uh council to motion

[14:28] to approve this continuation. Move to continue till August 13th. Motion and second. Any further

[14:35] discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any opposed? No. Okay, that will

[14:41] continue. So, Eric, back to you for the indoor pickleball club.

[14:47] Thank you, mayor, members of council. SNF Corporation has submitted an

[14:52] application for a conditional use permit to construct a 8 court pickle ball court

[14:59] within an existing building. The project is located off of Commerce Drive and is zoned I1 light industrial district. It's

[15:07] guided as places to work on the land use plan. The indoor pickle ball use is proposed

[15:13] to take 22,000 square ft. The city has historically identified that commercial

[15:19] recreation uses are a supportive use within the places to work land use

[15:24] category. The city has also established a precedent of establishing a cap uh

[15:30] with of building usage for con for commercial recreation uses through the conditional use permit process. That is

[15:37] what is being requested this evening, which would be to cap the proposed pickle ball use within this building at

[15:44] 22,000 square ft unless an amended conditional use permit is approved by

[15:49] council in the future. So, it could be modified in the future, but it would be back in front of both the planning commission and city council prior to

[15:56] that uh any additional commercial recreation uses moving forward. Uh the guidelines for a conditional use permit

[16:03] are identified in code section 24-43. In the council packet are the findings

[16:08] of fact for the conditional use permit. I will not go through those individual findings of fact um or the resolution as

[16:15] part of my presentation, but happy to answer any questions council may have. Access to the site is located off of the

[16:22] two existing access points off of Commerce Drive and off of Rivertown

[16:27] Drive. Both of those are full access points with turn lanes to access the site. Last piece that is generally

[16:34] looked at as part of these types of commercial recreation uses is the available parking. The existing site has

[16:41] 171 parking spaces. The pickable use uh is required to have 73 parking stalls

[16:46] based on our historic commercial recreation parking ratio of one stall per 300 square ft. The applicant in

[16:54] front of you this evening, SNF Corporation, has indicated they will occupy the remaining uh approximately

[16:59] 43,000 square feet of the building to be used as office and warehouse uses. There

[17:04] is ample parking for that use as well. The planning commission reviewed this application at their June 30th meeting

[17:11] and John Jarrett is present with the liaison report. Great. Thank you. John, do you want to

[17:17] share your report?

[17:22] Mayor Council. Uh yes. So we uh did not have a whole

[17:28] lot of uh discussion about this uh project. This building was actually uh a

[17:34] very nice uh mixed uh purpose building. It had offices and warehouse. The

[17:41] previous use was a Telkom Quest I believe was up there. Sentry Link. Um,

[17:47] so in the back part, it was actually designed as a truck uh warehouse and the front part was uh uh office space

[17:55] already built out as an office space and there's a locker and bathroom space in there. Um,

[18:03] like Eric said, there's going to be a 34 uh% uh recreational use cap on this

[18:08] building. uh if there was any additional use uh maybe somebody wanted to have a gym or something else in this space they

[18:15] would have to come back through to uh planning and and to the council for approval. Um Commissioner uh John Colum

[18:24] uh his uh questions about this were uh what the additional or what the rest of

[18:30] the space would be used for. Um the applicant said that it is going to be kind of an uh office suite uh develop or

[18:40] uh purpose where people will rent the offices individually. Uh and uh he felt

[18:47] that that was a a good use for this this building especially in this business park. Uh Commissioner Kennedy uh asked

[18:55] about a definition of what the uh co-working or office space meant. Uh

[19:01] basically it means that each one of those offices could be rented out individually.

[19:07] Uh Commissioner Swanson uh asked about bus parking. Uh some of the drop off. Uh

[19:14] the applicant said that they are not going to be having tournaments or any kind of school use. So they there really

[19:20] isn't going to be any concern about turnarounds for buses or anything like that. Uh, I personally thought that this

[19:28] is a really good We've looked at some other pickle ball park uh, concepts in

[19:35] warehouses. This actually is a very good use for this building. Uh, it has the warehouse

[19:41] space already in it. It has the office space in the front. uh you don't have to

[19:46] worry about semi-truckss and some kind of a you know motor court uh configuration that's competing with the

[19:53] regular car traffic. So I actually really like this use. Uh Tom Harrington

[20:00] uh Commissioner Harrington felt that the cap, the square foot cap or the 34%

[20:06] is just kind of arbitrary. He doesn't really think it's necessary anymore. Uh

[20:11] but overall he liked the plan and uh Commissioner Shaw thought that uh the

[20:17] building security needed to be addressed. Uh the applicant said he's going to be having keypads uh with a

[20:23] code, not a card. Um and Chair Olsen had absolutely no questions and we voted all

[20:30] in favor. Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you.

[20:37] Um I don't have any green sheets. Are there anything online? Is the applicant

[20:42] here that wants to say anything in particular? No.

[20:47] Okay, no worries. Um, I make a motion that we close the hearing. Second motion in a second. I'm sorry.

[20:54] You close the So, we already I'm in. Sorry. Did I I'm doing this so fast I'm paying

[21:00] attention. My mind already. Okay. All in favor? I I

[21:07] Okay, the hearing's now closed. I'll open this up to council members uh for questions, comments, or u putting forth

[21:12] a motion. Eric, could you help me understand that 34 the the cap on the on the rec space

[21:17] because this is the second or third time I think that we've seen this. You just help remind refresh my memory of why we do that.

