Welcome to the May 4th planning commission meeting. Uh if all commissioners would please mute your microphone until it's your turn to speak, that would be appreciated. Members of the public may join using a PC, a Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device. Um you can access the meeting online at the city's website. The public can ask questions and provide comments online during the meeting. Use the link in the virtual meeting to join and then submit questions via the question feature uh 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. Um, if you are a member of the public, which I don't see anyone here, but for the record, uh, and you wish to speak on a topic in person at this meeting or any future meeting, uh, please, uh, come in person, fill out a yellow sheet at the back of the room, and provide that sheet to staff. All questions, whether it's online or in person, will be called on after the project in reference is presented. Uh, with that, we'll call the meeting to order. Um, and can we give a roll call, please? >> Yes. Jim Gentiel, >> present. Jacob Guzzek, Sheay Sebrooks >> here. >> Sauren Shaw >> here. >> Marsha Kennedy >> here. >> Stephanie Swanson >> here. >> Jazelle Parnell >> here. >> Rion Hole >> here. >> John Colum >> here. >> Chair, we have a quorum. >> Or excuse me, did I say Saurin? >> Okay. Chair, we have a quorum. >> Excellent. Thank you. Okay, so we have one item on the agenda tonight and that is the Cottage Grove Drive master plan project number 2025-0000604. And I think Gina, you're going to take us through this. >> Thank you, Chair. City of Woodbury has prepared the Cottage Grove Drive master plan. The intent of the plan is to document existing conditions, provide guidance on lot and home types, roadway design and access management, storm water management approach, parks and open space and pedestrian movements. Uh so a little context, in December of 2024, the city council adopted the directive uh 3.26 that to provide guidance on when master plans are required. uh those are shown on the screen either prior to the opening of a development phase or subphase or prior to the approval of a plan unit development for properties with common ownership that are within the Musa and over 100 acres. Uh this plan represents a plan from the first section and it's prior to a subphase being open for development. A little bit of history on master plans. It has been used several times in the city's past to help implement our comprehensive plans. So, some of these examples are for city center just north and kind of surrounding city hall. Urban Village, which was done in 2012, that's the Jerry's food area in the top right image. The south of Dale residential area, that's that bottom left image for residential in 2021. and then most recently the Gold Line station area master plan in the bottom right that was done in 2022. So here is a really brief location map uh showing the the approximate boundary of where this is. Uh Cottage Grove Drive bisecting the center and Dale Road bisecting basically um the other portion of the site running east west. So this is the concept master plan that was provided within your packet. We will kind of break down the components that are shown here. The the lot uh and housing types through housing diversity, storm water management approach, greenway corridors, some of the access management, um natural resources, um trail connections, roadways, uh things like that. And this approximately 370 acres. All right, diving in. We provided a bit of a context map. So, I just thought that was really helpful in figuring out where this plan is in relation to the rest of the city. So, you'll see Bailey Road at the top of the screen there. Uh Woodberry Drive on the far left side of the screen and then Manning Avenue is on the right side of the screen. And so this shows how it kind of ties into the adjacent developments uh within the area. So some of the components that of the master plan, you received that large 33page document, but we're going to break it down into some chunks for you guys. Um I'll present and then at the end we can talk questions from there. Uh so we'll be reviewing regional storm water management approach, housing diversity, park and open space network and then street and intersection typologies. So first um main one is regional storm water management. Bar engineering actually completed a study separate from this master plan identifying future areas of natural resources uh storm water management approach and a variety of future planned areas of growth in the city and this was one of them and provided their recommendations on regional individual or kind of a hybrid approach on storm water. Uh based on some of our review, some of the underlying Karst within the area, it was determined this area shown in blue would be best served by regional storm water management approach, which essentially means the 249 acres in the blue would drain kind of this general direction to the regional storm water management basin that would be planned on this property. Um so some of the the reasons to do regional and the benefit is that it would remove the inefficient small basins improve some of our maintenance approaches to those carst uh topography can restrict the type of basin. So you could end up with larger basins or having to do completely different approach. So this really focuses it on a specific location. Uh we have an ability to expand the existing footprint. Uh I can go back to this graphic. There's already storm water management occurring within this development. So this is able to help expand that which is a really big benefit and go back. Uh it has it can improve the viewshed of the greenway corridor that we're going to talk about in a little bit. There is an existing FEMA flood plane in this area. So it already kind of has a restricted use. So this is a further efficient way to use it. and it meets the property owner's needs and vision for the property. So, next topic we'll go into is housing diversity. A guiding principle within the comprehensive plan is to provide a variety of housing for all incomes and age levels within the city. Further, the city has a commitment to providing a mix of housing uh generally 50/50 between single family and town home or attainable small lot homes. So, we will go through kind of each of the products here. We're going to start with 65 and move on from there. So, here is the master plan. It shows where those 65 ft minimum lots would be. 65 ft kind of represent our standard residential lot as of the last probably 15 years. It's I would say more of a standard size. It fits a variety of home plans, number of garage, stalls, and amenities. And here are some of those examples. So the multicolor on the side of the map is actually where the master plan is located. So these blue areas call out different neighborhoods where these 65- ft lots are currently in place and the different housing products that are on those lots. The next is a 55 foot wide minimum lot. This is more of a midsize lot. It can be a smaller home footprint with two to threecar garage. You might also see villa homes on this with HOA management. Um so that's kind of the 55. And here are some locations as well where those 55- ft lots are um either under construction or fully constructed adjacent to the site. Now we will go into the 45 ft minimum lot or town home. the market uh the housing market has identified numerous issues with providing town homes right now due to the cost of insurance and the cost of HOAs. Um so instead of completely removing town homes, we