Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the June 28th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. If all commissioners would please mute your microphone until it is your turn to speak, that would be appreciated. Members of the public may join using a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device. Members of the public can access the meeting online at the city's website. The public can ask questions and provide comments online during the meeting by using the link to the virtual meeting to join and then submitting questions via the question and answer feature within the meeting. Please include your name and address when submitting a question or comment. Questions regarding this meeting can also be asked during regular business hours at City Hall. If you are a member of the public and wish to speak on a topic in person, please fill out one of the yellow forms at the back of the room and provide that sheet to staff. All questions both online and in person will be called on after the project in reference is presented. With that, we will call the meeting to order. Staff, will you start the roll call, please?

Thank you, Chair. Jim Gentile. Jake Guzik. Here. Marsha Kennedy.

Here.

John Colum. Stephanie Swanson. Here. Soren Shaw.

Here.

Shay Seabrooks. Here. Giselle Parnell.

Here.

Rianne Hillole.

Here.

Chair, we have a quorum.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE BAILEY WEST DEVELOPMENT IS THE BAILEY WEST DEVELOPMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REZONING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT PROJECT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT PROJECT NUMBER 19-2025-00600. NUMBER 19-2025-00600. AND ERIC, TAKE IT AWAY.

Bailey Nurseries has submitted an application for a comprehensive plan amendment, a rezoning, and a preliminary plat for their project which measures approximately 185 acres. The property is located to the north side of Bailey Road and to the west of New Life Academy. The Baileys own close to 300 acres spread across Maplewood, Woodbury, and Newport. The cities have worked closely together and collaboratively through the development review process to evaluate things like site access, stormwater management, and project timing. The Bailey Master Plan was in front of the Planning Commission at the previous Planning Commission meeting and the Council did approve the Master Plan at their June 24th meeting. The items on the screen were components of the master plan and it is important to note that one of the modifications that council gave during the council review and approval of the master plan was related to the review and future review of the connection of Century Avenue. And I'll touch on that a little bit further, but council did make an amendment to the master plan that that connection would be reviewed as part of the 2050 comprehensive plan, transportation section review, as well as review of the adjacent development review process. So the master plan will now show some dotted lines that show that that's a future determination. In front of the Planning Commission this evening is a request for a land use change of our 2040 Comprehensive Plan. On the left hand side of the screen is the existing land use which identifies mixed use and places to work. On the right hand side is the proposed land use and you'll see the mixed use is really kind of wrapping now that public semi-public use. The public semi-public use is accommodating the future expansion for sports activities and recreation activities for New Life Academy and so that change would be to public semi-public from a land use standpoint the city of Woodbury utilizes two findings generally speaking for to support a change to the comprehensive plan either a mistake was made designating the property or times and conditions have changed and IN THIS CASE, TIMES AND CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED, AND THAT IS RELATED TO THE ACQUISITION BY NEW LIFE ACADEMY. AT THE TIME OF THE 2040 PLAN IT WAS UNKNOWN THAT NEW LIFE WOULD BE LOOKING TO MAKE THAT ACQUISITION, AND WITH THEIR CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THIS, IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO SUPPORT A CHANGE. FURTHERMORE, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES PROVIDE GUIDANCE WITHIN THEIR GUIDING PRINCIPLES REGARDING PROMOTING EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION. AND FURTHERMORE, THAT EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION IS PART OF THE CORE VALUES, QUALITY OF LIFE, AND IDENTITY OF WOODBURY. DUE TO THE LAND USE CHANGE, A MODIFICATION FOR ZONING IS ALSO NECESSARY THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS. REQUESTS A MODIFICATION TO B3 FOR THE RETAIL AREA UP AGAINST BAILEY ROAD AND THE R4 ZONING FOR THE RESIDENTIAL FUTURE PROJECTS. AS YOU'LL SEE THE AREA ON THE FAR NORTH CONTINUES TO BE BUSINESS CAMPUS DISTRICT AND THAT IS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT PROCEEDING WITH THE ZONING OR LAND USE CHANGES THAT WOULD BE COMING POST ADOPTION OF THE 2050 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Again, future development reviews for this overall project will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council as more information is noted and as detailed development applications are made. This approach was previously utilized for city place development, the Bielenberg Gardens, and in the Northeast area. So again in the future the Planning Commission will have the opportunity likely through either the site and building plan process potentially the conditional use permit process to evaluate things like design, site flow, parking setbacks, architectural designs for the individual projects. That information is not known as part of this application. As we look at the preliminary plat, we'll notice one lot, one property is being platted into lots and block. That's for New Life Academy. The others will be identified in more of a broad area as outlots and will be replatted in the future as project specifics are known. So there will be a future platting activity as developments are reviewed in the future. The pedestrian movements are very similar to what you saw in the master plan movements along Century Avenue from a trail standpoint, as well as sidewalk connections throughout the future development areas. As a reminder to the Planning Commission, within the master plan, it did identify that additional connections from a sidewalk standpoint would occur in the future retail area and likely within the future multifamily to connect to these pedestrian spines that run along the future private drive and Century Avenue. As identified previously, this is a multi-phase project with the first phase including site grading, utility construction, and the construction of a portion of Century Avenue that's shown in the box on the screen or the dashed box on the screen. So the Century Avenue would only be constructed to that point at this time. And again, as directed by the City Council, further evaluation would occur on Century Avenue further to the north of that as part of the 2050 comprehensive plan process. A regional stormwater approach is provided as part of this application. The largest basin is up to the west of future Century Avenue or the alignment of that roadway. Again, Century would terminate in this location. That will provide the vast majority of stormwater management for the site. You'll notice a small basin. This is more of an interim basin to address stormwater flows through the site in advance of development of the residential area to the north in the future. Also shown, the third area is on the existing New Life campus and some light grading that's occurring. That's to prepare for future expansion and it allows for an efficient construction as well as managing some of the excess material onsite and allowing for balancing of material throughout the site area from a grading standpoint. There are a number of access points that are designed to meet the needs for this improvement. A detailed traffic study was conducted as part of this project. There will be some level of signalization at access point B as reviewed and approved by Washington County as well as turn light improvements. There's a secondary access that will serve the FUTURE INDUSTRIAL PARK LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF NEWPORT LOCATED AT ACCESS POINT A. ACCESS POINT C IS A PRIVATE DRIVE CONNECTION TO THE EXISTING NEW LIFE CAMPUS. ACCESS POINT D AGAIN IS THE TERMINUS OF THOSE PHASE ONE IMPROVEMENTS. IT IS IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE MASTER PLAN THAT THERE IS A CONNECTION AT CHAMBERLAND ROAD AS PART OF ACCESS POINT F. THAT WOULD BE CAREFULLY DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT THIS IS A CONNECTIVITY CONNECTION, NOT A THROUGHWAY INTO CHAMBERLAND. SO REALLY LOOKING AT CONNECTIVITY VERSUS MOVING TRAFFIC THROUGH THE COMMUNITY. And again, not to be redundant, but it is important for the record to identify that the improvements within area E will be evaluated through that 2050 plan and is not identified at this time to be constructed with this review. And with that, staff recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment rezoning and preliminary plat for the Bailey West project. And the applicant is on hand for any questions.

