Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the September 14th 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 electronically using a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device. You 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 in the virtual meeting to join and then submitting questions via the question and answer feature within the meeting. Please include your name, city, and state where you reside 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'll call the meeting to order. Can we start the roll call, please?

Jim Gentile.

Present.

Jake Guzik.

Present.

Marsha Kennedy. Stephanie Swanson.

Here.

John Colum.

Here.

Soren Shaw. Present. Shay Seabrooks. Here. Giselle Parnell, and Rian Helole. Chair, we have a quorum.

Thank you. Okay, first item on the agenda tonight is the Nottingham project rezoning, planned unit development, conditional use permit, and preliminary project number 26-2026-00164. And Gina, I will turn it over to you.

Thank you, Chair. Pulte Homes of Minnesota LLC has submitted an application for a rezoning, planned unit development, conditional use permit, and first phase preliminary plat for a residential subdivision to be called Nottingham. The rezoning and planned unit development incorporates four properties totaling 53 acres with the first phase preliminary plat including 28 acres and 35 single family lots. The remaining properties will be preliminary plotted in the future. The property is located north of Dale Road and west of Cottage Grove Drive. The property is currently zoned R1 Urban Reserve District and is guided as low density on the land use plan. In May of 2026, the City Council adopted the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan. The intent of the plan was to provide guidance on lot and home types, provide guidance on roadway design and access management, identify stormwater management approach, identify areas for parks and open space, and refine future pedestrian improvements. The proposed application represents the first development within the master plan area and closely follows the master plan in areas of the roadway network, stormwater management, trunk utilities, and providing a variety of lot types. The applicant requests a rezoning for all parcels within the subject planned unit development, which I'll call PUD from here on. The existing zoning is R1, urban reserve, and is meant to serve as a holding zone until urban services are available. The proposed zoning is R4, urban residential district, which is the same as the area to the west and consistent with properties that are served with municipal utilities. The applicant is requesting a PUD for the entire development site, identified as Properties 1 through 5 on the screen. The PUD will guide site layout, subdivision design criteria, and identify permitted uses. The PUD requests flexibility in areas of lot width, minor lot depth amendment for two lots, and for front setbacks. These requests are consistent with the flexibility granted in other phase one and two developments. In exchange for the flexibility to these standards, the applicant shall construct the proposed regional stormwater management system and utilize excavated dirt for site balancing to provide a cost savings to the city. Flexibility is also granted for Cottage Grove Drive improvements from Dale Road to the Nottingham Northern Property Line and the extension of the east-west trunk sanitary sewer line from Siena Grove to the west to Cottage Grove Drive right of way. A conditional use permit is required for all PUDs within the R4 zoning district and the resolution with findings of fact for granting this permit can be found within your packet. While the PUD applies to all of the parcels shown, the applicant is only proposing to preliminary plat the first phase of the properties, which are two, three, and four at this time, and that's shown on the screen. This plat identifies the creation of 34 new single-family lots with one new lot for the existing home and one outlot for the regional stormwater management basin. The lot sizes within this phase are identified to be 60 feet in width with a similar product type to the Pulte Homes within the Arrow Lake North, the northern section of that development, which is just west of this site. Access to the site is created by extending Bent Pine Lane from the existing stub to the west in Sienna Grove to an intersection with Cottage Grove Drive. Cottage Grove Drive is an existing rural roadway that is gravel adjacent to the Nottingham development. As part of the master plan, it was identified this section should ultimately be improved to a two-lane paved urban section with trails. The current gravel condition is not suitable to accommodate the additional subdivision without those improvements. And because of that, the subdivision would be viewed as premature by the city code. To cure the prematurity, the developer has proposed to improve the roadway to the standards approved by the city engineer. Additionally, it's identified that interim improvements through the length of Cottage Grove Drive may be necessary until development is present adjacent to the corridor and full reconstruction is feasible. That covers the first phase of the preliminary plot. Within the PUD, there are two additional properties labeled as 1 and 5 that are identified as future phases. Site 1 is 20 acres in size and establishes 77 new single-family lots with a minimum lot size of 50 feet. And these lots are identified to provide a more attainable housing product similar to what is being constructed in Airlake North, kind of the southern portion, and East Point. Site five is five acres in size and establishes seven new lots with a minimum lot size of 60 feet, similar to this application, and the existing home is currently proposed to remain. These properties will receive the PUD flexibility requested, but would be required to apply for preliminary and final plot in the future, which will require a neighborhood meeting, planning commission, and city council review. The applicant is proposing to construct a sidewalk along the north side of Bent Pine Lane to connect with the sidewalk and trail network within the developments to the west and ultimately to Discovery Park. A graphic showing these connections is on the left side of the screen. With the construction of the regional stormwater basin, the applicant shall grade a trail along the northern property line and the Greenway corridor to extend from Sienna Grove to Cottage Grove Drive. The trail will be paved with either the future development of the parcel to the north or with the ultimate improvements to Cottage Grove Drive. When the pedestrian network is completed within the future surrounding developments and master plan area shown in the graphic on the right, the subdivision will have access to trails along Cottage Grove Drive, Dale Road, the Greenway corridor to the north of the pond extending to Andy's Park Park. The landscaping ordinance requires three trees per lot, which is identified on the plan. The applicant is proposing to remove a number of existing trees in order to accommodate site grading for both the single family lots and the stormwater management system. The applicant has added plantings adjacent to the existing homes that surround the development and are proposed to remain. And final tree removal and replacement calculations shall be finalized prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit. The future city outlot and stormwater management system shall be seeded with a native seed mix to further enhance the greenway corridor element. The regional stormwater management system has been referred to many times throughout this presentation as part of the adopted master plan and a regional stormwater and natural resources plan. The city identified an opportunity to create a regional basin within the existing FEMA floodplain. to provide centralized wet pond and infiltration for development within the approximately 249 acres identified in the graphic. The proposed plans will expand the existing Siena Grove basins to create one large stormwater management system, which will benefit all of the development within the area and provide efficiency for water quality and future maintenance. Finally, a neighborhood meeting was held on August 10th with four attendees present. Questions were asked and answered regarding the timing of construction, tree removal, Cottage Grove Drive and Dale Road improvements, and landscaping. With that, staff recommends the approval of the rezoning planned unit development conditional use permit and preliminary plat for Nottingham project number 26-2026-00614 subject to the conditions found within your staff report, and staff and the applicant are on hand for questions.