wanted to provide some flexibility within this plan if that changes that town homes could be identified in this location or a smaller lot um be provided. We have not gone below 50 ft in our history of doing developments or recent history of doing developments. So the the extreme flexibility of 45 to 49 um would come be identified with a price cap on those homes to provide that attainable housing. That really is our goal um with that 50/50 commitment. So we'll talk about that in just a little bit. Um, and then the setbacks, we would want them to be as consistent as possible with the rest of development, but we would review those individually with each proposal as well. And then here are some of the existing 45 foot lots. That's why I corrected myself a little bit. We do have these um existing in the community. We have the Savannah Oaks neighborhood uh generally at Lake Road and Pioneer Drive. And then another one just to highlight is the Highland Null neighborhood with 45 foot lots kind of in the Eagle Valley neighborhood where they have provided a couple different types of products on those as well. And then as referenced that in exchange for the lowest measurement of these lot sizes, a price cap would be memorialized within the PUD. And this would be for the maximum sale price. Uh staff is looking for your review. Our recommendation right now would be to to aim for between 110 and 120. And that's that's sale price um for your reference. So that's the 445 to 490 on the screen, but not putting those numbers in the report to to give some flexibility as the market and AMI might fluctuate. All right. And then the next area kind of contrasting is some of the 100 foot minimum lots. We have had numerous different touch points with property owners throughout the area. The property owner of the Hines Nursery or IGI that you'll see in your report has identified a vision for their property to provide 100 foot lots for non-national or custom builders uh looking to establish a unique sense of place with ro uh robust landscaping potentially from nursery plants found within the existing nursery property. And you will see a few areas highlighted on the north side of a 65- ft minimum lot area. This is due to the proximity of that raptor substation and some active carst in that area. So just providing the ability to maybe do a Rambler style home um as you likely would not be able to achieve basement in that location. And so some examples of these um 100 foot 80 to 100 foot lots are shown on the screen of what those generally look like. And then we have um our other 100 foot lot area that you'll see within the plan. This was actually done um with unique guidance based on our meetings with all of the property owners. Um each individual has their own timing of if they would even like to develop, some would not. Uh and we thought the appropriate way to allow them to provide value for their property, be served by utilities, but essentially control their own destiny of when they wanted to develop. Um was to create these 100 foot lots that would be served off of a private drive. um and keep their home, keep the existing home in place. Uh based on our calculations, they could likely subdivide about five lots kind of in that location. Um and then in exchange for the private drives and some access management flexibility to do that, the city would request an easement over the the mature trees that we'll talk about here in a second. but the the highquality wooded area that's kind of surrounding the existing homes in north of there. Uh so that leads into those high-quality woodlands. Um they were identified on that same bar study as a natural resource within the area. Uh Eric and I both got the chance to walk the site. There's 300-year-old oak trees within there and they've been really well maintained by the property owners for years. Um and so it's it's identified that we we could still create some development scenario while preserving these um without park dedication. So that's really why that they are shown like that. And from here we'll move into the greenway and park opportunities. So you'll see the greenway kind of called out in that um more of a tealish green color and dotted lines on the screen showing where it runs specifically through the master plan area. Um really just extending the existing greenway all the way to Andy's Park and then also creating a greenway corridor north south for future connections into other development areas to the north. And then um we also have identified a park location. It is identified within the comprehensive plan for there to be an established park within this area. Uh and the plan just calls out two opportunities. It wouldn't be two parks. It would be one location or the other just depending on how some of these developments lay out and what would be the best fit to meet some of the park performance standards which are about 50 ft off of a roadway bump in parking if that's feasible. keeping in mind some setbacks with the wetland that's in that area. And then just a little bit of a a zoomed out version of that greenway corridor to show that this really builds on the connection and essentially has Andy's Bark Park connected to Woodbury Drive. And honestly, if the map keeps being zoomed out, it it connects essentially all the way to Bailey Lake, which is a really great opportunity that the plan's able to provide. And then quickly just want to highlight that we did look at street and intersections with the master plan. So understanding what that Dale Road right ofway needs to be, what the rightway needs to be for Cottage Grove Drive ultimate improvements and then making sure that all of the properties had kind of interconnections. we weren't um for not not including a group um with our roadway connections. Uh we are als we are also looking at understanding um potential roundabout with a study at Dale Road and Cottage Grove Drive that's identified by engineering, but they'd have to look into those improvements a little bit further. Uh realign the Andes Bark Park access. You can see that in the image on the right from the current spot to a full access intersection just to allow for those full turning movements. Uh and the opportunity to fund Dale Road essentially from Cottage Grove Drive to Andy's Park with development um providing that funding so that those improvements can happen. It's worth noting that Dale Road um from Woodbury Drive to Cottage Grove Drive is scheduled to be improved in 2028 as part of the capital improvement plan. And one last item, I didn't touch on this in the staff report, but thought it was worth highlighting. Um some of the plan area engagement that we have conducted. We've done two formal uh property owner meetings for those within the property. uh the plan area. We also hold held a neighborhood meeting for the surrounding property owners um just to inform them of what's coming and identify some of the lot types that we're seeing. And then we've met with individual property owners in the area 20 or more times throughout the process. Uh this was in front of the planning commission on February 2nd just as an introduction. And then city council workshop, we we introduced it on February 25th and then we got into some more of the details on March 25th and the next steps uh just depending on your feedback here and edits and items that need to be added to the report would be discussion on May 13th at city council. So that concludes my presentation. some questions if you guys have questions. Are we missing any components within the plan? Is there any technical information