Would the applicant like to add anything at this time?

Hi, Mark Carmichael, Alliant Engineering. Glad to be here. I want to thank staff for all their help with everything, getting us to this point. We have a number of team members here to field any questions you have, but nothing to add right now. So thank you, though.

All right, thank you for being here. I do have a couple of yellow sheets. Sorry if I mixed up the order. We're going to start with Ms. Ellen McParthlin. I hope I pronounced that right. Please just go ahead and state your name and address when you get up to the podium.

Hello. My name is Ellen McPartland. I'm owner of 1135 Century Avenue South, a two-acre property and home for the last eight years. I moved here after living out of state, and I was previously a Lower Town St. Paul resident, where I actually led their Lower Town Master Plan Task Force, which passed through the St. Paul City Council. And during your planning commission meeting this evening, I want to remind you and urge you to, in tonight's discussions, and more importantly in the future to remove the second phase of Century Avenue South expansion on your plans and in your discussions. In Woodbury's, as Eric mentioned, in Woodbury's June 24th city council meeting, they were unified and responsive in putting a distinct pause and clause on that road extension. all debated on the city council and deliberately called this portion out as not approved until further deliberation and study for the 2050 plan. This topic. Resulted in a lengthy 10-minute discussion of the Woodbury City Council at that meeting Just one moment There we urged them not to approve the 2040 master plan to include the century extension pushing through to the road on Century without additional studies traffic noise pollution runoff studies were insufficient we believe and and not considering specifics of the area. Carver Lake is protected water under the Minnesota DNR designation 820166P, I believe, and other factors. We were successful in the removal of that reference. So thank you to the City Council for that. And I just want to make sure that is clearly stated by the community. So to reiterate, we haven't heard a lot of discussion or planned activities in concrete terms, probably because of the timing, but of the alternative streets to Century Avenue South, the second phase, except on the City Council meeting. So it urges the Planning Commission to continue to more deeply consider these issues in the future. And if that's the 2050 plan, then that so be it, but traffic and noise and safety are an issue on that street, and anyone who goes down it would agree. This is one of my biggest concerns and a game changer for everyday lives in the area for lake visitors and for residents. And more importantly, protecting the long-term health of Carver Lake, the pollution, the runoff, erosion. Carver Lake is in that designated protective water area, Traffic pollution negatively impacts the lake through atmosphere, stormwater runoff, shoreline disturbance. Our lake is already vulnerable to blue algae and chlorides. It's a small lake. And along with noise pollution, the atmosphere of the area and the health of our lake can change drastically over time. So please continue to keep this in mind for the good of the project, Century Avenue South land use, and most importantly, Carver Lake. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Ellen. Next, we're gonna hear from Roger Anderson.

