[18:29] Welcome to the August 18th, 2025 planning commission meeting. If all commissioners will please mute your

[18:35] microphone until it is your turn to speak, that would be appreciated. Members of the public may join using a

[18:40] PC, Mac, or iPad, iPhone, or Android device. Members of the public can also

[18:45] access the meeting online at the city's website and public can ask questions and comments during the meeting by using the

[18:50] link to the virtual meeting to join and submitting the questions via the online question and answer feature within the

[18:56] meeting. Questions regarding this meeting can also be asked during regular business hours at city hall. And with

[19:02] that we will call the meeting to order. If you are a member of the public and wish to speak on a topic, please fill

[19:08] out one of the yellow forms at the back of the chambers and provide that sheet to staff. You will be called on after

[19:13] the project in reference is presented. Residents viewing online, please add your questions to the Q&A field along

[19:20] with your name and address. Dan, will you please start the roll call?

[19:26] Thank you, Chair John Jarrett here. Sauren Shaw. Marshia Kennedy

[19:32] here. Shannon Olsen here. Thomas Harrington here. John Colin here. Stephanie Swanson

[19:39] here. Adrina Naggali, Daniel Cho here, chair, we have a quorum.

[19:45] All right. Thank you, Dan. The first item on the agenda this evening is the ranch road edition resoning preliminary

[19:53] plat project number 28-2025-0000574

[20:00] and the staff member presenting this report will be Eric. Thank you, chair. Members of the

[20:05] planning commission, Nate Labbat has submitted an application for a residential subdivision to create three

[20:11] additional single family lots at their property. That property is located at

[20:16] 8040 Ranch Road and is currently zoned R1 Urban Reserve District and is guided

[20:22] as low density residential on the land use plan. For context purposes, the

[20:27] subject site is located to the north of the Bridalwood Farms development. That project was approved in 2017 and

[20:35] included 320 residential units. The city of Woodbury owns the property to the

[20:41] north and the properties to the east and west are privatelyowned single family

[20:46] residencies. The area on the far right hand side of the screen is the future home of the

[20:52] water treatment plant. A resoning application is in front of the planning commission this evening to reszone the

[20:59] property from R1 to R4. This is consistent with the comprehensive plan

[21:04] as the project is provided municipal utilities through the Bridalwood Farms development. Therefore, allowing at

[21:12] urban densities is appropriate. The preliminary plat again creates three single family lots and the existing home

[21:20] as a fourth lot. uh on the the property. No zoning flexibility is requested as

[21:27] part of this application and all setbacks and lot width and depth are met with the preliminary plot.

[21:34] Access to the site is off of Ranch Road which is a currently a private gravel

[21:40] road which is being proposed to be paved by the applicant wholly at their cost.

[21:45] Ranch Road connects with Radio Drive, currently as a full access point, but as part of the future Washington County

[21:52] expansion of Radio Drive, that access will ultimately become right in and

[21:57] right out due to the construction of a median in the center of Radio Drive.

[22:05] As we take a look at the landscaping plan, you'll notice uh additional landscaping on the left and right hand

[22:10] or east and west side of the property. That is uh a response to the

[22:15] neighborhood meeting where it was uh requested that additional evergreens be

[22:20] added. Add another area where additional evergreens will be required is uh to the

[22:26] south of each of the single family lots to try to mimic some of the evergreen field along Ranch Road.

[22:33] Two neighborhood meetings were held for the project. One on April 8th and the second on May 19th. Questions were raised regarding the ability of Ranchro

[22:40] to handle the additional trips, the landscaping, density, loss of rural fuel, and drainage. The applicant and

[22:48] staff had several on-site meetings to discuss the drainage, which have informed the draining plans that are in front of you this evening. With that,

[22:55] staff recommends approval of the ranch edition, resoning, and preliminary plat. And the applicant is on hand for any

[23:01] questions. All right. Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to add anything

[23:06] additional at this time? All right, seeing a headshake. No. So,

[23:11] have there been any yellow sheets received or any questions submitted via Q&A?

[23:17] Yellow. Right outside the back door before you come in. There's a folding table there.

[23:24] And there should be some yellow sheets and pens. There's some back there.

[23:34] All right, I think I'm seeing him grab some. So, if you if you do want to still take some time to submit the yellow sheet, if you had some questions or

[23:40] comments, you can please feel free to just bring them up to Eric when you've have them filled out and we'll be sure you get your chance to speak.

[23:48] All right. Um until then, we will turn to commissioners for some questions. So, we'll start with uh Commissioner Colum.

[23:58] Thank you, Chair. Um I had a question for the applicant.

[24:03] Can you step forward, please? All right. And then if you don't mind just stating your name and address,

[24:09] please. Yes. Hello, commission and everyone. Nate Labat,

[24:15] 8040 Ranch Road. Thank you. Um, I'm just curious, uh, are

[24:21] you you're residing on the on the existing home that's there now? Correct.

[24:26] Um, why are you seeking to do this project? Uh when we moved here in 2017 2018,

[24:34] Bridalwood was coming up to connect to our property. There was there is some

[24:40] moving parts that um our road and myself

[24:45] had some voting rights to connect to the public util or to the actual public

[24:51] road. At that time, our road wanted to stay private um with with the four I

[24:58] guess you call it four of us that are on the road. Um at that time, we kind of did a hybrid where they strung the

[25:04] utilities around along. Uh for me, going back to your original question, I'm in

[25:10] real estate. Um I'm an agent. I do this, you know, as a job. When I moved here in

[25:16] 2017 2018, I knew that this would be a possibility. Kind of seeing the future

[25:21] Bridewood plans. So, I just kind of went with the plans that were in place. Like

[25:27] I said, we kind of retracted from connecting to the public roads to keep it private, but uh this was kind of a

[25:33] soft middle ground for it. And is it as is it your intention to

[25:39] continue residing in the existing residence? Correct. Thank you. Yep.

[25:44] Um, a question for staff, I guess, um, around if we can go back to the um,

[25:52] location map for a second. Sorry. Um, I

[25:57] I guess a zoning question here. you know, we've we've talked about I think even at the last meeting as we were

[26:04] looking at the development further to the west around a progression of uh of

[26:10] zoning as we kind of move into out in these uh less developed areas.

[26:15] My understanding that if I look at the highlighted uh parcel, the parcels to

[26:21] the left and to the right are still remaining as R1

[26:27] today or they are R1 today and they would remain R1 today. Is that am I accurate in that or no? Yeah, that is

[26:34] correct. The parcel or the cursor is highlighting is R1. This parcel is R1.

[26:41] The parcel directly east is R4. The city's water treatment site is R4 and

[26:47] the area in Bridlewood Farms to the south is R4. So the parcel directly to the east is already R4.

[26:53] That is correct. That was reszoned as part of the water treatment project.

[26:58] Okay. Okay. Um, as the city staff has assessed this and

[27:05] your recommendation is to approve that, um, how did you evaluate the concerns

[27:10] about, um, I guess changing the nature of this, uh,

[27:16] this area just to the north of Ranch Road from a more a more rural uh, type

[27:22] of area that could potentially be, as we've talked about, a buffer between the school and the water treatment plant

[27:29] area and the I'll call it the traditional suburban residential development to the south. How did you

[27:35] weigh that dynamic versus the recommendation to go ahead and allow an R4 designation there?

[27:42] Really, it starts with the comprehensive plan process and when this was established to be the lowdensity

[27:48] residential that sets the tone for the general landing spot to be the R4

[27:54] district. The other areas that we looked at um as part of the fit of the

[28:00] surrounding areas is the lot size. These are larger residential lots than the lots to the south from a width

[28:07] standpoint. You may recall Bridalwood as and Copper also copper

[28:13] uh Ridge which is located to the east of Bridalwood both received uh lot um lot width decreases through

[28:22] the planning and development process. So the application in front of you this evening is meeting the R4 standards at

[28:29] 80 feet in lot width and and have more depth. So these will appear to be a little larger. Um but it is the

[28:36] appropriate zoning based on the land use. What was discussed quite a bit at

[28:42] the neighborhood meeting process and after is again how can you add additional landscaping?

[28:47] um how can Ranchro try to remain um as rural as possible with the what is

[28:55] basically a byite subdivision because it does meet the the zoning requirements

[29:00] not asking for additional flexibilities. Okay. And then I know you mentioned the

[29:07] the landscaping requirements. Um, are there any specific guidelines in

[29:13] terms of the nature of the code requirements on on how these three

[29:19] additional homes would be built? Or is it just whatever is in the code for R4

[29:27] guides, meaning, you know, home size, setbacks,

[29:32] um, anything unique to this particular parcel? I didn't see anything necessarily in the conditions. Perhaps I

[29:39] missed it. Um, but is there anything unique in the um in those requirements

[29:44] from the construction standpoint outside of a normal R4 designation? No, there's

[29:50] not any uh uniquenesses from that standpoint outside of some requirements

[29:57] for contractor parking and condition of approval number 10. that is fairly

[30:02] unique but that's not really a lot standard uniqueness but I would want to highlight under um just a little bit of

[30:09] a unique approach to that trying to limit impacts to ranch road

[30:14] and so remind me again then and under the R4 designation the setback on these

[30:20] three homes must be at least how much 35 ft is the minimum

[30:27] and is there a I mean obviously the maximum is just going to be based upon how these are platted at that point,

[30:33] right? Yeah. These lots because of their depth can exceed the minimum

[30:38] set back. So, they have to be built at least 35 ft set back from Ranch Road.

[30:43] That's correct. Okay. Um, you talked about access and the

[30:49] changing nature of Ranch Road. Um, I guess I just had a question about we we

[30:55] spent time in this commission about the water treatment plant and the access points both kind of the regular access

[31:01] points and the emergency access points for the water treatment plant. Is is any

[31:07] of this area of ranch road impacted by uh access to the water treatment plant?

[31:14] The water treatment plant does utilize or does have a connection really kind of this driveway aspect goes into the water

[31:20] treatment plant. It is ultimately designed as a secondary access and emergency access. It is not a

[31:26] construction access and it is not intended to be used on a day in and dayout basis. the application in front

[31:32] of you, the planning commission this evening, does not disrupt the city's long-term ability uh to use Ranch Road

[31:38] in the manner in which um was discussed as part of the sighting of the water

[31:44] treatment plant. And then I guess um as far as as far as

[31:51] the the future construction and paving of Ranch Road once that's complete, does

[31:56] that become city maintained at that point or is this going to remain a private road or

[32:03] It would remain a private road maintained by the individuals who have an ownership

[32:09] interest along the way around along ranch road. How does that work? if the city water

[32:16] treatment vehicles are also utilizing that road. If I'm a resident, one of these new residents that's coming into

[32:22] this parcel, h how does that work exactly? Um,

[32:28] currently the city has not participated in any of the maintenance costs. If the city began to utilize that as an access,

[32:34] and again that's not anticipated at any point in the future, but if it were, then there would be participation in the

[32:40] private road costs. Um, just one follow-up question for the

[32:46] applicant. Um, assuming you're going through the process here and then through to city

[32:51] council, do you have an expected timing on when you would want to construct these homes and make them available for

[32:58] occupancy? Not knowing exact timelines of when this uh would be approved from the city's

[33:06] standpoint. Uh, shortly thereafter, spring of 26. So well well before the water treatment

[33:13] plant is fully operational. Correct. Okay. I may have some additional questions but

[33:20] um I'm done for now. Chair. Thank you. Sounds good. Commissioner Kennedy.

[33:26] Chair. Would you like to have the res now for those? All right. Commissioner Kennedy, I'm going to put you on hold.

[33:33] All right. We did receive three yellow sheets um to for those who wanted to speak about the project. Um, the first

[33:40] one that we have is, is it Arlorer or Arlland? Arlland Marcus. Um, this is

[33:47] 8386 Ranch Road. And if you want to correctly state your name for me, that'd be much appreciated.

[33:53] I'm Arlland Marcus. I'm the owner of the property just to the east of the proposed lots.

[34:00] So, we're probably the ones that'll be impacted most by the project. And

[34:07] I know Nate, we've had lots of discussions. He's actually made a lot of changes that we've asked for as part of

[34:15] his proposal. Um, but there's still a lot of things that are issues for us.

[34:23] And you look at these drawings and they don't really show the picture of what's

[34:28] out there. It's it's great to look at this and say, "Yep, we checked that box. We check that

[34:35] box. The biggest concern I have is runoff from storms. This area isn't

[34:43] going to have curb and gutter. It's not going to have all of the the

[34:49] storm management right now. All of that water is going to be directed through my property. That's the way it it runs

[34:57] right now. The thing is right now it's all grass. We just had 5 in of rain.