[21:23] Yeah, the the zoning ordinance identifies commercial recreation uses above 5,000

[21:29] square feet are a conditional use permit. So even if there was no cap, it would be back in front of the planning commission and council for a conditional

[21:34] use permit. However, there is a possibility for commercial recreation uses under 5,000 ft² that would then by

[21:41] code be identified as a permitted use. So, by placing the condition of approval or the cap, that would require any

[21:47] future commercial recreation uses to be back in front of planning commission and council so that you couldn't have a a

[21:54] 2,000 foot gym or a 3,000 foot play space be in without further city review.

[22:01] So, that's really the the intent of the cap. The intent for that is that as the building was designed for a certain use

[22:07] when it was built, you know, infrastructure, support, ing, ingress, egress, parking, etc. All those needs to

[22:14] be reviewed. So by putting this in a condition, it allows us the opportunity to look at a particular use

[22:21] long beyond its original intended use. Am I paraphrasing? I think that's correct. The other we have seen some

[22:27] commercial recreation uses. Gyms are a good example where there is noise and other issues that can arise that the

[22:34] conditional use permit process can be a good vehicle for us to add reasonable conditions so that businessto business

[22:40] harmony can be achieved. Yeah. I mean, other than the mayor's aggressive u as a former teammate of of

[22:48] mayor on in a pickle ball game, other than the the aggression that was experienced by her teammate

[22:53] for missing a shot or 10 or 50, it's a nice sport.

[23:00] Well, and that's actually that segus because my question was going to be so the potential sort of office use some of

[23:07] it affiliated with the applicant but some seems like it's this notion of sort of um sort of temp or like um work from

[23:17] you know thank you shared space because my question was going to be about noise that

[23:23] the applicant is still determining how to use ultimately that space they have a space in close proximity committee SNF

[23:30] Corporation has um holdings just to the west in an alternate building. So they they're made east. Sorry, thank you. I

[23:39] should know that east versus west. That's kind of an important thing for a plan. Um they they do have uh space in close

[23:46] proximity. Um in our conversations with the applicant, they may utilize it for their purposes. They may utilize it for

[23:52] a you know flex office space, both of which are permitted uses under the code. As it relates to noise, there is

[24:00] separation, okay, between there are hallway spaces and other areas. We do not anticipate noise related issues with

[24:05] the with the pickle ball use. My other quick question just with regards to this, so the applicant is SNF

[24:13] corporation, but the permit seems like it's getting issued to the indoor pickle

[24:19] ball club, right? They would be the uh owner of the spa or the lease of the space. But it's

[24:26] important to note that conditional use permits run with the land. So if they were to change in the future, that

[24:33] permit can be updated. The actual use is issued with the building or the land, not the applicant.

[24:39] Okay. Can you just clarify this interior

[24:46] space? So the office space that's already built out is what might be turned into shared office space or

[24:51] that's in use currently? That is existing space. The existing layout.

[24:56] That's existing layout. But is that space currently being used as office space or is that the space that might

[25:03] get leased out? That is the space that might get leased out. Okay. And then all of this other open space is what

[25:10] would be future off warehouse use. Okay. It's currently I mean it'll be blocked off. I mean is this like

[25:16] literally a separate room? Is it Yep. There would be there would be um separate space creating the two.

[25:23] Okay. Like literally with a wall. That's correct. Okay. Cuz I've been in other pickle wall places where they attempt to separate

[25:29] space by tarps hanging and all that is not. This is a this is a wall. Correct. Okay. Got it. That helps me visualize

[25:36] it. Okay. Is this a is this a club that requires a membership a membership or are you just

[25:43] paying court fees? And then based on information received at the planning commission meeting, it would be

[25:48] both membership based but also open for a drop in play. Okay. And I think you said keypad with a

[25:56] code, not a card. So it won't be staffed then. That is correct. And what are the hours of operation?

[26:03] Like many of the pickle ball facilities, they may be open 24 hours a day. Um, that is a very real possibility.

[26:10] Is there a big call for 2 am pickle ball? Yes,

[26:16] because you can get a court. I was going to say if it's the only time you can play possibly

[26:21] practice. What's a Is this That's interesting with 24-hour

[26:26] operation. There's no residential around there. Is are there lights in the parking lot?

[26:33] The planning commission added a a staff review of lighting as part of the conditions. There are existing parking

[26:39] lot lights, but we will do an evaluation to make sure that they're sufficient for good entrance lighting and things like that because there because it is um it

[26:46] would be kind of a desolate at 2 in the morning here. So, I just want to

[26:54] no food and beverage in this space. Not at this time. Does it require an additional permit or

[27:01] a condition of the conditional use? Is that an allowable use within this? Not not unless it it became larger than

[27:08] an accessory to the to the commercial recreation use. So small snack bar would be very common within this type of use.

[27:16] It would be viewed as an accessory use. If they move to have a standalone restaurant type use that serves it, that

[27:22] would likely take an amendment. Yeah, that's different. But

[27:30] any other questions or comments? Would someone like to put forth a motion?

[27:38] I'll move to approve the conditional use permit via resolution 25-139, a

[27:43] resolution adopting findings of fact that second. Motion second. Any further discussion?

[27:49] Hearing none. The roll call, please. Council member Stafford, I. Council member Wilson, I.

[27:54] Council member Morris, I. Council member Santini. I. Mayor Bert.

[27:59] I. That resolution is approved. I'll move to adopt a motion approving the indoor pickle ball club. Maybe is that

[28:07] what that's supposed to be on there? Um project number 03- uh 2025-0000581

[28:13] subject to the following conditions as outlined in council letter 25-180. Second.

[28:19] Motion is second. What for the actual pickle ball club for the the permit for that? Is there any is

[28:26] there any what what do the four of you all think about the 24-hour up?