Good evening, thanks for the meeting. Letting people know about it. There wasn't a lot of notice previous. I just got my first notice. The last meeting they had, I got it in the mail that day for this meeting, which was what, Friday, Thursday, whatever it was. So not a lot of notice for the people on the road. And I think only a few of us got the letter, a few in Woodbury, me, because I border it. first address on Maplewood. So all the people down around Central Avenue, nobody had any notice or sent any letters, nobody. Ramsey County obviously is on deaf ears in Maplewood, but I haven't seen anybody or heard from anybody in Maplewood showing up to these meetings. They weren't in the ones in Newport, and they apparently don't really care that much about what's going on with this. But this option of Central Avenue is, They had a planner here at the meeting. She said it's not a viable thing. There's no way to widen the street or put sidewalks. You're right on the lake once you get to the bottom of the hill. The hill going up to the park is a really steep grade, and wintertime, you may have a truck go down that in the wintertime. They never come back and try to go up it or down it. There's always cars. stuck there, they abandon them, they leave them in the wintertime up against the guardrail. If you don't have four-wheel drive in the wintertime, if it's snowing, you're not going up that hill. It's plowed by the county. McKnight, Carver Avenue, and Century, that's Ramsey County plows that, not Woodbury and not Maplewood. So it's the farthest street county property road in Ramsey County. So the county's in Shoreview. Well, what do you think gets plowed last? That stretch. So it's pretty, I've lived there for 26 years. So I've seen a lot of what goes on. The kids racing around the lake, which is pretty dangerous. It's a beautiful road to drive with a motorcycle or a hot rod or whatever, but it's very dangerous down by the lake. It's super dangerous. There's two really good viable options, which are northeast corner, which is Jordan Drive and Carver Park Drive. They go right through your park. I'm sure you can run a road right through there and hook up four lanes. You don't have to worry about blind driveways and a steep hill to go up and down in the wintertime. And obviously you get to Chamberlain, but there's two more roads up there to the northeast that are certainly viable. Carver Park place or drive that comes in, there's a path that goes right underneath the high tension lines and goes into the park. There's only two trails there that would be affected by it and that would come out in that northeast corner. Jordan Drive and Carver Park Drive are right there and there's nothing in that side of the park. It's all heavily wooded. I don't think people really care to walk there because it's so dense. It's pretty creepy actually. So it's a great area to clear out, open it up a little bit, put some paths, walking paths and stuff on both sides, put a pedestrian bridge to go underneath the road, just like they have for their roundabouts out on Bailey and 13, and put a couple of ViDocs through and let the traffic go over the top, and that will solve your problem. And then on Lake Road, four lanes, put your stoplights, street light there, and stoplights there, You have, you're not interfering with any houses because there are no houses there. There's like a hundred foot parcel on either side of the road. There's nothing there except the path going down into the park. And it's not heavily, most people drove to that park, they drive and go into the park. They don't walk to the park. So that's just me. The concerns with the century is, that's crazy. It's just no way you're running car traffic and semi trucks, especially. The road's so beautiful. because there's no trucks on it other than a garbage truck or somebody doing a construction project. There's no semi-traffic there with trailers. So it's crazy. It's just an easy out because you're only 300 feet from the property via an easement to get to the road. So it's an easy out. That's what it is. But it's super dangerous both ways. You go down the hill, there's a retaining pond. Me and my wife helped a handicapped van. slid out, went over the side and down off the side, almost into the pond. We had to stop one winter day and help him get him out of the van and wait for Maplewood paramedics and stuff to come to get him. So both ways, super dangerous road in the wintertime, or even if it's raining hard. So it's not a good option. So thank you and good luck. Whatever you plan, even 2050, still crazy. You don't have the room for traffic to around that lake. Just go up there and drive it in the wintertime. When it snows four inches, go try and drive up that hill when it's snowing and see how you do.

Thank you, Roger.

You won't get up there.

Thanks. We have one more yellow slip from Janelle Erickson.

Once I turn 40, I needed these reading glasses, okay. Hi, good evening. My name is Janelle Erickson, and I live on Century Avenue South as well at 1160. I actually, I might have Roger Bede. My parents bought that house in 1973, and I turned around and bought it a few years ago, so it's been a while. First of all, I'd like to thank you all for all the time and effort that's gone into planning this development. I understand this is very significant, And I also understand that growth is of course a part of Woodbury's future. Um, again, when I was a kid, we had Valley Creek Mall and that's it. So I'm not here tonight to oppose this development, but I am here to ask you to preserve the city's flexibility regarding this specific issue and Century Avenue South and that potential extension. So like Ellen mentioned at last week's city council meeting, Several residents expressed concerns about using that as the primary connection into the future northern development in phase two. I watched it on YouTube while I was out of town attending a work conference, and I saw that council members were open to exploring alternative access routes, and I appreciate the willingness to continue that conversation. And as I read tonight's packet, one statement stood out to me. It says that the development of the northernmost residential area will not occur until as Eric said, until further review as part of the 2050 comprehensive plan process. And so if that area is already being deferred for future planning, I respectfully ask, why do we want to just keep it on the map anyway? So since the city council has already expressed an interest in exploring alternatives, I'm just asking that this plan leave room for that conversation to continue. I and my neighbors are concerned that once a roadway appears on this and an approved preliminary plat, it becomes much more difficult to consider alternatives later. So, you know, I'm not asking you to decide where the road should go tonight. I'm just asking you not to decide that it has to go there. So please remove your dotted line. I can't tell if it is or not because of my terrible eyes. But respectfully, please remove that potential Century Avenue extension from the preliminary plat or make any future extension contingent upon a comprehensive transportation alternatives analysis as part of that plan process for 2050. I believe that approach supports both responsible growth and good planning, like you guys are all so thoughtful about. in the city of Woodbury. And it allows this development to move forward while preserving the city's ability to make the best long-term decision for everyone. And I hope you all stayed cool today. Carver Lake Beach was very crowded and yeah, maybe some of you went swimming. So go enjoy the park and thank you for your time and consideration.