[35:04] I don't have any water issues in my property whatsoever. It soaks in. It's

[35:10] slowed down by the grass. But now it's being proposed to have a lot of imperous surface.

[35:18] All of that's going to be directed into swailes that are going to become saturated

[35:23] and then the water ends up in our property. I have spruce trees there right now. They can't be standing in

[35:29] water. We've been promised a lot of things with the Bridalwood development,

[35:36] all of which basically didn't happen as promised. We were

[35:42] promised we wouldn't have any negative impacts. We were promised we wouldn't be getting all the water from the

[35:47] Bridalwood development during its construction and afterward. Um, but

[35:53] Harders have water sitting in their tree line in their spruce tree line that's across Ranch Road. All because the lots

[36:00] drain their water. Water is the biggest issue here. The Bridalwood development

[36:07] um had a lot of erosion. It it resulted in the amount of silt increasing by a

[36:16] foot from the current grade to what it was after all of the erosion. Our driveway was washed out four times.

[36:25] Never was LAR required to repair it. I had to fix it myself. I had to buy the

[36:31] materials. What I'm asking for this time is that we don't repeat what happened with

[36:37] Bridalwood. I don't think Nate is LAR.

[36:42] I think he has good intentions. I think that he really wants to follow

[36:49] through on this and not have any problems, not have a negative impact on the neighbors.

[36:56] But what about after Nate is gone? I know he said he he plans to stay there,

[37:02] but he's not going to stay forever. Nobody stays in their house forever. Somewhere along the line, something

[37:07] happens, somebody moves. He might not even complete the first one. While he has the intention to do that, he may get

[37:15] an offer from a from a builder and that builder isn't bound by anything that

[37:20] Nate gave his word on. So, the thing that I'm really asking for

[37:26] right now is that if you approve this proposal or this development and

[37:33] subdivision that it has the requirement that we identify all the possible things

[37:39] that would be negative impacts to us, what the remedy is for it, how to first

[37:45] of all try to prevent it, who will pay for it, and who approves it that it's no longer

[37:53] an issue. So, it started out with the drawings and

[37:59] like I said, Nate has made a lot of changes, but there are a lot more that that need to go along. And once it's

[38:05] approved, those things really may or may not be enforceable.

[38:12] It wasn't enforceable with the Bridalwood development. We all paid the price.

[38:19] There's no positive impact whatsoever for this with this development on the

[38:24] neighborhood. It's a rural neighborhood now. The best that we can hope for is

[38:29] that there's no impact to us. The likelihood is we're going to be negatively impacted and we have to fix

[38:36] it. The road is one example. Every five years we right now we rebuild the road.

[38:43] And I don't mean from the base up. I mean, just we recrown it. We add gravel

[38:50] because it sinks. It's built on a clay base. Um, Hendrickson's have the same

[38:56] driveway. Nate has the same driveway base. They know what their their driveways were like. Um, Hendrickson's

[39:03] actually replaced theirs with concrete because it was so deteriorated. We're going to put asphalt on here. It's going

[39:10] to extend the life over just a gravel driveway, but it's not going to be long term. It's

[39:17] not going to be like a city street. There's no curb, no gutter.

[39:23] It's just not a city street. And I know someone had mentioned about

[39:28] access. We'd like to have Ranch Road not have any parking. Right now, all four of

[39:35] our parcels have enough parking for 10 plus vehicles.

[39:40] We don't have 10 vehicles, but if you had had um guests, we can all

[39:46] accommodate those vehicles. If I look down the Bridalwood Street,

[39:51] Stable View, or any of the other ones, there's five cars in the driveway. We

[39:57] have a setback that can't handle five cars in a driveway.

[40:03] There should be at minimum that I think they're threecar garages. It

[40:08] should handle at least nine cars for guests. Ranch Road is not the width of a

[40:14] city street. Right now, there was construction that was going on on Nate's property.

[40:21] Um, there was a cement truck parked on the road. We have to wait for them to move to get by.

[40:29] I hope no emergency vehicles have to go by when there's cars parked on the road.

[40:35] I would worry about it for my place. I just don't think there's adequate space.

[40:42] I think it can be made to work, but we need to have that document that

[40:47] says what can go wrong, how do we prevent it, how do we fix it when it

[40:53] went wrong, who's responsible, and who pays.

[40:59] That's really all that I had. Any questions?

[41:08] No, not at this time. Thank you very much. Okay. All right. Next, we also have Willie

[41:15] Hendrickson at 830 Ranch Road.

[41:24] Once again, my name is Willie Hendendrickson. I live at 830 Ranch Road. Uh, and I live directly to the

[41:31] west of the the property. and I have been negatively affected by having Nate

[41:38] as a neighbor. Uh when when Arlland talked about

[41:43] parking, when there's been excess cars at Nate's house, and there have been multiple

[41:50] times, they park on my lot. This would absolutely happen again if

[41:59] this project is put forward. I would end up with cars on my lot on a regular basis and I don't think it's fair.

[42:08] The second thing is and and Arland talked about it. He he spoke very nicely about it about the ch the problems that

[42:15] we've had with the LAR build.

[42:21] And quite frankly, I was poorly treated on that. I still have water running

[42:27] through my yard when it rains a lot like it just has recently. I have a river

[42:33] that goes through my yard because the water was not handled properly. If Lenar

[42:39] can't handle this and the city can't force Lenar to do something, I have no

[42:46] confidence in Nate as a builder putting in anything that's done correctly.

[42:51] Whether it's the road, whether it's the water, whether it's the trees that he's going to put in between our property.

[42:58] I think that's all I have to say. All right. Thank you, Willie.

[43:06] Next, we have Tom Hoarder, 8020 Ranch Road.

[43:15] Hello. Um, I am Tom Harter, 8020 Ranch Road. So, I am the last one to the west.

[43:21] I'm on the corner of Radio Drive. So, I'm getting squeezed by that direction,

[43:26] too. But I'll just I'll not repeat, but kind of comment on what my neighbors and

[43:32] this is the entire neighborhood group behind us right here. So, the neighborhood the reason the neighbors

[43:37] have concern about this ranch road addition because right now there's three houses, four houses on Ranch Road. We're

[43:44] going to double it on a road that has no curb, no gutter, no water. that it stayed gravel on purpose. We're on well

[43:51] and septic on purpose because we wanted to keep it rural. And you're going to bring in

[43:57] right now we've got the neighbors that are there. You bring in three houses with what 2.1 kids on average each and

[44:04] now you had pizza parties and all that. And there's nothing but traffic and parking on a road that right now if

[44:10] they're not parking on the road, which is private property, they're parking on Willy's lawn or my lawn. and you add

[44:18] that many cars and that many kids and pizza parties and what have you that goes with it, you've tripled, quadrupled

[44:25] the traffic on a road that simply isn't built for it. So, I've lived there since

[44:32] 1999. It was rural then. I've been trying to keep it rural since I've been mowing the

[44:38] city's side of Ranch Road for 21 years, 27 years. Um, the reason the neighbors,

[44:45] which is all of us, have objected is because this is not going to add to the Ranch Road addition. It's going to destroy Ranch Road and the rural

[44:52] character that it has. And there's no way you can approve this without destroying our neighborhood. So, we're

[44:58] asking that you not do it. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. And

[45:05] thank you to all three of you that came up and and provided comments. If anyone else does want to turn in any other

[45:10] yellow sheets and have their turn to speak, um, we can call on those once we get through our commissioners.

[45:17] All right. And with that, Commissioner Kennedy, I'm going to tee you up for a second time. Thank you, Chair. Um, I just have a

[45:24] couple of questions. My first question was from uh item number 10 was the

[45:30] trigger of of that in the in the proposal. um contractor party parking

[45:36] and material storage without having considered what was just said. I I was

[45:41] wondering if that would um impact either the water treatment area or the other

[45:48] side. I wondered where that would be um identified. It's not a large area, the

[45:55] three homes, and so I didn't know during the construction phase where the

[46:01] contractors would be parking, etc. Have we identif based on dialogue with

[46:06] the applicant, the material and contractor parking would happen within the driveway area or within to the east

[46:13] of the driveway, the existing driveway. Okay. Um I did want to touch on the parking

[46:19] questions and concerns that have been um brought up. There is the ability because

[46:26] Ranch Road is a private roadway. If the individuals who are party to the private

[46:34] roadway agreement um would like to make a no parking requirement, much like a

[46:40] lot of our town home areas which do not allow parking on the private drives,

[46:45] they would have full ability to do that from a p the ability for them to control

[46:51] their their private roadway agreements. So that may be a a a remedy to the

[46:56] parking situation that is very tangible to the as was commented the majority of

[47:02] the neighbors are here today and they would have the ability likely to amend that based on just numbers. So I'd

[47:09] encourage that dialogue. Thank you. Um also the um um mitigation

[47:17] of the dust from a from a gravel road I thought would be probably significant.

[47:22] It's not a large road, but um it kicked up a lot of dust when we drove down there. Um that will I know that's in the

[47:29] in the in the proposal, but would have to be focused on. I just had one more question actually. Um the land that's

[47:38] going to be targeted for the three homes on item number five under the

[47:44] engineering conditions states that it must be flat for approximately 25 ft out

[47:49] from the house pad. So, I imagine that's back behind well to give them a backyard area. It didn't look This is

[47:58] small, but it didn't look flat to me. Um, does that have to be built up? Is there a certain um um

[48:06] percentage of non-flatness, so to speak? Yeah, that will be reviewed as part of

[48:12] the grading certificate that's issued as part of the building permit process. Um,

[48:18] generally flat is looked at at a 1 to 2% grade. We do want it to drain away from

[48:24] the rear of the home, but in a general usable condition. And that you are correct. That is the intent of that

[48:30] condition is to ensure that all lots have some level of backyard. Yeah. Yeah. And the drainage um I I I

[48:39] didn't wasn't cognizant. didn't connect the dots that the house at the end is the owner and they would be the target

[48:47] of that drainage at least that immediate drainage right yeah there the drainage generally moves

[48:53] to the north and then will move and cuts to the east okay um through the

[49:04] kind of through this area but the rear of the areas will also

[49:09] there'll be movement throughout You can see how the grades kind of drop in this location. You see these numbers? That's

[49:15] an indication of how the water moves through currently. Okay, good. Thank you. That's all I have. Chair.

[49:22] All right. Thank you, Commissioner Swanson. Most of my comments and questions have

[49:28] already been touched on. Um, my question about the road since it's going to be

[49:34] staying private, snow removal is also private. That's correct.

[49:40] Can we can you walk us through what the process would be to change it from

[49:46] private to public? It would be a significant process and

[49:51] that was discussed as part of the Bridalwood Farms development process was to add actually a loop street generally

[49:58] in this location to make a seg portion of this public. At the time the residents within the area wanted to stay

[50:05] on the more private ranch road. It was meeting their needs. also did not want to have cut through traffic from the

[50:11] neighborhood and that has for the most part been effective and outside of some

[50:16] behaviors where people are going off the culde-sac through vegetated area onto

[50:23] ranch road which is always frustrating and vice versa to the south from ranch into the neighborhood but generally

[50:29] speaking that has reduced the cut through possibilities and that was a concern that the neighbors had when

[50:35] bridalwood went through. So, um, in order to make it a public street, uh,

[50:40] rightway would need to be dedicated by all properties. And then obviously the construction costs to move that to a

[50:46] public street section would be, uh, significant. And we wouldn't have a gutter unless it

[50:51] was a public street. Um, correct. We do have some public streets that do

[50:58] not have curbon gutter. I would say it's likely in this case that you'd move it to an urban section

[51:04] with curbon gutter, but just for fact purposes, we do have some public streets that do not have curbon gutter.

[51:11] Okay. Well, I actually had no other questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Commissioner

[51:17] Jarrett. Uh, thank you, Chair. So, uh, I had the

[51:22] same concerns with the water runoff. Um, I note I noticed that there are two

[51:29] runoff basins or storm water basins uh on the south side of Ranch Road kind of

[51:34] directly across from where these lots are. Um, but if there is no curb, you

[51:41] know, there's no way to really direct it into into that into those uh runoff uh

[51:49] basins. So, is there, you know, could we recommend

[51:54] that uh there be a curb on the south side of Ranch Road even though it's a

[52:00] private road? I don't know where the city's jurisdictions, you know, stop and the

[52:06] private kicks in in in a case like this. Um, and I and then does that give uh the

[52:13] people in Bridal uh Ridge Farms uh something to take issue with that we're

[52:20] directing the runoff water into their neighborhood. Um

[52:25] cuz now it sounds like it kind of runs along the north side of Ranch Road and then off to the north and northeast.