Okay, thanks, Gina. Would the applicant like to add anything else at this time? Available for questions. I'm sure there'll be some. Thank you. Okay. Have there been any yellow sheets or any questions online at this point?

Not at this time.

Okay. At this time then I am going to open it up to commissioners questions And we'll start with Commissioner Gentile Thank You chair I Guess we can stay on this landscaping slide first question the

neighboring lot block 113 with that drive i know on a lot of the civil sheets it actually just shows a quite little bend and not a connection to the actual house itself maybe via gravel wondering if that gets continued as asphalt all the way through for that block 1 lot 13. yeah so the plan is for this to be a driveway connection so the driveway will extend within the city right-of-way and be paved

until about this portion so this red and connect with this gravel and then they are the the proposal is to remove the existing gravel and this curb cut and this resident will now access through here it will be gravel in this section that section there okay yeah uh then you know in that same road where you have the two lines it also caused

for that to be mowed until an HOA is established, but then on this plan we show actually planting in the trees. Curious to stay more trees in that area to soften that as we soften block two, lot one, and 18 as well.

The plan right now would be to move the trees onto private property, but keep them there. These lots are definitely more adjacent to this right-of-way, so the requirement is for them to mow up into the driveway edge. The concern with adding more landscaping here is this could be future right-of-way. And if this resident or this property owner wanted to subdivide and create a cul-de-sac here, it becomes the full kind of dimension of right-of-way, and we don't want to have to remove somebody's trees that they got established and got used to maintaining. We'd rather have them on their property for maintenance if this subdivision ever happened.

Got it. All right, so then I guess on page 11, note seven was, you know, prior to the issuance, the land disturbance permit, block one, lot 18, and lot one, block two, define it as soften. Is there a... actual definition maybe in the zoning ordinance that we'll go through later that defines soften, doesn't really show any of the trees on that new sidewalk on the Cottage Grove Drive for softening.

Which number are you on?

Page 11, number seven. Outside the pipeline easement of right of way, the soften, the impact of Cottage Grove Drive.

So that is referring to these lots, this 18 here, and this lot one here, because there isn't any landscaping in this area. There's some existing trees proposed to remain, but there's area here as well. This would all be part of their lot. The condition is just review adding some additional evergreen plantings along here to soften the impact of Cottage Grove Drive. So not related to the driveway.

Got it. It was interesting, so on that same page, item 11, you know, there's a lot of talk about the Cottage Grove Drive being enhanced, but really the civil drawings kind of lack that detail other than a thickened black line, and just kind of defining that within the civil drawings itself. Are we, you guys are okay with then the sidewalk per city standards and the way that that road would be implemented all the way to that end of the property line?

Correct. The best graphic kind of showing Cottage Grove Drive would probably be on that first page. first page of your packet, identifying the 28-foot roadway with the trail improvement.

All right, so this is the fun page for me. So then staying on that page, on number 12, prior to the issuance of the land disturbance permit, staff shall finalize the tree replacement calculation and method of achieving replacement or payment in lieu. Is there a defined cost that we're shooting? You've got that established?