Forgot the button. Did we receive any online comments?

out at this time, Chair.

All right, let's open it up to commissioner comments. And I didn't get a chance to ask before the meeting, but our student commissioners are often at the end. Would you like to go first today? Be bold. I mean, I only have one question. All right, Commissioner Helole, go for it.

Well, okay, so looking through

the plan what is the expected timeline for each phase of the development generally speaking we do not have timelines for the development activities we do not have any active development applications in right now we are beginning conversations with bring up a different plan here with some of the multifamily developers to the north on this area, so that could begin development as soon as 2027, so next year. There is also some initial conversations on some of the multifamily apartment users, so again, that could be 2027. The retail has been to the market for some time, and again, that could also. So from an expectation side, we would expect pending approval by the Planning Commission and City Council that land disturbance, grading activities, sewer and water activities could occur this summer, but development work, anything going vertical would likely, the earliest would be 2027.

Okay, I have no further questions. Thank you, Commissioner Parnell.

I also just have one question. As the future retail area develops, is the city looking for businesses that primarily serve the surrounding neighborhood, or is the goal to attract businesses that bring people from outside the area as well?

I THINK WHAT THE ULTIMATE GOAL AND WHAT LIKELY THE MARKET WILL PROVIDE ARE THE SAME, AND SO BASED ON KIND OF WHERE THIS IS IN THE COMMUNITY, IT'S LIKELY TO BE A SERVICE RETAIL CENTER, SO MORE SERVING THE LOCAL AREA, THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, BOTH TO THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH, WITHIN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF WOODBURY, AND ALSO THOSE THAT ARE UTILIZING THE BAILEY ROAD CORRIDOR ARE THE LIKELY USERS OF THIS RETAIL AREA.

OKAY, YEAH, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

All right, thank you. We're going to go this way this time. Commissioner Seabrooks.

Thank you, Chair. I'll make it easy today. I feel like a lot of my questions were actually answered at our last meeting when we discussed this plan. So I actually have no questions at this time. Easy enough. Commissioner Shaw.

Thank you, Chair. A lot of questions were answered last time, but there was some new things that I actually saw in here. And so I'm going to ask with respect to that. So first question I actually had is, you know, if you can put up the existing zoning versus proposed zoning, the sidebar. There we go. So my first question was the... The part which is that low-density housing, you know, outlot D portion, why is it actually being asked for being designated as BCD?

So all lot B is not being proposed to be rezoned at this time. It continues to be the same zoning as it currently is. And business campus district would be the appropriate places to work land use for the intended light industrial building projects that are contemplated within the master plan.

The reason I ask is because then if you look at right below that, at least in the printed page that we got, the outlaw D calls out as future residential. So is that, you know, just asking if that's conflict? You know, because you, Outlaw D is called out as future residential, but then it shows up as BCD.

Yeah, Outlaw D will, within the master plan, is identified to be recommended to be residential. But at this time, we are not recommending to change the zoning of the future residential area until after the 2050 comprehensive plan process. So the sequencing would be the land use would be reviewed as part of the 2050 plan and then zoning would change from business campus district likely to R4 after that process is complete.

So the proposed use is something to be kind of for the future and we are just talking about the designation of zoning at this point?

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you. I did have a question somewhat related to that is, you know, you have in the preliminary plat paragraph, you're talking about that there will be a regional stormwater pond will be constructed by the developer, but it will be owned and operated by the city. In some of the other pieces that we have reviewed before, that's kind of similar to what we have reviewed before. Except one thing I thought was maybe missing, maybe not, or implied here is it's not just operated by the city and it's actually constructed by the developer, but there would be something that the developer actually pays for a certain number of years, right? For the city to actually do the operation or the maintenance.

Generally speaking, the only area where the developer will have a longer term commitment is on vegetation management. And we have not gotten to that point within our discussions with the developer on whether we will accept the pond after that work has been completed or whether it'll get turned over the city with some level of financial contributions to complete that work.

Because you don't have a developer yet. Is that the point?

We do have a developer. We just have not proceeded to those conversations yet. But there are two solutions that we've successfully utilized on a number of developments. Again, whether it's the contribution for future establishment of the turf around the ponding area or the other alternative is that it's not deeded until that's satisfactory to the city.

OK, thank you. And one more question is, when you go to the access points, like that one, one of the questions I had is, you said that there was a traffic study done by the city, and there would be some kind of intersection plan between that point B, which is the Century Avenue, and Bailey. You know, I think there is already a signal light intersection, which is, you know, Bailey and military, right? So as part of the traffic study, was it actually assessed as in the distance between the two?

Okay. Yeah, absolutely. Washington County is very involved in the planning and one of their main areas of involvement, it relates to access management for all of the existing and planned intersections along their corridor. So the accents, both access point A and B meet the county's access management guidelines.

Because the military would be, it's actually essentially, you know, west of A. Correct. Okay. All right, that's all I had, Chair. Thank you.

Commissioner Kennedy. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Shah took several of my questions, appreciate that. That's all right. One thing is clear with all this work, your team doesn't sleep much, do they? This, on page 35 of the larger report, This may be in the same vein and maybe have already been discussed. The intersection there with century and On the legend at the lower left, it talks about a three-leg intersection, a four-leg intersection. And is that, it's a simple question. And I just wondered, here it looks like there's only going to be a three-leg intersection, which I'm sure is enough. Is there, was this legend just explaining? It wasn't projecting, was it, at all?