[52:33] uh which is I I I you can tell when you look at it that the uh topography is uh

[52:41] not in favor of the water runoff. But that was one of my big things. Um

[52:47] you know maybe a standup curb on the south side or at least in a section of

[52:52] it. And then my other uh question was why can't you just extend the private

[52:59] road uh the kind of culde-sac there to the uh south and um west side. It looks

[53:08] like the culde-sac actually uh tease or um you know uh the other one right there

[53:17] you know because then then you would have a private their own private road that would connect to uh night

[53:24] martingale road

[53:34] and I would assume then you'd have to vacate the private road on his his property. But I mean, they're already

[53:41] doing that. Yeah. Uh maybe I'll begin with the drainage question about routing the

[53:46] drainage to the south. Um that because of the grades and the location on the infrastructure to the south, that would

[53:52] be challenging to move that to the south. I think instead what the discussion and strategy has been and

[53:58] there's been as Mr. Marcus identified there's been some modifications to plan

[54:03] and one of the major modifications is creating more of a ditch section on the

[54:08] south on the north side excuse me of Ranch Road and that's really to take the water from not only Ranch Road but also

[54:15] from the new lots that come off from the driveway and so on and route the water and make sure that that's a deliberate

[54:22] uh movement. Um, I think the the additional concerns that have been

[54:27] raised is to make sure that when it ultimately starts to move north that it doesn't break too early to go east. Um,

[54:34] I think that's something that we can continue to work with the adjacent property owners on and and uh evaluate

[54:41] the grading plan to um continue to raise elevations to limit movement into areas

[54:49] where uh it's not uh designed to go. as it relates to connecting with this

[54:57] aspect here. There are rights that are established under the private street. So that would be unraveling a fair number

[55:03] of different rights. The property, this property owner and the city has rights

[55:08] back towards Ranch Road. So if it were disconnected, there would be an awful lot of agreements that would have to

[55:14] occur. And the our understanding from a city standpoint, we um is that the the

[55:23] private roadway agreement that exists does not prohibit additional lots being put onto that lot.

[55:29] I see. Um so, uh could we again back to

[55:34] the can we uh kind of dictate what happens with a private road? Could we uh

[55:40] you know could engineering take a look at this and say there has to be a um you

[55:45] know a grade or a uh raise the elevation right at uh the

[55:52] driveway there the existing uh driveway and artificially slope it to the east so

[55:58] that any of the runoff water has to go to the uh kind of to the well to the

[56:04] east and then to the north or you know follow the natural runoff. I mean, is

[56:09] that something that the city can do? Currently with the plans, the drainage

[56:16] from Ranch Road is designed to go into the north and into that drainage area.

[56:22] Um, I think the overall feedback and conversations regarding a ranch that the

[56:28] city's been a part of is some of the exploration about paving versus leaving

[56:34] it at a gravel section. You can see on this photo the width. So this is the

[56:39] existing width to basically the the point of the applicant's driveway and then it narrows. So this portion would

[56:46] also be widened in front. So the ranch road would have some additional

[56:51] construction activities and width added to handle additional. So it's basically

[56:56] kind of a two-way design much like it is on the west side. It's still narrow, don't get me wrong, but it is uh it

[57:03] certainly narrows into much more of a single lane driveway as you get east of this culde-sac bulb. Uh and that was a

[57:12] part of the conversation was to try to pave it to allow more durability as part of the subdivision process. You asked

[57:21] the question on, you know, what really involvement can the city have. That's probably one of the larger areas to

[57:28] require that there be memorializing that this be a paved roadway network. Um

[57:34] that's an area where the city can weigh in and the conditions identify that.

[57:40] And then the I would assume that each one of these residents have some sort of uh you know access easement uh you know

[57:48] how does that affect the new people? I mean, I would assume everybody that's part of that group is going to have to

[57:54] have some sort of uh agreement that they can

[58:00] change the road, increase the grade, decrease the grade, pave it, not pave it.

[58:06] How about uh additional storm water runoff basins on the east side of this

[58:12] property? I mean, that part of it is private, but then I don't know where at what point the city's uh lot connects in

[58:20] the back, but is that something that may help? We don't believe extending storm sewer

[58:27] through our public storm sewer would be a help in this case. It's really going to be an overland system, which is the

[58:33] mo the best way to handle the storm water based on our engineering division's review of the grading. So, I

[58:40] know the watershed usually handles uh I don't see any kind of um verbiage about

[58:46] runoff ponding and so forth. So, obviously they're not putting a runoff pond in here. That would be handled with

[58:51] the watershed district and then they'd have some sort of a cash payment or something for runoff or storm water

[58:59] ponding in some other area. The subdivision ordinance does not

[59:04] require storm water quantity for subdivisions of this size. Uh, okay.

[59:10] H interesting. And then because this has the stumpouts for city water, I'm

[59:17] assuming that includes a fire hydrant out here.

[59:22] There is a fire hydrant.

[59:27] It's part of the culax. Correct. I think it's at the corner of

[59:34] the south of that c right here.

[59:40] No. I can go to a different map.

[59:45] I couldn't I couldn't find it on the uh engineering

[59:51] drawings, but Okay. So, it is it's a ways past it.

[59:57] And I know they can they the firemen can hook their hoses on and dry good for a long ways, but is that sufficient to

[1:00:04] serve all of these properties? We have reviewed that for all applicable fire code related items and this does

[1:00:12] meet it. Okay. Um that's really all I have. I'm not good

[1:00:18] with all the silver stuff. So, um, all that drainage and runoff stuff is, uh,

[1:00:24] yeah, I think we need to pay attention to that because you you can tell that there's been, uh, runoff issues and if

[1:00:32] that's a curb on the south side to prevent, you know, to redirect it, I

[1:00:37] don't I don't know even how to do a condition of for any of that. So,

[1:00:43] anyway, that's all I have. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Harrington.

[1:00:48] Uh, thank you, chair. I know we've talked a bit about storm water and drainage, and given that was my only

[1:00:57] comment on this development, it went even deeper than what I was looking at

[1:01:02] in our conversation. So, I would like to chat a little bit more about that. Um, so I I and if some of these questions

[1:01:09] have been answered, excuse me. But Eric um John was talking about or asking about uh storm water and basins or

[1:01:17] retention or holding water or treating water. So I assume engineering staff

[1:01:23] have looked at this and based on our subdivision requirements andor the specific requirements of this site did

[1:01:32] they feel that there's no need for those kinds of facilities here? That is correct. Okay. I let me ask another question. So

[1:01:40] we talked about it's ghosted in on this sheet the grading and erosion control

[1:01:46] plan that's up. You can see to the bottom it looks like ST is storm on a

[1:01:51] couple of the culdeacs. There's probably catch basins that collects through pipes

[1:01:56] and then it looks like there's a storm line that runs east west and the arrows

[1:02:02] point to the east. So it's in a pipe traveling east. There's a storm

[1:02:08] manhole, I'm guessing. And so my my question is the ST the ST the ST circle

[1:02:16] that is a storm structure. Are those all manholes or do they collect water?

[1:02:25] Commissioner Harrington, I think I'll ask the designer to come up answer those questions for the grading plan um as to

[1:02:33] manage the additional hard surface. Thank you. Hi, my name is Emily Ostice. I'm with

[1:02:40] Land and Resource Consulting and I can speak to the grading. Emily Ostice from Land and Resource

[1:02:46] Consulting. Um, I can speak to the grading. Um,

[1:02:51] I'm not 100% certain about these uh storm the the storm circles that you're

[1:02:59] talking about if those are inlets or manholes. Mhm. However, I don't know that they're relevant. Um,

[1:03:08] so in the current condition,

[1:03:13] all of the water basically that falls onto Ranch Road goes north and

[1:03:19] northwest. Everything south of Ranch Road, the water flows south and southeast. Excuse

[1:03:27] me, I have east and west mixed up. Southeast. [Applause] Um, city engineering actually

[1:03:34] recommended that we crown the road which will improve the drainage conditions from existing. So actually uh every all

[1:03:42] the water on the southern half of Ranch Road will now go south and southeast.

[1:03:48] Water that falls onto the north side of Ranch Road will continue going north and northeast which follows existing

[1:03:54] drainage patterns.

[1:03:59] Thank you. Yeah. So where I was going with that is even

[1:04:05] though it's a storm structure and I think earlier Eric

[1:04:10] you had said it wasn't feasible I forget the word that you use to to you know put structures andor

[1:04:19] pipes on the north side. Maybe that's what you said. So I'm just looking here. The

[1:04:25] shortest line between quite a bit of this water being collected is in the

[1:04:30] southeast corner of this proposed development and right

[1:04:35] southeast off that culde-sac as a storm structure. Whether it's size to take on

[1:04:41] this additional water, I guess would be a question. But it seems that

[1:04:47] a majority of the water that comes off the homes, comes off the driveways, comes off of the property between the

[1:04:53] lots is heading toward Ranch Road. It's going to be in some sort of a shallow

[1:04:59] swale going under driveways to the east and then it's going to turn north. So if

[1:05:05] it could be collected down in the southeast corner, it seems a very short

[1:05:10] run to pipe it to the structure that is down at the end of of the culde-sac at uh was

[1:05:18] it bridal bridal wood? Bridal veil that neighborhood. Hopefully I'm describing

[1:05:25] this so that you can geographically tell what we're talking about. It just seems like there's a there's a very easy short

[1:05:32] direction to an existing storm structure that potentially could be utilized so

[1:05:40] that all of this a lot of this water does not have to travel overland

[1:05:46] eventually make its way north and and based on the contours

[1:05:53] the contours are all angled and they head in the northeast direction,

[1:06:00] not toward the applicant's property per se, but toward the property to the east.

[1:06:07] So, as this swale that travels south, the north along that east property line,

[1:06:14] as the water dumps, it's eventually going to find its way to the right. To

[1:06:19] the right is to the east. The east is the adjacent property.

[1:06:24] So I just based on looking at engineering, I don't know the history of the property,

[1:06:31] but was described to us, but it seems that a lot of this water will be

[1:06:38] localized through a swale and taken and moved north, but it will eventually roll

[1:06:44] to the east. So that was a concern that I had before

[1:06:50] all the conversation, before I heard the neighbor describe the issues with

[1:06:55] drainage. So my so my first question is, can we investigate taking that water to

[1:07:01] an existing storm structure to alleviate all of the water heading onto the

[1:07:07] adjacent property, which is what it looks like it's it wants to go. Commissioner Harrington and members of

[1:07:13] the planning commission. Uh if it uh addresses the concern, the commission

[1:07:18] could discuss adding a condition that the applicant shall review the ability to connect to the storm sewer off of

[1:07:25] Stable View Drive. The engineering division shall review and approve the

[1:07:30] final utility plan. That would give that direction to complete that review. That would that would be great if you

[1:07:36] could look into that. Thank you. Um, one other question about road width.

[1:07:43] There was a there were concerns about parking. Um, I didn't see it in the section. What

[1:07:49] is the proposed width of the new paved road? It it scales less than 20.

[1:08:04] I think I can answer that if it's helpful. It is uh widened to be the same

[1:08:09] as the ranch road portion to the west of Nate's property. It's 18 feet.

[1:08:17] Yeah. Yeah. That is identified on paving plan C2.2 within the packet. Oh, thank you. Uh do we does the city

[1:08:24] have any requirements required minimums for

[1:08:29] uh situations like this as a private road? Do they need to be at least x number of feet wide? Um if it were

[1:08:36] constructed new, it would have more width as a new roadway, but that in this case is going to add additional drainage

[1:08:44] issues. Um generally the minimum is 20 ft in width.

[1:08:51] That's true. The more the more pavement, the more runoff, the added storm water issues that that that

[1:09:00] makes. Seems that 18 ft concerns of parking is enough to pull a car off to the side

[1:09:06] that isn't going to be able to fit. But your earlier suggestion was the petition for a no no parking on the street.

[1:09:13] Right. They they private owners of that roadway would have the ability to do

[1:09:19] that. Okay, that was all I had. Thank you.

[1:09:26] All right. Thank you, Commissioner Cho. Um yeah, I just have a little question

[1:09:31] for the applicant. When if the project is passed and sorry, excuse me. Um when

[1:09:38] the construction does begin, how will you in like restrict the construction

[1:09:43] workers not to park on your neighbor's driveway or like put materials on the side of the road like blocking the driveways and the owners of the

[1:09:49] properties? Um, I think so. A big piece of that is

[1:09:57] going to be just communicating it to them, potentially signage. Um, in all

[1:10:02] reality, there will be some construction vehicles along Ranch Road

[1:10:08] accessing each of these properties. Um, so that that will be a thing, but I

[1:10:15] think to the extent possible that they can be off Ranch Road on the property or staged in Nate's yard. Um, that would be

[1:10:23] the intent. Okay. And then would someone come out and check and see if they are violating

[1:10:29] someone's property or trespassing possibly because you can never know if someone is just putting stuff there

[1:10:34] without anyone noticing. Yes, true. Uh, yes. I mean that can certainly be part of it. Yeah.