So there's a defined cost with an ordinance that's tied directly to the diameter inches needing to be replaced. So if they cannot achieve our preferences, achieve the replacement on site. And then there's a cost if you cannot achieve that replacement on site. I think given the regional stormwater management system and some of the upland area, I think that quantity will be met.

Great segue into the item number 13. When have we established the three-year maintenance period for that to take place and is that part of the phasing that goes in first or is it last home constructed, first home construction?

It's a great question. Typically we do it upon the completion of grading because then you need to place down some seed in order to stabilize. I don't think we have finalized that timing yet, as this is a little bit unique of this is going to become, it'll be city-owned sooner than some of our other projects.

Okay. Then moving to page 12, I guess the Roche property, a few questions just went in there. I think we had that driveway identified. IT SAYS ON NOTE 15 ON PAGE 12 THAT THAT PROPERTY SHALL BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN AN INTERIM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. ARE THEY IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THAT?

YES. I HAVE SPOKEN WITH, SO THE USE EXISTING IS FOR THE NURSERY BUSINESS. THAT'S ACROSS THE SITE. They have established a landscape business that also operates out of there, not realizing that that required an interim use permit. We identified this within our master plan as well. We knew about the use, and I'm in active conversations with them now. We feel that that will be moving forward, and that will be coming forward to Planning Commission and City Council within the next 12 months with the goal to review it and set some parameters prior to neighbors being adjacent.

Perfect. No further questions, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Gusick. Thank you, Chair.

Really a question with just how this, are there any concerns from the planning staff that were leapfrogging, like we have that one person, I'm assuming it's because of the land ownership. that these aren't all adjacent to each other. Is there any concern about including that first property number one as you're labeling it with this, even though it's not adjacent to the others?

Yeah, I think the way that the adjacent development, Siena Grove, sets up goes all the way up to that property and serves it with utilities. So the utilities upon this final phase will be present here. This existing landowner has identified to staff that they are not interested in developing and staff respects their right to remain on their own.

I think also from a efficiency standpoint, the northern lot is identified to take a fair amount of the material, excess material from the stormwater pond to balance the site. So rather than have to incur the increased trucking as well as the environmental impacts of that trucking, it would be a very short haul.

No further questions.

GREAT. COMMISSIONER SWENSON, OVER TO YOU.

ALL RIGHT. JUMPING OFF OF COMMISSIONER GENTIL'S CONDITION SEVEN, YOU MENTIONED ONE OF MY FAVORITE WORDS, EVERGREEN, BUT I DON'T SEE IT IN THE CONDITION. CAN WE ADD IT TO THE CONDITION? IS IT?

JUST IN MY OWN HANDWRITING. OH, OKAY. YES, WE CAN UPDATE THAT TO

say additional evergreen plantings instead of landscaping thank you figure if we can lock it in let's lock it in so with the three flexibility requests the minimum lot width is that um i don't want to say lot one block one of the top north with the um price restrictions that we talked about at the last meeting or the price restrictions not happening

The price restriction from the master plan is for lots requesting deeper flexibility than we have allowed in the past. So that's the 45 foot to 49 foot was what we put into the master plan. The applicant is proposing to go with a 50 foot lot, which we have seen flexibility and done that flexibility for a similar product. It's important to note that they will still be required even with this smaller lot to meet all of the side and rear setbacks as well.

So the lot width is for property number one. Lot depth and setback are all in property number four. Is that right?

Correct. Depth is, setbacks are for all, and lot width is established at a minimum of 50, but the number four is still requesting flexibility from 80 to 60, but it was within that range. Okay. And the two lots are these two lots here. that are requesting the depth flexibility because of where this roadway came in and not being able to make that curve up enough to get them to the minimum.

So why the front setback flexibility? That's the part I'm not understanding. Just to allow the houses to be bigger?

It allows them to be closer to the road, increase the rear setback, IT'S ALSO PRETTY STANDARD, AND IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT FLEXIBILITY, THEN THEY ARE CONSTRUCTING THAT POND FOR THE CITY. OKAY.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF HOMES WITHIN WOODBURY SINCE REALLY 2002 HAVE BEEN BUILT AT THE 25-FOOT SETBACK UNDER THE NEW URBANISM CONCEPTS, DESIGN CONCEPTS.

OKAY. I DO REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE TRAIL AND THE SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED. IT'S NOT JUST I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. IT'S NOT SLAMMING A SUBDIVISION IT'S NOT SLAMMING A SUBDIVISION IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. IT'S ACTUALLY REALLY TRYING TO IT'S ACTUALLY REALLY TRYING TO INCORPORATE IT INTO THE REST OF INCORPORATE IT INTO THE REST OF THE CITY, WHICH I REALLY THE CITY, WHICH I REALLY APPRECIATE.