[28:32] I don't we have other clubs that are 24hour and how have they been going? I have not received any

[28:38] understood that there's any complaints. I really don't think there's a big demand for two in the morning. But

[28:45] no, but you know how I think worst possible scenario. Um that within if we

[28:50] start getting complaints would how does that work within a complaint of

[28:57] excessive noise at 2 a.m. or or bad, you know, bad behavior, etc. public safety

[29:03] starts getting whatever. What what's our tool? Um certainly in the noise ordinance u nuisance ordinance would be

[29:09] the easiest to enforce under if there was any violations exterior noise that u

[29:15] that's a a very standard-based enforcement tool. It's based on the distance from where where the noise is

[29:21] occurring from the from the business. There's 100 foot 100 foot maximum under code that's the easiest to to enforce.

[29:28] Uh activities unruly behavior things of that nature while not anticipated. Um, likely if

[29:35] there was any sort of criminal behavior, public safety staff would be the lead agency to take care of that.

[29:42] I would imagine there's indoor cameras as well in use by I was just going to ask the owner. Yeah, it's the unstaffed 24-hour portion

[29:48] that gives me pause. But like, doesn't any wasn't Anytime Fitness? Yes. Anytime Fitness is a 24 hour snap.

[29:55] Anytime Fitness, it's an unstaffed workout 24/7. That's true. Right.

[30:01] It's true. Mhm. And that's got heavy weights. I don't know what you could do in there.

[30:08] You were gonna say something. I was going to ask if it was staffed 24 hours or what the staffing hours were. I

[30:15] don't remember from planning commission if they indicated the hours of staffing. The applicant is on hand that may be

[30:21] able to the applicant. John, do you know the answer to that? Yes, I do. You want to answer that? Referring back

[30:26] to my notes, um, actually the, uh, use of the pickle ball park was going to be

[30:31] 6:00 a.m. to midnight. The office suites were going to be open 24 hours a day for

[30:37] access of the renters, right? So, if you wanted to go do your report at 2 a.m., you could access the

[30:43] building. Um, and that was in part why we had uh I believe it was uh

[30:49] Commissioner Shaw had questioned the security and if it was a badge or a

[30:54] actual keypad and all of that. Um, and

[31:00] one note that I'd like to make, we have other businesses that have gyms in the

[31:06] business itself in the office, handball courts and so forth. Um, so it's really

[31:11] not any different use than what we already have. Um,

[31:16] the only difference is that there's a lot more people with access and key codes than, you know, one one occupant

[31:24] that has however many employees that have use of the of the facility.

[31:30] Okay. So, I'm good. Thank you. So, Commissioner Jarrett, 6:00 a.m. to midnight is the pickle ball access and 24hour is the um office suites.

[31:37] Correct. Feel better? I do. Okay. Good. We have a motion and a second.

[31:44] Motion second. That was discussion. Yeah. Okay. Um then no further discussion.

[31:49] Then roll call, please. Council member Wilson. I. Council member Morris. Hi. Council member Santini.

[31:55] I. Council member Stafford. I. Mayor Bert. I. That passes. All right. Good luck on

[32:00] your project. I know you'll be making a lot of pickle ballers happy because there's just never enough cords in the winter.

[32:06] When will when's the expected opening? You need that? The uh our understanding is the purchase agreement for the

[32:13] building was contingent upon this additional use. So the it likely will be several months before the pickle ball

[32:19] use would be underway. Great. Terrific. Thank you. Okay. We'll

[32:24] now move on to 4255 Woodlane Drive concept plan unit development. And the

[32:30] hearing is now open. Eric, back to you. Thank you again, Mayor and Councel.

[32:35] On behalf of Jed Schmidt, Land and Resource Consulting has submitted an application for a concept plan unit

[32:42] development for a nine lot subdivision. The property is located at 4255

[32:48] Woodlane Drive on the southeast corner of Woodlane Drive and Hargus Parkway. The property is currently zoned R2

[32:54] Single Family District and is guided as a role estate on the land use plan.

[33:00] Section 24207 of the city code identifies the concept planned unit development process uh as shown on the

[33:08] screen. It does identify that this is a process that was designed to give an opportunity for applicants to get

[33:15] general information or feedback from both the neighborhood, the planning commission, and the city council in

[33:21] advance of incurring the cost of a development application. Um we'll talk about it later, but it's really

[33:27] important to reiterate that the the findings and the comments that are made this evening are not binding on the

[33:33] city. Uh that the comments from the planning commission or are not binding nor are the staff comments. However, it

[33:40] is an important part of this process is to provide the applicant guidance on initial perspectives as they will be

[33:47] making bis a business decision uh following the activities this evening.

[33:54] The concept plan again is not used very frequently. Janelle and I have had conversations. We think the only time it

[34:00] was used was around 1999 that we are aware of. So it's been over 25 years

[34:06] since this process has been used, but again it's been in code for quite a while. The purpose uh of this concept PD

[34:14] is to get feedback on three core areas. Um it the application would require an

[34:21] amendment to the comprehensive plan from rural estate which is our one lot per 3 acres to an urban estate. It would

[34:28] request a reduction in minimum lot size from 3 acres to just under or just over

[34:33] 3/4 of an acre and then also a reduction in minimum lot width from the 160 foot

[34:39] to 135 in the R2 district. Again,

[34:44] may I ask a quick question on the to do the amendment on the comp plan? Is that a majority vote or is that a four four

[34:51] to one vote or I mean superity? That would be a majority vote because it is not moving to places to work.