[1:10:42] Okay. Um that'll be all chair. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Um I

[1:10:48] think we've hit the storm water quite a bit. I will I will say that was my only kind of question coming into this as

[1:10:53] well is just ensuring that we understood how that runoff was. Um not also

[1:10:59] understanding or you knowing exactly how the bridal wood did directly impact

[1:11:04] them. Um, so a couple of questions that I just have in general, um, is does

[1:11:09] Woodbury have anything or the state of Minnesota as it comes to unreasonleness

[1:11:16] for, uh, water runoff onto others property?

[1:11:21] Yeah, generally if there can be nuisance uh, claims, there can also be damage

[1:11:27] claims that can occur depending on how the flow moves through. There have been

[1:11:32] situations where um usability of property is taken into into question and

[1:11:39] so um there are a number of different private approaches that can occur when

[1:11:44] storm water is rerouted into a way that that was not anticipated. Okay. And is that is that a state

[1:11:52] private type of issue? It can be both. the city can get involved especially if there um are

[1:11:59] plans that are not met. Okay. Um so there are abilities. The one of

[1:12:06] the residents did ask for some certainty and that's a fair question about how do

[1:12:11] you mechanically ensure things work. Um for the commission's

[1:12:18] uh review staff uh would recommend adding as part of the development agreement. The

[1:12:24] applicant shall post dedicated security to ensure proper grading and drainage is achieved as

[1:12:30] identified by planning staff. The question that was raised by the by the one of the residents was not

[1:12:36] only how do we know that it's going to be done but who's going to make the decision. So that that condition was

[1:12:42] crafted to try to address that concern. Did you say that was already a condition?

[1:12:47] I think that's an enhanced condition as it also adds a security approach. Got it. Okay. Thank you.

[1:12:55] Um, and just curious since this is kind of a a rural setting, if this were to go into

[1:13:03] R4 for this lot, when it comes to things like accessory buildings, does this have the proper um layout so that if you know

[1:13:12] an accessory building needed, they could get all the proper permits? Yeah, they would be an allowed up to 400

[1:13:17] square foot. Okay. Um, I don't want to go into detail if this

[1:13:24] is nothing that we would have the jurisdiction over, but when it does come to private road access and paying for

[1:13:29] some of these items, um, does does the lot that's being

[1:13:37] potentially reszoned get the benefit of having that section split between four?

[1:13:43] Or do we know if costs between Ranch Road are split by address?

[1:13:49] I do not I am not familiar enough with the roadway agreement to answer that question. Although the city is generally

[1:13:56] party to that agreement because we're an owner within the area. It's as an ownership not under the regulatory side.

[1:14:02] So we generally do not weigh too deeply into those private roadway agreements as those are best

[1:14:09] managed by the individuals who are party to them. Okay. Um, I would I guess just recommend

[1:14:16] for those if this does move forward to revisit that and and make sure that

[1:14:21] costs are are split appropriately. Um,

[1:14:26] if we were to I think you brought up the item about no parking along Ranch Road.

[1:14:32] Um, you know, if there's been challenges about parking, who enforces

[1:14:37] the no parking on a private road? Generally in our town home areas it's

[1:14:44] through the use of a towing company and usually there are signs that identify a tow route and individuals self- patrol

[1:14:51] that within the association. Um many times an uh homeowners association will

[1:14:56] take more of an active role but when they are posted no parking it, you know, it can be triggered by any resident.

[1:15:03] Okay. Depending on what's identified on the signage. Okay. And then I think um one of the

[1:15:11] other I guess concerns I have would be during that construction time especially to access to Arlland's road um if there

[1:15:19] is any sort of construction vehicle parked there. Um

[1:15:24] if I were Arlin I would have great concern over having construction vehicles blocking that entrance. Um, is

[1:15:32] there a requirement that we can that we're all construction trucks are required to be parked on um Mr. Nathan's

[1:15:41] property? Uh, we can certainly beef up condition of approval number 10, which does look

[1:15:49] to address that as it relates to contractor parking and material storage.

[1:15:54] Okay. after parking and material storage. I

[1:16:01] think if if that's what it's getting at, um

[1:16:08] I I think I guess if I were to add anything, it would be any construction related vehicles, contractor parking,

[1:16:15] material storage. Um or you should say nothing blocking

[1:16:20] the the right of way to do kind of a catchall.

[1:16:31] Chair Olson, I'd also suggest adding a requirement for a sign with a contact

[1:16:37] number in case there are any issues since there have been contact number for what?

[1:16:42] Contact number for whoever is going to be in charge of enforcing the storage requirements and

[1:16:50] the parking requirements. If this were a condition within the staff report and

[1:16:56] ends up getting approved through city council, would it be as simple as getting a hold of city city hall if

[1:17:02] there was uh uh something deemed that contradicts any of these

[1:17:08] um conditions in the staff report? Um, I think there can be some benefit to

[1:17:15] adding signage in the location because if there is a vehicle that's parked in that location by the time, yes, you are

[1:17:21] correct, the remedy would be to call city staff and we would go out there and look at it. But I think the more

[1:17:27] proactive approach is a signage and still having the ability for city staff to intervene. But hopefully the signage

[1:17:34] alerts contractors that there is no parking in this area and that they need to utilize the designated

[1:17:40] um parking location. Okay. I think we can uh add additional

[1:17:46] language about not impeding the ability to to travel the

[1:17:53] the uh east west along the roadway. Okay. Okay, I think we can we can uh amend condition

[1:18:00] 10 to to add that intent. Okay, if that's the direction the commission would like to see.

[1:18:08] All right. Are there other R4 zoned sections of

[1:18:16] Woodbury that are on private road? I guess the town homes are

[1:18:21] Yeah, we have a significant number in the town homes. Okay. other um single house families on

[1:18:28] private roads we have a hand uh I'm not going to speculate how many but

[1:18:34] it it's not it's not completely unique

[1:18:40] okay

[1:18:46] um I'll open it back up and see who have any other questions but I think before I

[1:18:54] you. Um I'll just do a quick summary of some of the items that I've heard. Um I

[1:18:59] think I've heard that there is a possible condition to re review the

[1:19:05] connection of storm water off of Staple View Drive. I also heard there was um

[1:19:11] Eric's suggestion on how to enhance condition 10 to ensure that there are no

[1:19:18] construction related vehicles etc. So that could be blocking the uh access for

[1:19:23] that fourth lot on Ranch Road. Um and no parking at any time. I also heard the

[1:19:30] potential to add signage if there were any challenges. Um an easy way for who

[1:19:35] folks can call and um

[1:19:41] I can't even read that. And I think it was something that I suggested. Um,

[1:19:48] maybe I'll say it. It says security post. Oh, thank you. Okay, thank you for the reminder.

[1:19:55] Posting security to identify the the proper damage. Thank you for helping me

[1:20:01] um review my words or my writing rather. Um, so I think that's all I have for

[1:20:06] questions at this time. I I don't know if anyone else had captured anything else. Um, I will open it back up to

[1:20:12] folks. But before I do, did we get any other additional yellow sheets? Sure.

[1:20:18] So, uh, with that, uh, do any other commissioners have any other questions at this time?

[1:20:24] Chair, I have a couple follow-ups. Um, uh, got a question for, uh, the designer

[1:20:29] from LRC. Um, we talked a lot about drainage, so

[1:20:35] we've we're becoming experts in uh in drainage, but I guess my question still

[1:20:40] is how much does adding three structures, right, three buildings onto

[1:20:46] this lot impact the drainage from its natural state today, which is designed

[1:20:53] based on just the natural grade of the grass that's there to move the water

[1:20:59] east and north. Sure. Um, in working with the city and a bit

[1:21:06] with the neighbors, we have tried to mimic the existing conditions and continue to send everything where it's

[1:21:13] currently going. So, if there's more water, it still goes the same drainage

[1:21:19] direction. I think the city has a threshold for area that

[1:21:26] you can disturb and create impervious. Um, if you're under that threshold,

[1:21:31] storm water basins aren't required. We are under that threshold. I I don't want

[1:21:38] to quote it and get it wrong. Um, it's a number of units. It's number of units.

[1:21:44] Okay. Okay. Um, so that's the guide we use. um we the impervious area will be

[1:21:52] under that threshold and then yeah we've just mimicked the existing drainage

[1:21:58] patterns. I will point out the swale on the east has been tweaked a number of

[1:22:04] times. Um we do have a high point on the

[1:22:10] far far east side which should prevent water from going east just north of

[1:22:15] Ranch Road. The water should go north and it should not cut east into Arland's property

[1:22:22] until it gets um toward I would say

[1:22:29] the north property line of the new proposed lot um

[1:22:37] which mimics existing conditions.

[1:22:42] Where is that high point? I'm trying to look at the C3.0 0 here at the grading

[1:22:47] plan and it looks like the the the new residence furthest to the east, if I'm

[1:22:55] reading this topo map correctly, which I very well might not be, we're at 992 ft

[1:23:01] on the corner of that h home. And then as we move north and east towards the adjacent property owner, we're down 9 ft

[1:23:09] to 983 ft. 183. And I assume that's the property

[1:23:14] line, the dark black line there. Yep. Yep. Am I looking at that right? Yeah. So there's a spot elevation called

[1:23:22] out which is 90.65 which is kind of inside of the bottom of the swale. And then just to the right of

[1:23:30] that there's a spot elevation called out which is 91.19. And that's

[1:23:36] a high point bump basically to try. Exactly. That forces that water north.

[1:23:45] Thank you. Yeah. Um I I guess I do have a question for staff, too. And you know, nobody wants

[1:23:51] to see new people coming to Woodbury more than me, but I I am struggling with this one just to be on the record on the

[1:23:58] resoning requirement or or request. Can we look at the location map? I guess

[1:24:05] I guess maybe one drill one down on that. I'm sorry.

[1:24:10] Other way. There we go. This is probably easier way to look at it. So,

[1:24:15] we're re we're saying the resoning meets the comprehensive plan because it's

[1:24:20] served by municipal utilities. So, if it wasn't reser if it wasn't served, then

[1:24:26] it wouldn't we wouldn't make that determination. That is correct. Is that the only is

[1:24:33] that the only criteria that we have that supports that view that it meets the

[1:24:39] comprehensive plan? Are there other criteria that might support that case?

[1:24:44] I think we would also look at some of the surrounding uses. So, as the commission is aware, we've had

[1:24:50] situations where we have R2 property in close proximity. The R2 district of course is the areas that have long-term

[1:24:59] well and septic and we have these pieces that are kind of the transition zones. In staff's opinion, this is not a

[1:25:05] transition zone. We have just immediately to the south there's over 600 units of housing just to the south

[1:25:11] there a very you know the public works use to the east. this is an appropriate

[1:25:17] the R4 is the appropriate use versus a transition or a buffering use. Um in the

[1:25:24] in the long term there could be potential for subdivision of the adjacent properties as those property

[1:25:30] owners see that need. That may be many many years down the road and that's okay too. Well, and I think that's the thing I'm

[1:25:35] struggling with is that if we were looking at this as a development of all three of those properties to the west of

[1:25:42] the current R4 the in all of these drainage issues would be

[1:25:47] resolved quite differently, right, through retention pond, through other methods that we would use in a normal

[1:25:53] subdivision. um that if we reszone this particular parcel now creates a dynamic that if

[1:26:01] those other two parcels want to be reszoned in the future um to R4

[1:26:07] immediately to the west of this parcel um how does that fit into sort of a

[1:26:13] comprehensive development plan for that corner long term and then the applicant

[1:26:20] wants to build these homes before the water treatment plan is even complete and we We don't exactly know exactly how

[1:26:26] much usage that road or that that area might get um once that water treatment

[1:26:32] water treatment plant is completed. So that's what I'm struggling with as far as understanding how that fits into a

[1:26:38] comprehensive plan. I think I can start with the last question about the use from the treatment plant. We do have a very

[1:26:45] strong understanding of the operational side and the full operations of that facility are designed that the

[1:26:52] deliveries all of the site activity come from Argus Parkway. So this is truly designed as a emergency access point. So

[1:27:00] it is not anticipated the site functions are designed accordingly that there will

[1:27:06] not be water treatment related traffic on Ranch Road. from a comprehensive plan

[1:27:12] standpoint. Again, we look at it from where our utilities are available and where the growth activities. So, you see

[1:27:19] some of this vacant area to the west right now, that area is a part of our phasing plan and ultimately that area

[1:27:25] will be developed at an R4 density as well. So, generally speaking, within this area, the school to the north, this

[1:27:32] property is um zoned R4. So, really this is the pocket right now that is R1. And

[1:27:38] the reason it's R1 right now is because the uses within this location are hooked up to well and septic. As they are no

[1:27:46] longer hooked up to well and septic, their zoning will change. And and that's happened in a number of areas in the

[1:27:52] city over the years. It's just a four lot development. Doesn't really feel like a development.