that I presented here or that needs to be clarified within the plan? Uh and then does the plan feel appropriate for city goals, housing market demand, um and our thoughtful growth strategies. So with that, I'll open it to you. >> Thank you, Gina. That was very comprehensive. Uh much appreciated. Um, should we just go in order just to keep it uh organized here? So, I'm assuming we don't have any questions online first of all, right? >> We do not. >> Okay. Just want to make sure. Um, Commissioner Gentiel, why don't you kick us off? >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I guess starting with the last comment that you made. So, 2028 capital improvement plan for the Bailey Road construction. So then is the intent no current development is planned to go in and they're just going to deal with the lo the utilities that they have and then would they switch over? So Dale Road would be improved is fully funded to be improved to Cottage Grove Drive. Development would carry those utilities forward with them, the trunk sanitary um and water. Uh, and then future roadway improvements would include Dale Road, but development could occur until we have all of that funding and then it's put into the capital improvement plan. >> Yeah, there's, as Gina alluded to, there's obviously the funding side. There's also trying to have the development activity occur prior to rebuilding the road and and frankly having pretty significant uh impacts to the roadway. So kind of allow that development phase to occur and then make the new roadway improvement. It allows it to last much longer. >> So then I guess uh staying on this slide looking at the future dog park combined entrance. Uh it's a beautiful like three lane three deep row of trees all the way down to Andy's dog park and the K9. Just curious on the the shifting of that intersection in eliminating those trees. Yeah. And this this is just a concept of how it would be done. Um these trees could remain. It could be shifted more closer down here. It could even be shifted over this direction. So it's just to show that there is sufficient room for it to be realigned to a full access. >> Yeah. I would say then maybe one recommendation is if it's does something like that, if we could just expand then the community garden to take up the other half of that area. While we're looking at that, just keep on staying on this slide then as well. So then with the uh you know oak trees that are there, you had mentioned that then the easement is there. So it's what you're giving the parcel divides to you know the four or five lots. They're assigning that that easement to say trees stay. >> Correct. >> Okay, perfect. curious on the slide out, the picture on the right hand side, the two kind of connection points then for the pathways for pedestrians. You know, it says pending grant funding for, you know, an underpass of the pedestrians, but looking at, you know, what that would take to actually get underneath that. Is there is it an either or, an over with the bridge or an under or just some, like you said, some sort of treatment at that intersection and not rerouting, you know, back through that path as we look at the master plan. It's a pretty significant part of that. >> Yeah, I think this location, uh, we would anticipate to see more of a refuge approach. The grades are not favorable to do a grade separated crossing, but calling out that that's one of it's a it's the greenway corridor crossing. So, being a little more intentional, uh, this location was identified due to the grades that it could be an underpass. Um, that said, it would need to be grant funded. It's It's not within the budget. >> Yeah. I think it's also important to note that this segment of Dale Road is anticipated to be a two-lane roadway. So, it's it's a fairly approachable roadway network to be able to cross. We're not in the four, six, or eight lane aspect. So, while it's important to plan for pedestrian movements in the area, the roadway characteristics are approachable from a pedestrian standpoint. >> Yeah. And just to further build on that, if if this wasn't provided as a grade separated, we would work to ensure the trails are routed back to an intersection crossing. >> Perfect. Um, and then I guess when you reference your initial slides of the additional master plans that were created kind of throughout the the community with master plans three, four, and five, how are we servicing kind of the southeast with kind of public safety for fire and police in that area? And is there a grab in this development or this master plan for that? >> It's a great question, Eric. I know you have been meeting on some of those conversations. Um to highlight with this context map is we are uh Washington County does have holdings in this location for the environmental center uh southern public works shop that they are planning for future public works. And the city does own a couple parcels here. Um and I know there has been discussion on a fire station. So I'll let Eric kind of build on that. Yeah, the city council did authorize funding for a search to be conducted, basically looking at response times, looking at the locations to serve Southeast Woodbury. Um, the study has not been finalized yet, but generally speaking, um, it is going to appear like some level of additional investment is going to be requested through our capital improvement plan over the next few years. probably the timing from a need standpoint is somewhere in the 2030 2031 2032 range. But it's always important to begin that process well in advance um for a number of different reasons. One to identify ideally the the future locations so that those that are investing in the area are aware that there might be you know a fire station or uh a public safety facility within close proximity so individuals can make informed decisions. Yeah, seems that the northn northwest side is you know station one, two and three are >> well protected on that side, >> right? >> Um I think then final question for me would be on the um watershed area. You had mentioned that the existing property to the west or over that kind of boundary line of the master plan had already kind of done that as they ran into any additional carsted issues in that area or how are we protecting ourselves to kind of drain to that area? Yeah. So, they did not run into Karstst with the development of these storm water basins, but that is part of our uh next phase of due diligence is getting some soil borings on the proposed. We kind of have a concept plan um found within your plan. I believe a 60% plan. So, doing some soil borings to kind of proof out that this is the method that we're going to continue to go with. >> Perfect. Thank you, Gina. Chair, no further questions. Thank you, Commissioner Kennedy. You're up. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, just a few questions, some of which I think you already answered. Um, page five of the master plan and design guidance says, and this is the one I think you already answered, but I'm asking anyway, future development will require extension of trunk, sanitary sewer, and water utilities to accommodate increased densities, and demand. It's basically a no-brainer. Is there a a tipping point or is it just as the development um expands and develops as it were then then that's decided? >> That's correct. Yep. We've identified uh within the appendix there's an appendix page on where those trunk lines need to run to serve development. And so our engineering department worked pretty closely to to make sure that the densities shown within this plan are can support or the infrastructure can support. There's not really a number. It's more of where the development has has shown up. Right. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Um the 2040 comprehensive plan that this is about this is more because I'm not certain of this subsurface sewage treatment systems. Okay. In the comprehensive plan figure 10-4 and I know that that's under Washington County management. So my question was really about financial responsibility from the city. Um there aren't many near the Cottage Grove Drive um and uh between Dale and and Bailey. There are some there but um again depending on where the development goes. Do we have to engage with Washington County to install more as the residential density grows? I think the answer would be no, but I don't know. And I was just looking for financial responsibilities. Yeah, I think our our anticipated goal would be that trunk sewer would be extended to serve development so that if um individual private septic systems were to fail, they would be able to have access to our uh sanitary sewer lines so that additional uh sewers would not be put septic systems would not be put in place. Yeah, just building off of that, as the zoning changes for the entire area, property owners would not be eligible to continue to have private on-site systems once municipal utilities are within an area, city code requires them to hook up. >> Okay. And so that's no matter what the foot 100 ft um 65 whatever that is correct the size of the lot is. Okay. Excuse me. Um the in the storm water section, the regional system is going to be on Mr. Roach's property. I guess that's the area in red. Is that right? Okay. Correct. And then um the staff report again, page three, number two, shows that the management area is the red outlined area. Is it because of the sloping of that whole area? I think the yellow stars were in the middle. Green stars where it's lower were on the right near his property. Is that >> is that okay? I was it was my concern that when I saw the this particular slide with the storm water runoff at the bottom, I thought maybe it was sloping down toward the south, but that that's not what it showed. >> Yeah, it looks like it breaks at a certain point and then the rest of this land heads this way into a future uh storm water management area. >> Okay. And it was that in in conjun junction with um the car's topography the um and it was in the comprehensive plan too. A lot of the area shows 50 50 feet or less of cover, right? >> And I mean this area I I love the fact that we're going to develop this area. Um my mom and I went out to see it and started planning where we wanted our house. So um seriously um but it's got some challenges and one of those is the depth of that topography. Um >> uh going forward I think the notification for the property new property owner some of those have to be covered and they will be I'm sure um and arrangement of the buildings on the properties soil borings must be done. So there, although this property has those challenges and the drain drainoff, I I still think it's worthwhile putting this master plan in place. Is there anything that I'm sure there's nothing you haven't thought of as far as that goes? However, um what are the biggest challenges you see? >> I think high this master plan is to provide really highlevel guidance. It's based on our review of some of the existing market, our comprehensive plan goals, um really aligning uh the vision of this area, coming up with a vision, and then the next level is going to that uh development review. So, we will see different lot patterns put together. And frankly, that's why uh the concept plan as it's shown on the screen doesn't get into those details. It's really how do we interconnect these properties because there are 19 different property owners out in this area and 13 that have existing homes. So the goal is really to show how that gets interconnected before and this kind of sets the ground framework for future development applications that will come to you and and we will be looking at those things. There will be soil borings. I I do like the reference that you made of of buyers knowing that this is in the area. So, I think that will be really important on those future reviews. >> Yeah, because basements I lived for a long time in Arizona where there are no basements. We can build anywhere we want to, but here it's different, >> right? >> Yeah. Good. Um, just two more things. >> Yeah. Just one one to add on your question on on known and unknowns. I think you've hit one and I think it's really important and and Gina touched on it. We we do a thorough amount of of information that we have available in topography maps um general carst mapping um lot of good what I'll call kind of desktop review but nothing replaces the the value of a bore of a soil boring and one of the areas that I would not be surprised if in the future was needing to be modified is on 22 and 21 where there are 100 foot lots there there has been some shallower lower bedrock that has been um identified on other construction projects generally within that excuse me same level of of area um 100 foot lots generally include a basement larger footprints slavon grade products and 100 foot lots generally don't mix so as more information is known a modification could be necessary but as Gina touched on the property owner who is very familiar with their property they own it for many decades is is adamant to see that larger lot and we'll see if the site conditions can support that. >> Thank you. Um um just a couple more things. Chair page four uh of the staff report, the second paragraph. I love this. Establish a unique neighborhood with robust landscaping and screening from nursery plants that just offers the opportunity for people to develop their own neighborhood in the way that they see it. And so I just I just wanted a kudos on that one. I love that. Um, about density, um, uh, cross reference page 19 on the larger handout, the 100 foot plus lots, figure 12.2. Um, it is identified that each property would connect to city utilities when available and subdivide a few lots on the southern portion of their land. Which brings me to um think about the previous um planning commission property that we we talked about earlier this year. How would that impact the number of units in the area? Um I I don't I can't imagine that would be a significant impact as far as the road usage or utilities, etc. But um and I know that's that's handled when the when the application is is put forward. And so I'm I'm way down the road on this, but um but just thinking of the that impact if every one of those 100 foot, you know, I'm a doomsday sometimes. So that was that's my question. >> Yeah, it's it's less of a demand. If each property uh wanted to develop those areas, this would be less dense. So it's less of a demand on those utilities. >> Okay. Okay. rather than the 45 foot or whatever, >> right? >> Or a standard 65- ft lot, you could you could get significantly more lots in there. So, this is this is less >> worry wart. Here we go. So, um one last question. the I know that I think it's the um property management organization um the the two nurseries that are there or three two um are are there and they're going to stay there but the property management does um assigns a lease or PUD something um is it is that timing annually how many years is that for and how does that impact the development >> for the use or the greenhouse or the the landscaping one that you're referring to. >> Yeah, we would we would time it. We would um for interim conditional use permits, we always have to have a deadline. So, we would work with them on a reasonable timeline to continue as development moves through, but as homes are are built around there, having that use cease and and making that property eligible for some development as well. And every um every operator within I mean everybody involved in that knows that already, right? >> Yes. Yeah. On the the landscape business. Yes. On um property number two, which is an existing greenhouse, they don't have um intention to develop. And because they are covered within our non-conforming uses, they're not required to to identify a timeline to be done. Same with the nursery. If the nursery decided to stay, uh, they're under a non-conforming use. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That's it for me, Chair. >> Thank you very much, Commissioner Swanson. >> Thank you. Um, first with the highquality oaks, those are on private property, >> correct? >> And they would stay on private property. It would not be part of the greenway corridor. >> Correct. >> Okay. Just want to make sure I understood that. On page four of the staff report, the first sentence there, the this sentence just confused me, so I'm hoping I'm just reading it wrong. The areas identified in dark orange are for town homes or small lot single family to meet the need for multifamily units. And so I just kept getting very confused. >> Yeah, this is this is kind of what I was referring to on providing flexibility. Our goal is to provide that attainable housing product either through small lot, single family or town home. Um, so the goal of the 5050 split for multif family is to provide attainable housing. So this achieves that. >> So we're not necessarily saying that the 45 foot lots are going to be under an HOA or anything like that. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. Understood. Um, is there an idea yet of the percentage of units at each of these different lot widths? >> Uh, I I haven't done a number of unit breakdown. Did we do >> Yeah, we have some broad numbers based on each of the coloring to look at as part of our background information that went into compiling this. We didn't want to provide that within the master plan because there's an awful lot of variability, but as we looked at it the data in aggregate, it did meet the overall housing goals. >> About what would the percentage be of the capped houses, the 45 foot lots? >> Um, we cap them from the 45 to 55%. That's about 20 a little less than 25% of the overall area. The capping aspect is a little bit of an incentive approach. So again, we want to incentivize the building community to come forward with a different type of product that is a uh brought to the market at a different price point than what we're currently seeing. And in return for that, the city would contemplate additional flexibility and lot width. There's no guarantee that that's going to occur as we see the development patterns. We may only see 50 foot lots within these areas. those would not be subject to that price cap. But if the developer saw the value of the increased number of lots, then they would need to be tied to that performance. >> Okay? And I've only worked with affordable rental properties where you do an annual income and if you are suddenly making too much money or if you know you were a one-inccome family and then you jump to a two-income family, you essentially get evicted. How does that work with purchasing properties? >> This would just be done at the initial sale price. So, it wouldn't be related to the long-term value of the home. You could make investments in the home. You could sell it for a different price, but in order to to really provide this attainable housing for firsttime home buyers, that was that's the approach. Not to not that I'm accusing anybody of this, but how do you stop people from getting divorced on paper or from jumping from a stay-at-home parent to going back to work situation where their income looks like it meets these standards, but in reality, that is a very variable issue. >> You got it. So this is a little unique that we're establishing the price point based on AMI, not requiring individuals who are buying it to qualify under AMI. So the idea here is that the market is not providing homes for sale at a certain price because of decisions made by outside of the city's control. size of the home, the upgrades, the finishes. The value proposition that is proposed within this concept is if the buyer brings forward a product that is for sale that would meet those AMIs, they would qualify for the reduction from 45 to 49. You could have an individual who has incomes higher than that acquire that home, but what we're seeing is that there isn't product available at all. And so, we're trying to bring a different type of product to the marketplace. >> Okay. So, it's just the the developer can sell it for X dollars to whoever they want. >> That's right. >> Correct. >> Okay. Got it. >> All right. Those were all my questions. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Swanson. Commissioner Shaw, you're next up. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, we can stay on that uh slide. So, I had two questions. Uh, first one is, you know, the property three which is marked and which is designated as a storm water uh is the an existing property owner with a house there. Correct. >> Correct. And so is the property owner okay that they actually would sign up to be the site for a storm water? >> Yes, we've we've met with her a few times. Uh she has identified a vision for the property to have it be this open space. Um and she she likes the idea that this would be storm water that the existing home can remain. Uh she currently rents it um to a friend. So having these opportunities, we've we've shown her how it could be developed in the future if she wanted that. Um but she really likes the aspect of just having this open space that's around the home. >> Okay. So she she agrees. That's that's good. Um the second question I had is uh the 14 15 16 17 um they are obviously existing homes in the wooded area, right? And then they are also the ones who actually are saying we would actually do the 100 foot lots. Correct. >> Correct. It it's a way for them to individually move forward. You'll have somebody um within the area who would like to develop now and sell it now. You would have somebody potentially in the middle who is never looking to move. Um who kind of controls then the destiny for the rest. And this allows all of them to make those decisions themselves which they appreciated that approach. >> And and I think in the report you actually said that there would be individual access from Dale Road to those houses. So what would that look like? Because I mean at this point their houses already already have access right from Dale Road. I think you showed it in one of the other ones, but uh so this would actually the houses would be in front and then there would be an access to the existing homes that actually goes by their houses. So these properties are actually all set up. Great. Here's the kind of existing condition cuz it can be kind of tricky to see with those colors overlaid. All of the driveways are actually set up on the edges. So these driveways can easily be turned into those private drives and then lots created off of here. Okay. >> So in order to access their home, if they're remaining with these lots, they would come in off of these private drives and pass them. Um but that's essentially how it would be