[34:57] Okay. For from places to work. Okay. Access to the site is provided off of

[35:03] Hargus Parkway. The proposed lot configuration is two culde-sacs. The culde-sac on the west side is designed

[35:10] to be uh able to be extended if development were to occur in the future to the south.

[35:17] One of the key driving factors is the development of the Arbor Ridge development which is located uh to the

[35:24] east of the subject site. The development um two significant events

[35:30] occurred that changed in staff's opinion the highest and best use for the adjacent land or this subject property.

[35:36] The first was the extension of Hargus Parkway. Uh that was not contemplated when the when the comprehensive plan was

[35:43] adopted, the 2040 comprehensive plan. So the extension of Hargus Parkway in this location extended city sewer and city

[35:50] water to the subject property. The second event was the construction of a municipal drinking supply well in the

[35:57] area pointed out in red on the screen. Due to the close proximity to this well,

[36:02] additional private water wells would should be greatly minimized to limit

[36:07] possible draw down or contamination risks on the municipal drinking water. Again, this property is zoned R2. Right

[36:14] now, that is a 3acre minimum lot size that's contemplated to have private well and private septic. So, one of the ways

[36:21] to avoid that by right uh subdivision would be to change the land use to allow

[36:27] for municipal services. Um it is it's not an allow, it's a require.

[36:35] It would change it from a required municipal. That's correct.

[36:40] It doesn't allow it. It requires it. That's correct. The uh as identified in the staff report

[36:47] uh it is important for transparency purposes to identify the staff would identify that likely in the 2050

[36:53] comprehensive plan process the land use of this property would be evaluated

[36:58] because of the presence of municipal utilities. The options during that

[37:03] process that would likely be evaluated would be either to move this to the urban estate which is in which is the

[37:09] proposal that is at the very early stages in front of you this evening which is the one unit per acre. The

[37:17] second is our more standard urban residential development which is the 3 and 1/2 units per acre that and that is

[37:23] uh would equate to 35 units versus the 10 unit maximum that could be built

[37:28] under an urban estate. Again, just for clarity purposes, the application that's being requested for initial feedback

[37:35] would be a 9 unitit subdivision.

[37:40] This is a an early review and a unique process. So, it's important to identify what the future reviews will include.

[37:47] They'll include full storm water evaluation, tree preservation, evaluation of of landscaping

[37:52] requirements, pedestrian infrastructure. Currently, as you can see on the site plan, there is a proposal to add a trail

[37:59] along the south side of Hargus Parkway that would extend from the existing trail that's lo extend the existing

[38:05] trail located to the east to connect with Wood Lane. So, there's some

[38:10] Is that a plan that's a city cost or would that be this development cost? That would be on the development.

[38:16] Okay. that is a part of the development proposal and then also final designs of the sanitary sewer system as well as the

[38:23] water. Much like the last application, this was also reviewed by the planning commission on June 30th and again

[38:31] commissioner Jared is here for the liaison report. Welcome commissioner again.

[38:39] All right. Um, so we had at a previous uh meeting a

[38:47] kind of a bumpin culde-sac uh development like this in the far

[38:53] southwestern corner of Woodbury right up against Newport Cottage Grove.

[38:59] Are we talking Cherry Meadows? Cherry Meadows. Yes. And we had a lot of referral back to that. Um, uh,

[39:05] Commissioner, uh, Column was asking, uh, what the neighborhood meeting, uh, what

[39:11] the response to that, uh, Cherry Meadows, uh, design was. And, uh, staff

[39:17] said that actually, I believe Eric said that it has been very positive. Uh, I

[39:22] think part of the concern is that, uh, it was a very close vote on that that development for planning. Uh, I think

[39:30] there was three to four. I think it was three nos and three to four four yeses.

[39:36] Um so John uh column commissioner column was asking why nine lots on this on this

[39:44] site? Why just make why not just make it eight and they're all one acre? Uh why

[39:49] go for the setback variance and all of that? And the applicant said that uh

[39:55] nine lots just made sense at about 3/4 acres each. uh the layout worked better

[40:01] because of the the odd shape in the pond and maybe they could, you know, uh in

[40:06] the end make the pond a little bit uh smaller so they they'd eek out a little bit more room. Um and the applicant uh

[40:15] said this is a really good transition between the larger 3acre uh development

[40:21] lot lot you know developments with larger lots and on the other side where they have a smaller more traditional you

[40:28] know maybe third or halfacre lots um and they said there's a huge demand in

[40:34] Woodbury for larger lots so uh Commissioner Kennedy had uh

[40:40] concerns about the tree preservation on this site. There are some mature trees

[40:46] uh in it. Stephanie Swanson uh was also a no on the previous uh development.

[40:56] Uh she did a lot of math and uh felt that if we tweaked the lot sizes here a

[41:02] little bit that it would actually work. it would be closer to being compliant

[41:07] and uh you know it would maybe fit in uh into that kind of uh long shape along

[41:15] Harusgus Parkway better. Uh she actually did some math and a little sketch for the applicant which I thought was great

[41:22] that she did that. Um, I also think that

[41:28] if you tink tinker with that plan, you could maybe get a path between lots four

[41:34] and six and five and seven so that if there was development to the south, that

[41:39] neighborhood could actually connect by trail to the rest of the fabric of the area. Uh part of why I did not like the

[41:48] uh Cherry Meadows development was when we saw that plan, it did not have a path

[41:53] or any kind of sidewalk. It didn't have any interconnection. Uh and I I I just

[41:58] kept seeing, you know, kids standing out on the bus waiting for a bus on Century Avenue with uh you know, where are they

[42:05] going to be in a ditch? Um this is actually better proposed with the sidewalk on both sides. And I think if

[42:12] you tinkered with the lot size, it would this would definitely be a good project.