Yeah, it's just identifying what the environment is. The reason it's a three-legged intersection is it's not currently identified that Century will be extended to the south within that location, so that makes that three-legged for the intersection of Century and Bailey Road.

And that's actually what it is now, kind of?

That's correct.

On page 36, about the retaining walls and erosion, it looked quite hilly, of course, with all the pond areas, and then there are some hills there. The retaining walls and erosion, just a quick question about that. I think in any of the projects that we engage in Woodbury, it's an ongoing tracking of that erosion. Is that... there's some work that needs to be done before any of the development happens. And I know that's gonna be starting soon by each of the three cities involved in their own area. Is that right, Eric?

Yeah, the first step of the development process will be the issuance of a land disturbance permit. The land disturbance permit governs the erosion and sediment control requirements. As a city, we have conditions within that permit. We also collect security to ensure that there is not erosion. We also collect a security for on-site inspections to occur, so there are regular inspections of the site to ensure compliance throughout the duration of construction.

And does each city do that for their own portion?

That is correct.

Okay, all right. I figured that, but I just wasn't sure. Is there an overall project manager, or each city has their own project manager?

Each city will have their own project manager, but it's certainly been a collaborative effort with all of the different members from each city, and we'll continue to have those dialogue. There is an overall... CONSTRUCTION TEAM FROM THE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT SIDE THAT CONSTRUCTION TEAM FROM THE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT SIDE THAT CITY STAFF WILL BE WORKING CITY STAFF WILL BE WORKING CLOSELY WITH AND WE'VE BEEN CLOSELY WITH AND WE'VE BEEN HAVING JOINT CALLS FOR SEVERAL HAVING JOINT CALLS FOR SEVERAL MONTHS TOGETHER AND I WOULD MONTHS TOGETHER AND I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT TO CONTINUE AS ANTICIPATE THAT TO CONTINUE AS WE GET INTO THE CONSTRUCTION WE GET INTO THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE.

PHASE. THAT'S FRANKLY TO ME THE MOST THAT'S FRANKLY TO ME THE MOST EXCITING PART ABOUT THIS IS THAT EXCITING PART ABOUT THIS IS THAT THE COLLABORATION OF THE THREE THE COL AND SOME OF THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT NEW LIFE IS GOING TO BE DOING. ON PAGE 53, IT TALKS ABOUT THE NEW LIFE POND. IS THAT COMING OR GOING? IS THAT A NEW POND THERE? I KNOW THAT SOME OF THE PONDS ARE BEING ELIMINATED AND SOME ARE BEING, IS IT, ERIC, IS IT THAT SOME ARE BEING ENGAGED OR STARTED?

YEAH, THERE'S ADDITIONAL PONDING, BOTH INFILTRATION AND QUANTITY PONDING THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED. ON THE SCREEN IT'S HIGHLIGHTED WITHIN THIS BLUE CIRCLE.

ERIC, IT'S ACTUALLY NOT ON THE SCREEN.

OKAY. CAN THE CABLECASTER

No, there's two people in there. We're having technical difficulties with the audio on the virtual meeting, so that's why.

Hopefully we're moving that way. Is the cable caster able to show the desktop? I can do this from the Planning Commission report while we wait. Fair enough. I can go into the Planning Commission staff report and the same graphics are within that document. So if you go into page five of the Planning Commission staff report, within that stormwater management paragraph, the ponding area on the right side, the smaller basin just south of the existing buildings is proposed to be new.

Okay, and that's, it's not just for looks. This is for, this is actually a facility in the area.

That is correct. This would be a little in advance of future improvements that New Life is working on right now. They're not to the position or point where they've made enough site decisions, but there's a lot of efficiencies that can be gained by constructing those now as part of, there'd be a lot of site activity just happening to the west, so coordinating those efforts together is a very effective approach. Okay, all right, good.

That's all I have, sure.

All right, thank you. Commissioner Guzik.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU, CHAIR. I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION LETTERS. LETTERS. LETTERS. CONDITION ONE REFERENCES THE CONDITION ONE REFERENCES THE CONDITION ONE REFERENCES THE PUD AND CUP APPROVAL. PUD AND CUP APPROVAL. PUD AND CUP APPROVAL.

DOES THAT MEAN THERE FOR SURE DOES THAT MEAN THERE FOR SURE DOES THAT MEAN THERE FOR SURE WILL BE A PUD AND CUP WILL BE A PUD AND CUP WILL BE A PUD AND CUP FOR THESE FUTURE PARCELS? FOR THESE FUTURE PARCELS?

FOR THESE F Yeah, same thing with like condition eight, we reference odor suppression equipment for all restaurant uses. Is that kind of just the in case future?

Exactly, early indication as they're out to market in advance of approvals. This is the first approval and we want to make sure with any future purchase agreements or other that it's clearly listed.

Okay. And my other question was, so we're, It's noted as mixed use, and the land use map is noted as mixed use. Why, or you could explain a little bit why we aren't just designating it mixed use zoning as well.

The mixed use zoning allows for both commercial and residential. So from a zoning standpoint, because the master plan identifies the area in yellow as a residential project, we wanted to be consistent with the master plan. So the R4 designation delivers a multifamily project. The B3 delivers that retail that's identified within the adopted master plan.

Okay.

They're more specific.