created. There's just more driveway points than would be considered allowed on our access management standpoint. You can kind of see they're built in here and here. So, they'd be able to have these private driveway accesses to those properties without meeting the intersection control requirement essentially. >> But you would have to essentially widen the existing driveway, right? If you're providing more. >> Correct. >> Okay. That's those are the two questions I had. Thank you. >> Outstanding. Uh Commissioner Sebrooks. Thank you, chair. >> Thank you, chair. Um, a lot of my questions have already been asked at this point. Um, but I do have some follow-up questions to um, Commissioner Kennedy's um, question about the non-conforming portion, and it might just me being a little bit confused on page four. Um, but I was wondering again if you could point out on the map what area it is that currently has the interim permit. So they do not currently have one. We would as development occurs, we would work with them on timing to get that interim permit. That's the same property as the storm water basin. There is a landscape company that's been in business um essentially with the nursery across the street. It's kind of been just an extension of that that's occurred. Um and then we have the greenhouse use that is right here. And then this property, I'm not sure the best location to highlight, but this is essentially the nursery. You can see it all throughout here. Uh the nursery property really extends all the way through this area. Okay, great. Thank you. Um and then moving to page six, um there is a paragraph about proposed development. I was wondering if you could expand on um how vehicle trip counts are done and when that study was done given the huge uptick of development over there. Yeah. So they're traditionally studied through the comprehensive plan process and they do they study the existing and then projecting out using our land use guidance of what that area is number of future um units to project out to 2040 of what those vehicle trips would be. So that's traditionally how it's studied um usually done with a traffic consultant um from outside getting those inputs for our comprehensive plans. So is the future development of the roadways for instance? I assume that would be considered cuz right now one might avoid going over to some of those roadways um because of the gravel or um you know that there really isn't too much over there. Um but does it consider that? Yeah, I would consider that the the anticipated goal would be to have these paved with development consistent with our phasing timeline. >> Okay. Um and then one question and this again might just be me educ you educating me a little bit and it's outside of the plan technically, but I'm a little bit curious on to the south of the plan. Um there is a it is appears to be zoned for urban reserve land. Um is that is there any talk about developing that area over there eventually? Um is that part of a separate plan? Yeah, so urban reserve is outside of our phasing. It's essentially outside of our Musa, our municipal urban service area that is set with our comprehensive plan and set by the metropolitan council. We have received guidance that it's not anticipated that the MUSA will be expanded. Uh so urban reserve land is intended to stay. Uh I think it is worth noting I do have a slide about this because it's a great question on 3M property. 3M property covers um a large portion of this urban reserve area. There is a portion of 3M property within the master plan at this corner here and then extending down. uh they do not have any development timeline of this. Um we've heard that they have a a no soil removal um requirement. Uh so they're shown in our plan because it is part of our phasing. Um and we want to make sure we're making decisions on access management and not precluding if something were to occur in the future. But it is identified that 3M would not be developed. And so that is another reason that they are part of the urban reserve. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um and I think that's all the questions I have for now. >> Thank you, Chair. >> Thank you, Commissioner Parnell. >> Thank you, Chair. Um just a quick question regarding the high quality woodlands. Um, I understand the city is trying to preserve those natural resources and the 300 oak trees, but I was kind of wondering like what that plan, the alternate development plan would look like in that case. >> Yeah, without with those removed essentially all of these properties would be uh 10 acres. Um, so you could get um small finger streets kind of essentially similar to this. This property is also 10 acres over here. So you'd see probably a straight road and a culde-sac that ended at the end of adjacent to Andy Spark Park. So um and that would we would have challenges meeting access management. So other opportunities would be extending streets this way and serving the properties that way as well. >> Okay. Thank you. That's all my questions. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Hole. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, on page five regarding like the neighborhood park, it shows that there's two potential locations. Can you show me where those are at? So, those would be located in these on the the yellow star locations. I can get a different map. Um, here's kind of the overall. So we show a couple carveouts right here of a park opportunity adjacent to the greenway and then again in this general area as well. >> Oh, and is there like trails around the area especially for like safe travel without any driving involved? >> Yeah, those the dotted white line establishes those trails through the greenway corridor. So there would be trails accessing both of these parks. And then um one of the other amenities that our parks and recreation group wanted to look at was bumpout parking with each subdivision. So potentially serving those with on-road access as well. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> I have one. In part of this um concept plan, will the access road from Dale to the Bark Park, is that planned to be paved all the way through? >> The the anticipation of having these areas to the south within the subphase would provide the funding to then extend that paving. um from Dale where I believe it ends in gravel right about here. Yes. >> Uh so it would be able to to fund those improvements. Yes. >> Thank you, >> Council Member Stafford. One of the things that will be in front of council in the near future is a modification to the phasing plan. Maybe you can show that slide. >> I didn't have it in there. >> Um so I will I think it's actually we can probably do this. >> I can put it in land use. >> It's okay. So, as you if you go to the first page, this graphic. >> Yeah, never mind. Oh, yeah, I do. >> Perfect. There is a property that uh we would investigate on the south side, a few properties on the south side of Dale Road that in the future staff anticipates requesting council amend the phasing plan to include the south piece to allow funding, grading, and the ability to extend the paving of Dale Road. Okay. Um, I've got a few questions um that haven't been touched on or or maybe to extend on some other commissioners remarks. I've got a couple questions on the housing diversity plan because I'm still not Commissioner Swanson asked some good questions, but I'm still not sure I'm clear exactly how it'll work. So, but let me save those for the end. Um, I guess my first question on the on the regional basin for the storm water. So