[42:17] Uh we had uh Tom Harrington uh Commissioner Harrington thought that

[42:23] they were just too small. He really did not he didn't like this configuration.

[42:29] Uh Chair Olsen actually loved it. Said she doesn't like associations. She

[42:35] doesn't like monuments. She doesn't like uh knowing your neighbor. You know, wants privacy. and she said, "Go for

[42:42] it." She loves all her neighbors, though. Yes. She she she apologized to all of her neighbors.

[42:48] Said, "If you are watching, close your ears. I'm I'm sorry." But, uh, uh,

[42:56] Commissioner Shaw actually, uh, had some questions about the potential, uh, uh,

[43:03] development to the south and, uh, if there was only going to be access

[43:08] through that, uh, left Culdeac and actually there would be two um, access

[43:14] points to uh, to that development and that was it. It was actually a very

[43:20] favorable uh recommendation and of course we did not have to take a vote.

[43:26] Just guidance, right? Okay. Terrific. Thank you, Commissioner.

[43:32] I don't have any green sheets on it unless somebody wanted to put forth one. And Ashley, anybody online?

[43:37] Right. Did I make a motion that we close the hearing? Second. Motion a second. Any further discussion? I have a question. Thank you. Thank you.

[43:43] Before we close it, um Well, you still get to speak. I know. But before we officially close it, I

[43:49] just wanted to understand what are we're closing the hearing on because we've not ever done this.

[43:54] And so if we close this hearing, does it do do people not get the opportunity? Yeah, this is what I'm concerned about.

[44:01] That's a fair question. This is only a hearing for the concept PUD. If this application moves forward for a

[44:07] preliminary plat, a future comprehensive plan, it would start a new process with a full neighborhood

[44:14] meeting with all of that information, a new public hearing where public would be invited to be able to testify.

[44:19] Thank you. All right. Great. Okay. So, all in favor of closing the hearing, I I Okay, the hearing is now closed.

[44:29] I have some questions. First of all, um I love the bigger lots. Um I think

[44:34] there's a demand for it. I um I've been pushing for that for

[44:40] over four years, but we are making a change then to our comprehensive plan.

[44:45] And I remember, you know, at the beginning of my first term, it was one of those things where I had questioned

[44:52] if we could change the comprehensive plan and I was told like this is a lot of work. If we go to change the

[44:57] comprehensive plan, we have to submit it and there's it's too much work and we don't like to do it. And now I know

[45:02] we've done it a number of times and here we are again. Um so why don't how much work is it and um

[45:11] I guess I'm confused on what's happening. So the the dependent on the type of

[45:18] amendment that's being proposed. It can be varying levels of work. This

[45:24] application and many of the other amendments to the comprehensive plan that have been proposed are smaller in

[45:30] nature. So you are not looking at systemwide evaluations when you look at broad changes in the

[45:37] comprehensive plan development patterns regulations where you have to restudy all of the impacts to the entire

[45:44] development approach. That is a significant amount of work on the

[45:50] smaller scale on a 10acre parcel of land. There is analysis that needs to be

[45:56] done and and information submitted to the metropolitan council that looks at the sewer flows, the water flows, but

[46:02] that is a very manageable amount of work and it's a very tangible exercise to know what the impacts of this change

[46:09] are. In reality, the in this application, the change would be instead

[46:14] of if this project were to move forward with nine units, because this property

[46:19] is 10 acres in size by right under the R2 zoning, they could do a very

[46:24] straightforward plat, which would which would equal three units, but those three units would be protrusions into our

[46:31] aquifer through private well systems. That's really one of the things that

[46:37] staff would encourage council to think about is if we don't allow a change in the comprehensive plan. Now, the

[46:43] unintended consequence could be additional risk to our aquifer because the applicant does have the property

[46:49] owner would have a right to pursue a subdivision that meets the zoning which would be threeacre minimum lot size.

[46:56] And this would be different. I always think of it like sort of like the from a grading standpoint. It' be different if

[47:02] we were proposing to go from R2 to like a commercial district, you know? So, to

[47:08] me, it's like if you're staying within sort of the the level of land use.

[47:13] So, so that's a little bit to council member Wilson's question. I think for for me, the argument that I make against

[47:20] in the most recent state legislative session against the housing bill was the

[47:26] development by right in a in a in an area that was not zoned. was zoned for

[47:32] one lot per whatever our number is and now we're going to let four. So that's you're you're multiplying by three the

[47:38] the burden on the infrastructure sewer, water, roads, etc. And so that burden

[47:44] and the comp plan change is not is not envisioned in the comprehensive plan

[47:49] because they we zone it or we we we plan for this to be urban reserve.

[47:56] What's the density increase and what's the size of the parcel? I think is where my mind is going and this is not a

[48:02] commercial use going to residential use which is a significant change. This is not a a single family going to a quad.

[48:09] This is etc. So what is what's that burden on the size of Thank you for this right of of the parcel of where that

[48:16] burden is going to do. So if we were going to by right go at three three units it's going to nine. Um is that a

[48:23] jump from here to here right or is it a jump from here to here? It's the it's the mid jump. And so that when

[48:30] when I was thinking the same thing of it's comp plan change and those are there's a lot of there's a lot going to

[48:36] that but I wasn't necessarily for once thinking unintended consequence. I'm thinking of

[48:42] I think in staff report it said highest and best use. I also liked the larger lots. like this is not a significant

[48:50] change that I would really have to think super hard about because it's not a 200 acre, you know, plot that's being that's

[48:58] coming to us because that would be an entirely different conversation, but I I had very similar thoughts, Kim.