APPRECIATE. WITH THE FUTURE CONNECTIONS TO WITH THE FUTURE CONNECTIONS TO ANDY'S BARK PARK, IS THE MONEY ANDY'S BARK PARK, IS THE MONEY PUT UP FOR THAT NOW? PUT UP FOR THAT NOW? IT IS NOT. IT IS NOT. IT WOULD, THE TRAIL WOULD BE IT WOULD, THE TRA

So the applicant isn't doing that trail. That's a future city project?

It would be a future city or development project.

Okay. Got it. All right. Thank you. And I know we don't talk about single family design, but on page seven, there are these colorful renderings. And are my eyes deceiving me or do I see green and blue siding and not just white, black, beige and glass? Thank you. One project in three years. That's all I have. Thank you.

I think the drive-through air lake, they have some nice color differences in there too.

I'm talking about three years sitting in this chair.

Not seeing a lot of color.

One, one, right here.

Excellent. Commissioner Schell.

Thank you, Chair. So I had a question which is actually on page four. It's the paragraph that start with in exchange for flexibility. There's actually a mention of flexibilities also granted due to proposed improvements to Cottage Grove Drive from Dale Road to the north property boundary. Is that specifically defined? Because there is later on, there is a mention about Cottage Grove Drive being, you know, gravel today and, you know, would need to be paved and, you know, two street, whatever else. But it sounded like there was also a need for interim improvement to Cottage Grove Drive before you can actually even finish the development? Or am I wrong?

Yeah, the intent for this project would be from Dale Road to the northern property line to be a paved roadway, two-lane section with a trail on one side, because we do not have easement on the other side, but certainly with development that that would achieved and that would be to the property line and the city is exploring opportunities or options for paving the remaining gravel portion to support the vehicle trips.

So that would be city's responsibility?

We are working through those options.

All right, thank you. And then Yeah, I would second what Commissioner Swanson said about the colors that were proposed. Although I have seen colors like this in Woodbury and in similar area, not the same one. So, all right, next one is, I think that already got covered about the interim conditional use permit. Sorry, just flipping pages. I think that's all I had, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Seabrooks.

Thank you, Chair. So my first question is just pretty basic. Is there an estimated timeline to completion?

The applicant anticipates beginning grading and utility work this fall with some models, ideally this fall, but likely probably the spring. And it's only 34 lots, so maybe one, two years build out. Okay, thank you.

And my next question is likely for staff as well with when it comes to public safety. So as you know, there's been a lot of development in this area and the roads are not yet completely up to standard. One thing that I believe it's when you're coming, when you're going west to east on Dale Road, I believe at USEPA, there's been an uptick in pedestrian traffic coming from either that West Point neighborhood over to Alpha Air Lake Drive or USEPA Trail, I believe. And then there's a slight hill that goes up Alpha Dale Road where there's vehicles that are going pretty fast. and not really looking out for the pedestrians. And so I'm wondering if the city has ever considered during this construction phase at least installing some sort of signage or something, just alerting cars that there may be pedestrians that are trying to cross. There isn't a park over to the south of Dale Road. There's not a park over in that neighborhood. And so the only park that's kind of close to that neighborhood is the Discovery Park.

Not that I am aware of, there has not been discussions on that, but that's something that we certainly can bring forward to our city engineer for their evaluation of adding additional signage.

Yeah, I mean, I understand it would just be temporary until that road is completed, but that would probably be appreciated. And I don't have any further questions at this time.

Okay, thank you. All right. A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR ME. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT THAT THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO COME BACK THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROCESS FOR, LIKE JUST SO THAT WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON WHAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DO WITH WHAT WOULD BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TONIGHT, AND THEN AT WHAT STAGE THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROCESS.

YEAH. So, following tonight and city council review, two, three, four would be able to move forward. Site one would need to come in for a preliminary plat. Same with Site 5. If the plans identified everything meeting the standards of the PUD, then it's just a preliminary plot. If they had some additional improvements and had other requests, we would have to evaluate if there's a different application as well.

So the lot flexibility that's proposed tonight If that's approved by city council like that's set that they would have that going forward. That's correct and They would have the ability to come back with a Plat for block or for property one with wider lots if they wanted to we're saying the minimum is 50 feet That's if they could come back with a plan. That would be 60 foot lots similar to what we're approving tonight for the Section 4 that's correct One of the questions I had was if you look at, so where the new development connects off of Cottage Grove west to east and will connect in with Siena Grove. I drove the site earlier today just to get another view of it. It's going to be a pretty straight, flat, shot through that neighborhood and into Siena Grove and that road in Siena Grove is pretty straight and flat for a good stretch as well before you have any curvature in the road. I didn't see anything in the materials talking about just sort of any kind of speed control or traffic calming measures. I'm assuming there's going to be Especially with 25 foot setback, there's going to be people close to the road. You've got just a sidewalk on one side, so there's going to be bikes in the road probably here. I'm just curious what we've contemplated around road safety through the neighborhood itself.