you should Yeah. So how does that work from a from a funding standpoint if there's a lot of lots and individual development ownership that's going to normally we would have drainage basin in each neighborhood. So, how does that work as far as like the funding of that? Um, if those lots are all getting developed at different stages or some maybe not at all um for that work to be able to be done. >> You want to take that one? >> Yeah. These types of regional amenities occur through our utility charge approach. So the way that our utility charges occur is we look at the infrastructure needed over several decades in some cases divided by the acreage that will ultimately be served by the infrastructure that equals a per acre utility charge and that's exactly what's proposed here. So we will in aggregate acre by acre collect due to the level of development activity that has occurred within the city over the last really two and a half decades from a fund balance standpoint. We do have some fund balance within those utility charges that are going to allow us to to incur some of these expenses to ultimately deliver the regional area charge and then as development occurs they will repay that fund. So, if I understand what you're saying right, the city basically will fund that upfront and then slowly recoup that as those parcels get developed out. >> Yep, that's correct. I want to be really clear that those are existing development dollars that we have that are for these plan system improvements that have been banked over the long term. So, this is not a taxpayer dollar. This is a development pays its own way. >> That's a good clarification. Thank you. Um I had a question. So then looking at the greenway space, uh a couple commissioners have asked about the uh the those the trees there that we're preserving, we'll do like a conservation easement, I think is the plan for that. Um, I guess has staff considered or have we considered in the past like if we just the city purchased that land and banked it as park property versus the approach that we're proposing. Just maybe can you talk about that a little bit? Yeah, it it was considered due to the amount of area um that's essentially about 30 acres uh and the cost to acquire that for um passive purposes adjacent to an already existing park. Uh the guidance and decision was to to put these into more of an easement. um we didn't want to restrict it on a conservation easement. So, we just have an easement within the master plan to preserve those those trees. I think one of the things that we saw from an opportunity standpoint, there are those kind of yellow circles. Those are the locations of the existing homes within that area. There are value within those homes. So if you look at how each individual property owner would see their investment come to fruition, we look at it from a standpoint that keeping that house will help them ultimately um secure the most revenue for their property, which is exactly what they should be doing as a private homeowner. From there, we looked at how do we preserve those trees versus a a standard acquisition. As Gina alluded to when we looked at the 30 acres plus the homes where they're located that's going to increase that capital expenditure from a city standpoint within park dedication or another revenue source. When we started to investigate other tools that we had available, we identified the zoning flexibilities. Um they certainly have other ways that this could develop, but by allowing additional access management, we think that they can get the same or very similar um revenue per property while controlling their own destiny more and saving those trees without a significant taxpayer whether that's through part dedication or other funding sources contributions. So just to kind of build on that as a followup then Gina I think you mentioned on those lots 13 to 17 the way we have it designed right now in the master plan is that each one could or maybe it's just 14 through 17 could get about five new lots depending on frontage and whatnot. Would is there anything that would preclude the owners of the existing homes in those in that 14 through 17 on deciding they want to develop they want to basically develop their entire parcel and somebody can knock their house down and do a larger development. >> Yeah, I think um when we're looking at PUDS, they need to be in compliance with a master plan within the area. Um, that is one of the findings of fact that we bring to you guys and if it wasn't in line with the that finding, we would we would have to have some type of reason or extenduating circumstance that that that was coming forward. But our goal with all of the properties coming forward looking to establish a PUD would be that they're in line generally with this master plan. So by putting this master plan in place, we are securing that conservation of that of those trees and any future development that would want to change that would have to come through the normal PD process, public process ultimately up through city council. >> That's correct. >> Okay, that's good to know. Um, as we were talking about roadway development, I was just curious, you know, I think, um, Commissioner Sebrooks mentioned this. I mean, part of the reason why the traffic is low, as someone who goes to Andy's Bark Park on a regular basis, is the condition of the roads make you think twice, uh, before you get your paint on your car all beat up. >> Um, what would what is the trigger on any on a road where we would look at it as a as a three-lane, you know, with a buffer lane versus a two-lane? Um I'm sure there's a threshold there right as we look at uh thorough affairs uh throughout the city but um and I'm assuming that this these Woodbury uh or Cottage Grove Drive or Dale Road here we wouldn't see as enough traffic to support that. Right. >> Correct. The main the roads in this area would be Bailey Road would be Manning would be Woodbury Drive. certainly might see vehicles um travel through Dale Road, but because of the the convenience of of Bailey Road and how quick that people are being moved through there and the destinations, frankly, on Bailey Road, that will be the the main arterial road in this area. >> Okay. Okay. Housing diversity. Um, do we have any examples of other municipalities around us that have tried this approach with the 45 ft minimum lot size and the AMI, I'm going to call it price capping/inccentive program that we're trying to memorialize. I know we had a couple examples here in Woodbury that are done some period of time ago, but the market's probably a lot different now than it was when these particular developments were done. Um, I'm just I don't know. It's confusing to me in terms of the this particular approach to try to solve for that problem of housing diversity. >> Yeah, housing attainability is an issue that's on the forefront of all of city's minds. Frankly, right now, and there are other cities that are implementing these smaller lots. Um, a couple examples are up in Hugo. Uh, they are doing a slab on grade type home. Um, M&I is the builder and the price for these lots is 400 or these homes is 410 for 2,000 square ft. We've got another one that's happening down in Cutch Grove in Mississippi Landing. They're also um doing between 40 and 45 ft lots um the builders are coming in and and building this product. This one um that I found was 375,000 for a sale price. So, I'm not sure on their regulations if they did this through an attainable housing cost, but it is a goal um to create these smaller lots because we are hearing from