Got it. Okay, so my other question was, I was digging through the city ordinances and I don't know if this is just a, if it's an issue or not, but I noticed that the B3 zoning requires a 20 acre parcel. and I believe this outlot is proposed to be 15 acres. Is that an issue at all with the city ordinances?

As part of the future, this is being plotted as an outlot. As part of the future plotting, there will likely be some things through the planned unit development process to address the overall size of the projects.

Okay. And then with Washington County in particular, since we are kind of setting it up for them to take over if it does eventually connect, I notice we're also putting a bunch of city utilities down the potential extension? Has the county commented at all about the city utilities within their potential future right-of-way?

We have certainly been in close contact with Washington County throughout the design of this project, including the location of where the utilities would be within the public right-of-way. They also have full plan review, so they have the ability to review the plan sets and make comments as well.

And then similarly on the private road at the first intersection come off a sentry, So it would be between the, it would be north of the future retail and south of the school expansion. Still can't see that, sorry. I guess the question is, has there been a discussion of that being a public road versus a public road? Because there's also city utilities, I believe.

Yeah, I will go back into the Planning Commission staff report for visibility. So this, page five, the access point graphic. The commissioner's asking regarding access point C and the roadway that connects back to the west towards Century. We did evaluate whether that should be a public or private, but when we looked at the ability where the letter C is located, if that were a public street, we would need to install a cul-de-sac in that location for the snowplow services to turn around, and that took a significant amount of land area versus the ability for a private street to connect directly into basically the parking area of New Life THEY CAN WORK TOGETHER AS PRIVATE ENTITIES TO CONDUCTIONAL ENTITIES TO CONDUCTIONAL REMOVAL. REMOVAL. SO IN ORDER TO CONDUCT PUBLIC SO IN ORDER TO CONDUCT PUBLIC ACTIVITIES THERE, IT WAS A ACTIVITIES THERE, IT WAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL LAND WITHIN THAT AREA. LAND WITHIN THAT AREA. THE SECOND AREA IS THERE'S MORE THE SECOND AREA IS THERE'S MORE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT'S NECESSARY, RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT'S NECESSARY, AND THEN THE SETBACKS ARE CALCULATED AND THEN THE SETBACKS ARE CALCULATED OFF OF THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY AS WELL.

OFF OF THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY INTERSECTION AT CENTRIUM BAILEY, DID THE STUDY, SINCE THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IS WARRANTED, WAS THERE A DISCUSSION ABOUT A ROUNDABOUT INSTEAD OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL?

YEAH, THERE WAS, AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE REVIEW OF THE ULTIMATE INTERSECTION CONTROL. THAT'S ULTIMATELY A WASHINGTON COUNTY DECISION, BUT THE INITIAL EVALUATION IDENTIFIED THAT THE BEST OPERATIONAL BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE LAND USES IN THE AREA AS WELL AS the adjacent signalized intersection improvements at military, et cetera, that it is likely, highly likely to be a signalized intersection versus a roundabout.

Okay. I bring it up too for a thought as well, since I believe we're making, the city's making improvements to the Lake Park in the future. And so I'd imagine anybody living here might also want to cross Bailey. And I feel like a roundabout would be a more safer intersection control options, but that's just my two cents on that one. No further questions, Chair.

Thank you. Commissioner, John Thiel, sorry.

Thank you, Chair.

I almost had to talk twice.

Eric, staying on page five of the staff report, going into the access points. Point B, interested in the opportunity as we compete with the City of Newport, adding in a area for the Welcome to Woodbury signage. and incorporating that as a main artery to MSP going to and from would like to maybe beat the city of Newport to a sign being allocated in that area as we work on the plan for century.

I think that whether that's a part of the monumentation as part of the retail area or something in that area, I think that does make sense.

Going to then page seven of the staff reports item 20 traffic signal just wanted to kind of confirm the city's definition of City cameras and if we need to allocate or include cameras to that location You know as we look at the phasing in or is it by the approved city engineer covers covers that yeah? I would say that the last sentence covers it within condition 20 pervert And then sticking with that and then the traffic study for access point B, being that we take the brunt of the master plan, are we able to negotiate with Washington County any timing goals between Bailey and Military and Bailey and Century to help with peak periods with the school?

Yeah, I think, I mean, I think Washington County, this will be privately constructed, so there'll be some ability to work with some improvements, at least at the signalized side. Future upgrades to Washington County are, you know, one of the first questions from the commission tonight was, what's the timing? And the timing is not known yet, so that's one of the challenges that Washington County has, is they want to be responsive to the future demand, but not build earlier than necessary. So, Those conversations will continue as we get more information that development applications are moving forward. We'll be in direct communication with Washington County so that they can begin their ultimate planning work on those gaps. Perfect. Thank you, Eric.

Chair, no further questions?

All right, well, I only have one question comment that hasn't been addressed by other commissioners. Can we talk about the dotted line and why it is still in the plan? Could it be possible to maybe just have a few little dots with a little asterisk saying the terminus of this extension to be determined?