Yeah, I think one of the measures that are identified within the roadway corridor design principles is adding these boulevard plantings. Creating a tree presence really makes the road feel a lot more narrow, and that is something that we've been working to implement consistently on our newer neighborhoods. So having these boulevard plantings is certainly meant to make an impact. It has a small curve. I understand that that's likely not a large impact to that system. There would be intersection control, certainly, heading on to Cottage Grove Drive. And then working on the roadway profile itself, making sure that this does have a pretty, it's going to be going uphill, so it won't be straight and flat. It will be going up a hill and back down a hill to get to Cottage Grove Drive. If you drove the site, you can see the two points are set really low, so they have to build up to a hill, which will certainly improve that speed as well.

Okay, I think for residents it's probably something to think about just from a signage standpoint or from an awareness standpoint for folks that are gonna be moving into that neighborhood. Kind of piggybacking on Commissioner Seabrooks there, we're talking about Dale Road, I was also thinking about with the improvements in Cottage Grove Road, I was just curious, Are those two roads, county roads, city roads, one of each? And then I guess parcel that as like what would be the trigger point to putting in a traffic circle at that intersection from a development standpoint?

Yeah, they're both city roads. The Dale Road project does have a 60% plan designed for it that includes medians in the center, similar to what was done on Dale closer to Radio Drive. and trails along both sides. The city engineer is evaluating the intersection control including a roundabout at Cottage Grove Drive and Dale Road. So we've seen both.

Okay, and then I think Commissioner Shaw talked about this, but what is the trigger point when we talk about the roadway improvement to Cottage Grove Drive, like what is the decision trigger point between let the developer build it versus we build it with funding from the developer? How does that decision get made?

yeah that evaluation will be made as part of the development agreement process and we'll evaluate the timing of the improvements to dale road the most efficient way to do that would be to join that with the dale road improvement and wrap that corner we'll see if the timelines for all the grading activities are going to align with that or whether or not it needs to be a separate project so that information should be known within the next several months okay

THAT PARTICULAR DECISION DOESN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH BACK THROUGH ANY PROCESS, THOUGH, PUBLICLY. IT DOES NOT. I WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION ON THE PLAN SET, AND THIS MIGHT BE FOR THE APPLICANT OR IT MIGHT BE FOR STAFF. I WAS LOOKING, SO ON PAGE 24 ON THE POND DETAIL, THERE'S A BUNCH OF MEASUREMENTS WHICH I GUESS I'M NOT 100% SURE WHAT EACH ONE IS, BUT THERE'S ESSENTIALLY SOME VARIATIONS ON WHAT WOULD BE A 10-YEAR WATER EVENT AND A 100-YEAR WATER EVENT. AND THERE'S DIFFERENT CALCULATIONS FOR THAT OLD FINAL VERSUS FINAL VERSUS INTERIM. BUT IN ANY REGARDLESS, IF I TOOK THE HIGHEST NUMBER ON THAT, IT'S 924 FEET AND SOME CHANGE. AND IF I LOOK AT Further on, I think on page, I had it here, hold on one second. Further back, excuse me, on page 15, when I've got the grading for the actual lots, if I look at lots one and two, the back of those homes are sitting at just under 927 feet. So essentially it's about a little less than three foot difference is the way if I'm reading that correctly. And I don't know how precise our ability to forecast 100 year events are at this point. It seems like we're having a lot of 100 year events lately. That could be just more news about them and they're not actually happening more frequently. But I guess my question would be, what's the tolerance level from a build perspective between what we would anticipate a 100-year event to be that would fill that pond, if I'm reading that correctly, and what we would allow for a property to be within that?

This is a great question for Dave Nash with Alliant to come up and assist, he is the grading professional.

I'm sorry, if you could just state your name and city and state for the record, please.

Sure, Dave Nash with Alliant Engineering, project engineer for Pulte on this project. Let's see if I can make this up. So, this whole regional pond is a complicated modeling system that between our company and the city we've gone through with Siena Grove, with Air Lake North, with Briarcroft. And my company's done all that planning with the city to do it. I didn't do the calcs myself, but I know there's, when we talk about the interim 100 year, that's the 100 year elevation based on conditions that are out there right now. But then we have a model that has a 100 year elevation once it's all developed. That's the difference between these two when you see the interim hundred year and the final hundred year That's the difference between those two calcs Typically we need to be two feet above a hundred year. I think in this case on this one. They're asking for three feet because It's a variable number, and it's it's it's a complicated It's not a typical, we do a pond in our own site. We can deal with it, but there's so much offsite conditioning. City's asking us, and that's one of our conditions. We have to adjust to get, I believe, three feet above that 100-year. It's the interim right now. It actually will go down with future development, but we're designing for what's right out there right now.

BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN ALL THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL HAPPEN. SO THEORETICALLY I COULD MOVE INTO LOT ONE OR LOT TWO BEFORE THE REST OF THAT DEVELOPMENT IS IN PLACE TO TAKE THAT 100-YEAR LEVEL DOWN AN ADDITIONAL THREE FEET.

To Mr. Nash's point, that area, and Gene, if you can show on the screen, the movement from Woodbury Drive all the way to the east to do this is an area that the city has modeled pretty significantly over the last seven years. It's been carefully evaluated through our stormwater consultant as well as our engineering staff.

So based on that history, like that three foot tolerance, we're comfortable with that based on what we've seen? That is correct. I DON'T KNOW IF IT MATTERS, BUT MAYBE JUST IS THERE ANY SORT OF INSURANCE IMPLICATIONS FOR A HOMEOWNER THAT WOULD LIVE WITHIN THAT PARTICULAR RANGE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER SORT OF AN AWARENESS FACTOR?

THEY WOULD NOT. AND THE REASON THEY WOULD NOT IS THIS IS ACTUALLY A FAIR AMOUNT OF THIS AREA IS COVERED UNDER A FEMA FLOOD PLANE. SO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL NEED TO AMEND THEIR FEMA FLOOD PLANE MAPS BASED ON THE MODELING INFORMATION THAT'S SHOWN HERE. TO ACCEPT THAT THE TOLERANCES ARE IN PLACE IN ADVANCE OF THE PROPERTIES BEING PLATTED AND SOLD. SO THERE'S GOING TO BE A FAIR AMOUNT OF NOT ONLY ANALYSIS AND ACCEPTANCE FROM THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND THE WATERSHEDS, BUT ALSO AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL THROUGH THE FEMA FLOOD PLANE PROGRAM.

And that is condition number 17 under the engineering requirements. It's a LOMAR, a letter of map revision for the FEMA. So that is what number 17 represents.

And to your core question, Commissioner, what the letter of map revision does is it looks at the high water level and the lowest opening and the risk profile for those residents. That's an exact task that they're looking at.

Great. Just a couple more things. Someone mentioned condition 15 about the interim CUP for the landscaping business. We're working or communicating with that business. I guess just if we're not able to come to an agreement with that business in this area, we're voting or we're recommending for the council to vote on a rezoning tonight. they will be governed by that, assuming that passes. What would that business be looking at if they decided not, if we couldn't come to an agreement on a CUP?

The nursery business could remain as it would be considered illegal non-conforming. So we'd be looking at pulling back the scale of the business, but they would need to remove the use from the site as it's not in compliance with the underlying use permit.

And I'm guessing we've already evaluated the authority to just rezone and rezone a business that's within the existing, those authorities are in place.

As it was a business that came about, likely unintentionally, but not meeting the city standards, yes, we've evaluated that this is the right path forward for them.

Okay. All right. It covers all the questions that I had that weren't asked by others. So have we had any other yellow sheets or any other questions online?

Not at this time.

Okay.

Are there any other follow-up questions from other commissioners? Okay. I think that I'll be looking for a motion then.

I move to approve project number 26-2026-00614 with the added language of Evergreen in condition number 7.

Is there a second? Second. Okay. All in agreement say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, congratulations. Your proposal has been recommended. It will be part of the City Council public hearing on September 23rd. Best of luck. Thank you. Okay, item B tonight. Sounds like a barn burner. This is in reference to the recodification project. OF OUR CITY CODE, MOST SPECIFICALLY CHAPTER 24 WITH REGARD TO ZONING OF THAT CITY CODE. ERIC, DO YOU WANT TO TALK US THROUGH THIS?

THANK YOU, CHAIR. I WILL BE VERY BRIEF IN MY PRESENTATION. THE RECODIFICATION PROCESS IS OCCURRING TO ALL OF THE CHAPTERS WITHIN THE CITY CODE, BUT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CHAPTER 24 IS BEING REVIEWED THIS EVENING. THE GOAL OF THE RECODIFICATION PROCESS IS TO DO CLEANUP LANGUAGES, FIXED REFERENCES, REDUNDANT LANGUAGE, OR UNNECESSARY LANGUAGE. and overall modernize the code. The goal is not to make modifications that would be related to policy or procedures. So generally speaking, these are very much what we would view as a procedural matter. The areas on the screen are the focus areas within Chapter 24, some removals of some citations, streamlining some of the definitions from a regulation standpoint, and also addressing a handful of the actual names of the zoning areas removing residential. While the packet was quite large, as I'm sure the Commission flipped through, the changes are generally pretty straightforward. I am happy to answer any questions, but staff does recommend the Planning Commission move this forward to Council as part of the overall recodification review.