[49:04] Um, Cherry Meadows was higher density, wasn't it? It wasn't. Yeah, that's that's a big It's also I think the Cherry Meadow

[49:10] Sure. I'm going Well, sorry because and I was on the leazison for that conversation from

[49:15] planning commission. I think what our commissioners struggled with a little bit was they had a really hard time sort

[49:21] of taking away Newport's plan across the way and that's where you know that heart

[49:28] of like okay you're putting these properties here and this is a proposal here. Personally I thought it was a good

[49:36] sort of gradual step between the two because behind Cherry Meadows is sort of even then those larger lots but I think

[49:42] that was sort of the harder piece. I don't think it was that much more dense. It's the same density.

[49:48] Yeah. Than this. It is. Okay. I agree that. I think it was the the Century Road that was causing the

[49:54] issue. It was the what, Kim? The Century uh the Century Road and the expand and there's no there were no

[49:59] trails. There was no Yeah. That kind of access on that was a big thing. So this So this will have a trail going

[50:06] down it, but I'm noticing that the widths of these streets, correct me if I'm wrong, are what? So the the what's

[50:14] shown on the screen is the right ofway width. The streets themselves would be 26 feet. Okay.

[50:19] Um because just to get in a little into the final design aspect on the east

[50:25] culde-sac that's showing as a 60oot rightway. Code would allow that to be a 50ft ride ofway because it does not

[50:30] extend. Okay. Are we um so on the potential through culdesac are we going to put a

[50:38] trail on it right now? And so it's a whole lot easier to do it now and sell it than to go back in and take over

[50:44] property. Right. Right. Say that again. Right. Engineer Hartzel. Say that again. I said, "Is it are we going to say put a

[50:50] trail in on the potential through culde-sac?" Because it's a whole lot easier to put a trail in now.

[50:56] A sidewalk or a trail? Sidewalk. Well, well, could be either, but Well, this is to me this is

[51:03] not the This is not a sidewalk issue. This because those are big lots. someone's to I mean that would be uh I was thinking

[51:10] trail there's trail out on Hargus and because these are that would

[51:16] potentially be a through street it would be a trail not a sidewalk

[51:21] from a policy standpoint the culde-sac length that requires pedestrian

[51:27] infrastructure is 900 ft. So when we looked at it from a from the surrounding

[51:33] properties, multiple properties would need to subdivide in order to require that connection. As the the part of the

[51:41] planning commission review, there was a dialogue whether that's a trail or sidewalk along the street or is there a

[51:48] a trail connection in the back of the lots that are appropriate. Those are comments that have not been weighed into

[51:55] from a staff standpoint, but that was information that was provided as part of the the the planning commission review

[52:01] was to contemplate whether pedestrian access for those to the south should be not on road but should be off road to

[52:07] connect. Yeah. My only concern would be they would be walking to Bailey and as elementary or uh Bailey Elementary as

[52:15] walkers. Am I correct? Yes, that is correct. Trail there. Yeah. And so I'm thinking future

[52:22] development and it is not fun to go back and say hello we are now taking over

[52:27] 15 feet of the easement. The other staff evaluation that we would look at is again there is this stub

[52:33] street. I don't recall whether there's a sidewalk stubbed in this location.

[52:40] if there is or maybe it's retrofitted after the fact. It does not appear, but that that's

[52:46] another option that could be looked at to provide access back for these areas

[52:51] to go back to the system to get to Bailey. Oh, back through.

[52:56] I'm going to push back on that a tad bit. No, no kid is going to walk backwards to go to school.

[53:02] There's there's no way. I would I would agree with that. Okay. But we've got I mean we just talked about there's a trail there's a

[53:09] trail on the going to be put on the south side of Hargus Parkway. That's your access to get to Bailey. Correct.

[53:14] What I'm saying is is you have a culde-sac here that is potentially the culde-sac on the west is going to be

[53:20] your through street to the future development to to the south. Are we going to put in a trail along this

[53:27] culde-sac now or are we going to do it after development comes in and then go

[53:32] into these people's yards and say we're now putting in a trail? Is it is it easier to do it when you purchase the

[53:39] property and know that it's there? Yes. Well, I would argue that it's not a trail that it would be a sidewalk, but

[53:44] that I mean I was going to raise it's not that big of an acreage. I mean that's

[53:49] 77 is not that big. It's not that big. It's not like 3 acre. It's not that big. But that would be my thing, Eric, is that depending on what

[53:56] happens south in the next plot south and is that neighborhood connected over should there be thought given to will

[54:02] this eventually have sidewalks on it. So that'd be that'd be a comment to the developer. I have a question about lot

[54:09] one. Lot one currently has a home on it and that access is out to Woodlane. Is

[54:15] that correct? And that would remain That is correct. That is the existing homestead on the property. The access

[54:20] and home would remain as part of this subdivision. Okay. And if I don't know if it's an older home or what, but if that were

[54:25] ever taken down, the access can remain on Woodlane and not not ever connect to Hargus at that point because we really

[54:32] don't have driveway access on Hargus anywhere. Correct. Correct. That is correct. Okay. So, that would be a stipulation

[54:38] going forward that that the access remains on Wood Lane for lot one. That was actually I wrote that down. I actually like that there's no driveway

[54:45] access on Marcus. Right. Right. So with that, can I raise this might be throwing a lot of

[54:51] wrenches, but I was just curious if it was ever broached about

[54:56] taking in between four and six and five and seven and making one access point

[55:02] because I guess my thought is too didn't we just wasn't it just um decided that

[55:07] at Arbor and Hargus are you talking about pedestrian? Nope. one car accident access because

[55:14] didn't are we putting in Arbor Drive in Hargus a stop sign?