Yeah, I mean I think right now the terminus is back on page five. It is identified under that access point D. So we were trying to be pretty transparent about where it where it does end and then also when you pair that with the language within access point E about that 2050 that's consistent with the master plan and the master plan will have those dotted areas. We could certainly GRAPHICALLY SHOW THAT FURTHER. AGAIN, THE MASTER PLAN WILL AGAIN, THE MASTER PLAN WILL SHOW A VERY DELIBERATE DASH SHOW A VERY DELIBERATE DASH LINE THAT JUST SAYS FOR STUDY LINE THAT JUST SAYS FOR STUDY AS PART OF THE 2050. AS PART OF THE 2050.

WHAT I ACTUALLY MEANT WAS NOT WHAT I ACTUALLY MEANT WAS NOT POINT D, BUT THE EXTENSION PART OF E, POINT D, BUT THE EXTENSION PART OF E, WHERE WHAT I WAS IMAGINING, WHERE WHAT I WAS IMAGINING, IF YOU WILL, OKAY, THERE'S A AND THEN YOU JUST GO DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, AND THEN YOU JUST GO DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, AND THEN YOU JUST GO DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, AND THEN YOU JUST GO DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, AND THEN YOU JUST GO DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, AND THEN YOU JUST GO DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, AND THEN YOU JUST GO DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, AND THEN YOU JUST GO DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, AND THEN YOU JUST GO DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, AND THEN YOU JUST GO DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, AND THEN YOU JUST GO DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, AND THEN YOU JUST GO DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, AND THEN YOU JUST GO DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, AND THEN YOU JUST GO DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, AND THEN YOU JUST GO DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT, DOT,

So back to page five, it ends at the property line. There's a gap between those areas that would have to occur. So this is really just showing where it ends at the plot. It's not showing all the way. That would be done under, there'd have to be property acquisition, there'd have to be other things that occur. So as part of what's shown in exhibit on page five on the access point exhibit, It does not connect with existing Century Avenue.

Has the city explored yet connecting point D to point F going to the east and the north?

We have not evaluated any alternatives. That would be the work task as part of the 2050 plan.

So that's kind of my point though because This is so unofficial, I'm sorry. But we have the road going from Bailey up to the point D. And I understand the commenter's points about it looks like it's going to connect to Century. And if we are thinking about considering other alternatives, what if we don't have this little swoop here where the E is and we just have an extension at D and then we don't necessarily know if it's going to go to the east and up, if it's going to go this way. I UNDERSTAND THEIR POINT THAT IT LOOKS A LITTLE MORE OFFICIAL THAN THE TEXT ACTUALLY SAYS IT IS.

YEAH, I THINK IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD LIKE ADDITIONAL GRAPHICS ADDED TO THE RECORD, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT FOR COUNCIL TO SHOW THAT IN A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A CLEAR FASHION THAT THE SEGMENT FROM NORTH FROM WHERE ON PAGE FIVE where the letter D is to the property line is that full area for future review. We can certainly add that to the public record.

Can I ask a follow-up question that's related to yours? Go for it. So I guess my question would be is do we need to dedicate the right-of-way all the way through the plat as proposed if there are alternative analysis being considered?

We don't necessarily have to. This is the preliminary plot, so the final plot would dictate what is or is not dedicated. At this point, we do not need the road right-of-way dedicated at this time.

Can I conduct a straw poll? Just raise your hand if you like this graphic idea, commissioners. On three. One, two, three. I like it. No? Okay.

Can I ask a question?

Yes.

Can we do a motion discussion?

Sorry. Eric, as I understand that F point that you are showing there, right, that's already in a neighborhood there, correct? That is correct. And what we are talking about here in essence, what problem are we trying to solve? The problem we are trying to solve is whatever comes in what is out lot D. needs to have access, right? Can that access actually come from a combination of D and a combination of F as compared to anything running up to Century Avenue? Because we don't know what outlaw D is going to be, but let's just say it's low density housing, which is the concept that you had kind of put in front of us. That can suffice with two different

you know kind of access point dnf and doesn't need to actually go and connect what you're showing here with e and the century avenue going north yeah i think that's exactly what will be looked at as part of the 2050 transportation plan is what are the volumes what are the anticipated volumes of traffic for both the area to the south and the north that's already in the traffic study but we'll look at that further THE ADOPTED 2040 PLAN DOES SHOW THE EXTENSION OF CENTURY THE ADOPTED 2040 PLAN DOES SHOW THE EXTENSION OF CENTURY AVENUE SO THE 2050 PLAN WOULD AVENUE SO THE 2050 PLAN WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THAT UNDER ANY HAVE TO AMEND THAT UNDER ANY SCENARIO OR AS PART OF A SEPARATE SCENARIO OR AS PART OF A SEPARATE ACTION YOU WOULD NEED TO DELETE ACTION YOU WOULD NEED TO DELETE THAT FROM THAT. THAT FROM THAT. THE WAY TO DELETE THAT OR AMEND THE WAY TO DELETE THAT OR AMEND THAT IS THROUGH DETAILED STUDY THAT IS THROUGH DETAILED STUDY AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S BEING AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED AS PART OF THE 2050 PLAN.

PROPOSED AS PART OF THE 2050 PL If D does connect over onto the roadway with F, if you take a look at the legend, there's concern that it would drive right through the neighborhood. They want it to be local connectivity versus moving background traffic through the site. So you've got to balance the two. What's the lesser of two evils, perhaps? I know that probably means another traffic study or just an engaged, I don't know what that means.