[1:27:57] Unfortunately, the size of the property just doesn't necessitate more. Uh I don't disagree. Um all things equal

[1:28:04] from an efficiency standpoint. It would be much more efficient from a land standpoint to have larger development,

[1:28:10] but the control here is only the five acres. Okay.

[1:28:16] I I think the uh conditions that have been recommended or greatly improve uh the proposal. Um but

[1:28:24] I'm still having difficult time supporting it at this point in time. Can I follow up real quick on one item? You triggered a thought. Um,

[1:28:32] in terms of that kind of let's say we develop those properties from east to

[1:28:38] west. Um, and I think I heard Eric you also state that there are specific number of units that would trigger a

[1:28:44] storm water basin. What what is that number of units? Three. So they are at the maximum.

[1:28:50] So for the next unit would have triggered a storm water basin. That is correct.

[1:28:58] So if this lot did three, the next lot did three, and the next lot did three, we'd

[1:29:04] never trigger one. That would never trigger it under that. We still do a review to make sure that

[1:29:11] there isn't drainage related concerns. So it's a two-part test. Okay. So the next neighbor,

[1:29:17] I guess, if it doesn't pass the test, would be held to the cost to have to do

[1:29:22] a basin or how does that work then? In this case, the water that moves through here, the property to the west, you

[1:29:28] know, that's not the way the water moves through the area. So, the decision- making here would not impact the property, the drainage of the property

[1:29:34] to the west. Okay. And then as a default, it goes to the wershed for review as well. Yep.

[1:29:40] Yeah. And then what's the total acreage of those three properties combined?

[1:29:46] Uh I believe the corner is three acres and these are five

[1:29:52] and then just those sorry the the three new ones

[1:29:57] combined combined are the three new lots. Yeah. Assuming that's over an acre.

[1:30:05] Yes. So that then are they being looked at as one project as it comes to like

[1:30:13] construction storm water permitting or other city requirements? Okay.

[1:30:21] Okay. I think that was all my followup. Commissioner Kennedy, did you have a followup as well?

[1:30:26] I do. Just a thought um based on what was some of the neighbors said, two thoughts actually. um um the rural feel

[1:30:35] of this current environment is changing dramatically with doubling almost

[1:30:41] doubling the number of homes in in that and I think that's an I think that's a

[1:30:46] point that needs to be that needs to be recognized is that this changes not only

[1:30:51] this one property and the storm water um flow some of those issues but the whole

[1:30:57] feel of that neighborhood as it would if the properties to the west were also um

[1:31:04] uh developed. Excuse me. And why three? Why not two? Why not one in that

[1:31:10] section? Feels like at three um property developments were pushing the limit. If

[1:31:17] it was four, it would be a some of that would be solved based on what what was triggered with the the the laws and the

[1:31:24] guidance. Is that is that I mean, isn't that what we just said? at four it would trigger and answer some of those storm

[1:31:30] water situations, but with three three developments there, you're pushing the limit. Um,

[1:31:36] and that just feels I guess it goes back to my question, why not just one property? Why not two?

[1:31:44] So, this is from a city code standpoint, this is a a buy preliminary plat. So the

[1:31:51] way that we legal are legally are required to evaluate this from a code standpoint is to see if it meets the

[1:31:57] minimum standards. Much of the reviews that are in front of the planning commission include a planned unit

[1:32:02] development which allows for some flexibility and some asks that can then

[1:32:08] have those types of give and take aspects to meet other public objectives.

[1:32:13] In this case, this is again what we would identify as a byite um subdivision. And as long as it meets

[1:32:20] the city code requirements, which the application in front of you this evening does, it can be very challenging for the

[1:32:26] city to modify whether it's reducing it by one lot or things of that nature.

[1:32:31] It's really not within the discretion that a standard preliminary

[1:32:37] plat would would have. But that's only if we reszone it. we're obligated to reszone property consistent

[1:32:44] with the comp plan. So from a statute standpoint, the R4 is

[1:32:50] the appropriate zoning. And John, just in case I I don't know if this came up when you were asking about,

[1:32:56] you know, what needs to happen to be able to zone R4, but in the comp plan,

[1:33:01] this specific area is zone low density, which is what two to three and a half

[1:33:07] lots per acre. So that's what's it also is zoned and is consistent with that in

[1:33:13] addition to the the sewer sanitary requirements. So it does it to say it's

[1:33:19] consistent with the comprehensive plan. It's also in terms of land use.

[1:33:27] Ask a question. Um in the proposal the R1 and this is just because I'm not sure about this is guided as low density

[1:33:34] residential. Do we have to reszone this in order for even one I mean what is

[1:33:41] what is the definition of low low density in that aspect the R1 is a minimum lot size of 20 20

[1:33:47] acres so any subdivision would require in this case because there's municipal

[1:33:53] utilities present you move to the R4 district to be consistent with the comp plan.

[1:34:04] All right. Any other questions from any other commissioners at this time?

[1:34:12] All right. So then with that, staff would be looking for a recommendation for this project.

[1:34:22] I move to approve project 28-2025-0000574

[1:34:29] with the added condition of signage for a contact person with the added

[1:34:37] condition language about not blocking the rightway of Ranch Road.

[1:34:42] There's one more. Two more.

[1:34:48] Storm water. Oh, and reviewing the storm water connection out of Staple View Drive

[1:34:55] and security and posting a security to identify proper drainage.

[1:35:01] Receiver received. Received. All right. Thank you. Do we have a

[1:35:07] second? We second that. All right. With that uh we will uh move

[1:35:12] to a vote. All in favor please say I. I. I. All oppose please say nay.

[1:35:19] Nay. Nay. All right. So it appears we have a tie.

[1:35:25] 33. Um so with that I believe but this is my

[1:35:31] first time seeing a tie. That means that the motion is it will still move forward to the city

[1:35:37] council. Forward with a tie. Okay. All right. Thank you. So, with that, we will be

[1:35:42] moving this forward to the city council. Um, it will be heard as part of the public hearing section of the city

[1:35:50] council meeting on August 27th, 2025 with a vote 33 from the planning

[1:35:56] commission. All right. Thank you very much for your time and thank you very much for your

[1:36:02] comments and coming out and being heard tonight. Do we have to note who voted yes or no

[1:36:08] even though it was a roll? You think the council would want to know

[1:36:16] after? Okay.

[1:36:22] All right. We are now moving on to our next item on the agenda this evening

[1:36:27] which is the Alma floor. Ada Ada

[1:36:34] Ada. Thank you very much. Um, it's an application for a new daycare and Dan,

[1:36:39] we'll have you be the staff member presenting this one. All right. Thank you, Chair. Gold Ridge

[1:36:45] Companies has submitted an application for a new daycare used to be called Alma Florida, proposed to be located west of

[1:36:51] Beenburg Drive and south of Tamarak Road. The property is zoned GW Gateway

[1:36:56] District and is guided as places to work on the land use plan. At the March 27th,

[1:37:01] 2019 meeting, city council approved the launch hammer plan unit development, which include the site and building plan

[1:37:08] approval for the existing uh dental office, which is Salutee, and the bank with the drive-thru uh Premier Bank. The

[1:37:15] PUD also established parking requirements, storm water management, pedestrian access, landscaping, wetland

[1:37:22] preservation, the extension of Stevens Way, architecture, and traffic. Traffic

[1:37:27] and land use implications were reviewed for the subject property with the Costco PUD in 2016. The PUD authorized the

[1:37:35] transfer of permitted retail square footage from a number of sites adjacent to the Tamarak interchange, including

[1:37:40] the subject property to the Costco property. The remaining sites are required to provide only places to work

[1:37:46] land uses. Daycare daycare facilities have historically been considered places to work land use and are supportive

[1:37:52] service to places to work. The adjacent Kitty Academy project was approved by city council on March 27th, 2024.

[1:38:02] The ordinance requires one stall per 200 ft of building area. The building is proposed to be 14,470

[1:38:09] ft and therefore requires 73 parking stalls to be provided. The applicant is

[1:38:14] proposing to install 67 stalls with 14 stalls shown as proof of parking to the north. A future cross parking and access

[1:38:21] agreement uh with a lot a second edition to the north shall be executed prior to

[1:38:27] the issuance of a building permit. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing private driveway to access

[1:38:34] the site. The proposed site will be served by access point B as shown in the graphic. Access point A and access point

[1:38:41] C are coming off of Steven's Way. Pedestrian connectivity to the site is provided via private trail network shown

[1:38:47] in blue on your screen. Upon ultimate development of lot a second edition to the north a sidewalk connection shown in

[1:38:55] red will be made to the east trail along Benberg drive.

[1:39:01] The zod ordinance requires commercial buildings to be constructed with 65% class one materials which includes

[1:39:06] brick, glass and stone. The launch ham PUD additionally identified that all

[1:39:12] buildings within within the PUD shall be constructed of complimentary materials and shall include one common masonry

[1:39:18] building material uh for each building. The applicant is proposing to construct the building of 66.24%

[1:39:26] class one materials. The applicant is utilizing the same brick found on Salute Dental and the black brick found on

[1:39:32] Kitty Academy. A neighborhood meeting uh did occur on

[1:39:37] July 21st with one resident uh Salute Dental representative and three PC

[1:39:42] members in attendance. Questions range from utility connections and irrigation to general questions on timing and

[1:39:48] overall use for the project. With that, uh staff recommends approval for the conditional use permit site and

[1:39:54] building plan project number 05-2025-0000583

[1:39:59] for Alma Fua subject to the conditions found within your staff report. staff and the applicant are on hand for any

[1:40:05] questions. All right. Thank you, Dan. Would the applicant like to add anything additional at this time?

[1:40:12] Sure. All right. Please state your name and address. Brad Coats, Minneapolis. Um I'm with

[1:40:20] Goldridge Companies and I'm head of project development. All right. Thank you. Yeah. Um the Flora, it actually could be

[1:40:29] Alma Flora. It could be either or. Okay. Um, this this Spanish immersion

[1:40:35] school has been operating in Woodbury since

[1:40:40] the pandemic. She opened during the pandemic and had three kids. So, um, she

[1:40:48] opened across the way over here um on in the city center area and she opened in a

[1:40:54] school that is 7,500 square ft and has 105 children in it. it. After a two

[1:41:01] years of struggling to keep the doors open through the pandemic, she did that

[1:41:07] and she's had the school full now for two years with 105 children and is

[1:41:14] looking to build close this school and

[1:41:19] move it to the new location and build a larger school which would double the

[1:41:24] size 14,400 square ft and give her instead of 105 children and a waiting

[1:41:31] list it would give her 220 kid capacity. Um a quick background

[1:41:40] is actually a professor at the San Francisco University. Um she's I believe

[1:41:46] in her 80s but you could Google her. uh she's a bilingualist and has been

[1:41:54] highly motivated and integrated into the curriculum of Spanish immersion. And

[1:42:02] over her career, she has published over more than 200 books of curriculum for Spanish

[1:42:10] immersion studies. and Lucila Deila who owns the school and is my client has had

[1:42:18] went to Alma Florida and got permission to use her brand her name and so she has

[1:42:26] done that and used all her curriculum for her kids. So she's created a

[1:42:31] curriculum of Spanish immersion for kids that are three years old to

[1:42:36] kindergarten. And I will say I did tour of the school.

[1:42:42] I've been in daycare. I've done daycarees for 30ome years plus other

[1:42:47] things. But uh I think I've done about 18 national daycarees. And of all the

[1:42:53] daycarees I've ever done, this is the only school I've ever went to where three-year-olds were sitting around a

[1:43:00] table and reading books and studying and speaking Spanish. I just usually

[1:43:06] three-year-olds are moving blocks around and putting round pegs and round holes

[1:43:12] and these kids were actually reading and studying curriculum. So I I think her

[1:43:18] brand and we we believe in her brand. We believe in her school and that's why we would like to propose doing this project

[1:43:25] with uh Woodbury. All right. Thank you very much for that addition and thank you for adding that

[1:43:31] beautiful story before you got up here. I also googled it. So, okay, I spot checked what you said. It all

[1:43:38] lines up. She She's 87 years old. 87. Yes. So, so yes. So, thank you so much

[1:43:44] for sharing that. All right. Have there been any yellow sheets received or any comments on

[1:43:50] teams? Not at this time, chair. All right. With that, we'll open it back up to members of the commission.