[55:19] Yes, it's a it's a four-way though. It is a four-way two-way. It's a two-way. It's a two-way.

[55:25] Southbound would be a Yeah, but it's a it's a intersection like this, correct? But yes,

[55:31] but part of that I think is because of the traffic volume starting on Hargus a

[55:36] little bit more. And so, and again, I know that it's not a ton of homes, but having sort of one entry point into this

[55:45] division versus two that are relatively close. And so having sort of a road that comes

[55:52] in and then comes out when you get south of four and six.

[55:57] A through street, your street through street is and then you're branching off. I understand what you're saying. So you

[56:03] only have one access in and out of this versus two that are relatively close to

[56:08] then these two other roads given. So I'm again I know that this is just this is my feedback.

[56:13] This is a feedback night. It's feedback night. All this is so um that's I never thought of that.

[56:19] It's a good idea especially considering Hargus is only going to get more busy as we continue to develop.

[56:24] And that was Yeah. I I I think that there is an ability to modify, but for

[56:31] council to contemplate that would likely change the lot sizes to more consistent

[56:37] R4 lot sizes because if you were to connect those into one access point. So

[56:43] there there's pros and cons to that. If you're looking at this through the lens of housing diversity, larger lots, the

[56:50] culde-sac formation that you're seeing here is the way to likely do that. But are you adding are you would you be

[56:56] taking away the lots in that scenario? You would be giving more because you instead of having two streets you have

[57:01] just one. Well that's not true. You're having two. So mayor members in there. You're right.

[57:08] You know the issue with this is a long linear parcel. So if you put a 60 foot road rightaway

[57:13] in setbacks what you get is long skinny parcels that aren't conducive to development of this size.

[57:20] Okay. Thank you. I appreciate all the creative thinking. I think I'll just share overall I think

[57:25] this is a great concept plan. Um I like it. I think it makes sense. It it it

[57:31] merges the larger lots with the smaller lots. We've got city utility access. I

[57:36] think it makes sense. So I'm generally good with it. I know you planners tweak it all and figure all the details out as

[57:43] best you can. Is there is there a reason and I'm not you know I I I noticed that public works

[57:49] isn't here to but they're but but I think we've all ridden in a plow truck. They're going to hate this uh well going

[57:55] to say they hate it. They're going to dislike this um short stubs in the culde-sacs and they're going to have to

[58:00] plow from a plowing standpoint. Why are these not just regular streets? Why do they have to be culde-sacs?

[58:10] Well, maybe I'll answer for Eric here. Um, part of it is is you got to have someplace to store the snow, right? So,

[58:16] I mean, I know you can push it off to the the the end of the culde-sac, but you also need the ability for fire

[58:22] trucks to get in and out. And so, uh, if you just have a straight through road with a dead end,

[58:28] you're not going to be able to actually circulate uh, fire access. So, yeah, the the public works

[58:34] perspective, garbage trucks, school buses, the whole works. That's why they're the engineers. 100% white, right? I sell sticker bars

[58:41] for a living. All right, we talked about this. Okay. Okay.

[58:47] Um I have a couple more questions. Um woodlane expansion. I'm assuming that

[58:53] road is going to expand um south of uh Bailey. Tell me what's in the plan for

[59:00] that. How does that lot one get affected by that? Um, you know, I don't I always

[59:06] get a little nervous after we build and then um take

[59:11] Chris, do you want to answer the timing question and I'll answer the impact to the lot question?

[59:18] Eric, I'm uncertain of the timing. It's far enough out there where it's not going to happen in the next five years.

[59:25] Um because there's well sorry to interrupt but there because there's a few other parcels down below this that are all

[59:32] single that are entry and exit right exit onto lane as it is at this time I believe the configuration

[59:38] of the road meets the the capacity for the average daily traffic. I guess I'm worried I'm concerned

[59:44] because woodlane south of Bailey could turn into a wood lane like north of

[59:49] Bailey and we don't like driveway access out onto these main roads. We don't want them on to Hargus. We don't want them

[59:55] out onto Woodlane and now we're giving driveway access out to Wood Lane. Well, but the comp plan has everything

[1:00:01] south of this as R4 as the the large lot. So to your point of development

[1:00:07] applications that would come would also require a comp plan change and and then we'd have to talk about road access.

[1:00:13] Then we're getting to a capacity issue concern. But everything everything south of us in fact this parcel itself is part

[1:00:20] of the conversation but everything else and I because I pulled up the comp plan while we were sitting here and

[1:00:25] everything south and southwest of us is all R4. Yep. And I'd have to verify but I think in

[1:00:32] this section the roadway width is appropriate for the ultimate roadway section according to the comp plan. Not

[1:00:39] sure to the south of this when it gets more into the rural area, but it's all it's all gray.