Okay, I'm just gonna, rather than go around, I'm just gonna see, does anybody have any questions for Eric on this one?

Of course.

Please, Commissioner Swanson.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY ALL THE WAY OUT AT PAGE 512. IT LOOKS LIKE CHAPTER 12 MANUFACTURED HOMES AND MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS IS NOW BECOMING DIVISION 7 OF CHAPTER 24. IS THAT RIGHT?

THAT IS CORRECT.

AND THE SAME THING ALL THE WAY OUT AT PAGE 518. LOOKS LIKE CHAPTER 18.5 IS MOVING TO CHAPTER 24.

YES, PORTIONS OF THE SIGNED ORDINANCE WOULD ALSO BE PROPOSED, THAT IS CORRECT.

I WOULD JUST RECOMMEND IN THE NOTES TO COUNCIL EXPLAINING THAT, BECAUSE AS I WAS GOING THROUGH THIS, I NOTICED, YOU KNOW, IT SAYS SECTION 24-577. I SAID, THAT'S WAY TOO HIGH, AND IT TOOK ME A SECOND TO REALIZE THAT IT WAS OTHER CHAPTERS BEING MOVED INTO CHAPTER 24, AND THAT WASN'T PARTICULARLY CLEAR TO ME IN THE MEMO. Maybe worth a line item, bullet point.

I mean, some of them had margin notes and some of them didn't.

No, I'm saying. I mean, on the changes.

Margin note.

Like see here, it says section 24-577. That doesn't exist right now. Right. 577 doesn't exist. So this is all moving from. Chapter 12 would be put in here. So that's the part that just wasn't clear in here.

Okay, that makes sense.

So then Chapter 12 is going to be newly reserved and 18.5 is going to be newly reserved. Correct.

Okay.

That's it.

Anybody else? I had one. I think it's similar to Commissioner Swanson's. It's actually on page 512 also, where it talks about when permitted, generally the bottom of that page, it says that except as provided in section 24-579, and I kept looking for where is 579. And I couldn't find it, maybe it's there. If it was an electronic copy, I could have done a search, but I couldn't do that, so.

Where are you? I don't see that.

Right here. I think that's a good catch.

512, page 512.

512.

At the bottom, where there's this section 24, 422. Generally, that first paragraph ends with 24-579.

Thank you. We will make that modification.

I was just curious. I said I didn't see any trailer home parks in Woodbury, so what are we actually referencing? So I wanted to find out. And then maybe just a clarification question for someone who has not studied this chapter very well is I see at several places, at least I first noticed it on page 430, that you actually introduced an urban village master plan. Is that defined in this chapter or is it in a different chapter?

It is defined within the performance measures of the, it's actually page 488, section 24302 or NEWT 302. The Urban Village Master Plan has a number of performances. That's within the existing code and that continues.

All right, thank you. That's all I had, thanks.

I'll jump to page 382 and not 512 specifically building height you know I noticed it gets into some sub paragraphs defining the building heights but then when you go to a tower or antenna we're not necessarily defining the height requirements within those areas would that be identified somewhere else or do we want to go down that path of you know the purpose of 382 under the

under the definition of building height is for pitched roof and other measurements versus measuring to the peak for antennas and so on it is to the top of the structure

AND THEN JUST ZONING FOR R3 IS NOT IN OUR ZONED PLAN. IS THERE, AS WE'RE READING THIS, MAYBE FOR THE FIRST TIME ALL THE WAY THROUGH, IS THERE A ASTRICS OF NOT INCLUDED OR INTENTIONALLY DELETED, NOT USED? WE'RE FINE WITH IT. THERE'S SOME, I FORGOT WHAT PAGE IT WAS ON, ON THAT ONE, BUT.

I DO NOT THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO ADD A R3 REFERENCE. LIKELY IF WE WERE TO ADD ADDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICTS, WE WOULD DO A FAIRLY HEAVY MODIFICATION TO THE OVERALL ZONING. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE, CHAIR. THANK YOU.

OKAY. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS? JUST A COMMENT.

I SAW IN YOUR LETTER IT SAYS SINCE 2023. THAT'S LONG. YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN WORKING HARD ON THIS FOR A WHILE.

THIS PROJECT HAS HAD A NUMBER OF STARTS AND STOPS AND, FRANKLY, HAS HAD A NUMBER OF INTERNAL PROJECT MANAGERS. THERE'S BEEN A FEW RETIREMENTS OUT OF THIS PROJECT. THIS IS THE ONE THAT TAKES YOU OUT. THIS IS THE ONE THAT TAKES CITY STAFF MEMBERS OUT.