[1:43:56] Commissioner Column, I'm going to spare you and start with Commissioner Harrington this time. Look at that.

[1:44:03] Um, thank you. You're welcome. Hot seat. Now I have to be ready, don't I?

[1:44:09] Um, I really only had one one question. Um, a little bit of a concern. Um, Dan,

[1:44:16] do you have access to plan sheets C42 and 403 in your stash

[1:44:25] on the on the screen on the screen? or we could maybe I'll turn to that. Uh not on the screen, but I can pull up

[1:44:32] the parking exhibit, which is maybe the closest. Okay. Well, um the the two sheets that I

[1:44:37] reference are called stacking and site access uh exhibits, and it shows um it shows

[1:44:47] turnaround. We've got two deadend lots. So, north is up. West side there's a

[1:44:52] dead-end lot. East side there's a dead end lot. And looks like that's where the um the trash enclosure is on the east

[1:44:59] side there. And so the questions really gets to the cars being able to move

[1:45:04] around in the parking lot. Um and then there'll be a question I guess to the applicant about how many cars uh do we

[1:45:12] think are really going to be in the lot most of the time. So, if you look at on the stacking exhibit, the westerly lot,

[1:45:19] it's there's a turning movement diagram that shows how a person when they come down there, they'd have to back into a

[1:45:26] what we hope would be an empty spot to be able to turn around and come out of that lot easily. Otherwise, you just

[1:45:32] back all the way out, right? And we've we've all had to encounter that in parking lots uh maybe most every day.

[1:45:39] Um, the second sheet C43 shows a looks like a a a trash hauling

[1:45:47] truck and some sort of a rescue custom vehicle that also has to make

[1:45:54] a couple of maneuvers to get turned around after they pick up trash, after they make their way down to the end

[1:46:01] here. So the question would be the statement would be these only work if

[1:46:07] the spaces are free otherwise you're backing out and I don't think especially in facilities like this not sure how

[1:46:14] often kids are going to be out on sidewalks but there's the concern of conflict there. Um so the question would

[1:46:21] be um is there a requirement to put no parking signs in these spaces for this

[1:46:28] maneuver to actually happen? And then the second question might be to the applicant um what uh I know that there's

[1:46:37] less than the required parking and it has the proof of parking but um what are

[1:46:42] the chances that these lots will be completely full such that these maneuvers will be challenging? So

[1:46:49] yeah, I can speak to the trash pickup. Generally with these daycare uses, it's it's done during off hours, so it should

[1:46:56] not be an issue with trash collection. Um I'd maybe let Brad speak to um the

[1:47:03] other component of your question. Okay. Um you want me to ask it?

[1:47:08] Uh no, Commissioner Harrington, you I think had asked the question about the cars that were in front of the school.

[1:47:15] Is that correct? Uh no. Uh that that'd be the stacking. I was really asking about a car going down

[1:47:22] to a dead-end parking lot and having the ability to actually maneuver into an

[1:47:28] empty space to get back out of that dead-end lot. Okay. Um what I can say about daycarees,

[1:47:35] uh the majority of the daycarees I've done over the past 30 years have all been schools that were around 12,000

[1:47:42] square feet and held 200 kids or close to it. Um, I've never had a daycare with

[1:47:47] more than 50 parking spaces. Um, the I I don't know if it's this area or it's the

[1:47:56] whole city of Woodbury, but there is a really large requirement for parking and

[1:48:02] there's not that there's not that many staff to take all those parking spaces.

[1:48:08] So there were there's going to be a lot of open spaces and the director of the school can also require staff to not

[1:48:17] park on those end spaces where they need to do that pull in pull out this with

[1:48:24] the car or with that emergency vehicle which is the design of a firet truck.

[1:48:29] So, and I and and I just made I might add um on

[1:48:34] that stacking component, this is not typical of a daycare. Um

[1:48:40] this is how this daycare likes to take and have the kids brought into the

[1:48:46] school and how they want the kids to leave the school. They actually have a whole system where they have a kid and

[1:48:51] they're checking them. the teacher takes the kid outside to this to the car and

[1:48:56] so it's a way of greeting the parent and making sure the kid is in the car and

[1:49:03] then takes off safely. But instead of having there's 14 cars on

[1:49:09] that stack, instead of having 14 cars park, the parent get out of the car, walk into the

[1:49:15] school, get the kid, walk back to the car, encounter traffic of cars going back and forth. They have an area where

[1:49:23] they stack them. So, you pick the kit up and you can take off. Thank you. I thank you for addressing

[1:49:30] that because I I would imagine one other commissioner will ask a question about stacking because we've had we've had

[1:49:36] this before. We've seen this on a number of proposals. So, I'll just ask a

[1:49:43] question about that. Is there a chance that more than 14 cars will be sitting there such that they start to snake out

[1:49:50] of the parking lot and down one of the other roads and cause some type of congestion?

[1:49:55] That's slim to none. It I don't I it would be so rare for

[1:50:02] that to happen uh where you're going to have more than 14 parents showing up at

[1:50:08] the exact same time. And if they did, they're going to be stacking on Steven's way.

[1:50:15] So the so is the operation of this so I think about a school bell rings kids are

[1:50:20] outside and everybody's trying to get home at the same time. So is this more

[1:50:25] about uh the queuing inside to where the teachers will only let certain number of

[1:50:33] No, it's more the parents and when they arrive when they arrive. Yeah. and and the school kind of picks that up as they

[1:50:40] go whe when um when the mom or or dad is going to be dropping them off or when the parents

[1:50:47] going to be picking them up. They they have a pretty good sense of that. Uh and

[1:50:53] I've watched this multiple times because civil is a big thing for me and I want

[1:50:59] to do it right and I own this building and I'm going to own it for a long time. So I want it to work for a long time.

[1:51:06] I've driven over to Alma, Florida and sat and watched the kids being picked up

[1:51:12] or dropped off and uh I've done it at least four or five times. So, every time

[1:51:18] I've done it, it it looks like it works well. And I it's happy faces, mom and

[1:51:24] dad happy. Here comes the kid, that kid's happy. It's um that works and it

[1:51:29] flows. I have not seen any congestion problems. In fact, I was watching it the

[1:51:35] other day. I got there early and there was a couple parents dropping some children off and they also had a school

[1:51:42] bus there loading up about 40 kids for a field trip. So, and that all worked on the same

[1:51:49] drive aisle which was is actually narrower and not as long as this drive aisle.

[1:51:56] Thank you for that. Yep. Appreciate it. That's all I have. All right. Thank you very much,

[1:52:02] Commissioner Jarrett. Thank you, Chair. Um, I don't have a lot

[1:52:07] of uh I don't need a lot of clarification. I just I love the stacking idea for a daycare. I've picked

[1:52:14] up my granddaughters at a daycare and it's always just nerve-wracking making

[1:52:20] sure that I'm looking and looking and being careful to back up. and you have

[1:52:26] kids that are, you know, even though it's it's a controlled environment with

[1:52:32] a parent and the children, sometimes there's more than one child with one parent and it's just difficult. So, I

[1:52:38] like this controlled uh st I don't I'm not a huge fan of stacking all the time, but in this case

[1:52:44] with this daycare, I think this is brilliant. I really like it a lot. Um, I

[1:52:50] think that, uh, I even like the trash enclosure location on this project. Uh,

[1:52:56] and I do think that that dead end on the right hand side of the, uh, uh, building

[1:53:02] works well for kind of a turnaround or at least it makes it a little easier to turn around in that area. The one on the

[1:53:10] left hand side, I think, could be a lot more challenging. And I guess I would have or maybe recommend one or even the

[1:53:19] last two parking spots be uh white striped as no parking so that there is a

[1:53:25] spot that they can pull into to back up and and turn around in that location. Um

[1:53:32] but otherwise I I like the connectivity of this. I like the sidewalk at the end

[1:53:39] uh at the kind of cutting through and I think if they do have a second building

[1:53:44] built it kind of flows together very well. Um the architecture is great. I

[1:53:50] think the architecture fits with the other structures in the area and um I

[1:53:56] even like the little garbage truck graphic. So, I I I really don't have a

[1:54:02] lot of negative things on this other than maybe white stripe um that dead end

[1:54:08] so that it is a little easier to turn around in there. That's all I have.

[1:54:13] Chair. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Swanson. Thank you, Chair. I first want to

[1:54:20] comment on color. I have been talking about color at these meetings for months

[1:54:26] and I was so happy to see color in this building. So, thank you.

[1:54:32] Uh, I did have a question about the what were they called?

[1:54:39] [Music] Colorful fiber cement panels are to be

[1:54:44] considered signage. Are they going to have words on them or are they just going to be the color? They are just the

[1:54:51] color. And can I have you step up to the microphone, please? Sorry. Thank you.

[1:54:57] Those panels are not for signage. Um they are really just

[1:55:03] for color. Uh there is a there is an intended use for the color and that is

[1:55:08] that um you you'll have one window and

[1:55:15] then you'll have blue and then you have another window which is another classroom and then you'll have yellow.

[1:55:21] And on the corridor on the inside that accesses all the classrooms, they have

[1:55:26] the same color on the classroom door or next to the door. So, where there is a

[1:55:33] yellow on the outside of the building, that same yellow is on the doorway going into the class. And that's just so the

[1:55:40] kids know, oh, I've got the yellow classroom or they can tell their parents that, but that's it. It that and it adds

[1:55:48] color to the building. We um Lucila Deila likes color and there would be

[1:55:54] more color on here if we got to take away that filter. There'd be a lot more

[1:56:00] color. So with the the mural, is that going to be

[1:56:05] printed ahead of time? Is are the students going to be involved in that? No, the mural is um Lucila Deila hired a

[1:56:13] branding company that created this mural and the mural um that is on the area of

[1:56:21] the building that you're looking at with the fence. Okay, that mural also matches

[1:56:26] one that will be in the front when you pull up that has another kind of a

[1:56:31] twotory open area. So, it'll be the same type of mural right there, too. And it's

[1:56:37] uh that's the colors that will be produced on the mural and a graphic

[1:56:42] company will produce it and they'll apply it to the wall we build for it. Well, I appreciate the use of color,

[1:56:49] especially with a daycare. It makes so much sense. So, thank you for doing it. No more black, gray, glass, just color.

[1:56:59] There you go. Did have questions about parking. So, here we have we're talking about 67

[1:57:04] stalls being proposed, 14 stalls as proof of parking. So, that adds up to

[1:57:10] 81, which is more than 73. So, could we just talk through these numbers a bit?

[1:57:17] And also on page C400, it does say 61 spaces.

[1:57:23] So, where does 81 come from and where does the 14 spaces for proof of parking

[1:57:31] come from? Is there some kind of uh a requirement or a maximum for what

[1:57:39] can be proof of parking versus what can be striped.

[1:57:45] I'm just overall curious about these numbers.

[1:57:54] I'm not sure about the 80. Uh, but I have on their on our parking

[1:58:01] summary on C400, we show that the required stalls were with the

[1:58:06] calculations Woodbury has is 73 stalls and we've built and proposed 61 in here.

[1:58:15] And then on top of the 61, we also

[1:58:21] added uh Dan, was it 14 spaces of proof of

[1:58:26] parking? That's correct. Uh I can speak to the parking. Uh so there's 61 stalls

[1:58:32] on site. Uh we reviewed the stacking up to the entrance as additional parking.

[1:58:38] So there's six stalls where my cursor are right here. Right here. Um and then

[1:58:44] the 14 uh was just it was a number that was added in by the uh consultant. Um

[1:58:52] the overall parking will be reviewed as part of the um

[1:58:57] easement agreement between this property and the north property. Um and so the

[1:59:04] the actual number of parking will not be as important because

[1:59:10] there'll be that cross parking agreement. But the number shown on the screen was was a number that was added in by the

[1:59:16] consultant, the 14 pro parking. So it's 61 striped spaces. The drop off

[1:59:21] aisle, six spaces right here. Yep. So it sounds like we might be overparked

[1:59:29] even with 14 spaces taken out as this proof of parking. Is there a threshold

[1:59:35] for can we do more proof of parking to get rid of some of these spaces like Commissioner Jarrett was talking about?