[1:00:44] As part of the the plat activity, we would acquire or require the dedication

[1:00:51] of adequate right of way to provide future space for a trail and other urban

[1:00:59] amenities to prepare for the future. Although it's not currently identified within the CIP, there would be space

[1:01:07] reserved for the that type of roadway section and that has been communicated

[1:01:12] to the applicant. So, are we going to put a stipulation on how close that driveway can be to Hargus

[1:01:18] then? Are we going to start doing something like that? Because to have a that

[1:01:23] it's an existing driveway today, so it's not proposed to be modified. Um it's something we can look at on whether

[1:01:29] there would be a recommendation to remove that move that access point. Um

[1:01:36] but it is an existing home and that's you know the challenging part. Um removing the home doesn't seem like the

[1:01:44] right use of resources either. So we have is the is is lot one lot one that's the

[1:01:50] existing house and so that's just going to remain there. That's right. I see what you're saying. That's we're

[1:01:55] not the developer isn't taking lot one taking the house and building a new

[1:02:01] house there. The existing home would remain on site. I understand the existing owners would remain. Of course not. Then we're not going to

[1:02:07] Yeah, I understand that then. Well, and I definitely think it would be difficult to move the driveway to Hargus because of the formation of the turn

[1:02:14] lanes, right? And we don't want driveways out on Harus and it's too close to the intersection and all those things. So,

[1:02:20] those were the that was my feedback on that. I I was under the understand I missed that part that the existing house

[1:02:25] was going to stay. My is lot one on city water now. No. Would we make that part of the

[1:02:30] condition? Yes. That would be part of this development requirement is that they we abandon that

[1:02:36] wall though the the construction activities would require it even if we did not. Okay.

[1:02:41] The septic system would be interrupted. The septic field. I thought we gave the rural lots an

[1:02:46] option. We we do we we have in the past in this case the construction the grading and other to create lot two and

[1:02:54] lot three and the storm water ponding is going to take out their septic fields. I see. Okay. Um

[1:03:02] when uh private wells don't go down as deep as our city wells, do they? They do not.

[1:03:08] Yeah. Okay. Any other feedback?

[1:03:14] I just have one quick question. is I appreciate the applicant looking for feedback from planning and from the

[1:03:22] council before they move ahead but have provided a lot of information for us. Do

[1:03:28] they have a time frame in mind of of when they would like to move with this?

[1:03:34] It's our understanding that following the public hearing tonight, they will take

[1:03:40] the information, make a business decision, they'll finalize all of their purchase agreements for the properties

[1:03:45] and begin an application process for the subdivision. Um, that would likely mean

[1:03:51] construction activity likely won't be until 2026, but hypothetically, if it moved quickly,

[1:03:58] you could have some fall construction pending city approvals. But that does that not violate the order that we the

[1:04:06] what what did we put in? I I don't want to use the wrong pause. The pause. Thank you. That's the word I was looking for.

[1:04:11] The pause that we have in place. The these properties are not within our phasing plan. So the council would have

[1:04:17] discretion and not be inconsistent with the phasing discussions. I thought we said anything within the

[1:04:23] Musa we would but outside of the Musa we wouldn't. outside the phasing plan

[1:04:29] phasing plan there's a little there is a nuance there I would

[1:04:35] well I like this I just maybe am not in favor of the timing then uh if because I

[1:04:40] because I feel like although I doubt six or eight lots are going to have nine if

[1:04:47] we count the new house the existing home on there it's not going to have that big

[1:04:52] of an impact on our infrastructure and water usage but nonetheless us if we

[1:04:57] start giving yes to this then pretty soon it opens us up to we have a pause

[1:05:02] in place and and maybe that's something I feel like we did not that long ago just talk a

[1:05:08] little bit about this at a workshop about discussing about when we're going to start to reopen some phasing just maybe

[1:05:16] that's something that with everybody's approval of having staff give us an update again about just

[1:05:22] remind us about sort of timing because even if we did even if it came before us and then approval, you know, when it

[1:05:29] actually would be completed. Sure. Where does that fall within our timing of it? What our original expectations

[1:05:35] were with the pause?

[1:05:41] Okay. Since this hasn't been done since 1999, is this the only feedback we have to do like vote? This is the process.

[1:05:49] There's the feedback. I like it. I I'm surprised that it doesn't get used more. I guess

[1:05:55] I Yeah, it is. I agree. What a nice concept. So that someone a developer or whoever can come in and get some early

[1:06:01] feedback. It's a nice process that we have. I like it too. So they're not they're

[1:06:06] not um blindsided with my comments. Yeah. No. Right. We've had many conversations as staff

[1:06:13] about the process. This is one of the first to utilize it. Great. Right. I'll move some history if you

[1:06:19] don't mind just on the the first one Steve was the where your old offices were. So when that building was built

[1:06:26] was one of the first buildings in the Tamarack interchange area and they're the ones that came in with that first

[1:06:31] concept to kind of understand what that future might look like. So

[1:06:38] okay. Uh no discussion items. We'll move on to staff reports. And um Ashley, I think you're gonna give us a little update.

[1:06:44] Thank you, Mayor. So, um I'll just be very brief. Um we have just a couple upcoming items. Um the July 30th, um

[1:06:53] council workshop meeting, there are three items on that agenda at this point. Uh public safety strategic

[1:06:59] initiative is the first item. Environmental stewardship initiative and fiber to the home and franchise

[1:07:05] agreements are the three items. Um and then it does look like a neighborhood meeting will be here in council chambers

[1:07:11] on July 21st. Um, I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing this correctly. Alma Flora.

[1:07:17] Alma Flora. Llama. Llama Flora. All right, that's everything.

[1:07:22] Great. Thank you. Anything any questions for Ashley? If not, I make a motion that we close that the meeting is adjourned.

[1:07:29] Second. Motion a second. All in favor? I I We are adjourned.

[1:07:34] Thank you, Eric. You nailed it. 8:30. Well, three minutes over. It's pretty