Eric, so I think for Commissioner Shah's reference, I think then that, because it looks like in the red line, so I think that just needs to be 24-423, right? And then for Commissioner Swanson, just to note, we received a council letter, a council memo in August, sort of giving us a heads up And it does sort of reference those moves, but I appreciate sort of pointing those out. But this will be coming before us on the 23rd. And so we have sort of that summary of like every section is being touched. And so this has been a bit of a behemoth project for staff, for sure.

Just the only question I had was on page 477, WE ADDED A RED LINE IN SUB BULLET G THAT REFERENCES INCLUDING LANDSCAPING THAT SAYS INCLUDING BUT UNLIMITED TO SECTION 15-2B7. WHAT IS THAT TYPE? IT SAYS WE DON'T HAVE THE OTHER SECTIONS.

Yeah, section 15.2 is tying to some of our environmental provisions and some of our nuisance ordinance requirements that are based on state statutes and what is and what is not allowed within those landscaped areas.

Okay, great.

I think we want a motion here.

Move to motion approval of recodification 2026-00620.

Second. Okay.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none. Best of luck with finishing this project. Next up we will have the council report from Council Member Santini.

THE ONLY THING TO REPORT IS THAT WE SPENT SEVEN HOURS LAST WEDNESDAY, ERIC WAS LOVELY TO MAINTAIN PRESENCE AT THE MEETING FOR THAT WHOLE TIME AS WELL, TO GO THROUGH OUR ANNUAL BUDGET, AND WE HAVE DIRECTED STAFF TO TRY TO GO BACK, MAKE A FEW EXTRA TWEAKS, AND THAT WILL BE COMING BEFORE US ON THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING ON THE 23RD AS WELL. TO DO OUR TRUTH IN TAXATION TO DO OUR TRUTH IN TAXATION MEETING. MEETING. THAT WILL SET OUR CEILING, THAT WILL SET OUR CEILING, SO WE CAN'T GO ABOVE THAT SO WE CAN'T GO ABOVE THAT WITH REGARDS TO OUR LEVY. WITH REGARDS TO OUR LEVY. IF WE CONTINUE TO MAKE SOME IF WE CONTINUE TO MAKE SOME A FEW MONTHS. A FEW MONTHS. WE'LL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO WE'LL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO LOWER IT IF POSSIBLE. LOWER IT IF POSSIBLE. BUT WE'RE TRYING TO FINE-TUNE A BUT WE'RE TRYING TO FINE-TUNE A LITTLE BIT MORE. LITTLE BIT MORE. AND THEN, YES, THIS BIG AND THEN, YES, THIS BIG RECODIFICATION, ALL OF THE RECODIFICATION, ALL OF THE CHANGES WHICH OVERALL THROUGHOUT CHANGES WHICH OVERALL THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, THE LENGTHY MEMBER THIS PROCESS, THE LENGTHY MEMBER THAT WE RECEIVED, MOST OF THAT WE RECEIVED, MOST OF THEM ARE SORT OF THESE TECHNICAL THEM ARE SORT OF THESE TE

Just this, just the entire ordinance code will be on the agenda? Yeah.

The other thing that we'll have, which I was not part of, I willing, I gave up my seat to some others council members to participate, but we did have, you guys maybe have seen, you saw some of the notifications, but there was a full scale EMERGENCY EXERCISE THAT OCCURRED, WHAT WAS THAT? IT MUST HAVE BEEN LAST TUESDAY. YES, RIGHT? AND SO AT THE NEXT WORKSHOP, SO ON THE 23RD, BUT AT THE WORKSHOP MEETING WE'LL RECEIVE A DEBRIEF ON THAT EXERCISE AND HOW IT WENT. I BELIEVE IT WAS SUCCESSFUL IN THAT A LOT OF DEFINITELY GOOD LESSONS LEARNED, BUT I THINK OVERALL IT ALSO WENT WELL. SO THAT IS MY REPORT.

Thank you very much. Okay, item six is approval of the minutes from our last meeting on June 29th, 2026. Does anybody have any edits to the minutes?

I found a few typos. I gave them to staff before the meeting.

Okay. The only thing I have is on the last page under approval of minutes, it says that I voted in favor but I wasn't here. Are you sure? I didn't do that.

It does show you as absent.

And it does show me as absent before, yes. Anybody else?

I had one which maybe is a typo, or maybe it's something I didn't understand, but on page eight, the second paragraph, it starts with saying, Chair Olson.

Yeah. I told him.

Okay. So I was looking for last names and saying who is Olson, so.

Old habits are hard to break.

Okay, anybody else?

Okay, shall we approve the minutes? Make a recommendation then?

Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve.

Okay, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, the minutes are approved. And the meeting is adjourned, thank you.