[1:59:44] Yeah, I think that is what staff will ultimately look at and work with the applicant on is to really evaluate some

[1:59:51] of the parking areas uh on the southwest side to see if there

[1:59:56] is you know striping different those just for ease of individuals accessing

[2:00:02] the site and having to turn around there. I think there is at the end of the day and this is not uh different on

[2:00:08] this application or others when you're talking about one or two parking spaces it's better to have high quality flow

[2:00:14] through a parking area then hit a parking number. So I think at minimum we would recommend doing those two two

[2:00:20] parking spaces as proof of parking and just not installing them. Um based on the feedback that Mr. Coats has

[2:00:28] identified that he's comfortable from a user standpoint that's usually how we would address that. Would we need to

[2:00:34] propose a condition or is that just something that you guys do as part of your standard plan check process?

[2:00:44] I would recommend we add a condition that staff

[2:00:49] would review the final proof of parking. Okay. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit

[2:00:58] would be my recommendation.

[2:01:10] Just for the record, prior to the land issuance of a land disturbance permit, the final parking plan shall be reviewed and approved by staff, including review

[2:01:16] of the parking adjacent to the turnaround in the southwest corner. Okay. And then since there is another

[2:01:24] daycare nearby, I understand that there was traffic

[2:01:30] analysis during earlier stages. Was there any kind of analysis about two

[2:01:35] such similar uses and similar pickup and drop off times and that kind of impact?

[2:01:44] Yeah, we did uh update our traffic review as part of the application review. Um, daycarees have changed

[2:01:52] significantly from 15 years ago when there was much more strict adherence to

[2:01:57] start times for employment. We see it at all of the daycarees within the community. The drop off period and the

[2:02:04] pickup period is much less peak peaky and is much more elongated in how long

[2:02:10] that happens. So, um, we did evaluate that from a overall, um, trip generation

[2:02:16] standpoint as part of the original traffic analysis that was done when Stevens Way was constructed.

[2:02:24] I have no further questions. Thank you. All right, Commissioner Kennedy.

[2:02:29] Thank you, Chair. Um, just a couple of of quick questions and but first, I I

[2:02:35] love this whole idea of Spanish immersion for a daycare. It's just

[2:02:41] terrific. It's um progressive and I think it serves the the greater

[2:02:47] community much more than just a regular daycare. I just think it's terrific. Um and I love the backstory and I and I

[2:02:55] love the fact that it's somewhat proven. Uh in fact, more than somewhat proven. Um and this is a great um area. Um a

[2:03:05] quick question about Steven's Way and some of the traffic you're going to be building. You're building a private

[2:03:10] drive into the Isn't that what that's stated in the in the proposal is that it

[2:03:17] the drive is is well at least somewhat private because the Kitty Academy is right there and so it will be dedicated

[2:03:23] is maybe a better excuse me way to say that. Um uh is there going to be backup

[2:03:29] on Stevens Way? That's my whole question. Um to me it didn't feel like that. But

[2:03:36] I've driven through there a number of times and the one entrance on Steven's Way is not the only way to get in and

[2:03:44] out of the project. There's another road also that's off Steven's Way. So there's

[2:03:49] two drives. Yeah. One on either side in and out of Steven's Way. And it

[2:03:55] probably is going to be if you're going to the dental or the bank, you might use one drive. If you're going to the

[2:04:00] daycare, you might use the other one because the daycarees are closer to that. I know if I'm exiting, I'm going

[2:04:06] to use the driveway that gets me the the area that gets me to Steven's Way the quickest,

[2:04:12] and that's the one that Kitty Academy would also use. Adding on to that, too, it looks like uh

[2:04:17] Kitty Academy will be mostly accessed off of access C as you see on your screen. Um the AMA Florida project will

[2:04:25] be access A. So, they'll be using different access points. Okay, that's what I that that was really my only

[2:04:31] concern because people are using Stevens way as a cutthrough to avoid the the the the light at Belenburgg and Tamarak. So

[2:04:38] I was in fact we were we were sitting there the other day and looking and it was like it was busy behind us them

[2:04:45] cutting through but just wonder that's that's really the only question I have. Chair,

[2:04:51] thank you very much Commissioner Colum. Uh thank you chair. Um, some great

[2:04:58] questions so far. Uh, just a couple of questions to add. Um,

[2:05:03] wanted to talk about the landscaping plan a little bit if we can look at the I think you have a build. Yeah, thank

[2:05:09] you. So,

[2:05:15] I went back and looked at the Kitty Academy um project because most of us were a part of that last year. And I

[2:05:23] just noticed a couple things here as I look at this project, the Alma project.

[2:05:28] The building is bigger than Kitty Academy. And the play area is slightly bigger. I think it's about 6 or 7%

[2:05:35] bigger. Yet the landscaping, at least what is proposed today versus what was

[2:05:41] proposed in that project is less than is less than Kitty Academy. 41 trees versus

[2:05:47] 32 on this project. 60 shrubs versus 110 shrubs. And I think particularly as I look at

[2:05:54] the play area, and this came up, I think uh Commissioner Harrington brought this up on one of our other daycare projects

[2:06:01] earlier this year. Um is thinking about shading of that play area. Um there's

[2:06:09] looks like there's landscaping um right along the fence line uh to the

[2:06:15] south, but there doesn't seem to be, at least as I can tell in the drawings and

[2:06:20] in the renderings, what kind of shading there might be for the play area itself, whether the

[2:06:27] landscaping is intended to do that or whether there's some other intention to do that. So, can you talk a little bit about the landscaping plan and

[2:06:34] particularly as it relates to the play area and shading of the play area?

[2:06:40] Yeah, I'd love to. Um, in my years of doing dayc carees, we've

[2:06:47] tried to keep trees and landscape away from the playground areas because of

[2:06:54] what things might drop from the tree that a kid might pick up and put in his mouth. So, that's just what we've always

[2:07:01] done. Uh, uh, the there is we are

[2:07:07] working on the playground plan. Uh, we've got a couple vendors that we're

[2:07:12] reviewing, but with the playgrounds, there is actually a state code that says

[2:07:19] how many square feet of shade you need for your playground areas. And so we

[2:07:24] will be doing the professional shade installations where some of the

[2:07:30] play structures will be shaded and then we'll have can other canopies in areas where the kids could get under it and

[2:07:38] have shade as well as we also have outdoor drinking fountains for the kids too. I think there's one at each end of

[2:07:44] the school on the back side of it. Thank you. I guess for staff, I know I think

[2:07:50] we talked about this during the Kitty Academy project, but really trying to create a a blending of this entire

[2:07:55] corner um in terms of thinking about the types of trees and the types of shrubs and

[2:08:02] vegetation that we're planning so that there's a continuity between the different projects.

[2:08:07] Is that is that reflected in the current landscaping plan or is that something that needs to be re reviewed further

[2:08:13] before we would issue a final permit?

[2:08:21] Uh, regarding the landscaping plan, condition number three states that prior to the issuance of land disturbance permit, final landscaping plan shall be

[2:08:27] reviewed and approved by staff. Uh, we did recommend additional plans be reviewed and approved to the east of the

[2:08:32] retaining wall uh, located in this location where there is none to increase canopy coverage on the site.

[2:08:39] As it relates to your question on the same types of species, we did look at that initially as part of the

[2:08:45] application. We'll do a final check on that to make sure that there there is continuity between the species but also

[2:08:51] the appropriate amount of different species. So um diversification plantings and things of that nature. Um I would

[2:08:58] point to page L101 one on the south side as it looks the

[2:09:04] number of trees that are provided. There is the landscaping that was provided as part of the construction of within

[2:09:10] outlaw D on the to the north of the stormwater pond that's kind of lightly shaded there. Mhm. So there is a presence of of landscaping

[2:09:18] there that they're designing in concert with and that impacted some of the design decisions

[2:09:25] and that might be why the numbers are slightly smaller than the other project that I was talking about. Correct. That makes sense.

[2:09:31] Thank you for that. Um um I wanted to talk a couple just a

[2:09:37] couple questions about uh safety in the building design. Um, I was looking at looking at the rendering I think on

[2:09:43] slide five. I have a question about it's tied to parking in that southwest

[2:09:49] corner, but um, it's actually relates to the this the lower right picture here

[2:09:57] how in the design right now we have nose in parking spots that are

[2:10:05] facing into the play area. Maybe I'm sensitive. I just had a store two weeks ago that a customer drove right through

[2:10:12] the front window into the store because someone confused the gas and the brake.

[2:10:17] It happens um it happens usually, you know, every couple years in one of my

[2:10:23] buildings. So, um as we're thinking about

[2:10:29] xing out some spaces uh for turnaround and we're also just I'm also just

[2:10:34] thinking about safety. You know, I don't see any any bollocks on the design here.

[2:10:40] I think the sidewalk is um six feet wide here if I remember

[2:10:46] right from the plans. Correct. Um but any sort of bollocks or safety barriers that would stop or slow down a

[2:10:54] vehicle that was pulling into those nose in spots adjacent to the play area. Is

[2:10:59] that something that has been or can be considered in the design for this building?

[2:11:06] Absolutely. I mean, I think that's a good idea um to take

[2:11:12] Can I have you step up to the microphone again? Thank you. Thanks.

[2:11:17] Your chairs are comfortable. No, I think that's a good idea. Um

[2:11:23] where So, we're looking here at at this um the side where the fence is and the

[2:11:29] playground. So, and the rendering doesn't show that, but there is a standard curb.

[2:11:36] But then that standard curb, a a car could hop that and and I'm not opposed

[2:11:41] to putting ballards in there to protect the children along there. I have no problem with that.

[2:11:47] Um, and I could do that maybe a distance of when I've done it before at daycarees, I've uh I think I went about

[2:11:54] four feet on center on the ballards. So, if the city wants me to do it, I'm

[2:12:00] good. We have a design standard for that. Um, question for staff. Do we have a design standard for that?

[2:12:06] I have a design standard for the ballards um that we've used at Gddard schools.

[2:12:12] They're really particular and the ballards that they require would take and stop a car that is that averagesized

[2:12:21] car moving at five miles an hour, it would stop it dead in its tracks. Um it

[2:12:28] it's got a pretty beefy footing. It's got rerod built into the ballard. Um so

[2:12:34] a lot of concrete, lot of steel and they work.

[2:12:39] There are situations where ballards are required through the building codes. So we do have some specifications that we

[2:12:46] could also utilize. This wouldn't be required from a building code standpoint, but it it's a good frame of

[2:12:52] reference to use. staff would recommend that the commission uh contemplate as

[2:12:58] part of their discussion adding prior to the issues of a building permit crash ballards shall be added adjacent to the

[2:13:05] playdrawn spaces. I would support that. Um, and then just

[2:13:10] while we're on this slide too, I just wanted to clarify on the fence in the rendering. Is that this in the finding

[2:13:17] effect, um, there's a note that just says the fence is decorative and vinylcoated ornamental fencing. So, is

[2:13:24] that the final design of the fencing that's in the rendering or will it look different than that?

[2:13:30] No, no, that would be the final design. It's an American I think it's called American Fence Company. It's a uh a

[2:13:38] black metal fence with black powder coat painting. I think the posts are like a

[2:13:44] 3x3 and then the uh the spindles are 6 foot between the fence post and the post

[2:13:51] are all put in with concrete. So no, it's a attractive ornamental

[2:13:57] fence. It is not chain link or vinyl coated. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Um and then just

[2:14:04] two other questions for staff. Um Dan, you talked about the um the cross

[2:14:11] easement with the the adjacent lot to the north and then you're showing Yeah, I'm sorry. The slide four there. Yeah,

[2:14:19] that's to be developed. There's no current development plan for that lot in

[2:14:24] motion or is that I guess that's a question, not a statement. Is there a current development plan for that outlot? the owners are having

[2:14:30] conversation with conversations with potential applicants, but we have not received an application for that

[2:14:36] property. And then I think during the Kitty Academy conversation, I think this came

[2:14:41] up at the council as well talking about sidewalk access from Beenburg into the

[2:14:47] project. Overall, it looks like in the notes the plan right now would be to wait until that last outlot is

[2:14:53] developed. Can you just talk about why we would wait for that rather than trying to fit it in now along the north

[2:15:02] side of the Alma Flora project?

[2:15:10] Yeah, as we looked at the long-term location, as you can see on the

[2:15:16] C41, you can see where the retaining wall ultimately ends as you get to that

[2:15:22] north corner. really trying to identify where the grades are most acceptable to

[2:15:28] get a trail connection to uh Beenburgg Drive and that's the area identified in

[2:15:35] red and then you build a sidewalk network that basically connects to that point to be able to navigate internally

[2:15:41] to the site to ultimately be able to access the the trail along Beenberg.