I WOULD ADVISE THE COMMISSION THAT ACCESS POINT F HAS A FUTURE STREET EXTENSION SIGNED THERE, BUT FROM A ROUTING STANDPOINT IS LIKELY NOT AN EFFICIENT WAY TO MOVE TRIPS TO AN ULTIMATE DESTINATION. IT MAKES SENSE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTIVITY STANDPOINT, THAT IS CERTAINLY THE BEST PRACTICE. ACCESS POINT E, and the connection to existing Century Avenue is in our 2040 plan, but as the council directed and the master plan now has been updated to direct, that'll be looked at as part of a needs analysis, as part of our next planning exercise.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Did anybody have any other thoughts about this very beautiful sketch as presented? Okay.

Chair, if you would, from a staff standpoint, I think for the residents that are in the audience AND FOR ANYONE, WE WANT THIS TO BE CLEAR, AND OUR GOAL WITHIN SOME OF THE DESIGN AND PURPOSE WAS TO ADD THAT LEVEL OF CLARITY, BECAUSE AS PEOPLE LOOK AT THIS ONE, TWO, SIX YEARS FROM NOW, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE, AND WE'LL HAVE MINUTES FROM THIS MEETING AS WELL, WE CAN ADD SOME GRAPHICS TO BETTER SHOW WHAT THE INTENT OF THE DIALOGUE HAS BEEN, WHICH IS THIS, WHAT I'LL CALL SEGMENT E, IS A FUTURE STUDY. AND MAYBE THAT'S A SIMPLE FUTURE STUDY GOES BELOW IT.

I think the text makes that clear. It's the graphic that I think is throwing residents off because, frankly, people like pictures, and they're going to look at pictures first.

I THINK IT'S A BALANCE BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A BALANCE BECAUSE WE ALSO THERE COULD BE UNDER WE ALSO THERE COULD BE UNDER THAT ANALYSIS THAT IT IS THAT ANALYSIS THAT IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT IT OCCURS AND RECOMMENDED THAT IT OCCURS AND IF WE DELETE IT YOU HAVE A LOT OF IF WE DELETE IT YOU HAVE A LOT OF RESIDENTS SAYING WELL WE DIDN'T KNOW RESIDENTS SAYING WELL WE DIDN'T KNOW WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS EVEN A WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS EVEN A POSSIBILITY SO IT'S A BALANCE WE'RE POSSIBILITY SO IT'S A BALANCE WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE AND IT IS GOING TO TRYING TO BALANCE AND IT IS GOING TO BE A THOROUGH RE

You know, from my standpoint, it actually depends on what is the density of, like, people needing to go into Outlaw D area, whatever that turns out to be, right? That's kind of what is going to drive the access piece, in my opinion.

And those land use decisions will be done as part of the land use chapter of the 2050 plan. So that's the stacking of decisions. So you start with the land use to get those inputs, ultimately then look at it through the transportation lens.

What about if under the design and purpose legend for E where it talks about the 2050 comprehensive plans just in parentheses including alternative routes?

Sure. If the commission is supportive of that. Staff would not have any issue with that.

Is that going to go over better than my little sketch? Okay. All right, do we have any other public comments come in? Any other questions online?

Not at this time, Chair.

Okay, does anybody have any other questions, comments, concerns? All right, I can't do it. Look alive, people. We're looking for a motion.

I move to approve the project number one. 19-2025-00600, the Bailey West Comprehensive Plan Amendment rezoning and preliminary plot with the additional, I think, two conditions, the signage as suggested by Commissioner Gentile, and to... perhaps leave room for further exploration of the Century Road connection, including alternative access paths.

Do we have a second?

I second.

All right, the motion passes. Oh, no, it doesn't. Wait, we need to vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. All right, now it passes. It will be going to the July 8th City Council hearings. We are ready to move on. Has anybody had, oh, Councilmember Stafford is here for our Council report.

This is kind of interesting, the way these graphics are going here. This is my last Planning Commission meeting. Councilmember Santini will be with you the next quarter. We alternate them quarterly. What have we been up to? We have been looking at drafts of solicitor permits, the door-to-door sales people, as we've had a lot of concern and have thought about it. So we've got staff working on drafts for that. We're making progress with the draft of backyard chickens. So a big part of it is listening to the community, as you have done tonight with the people in Century Avenue. This is where government works slowly, but it's because we're listening to get it done. And then last but not least is the 4th of July Hometown Celebration, and it's at M Health Fairview this year on the 4th of July. And there's lots of activities. It's going to be one of the biggest ones we've ever had. and we're all very excited. So I hope to see you all out there. And I hope it's a little cooler than it is today.

Thank you, Council Member Stafford. Next, we have approval of the minutes from June 16th. Does anybody have any questions, comments, concerns about the minutes? SO I HAVE ONE. SO I HAVE ONE. ON PAGE 6, VERY FIRST LINE, ON PAGE 6, VERY FIRST LINE, IF WE COULD JUST ADD THE WORD IF WE COULD JUST ADD THE WORD ASKED. ASKED. MS. SWANSON SAID THAT SHE HAD MS. SWANSON SAID THAT SHE HAD A PARKING CONCERN IN THE HIGH A PARKING CONCERN IN THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA AND DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA AND IF, AND ASKED IF. IF, AND ASKED IF. THAT WOULD BE A SUBTURNEAN THAT WOULD BE A SUBTURNEAN GARAGE FOR THE RESIDENTS. JUST THE ONE THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE MINUTES.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

I'LL SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.