[2:15:49] And then just last question for staff on the previous project here, the Kitty Academy, there was a there was a

[2:15:55] conditional requirement around street lights and there's not one on this one. And I

[2:16:01] don't recall why there was on that one. And um just wanted to make sure there's not something we should be considering

[2:16:07] from a street lighting perspective for this one or what the differences between the two might be. They were constructing

[2:16:12] access points onto the public street and so that would require the

[2:16:18] street light onto the public intersection and that's already in place. That's right. Okay, great. That's all my questions,

[2:16:24] chair. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Um, glad to see this parcel being

[2:16:31] developed. It's 2019. Feels like we just did this

[2:16:36] um, six years ago. Um I have a question kind of going back to the stacking and

[2:16:42] the parking. Um first question um is the

[2:16:49] parking space per 200 square feet is that the same as like for an elementary school

[2:16:55] that is the same for office uses. What would an elementary school just out of curiosity be

[2:17:01] based on the number of classroom and students? There's it's a hybrid calculation. So, if we were to compare

[2:17:08] this, would it be significantly less parking requirement to an elementary school versus office?

[2:17:17] Look at you go to work. I don't think it would be significantly less.

[2:17:24] No, I don't believe it would be significantly less. Um I think just for the same reasons is

[2:17:29] why we're looking at proof of parking. Just if you know if this for office reasons

[2:17:35] makes it overparked not only for the fact of um for safety and parking but I love to reduce impervious surfaces for

[2:17:43] all the reasons of storm water and and runoff. So I'll just reiterate I think

[2:17:48] we're adding that point on revisiting. But if if there's a comparison we can do to elementary schools to also help justify, um I think that would be

[2:17:56] another good one to compare to. Um my other question,

[2:18:02] um well, I guess I think this was addressed in here. There'll be like a cross

[2:18:09] easement for parking with all of these facilities that are on site or is there

[2:18:14] going to be no kind of cross parking agreements? There is an existing cross easement

[2:18:20] parking for lot one and lot two. Okay. And then there will be a cross easement

[2:18:25] parking for outlot A and the subject property in front. Okay.

[2:18:30] Of this evening. Um if we I'm going to jump around a little

[2:18:36] bit. If we were to keep parking as is, um I would recommend not going to

[2:18:42] recommend this as an additional thing, but but for um the applicant to possibly

[2:18:49] even post a sign of no parking between certain times when you're expecting your trash to come,

[2:18:54] that's kind of where I was asking about that cross easement, too, even if it's not staff from here, but you know,

[2:19:00] someone parking and and walking to the bus stop or something like that. Um, I'm not sure how far we are from the nearest

[2:19:07] stop on the gold line, but this would that parking side be the closest if

[2:19:12] someone wanted to park and ride and steal those spots?

[2:19:20] I there is not generally a station in close proximity to this. I don't think

[2:19:26] that there is a significant risk of having individuals park here to access the gold line. Thank you. I wasn't sure how close those

[2:19:32] were. So, thank you for putting my mind at ease. Um, so now on to the stacking.

[2:19:39] Um, couple of things. Not that, you know, I'm all for the minimal parking. Um, if we were to count those stacking

[2:19:45] spots as six, just from a perspective that five of the four out of the six

[2:19:50] wouldn't be able to actually move. Um, not sure we can deem them parking if

[2:19:56] needed. Um, but again, just making that for a statement is I I like minimal

[2:20:01] parking. And secondly, one thing that I can kind of find both advantages and

[2:20:07] disadvantages on with the stacking is having that single lane so that no one no one can pass from a safety

[2:20:13] perspective. I love that. Um, I don't know how fast that stacking moves. Um,

[2:20:19] but if there ever were an ability to kind of have a multi-lane, one for stacking and and one for passing, again,

[2:20:25] you can get into the safety and the whole site layout. Uh, so I'm not sure if if that was also considered, which

[2:20:32] then I'll just make one more statement if if anyone wants to address it if there were a bus. I don't know if there

[2:20:38] would be a plan to do buses. Um, especially there if if the bus pulls through and is blocked. um how cars that

[2:20:45] would be stacking would be would be then waiting for the entire 40 kids to be loading. So that's that those are just

[2:20:52] kind of my thoughts around stacking if you have any comments. We did spend a fair amount of time

[2:20:58] looking at the possibility of a bypass lane. And when you added in the bypass

[2:21:05] lane, the concern was but you'd have the parking should be on the inside lane and

[2:21:10] so it would be the inside lane closest to the door. You would have then um the possibility

[2:21:18] that students could be opening their door into that bypass lane.

[2:21:23] And that was one of the main reasons why we passed on continuing to pursue that

[2:21:30] bypass lane. The second area is then it's a longer distance to cross for those and I and we think there will be a

[2:21:36] fair number of individuals who will not navigate the drop off area. Instead, they will park on the area to the north

[2:21:42] and just walk in. Mhm. And that will work well that there's multiple ways in and out.

[2:21:47] That's true. Yep. And then with the bus question, could there be a a time where there's buses kind of blocking that

[2:21:53] stacking lane or I don't know, maybe it could be a recommendation for the bus to be on the

[2:21:59] front so no one can enter in behind them. I think that's probably the operational approach that we would work with the

[2:22:06] owner on that any bus pickup would happen in that area to the north versus

[2:22:12] within that drop off area. I'm assuming that's a normal kind of cut curb, not

[2:22:17] not drivable. Correct. Good stuff. All right. Um,

[2:22:23] are there I guess one more question regarding the parking. Is there any intention and this is likely for the

[2:22:30] applicant to have any special events where there would be frequent needs to have all your parking spaces where

[2:22:37] you're having shows, concerts, conferences where you're anticipating that lot to be filled up.

[2:22:48] My experience with daycarees and not just this one is they they do have

[2:22:55] special occasions for parents and the ones that I have seen are they have

[2:23:01] special occasions for like um the child graduation. I've seen those happen. I've

[2:23:08] seen a um Easter event and a Christmas event. So, I've seen some things like

[2:23:14] that. But, um I um in a special occasion

[2:23:19] like that, you could take and you could park on the very north side in the proof

[2:23:24] of parking area, too. Okay, that was all I had for just some

[2:23:31] general thoughts and questions. Um, have there been any other Oh,

[2:23:37] Commissioner Cho, who is gonna bug me and

[2:23:43] I'm sorry. That's what I get for going backwards down my my lineup. Commissioner Chad,

[2:23:49] all my concerns and questions were already answered already, but yeah, but I like to point out Yeah, I

[2:23:55] like to point out that metal canopy out on the front. I think like that's a great idea for students to be outside with if it's raining students how won't

[2:24:02] have to be wet or carrying an umbrella. So I think the stacking situation might be go a lot more smoother since the kids

[2:24:08] can see if the parents are there or not. So I think that's a really great Thank you.

[2:24:14] Thank you. Thank you. All right. Have there been any other uh yellow sheets or questions submitted via teams?

[2:24:20] Not at this time. Sure. All right. With that I guess I open it up to the commissioners. Any other

[2:24:25] questions? I I had one more. We talked a bit about the play area and shade and trees and

[2:24:32] the applicant described some things that I don't see in the plans and it would

[2:24:37] would be of course play equipment and some sort of shade structures. And so since we don't see that in our plans,

[2:24:45] nor can we weigh in on color, shape, size, and and we can see everything

[2:24:50] else. Is that something that staff uh will be looking at to determine

[2:24:56] size, color, appear, general appearance as a part of the overall application?

[2:25:02] Yeah, we will review that as part of the building permit process. We'll look at for things such as corporate identity

[2:25:07] and other things that might become a challenge. Um, we don't go as far as

[2:25:13] what the licensing at the state as it relates to amount of shade per square foot. that's covered under the state

[2:25:19] licensing process, but we will uh do a review as part of the building permit process. Right.

[2:25:25] Just hoping that for Commissioner Swanson, whatever is out there is very colorful.

[2:25:30] No. Seconded. Thank you. But Eric, can you remind me because I

[2:25:37] felt like it was with the Goddard one. It is it what is there? There is something about like you said brand

[2:25:43] corporate identity aspects to make sure that they're not tying the playground space into other corporate

[2:25:48] identifications within the building elevations. So we do encourage actually more colors

[2:25:54] within the play equipment area because that moves you away from that corporate identity aspect. It has been a non-issue

[2:26:00] on any of our other daycarees. I I think we had that a few years back on that uh daycare over by the diamond black

[2:26:07] diamond or the one that council member Santini's referencing. Yeah,

[2:26:12] some of your guys' memories really impress me.

[2:26:18] All right. Um unless there's any additional questioners from the commissioners, uh we'd be looking for

[2:26:23] recommendation for the project. I just did have one quick question. We were talking a little bit about buses.

[2:26:29] Are they there frequently enough that we should be considering oversized parking

[2:26:34] spaces for a bus? No. No. Uh buses. Buses. Um it's an

[2:26:42] unusual event to see a big big bus. It happens maybe occasionally in the summer. They can't do a lot of them

[2:26:49] because you have to have special staff and you have to have parents that chaperon with the kids to go to anything

[2:26:55] they do, which might be a a park or a nature preserve or something like that.

[2:27:02] But no, they daycarees typically don't have lots of big bus activity. They'll

[2:27:08] have smaller step buses that they'll use which fit in a standard parking space.

[2:27:14] And you'll see those at almost every daycare. one, two, three of those little step buses and those are the ones that

[2:27:22] are used to pick up kids after they're done with uh first grade to bring them

[2:27:27] in to be picked up later with their parents. Thanks.

[2:27:33] I'm ready to make a motion. All right. Thank you. We'll be looking for a recommendation. I move to approve

[2:27:38] project number 05-2025-0000583

[2:27:44] with the added condition that staff review proof of parking calculations prior to issuance of a land disturbance

[2:27:49] permit to determine the appropriate number of striped spaces and an additional condition to include biards

[2:27:56] at adjacent to the playground and western facing classrooms. Second.

[2:28:02] All right. Thank you. Um we'll now go to a vote. All in favor of this motion,

[2:28:07] please say I. I. All oppose, please say nay.

[2:28:14] All right, with that, um, the planning commission does recommend approval of the project for Elma Flora.

[2:28:21] And, um, congratulations to the applicant. This will also be a part of the public hearing portion of the city

[2:28:28] council meeting on August 27th, 2025. So, good luck. Welcome maybe to

[2:28:34] Woodbury. Crossing the next step to come to Woodbury and good luck with the project. Thank you. Appreciate it.

[2:28:43] All right. Next, we have council member Santini with our council report. I'll be

[2:28:48] very brief. Uh just two upcoming things I think of our interest on August 26 is

[2:28:55] the um ribbon cutting for the county central service and licensing center at 8:30. Um, so I think that will be really

[2:29:02] fun to see that building um, finally. And then the big one, so I know everybody's really excited to start

[2:29:08] reading it is um, our budget workshop will be on September 10th um, at the public safety building. So you'll be

[2:29:15] seeing that pretty much posted sometime soon here. We're hoping so we can start to dig into it. So

[2:29:22] that's it. So we put you through that and you gave us about a minute back. Thank you. Um, thank you very much,

[2:29:28] Council Member Santini. And next on the agenda, we have approval of the minutes from the June 30th, 2025 meeting. Do any

[2:29:38] commissioners have any comments or edits to the minutes at this time? I have one edit.

[2:29:43] All right. Um, page marked here. Page six.

[2:29:56] Sorry. Um, the portion where I was uh questioning the applicant, it says that

[2:30:02] the applicant answered 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. I'm pretty sure he said 12:00 a.m. on the pickle ball hours. 6:00 a.m.

[2:30:09] to 12:00 a.m. So, I would move that we correct that in the minutes.

[2:30:19] Correct.

[2:30:27] Everybody finding it? So 6 6:00 a.m. to Sorry, just to

[2:30:35] confirm, it was 6:00 a.m. to 12 a.m. So it's only closed 12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. Correct. Okay.

[2:30:40] Yeah. So 6:00 a.m. to midnight. Y that's where we had the discussion about

[2:30:46] the security lighting and all of that. Yeah, makes sense. Thank you. All right. Any other comments or

[2:30:52] revisions? All right, with that then we will be looking for a motion to approve the

[2:30:58] minutes with the revision. I move to approve the June 30th, 2025 minutes with

[2:31:03] the revision on page six. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second.

[2:31:08] All right. Thank you. All u all in favor of approving the minutes with the edit

[2:31:14] to make it 12 a.m., please say I. I. I. All oppose, please say nay.

[2:31:20] And with that these meetings are approved as discussed. And with that the meeting will be adjourned.