the market that hey, if you give us smaller lots, we'll we'll be able to build this attainable housing product. >> Yeah, I'm going to say that just a little bit differently. Um we are hearing that from the market and we have been hearing that from the market. We've been hearing that from the market for over a decade and we have continued to reduce the lot widths. We've continued to reduce a lot widths as we move into new development areas and what we have not seen as tangibly is a reduction in the price of the home. So the idea here is to identify and listen to what the market is telling us is that if you reduce the lot size, we will provide attainable housing. Fair. All we're doing is providing at the end of the process an assurance that they said exactly what would happen that there would be a price point reduction than what we're seeing today as quote unquote market. Further to the west of this subdivision is an Air Lake neighborhood. They are a number of 50 and 55 ft lots that have been absorbed into the market. their prices are in the very high fours 490 495 and up to about 5 and a quarter >> this example. >> And so our perspective is again we've seen a little bit of price relaxation based on lot reduction. But if we're really going to continue this conversation, we need to see different product types be brought onto these properties to actually deliver the attainable product. Gina touched on a little bit. It's really a unique time in Woodbury right now because the multifamily the the the town home product is very very soft right now and very challenging from an HOA cost and from an overall cost to construct those units. That is historically been a very powerful tool for Woodbury to provide that diversity of housing. And we've built, you know, tens of thousands of of multif family and that was by design to provide that mixture of housing in this master plan. And we are really looking at this through a condensed market window. We're not here, Gina or I are not here to tell you that never again will town homes be built here. We don't know the answer to that. What we are forecasting is over the next several years, we don't see any game changers that are going to allow town homes to go back to the level of success that they had previously. Time will tell on how long that is, but we needed to provide some level of market disruption to deliver the end product, which is a a product that's priced more favorably. We wish and council had a conversation in our meeting and I think we wish council wishes others wish that number was a lot lower. Um you know it it is hard to say 450 475 is attainable but in reality that is our market. >> So um do we have any indication that folks are going to actually build those um if we I guess let me ask the question a different way. We said there's an incentive if they adhere to whatever the AMI level is in the um in the master plan. And my particular point of view is I'd probably put it at 120% not 110. Um what is that if I'm a developer though like what actually is the incentive? Um I'm not doesn't I didn't hear anything about I'm getting any incentive on um you know any of my upfront costs. I guess >> additional lots. Additional lots. >> Yep. They would get by moving it from you know it's 10%. They get 10%. It's not as clean as that probably in the subdivision world but mathematically >> you know they're going to get additional lots from that reduction from a 50ft to a 45 foot. the price cap if the price is not is not more than 90%. You know, I'm not sure the math is going to math the way that we're thinking it's going to math at the end of the day with a price cap. >> I think >> versus letting the market just determine what is the market for a 45 foot lot home. I I think what we see and and Gina's slides are a fair representation of that is Woodbury is a premier market and so our market can charge premiums especially when there is a reduction in lots available and that's what we're seeing right now. So I think there can be the market is not is not pure I guess is what I'm going to try to articulate. Um I we understand that this is is pushing a little bit outside of what our normal process would be and we would not be likely in front of the planning commission and ultimately council with this recommendation without two things happening. One is the significance of softening of the multif family I touched on before and number two is the other where again over the last several years we have received time and time again um commentary and we're hearing it in other markets as well from from builders saying if you will just simply get out of the way and reduce your lot size we will provide more affordable housing and we're saying okay then do it. >> Yeah. And so that that's a little bit of this exercise. >> I'm not sure the price cap is going to be enough incentive. I don't know that it's the right prescription because if I can build a 55 ft lot and sell it for 600,000 per lot, then the math here doesn't work. >> And that has been historically our answer to why we don't buy into the lot with reduction. So I I can't argue with you significantly, but at some point something's got to give, >> right? >> Uh in a um tangible way. Um just and I'll let you follow up in a sec. Go ahead. >> If I may. So in the jurisdiction that I used to work at, we had a program called AUD, average unit size density. And what they did is they allowed developers to build more the this was rental more rental units on a lot as long as they were smaller. And the idea was that they would be affordable by design, but they didn't have any kind of cap or affordability requirement. And so what ended up happening is we still had $1,800 a month studio apartments that were so much smaller than any other studio apartment you would normally get. I think if you're going to attempt to do this, you have to have a cap. You have to have some kind of affordability requirement linked to it because if you just let the mark market dictate it, you are not going to get affordable units. >> Sorry. >> Okay. Um, one question about uh the 45 the these 45 foot lots then I think you mentioned that there's no it's there's no income restriction on who could purchase these is there would there be any restriction uh in the master plan about them being used for primary residents versus rental properties >> not as drafted and not has contemplated >> and as correct me if I'm wrong as a city I know we have a rental license but we don't have any ordinances today like other municipalities have that has any sort of restriction on renting the percentage of properties that can be uh privately owned properties that can be rented I'll call it the Airbnb ordinance right we don't have any restrictions on that in the city today correct >> that is correct Okay. Um, okay. I don't if any other commissioners want to follow up >> on my line of questioning. Go ahead. >> Uh, I really like this idea of the cap. I think it's a very noble way to do it. I worry about bad actors trying to take advantage of it. Is there a way we can require the developers to confirm that they are selling to a first-time home buyer or to a family whose kids are going to go to school here or you know just so it's not house flippers or foreign investments turning it into rental properties and then they're getting a steal on a house that should be >> 490 and sell it a year later for >> Exactly. So, how can we how can we keep it from getting taken advantage of is my concern. I really love the idea. I'm very nervous about people taking advantage. >> I think that's a very fair concern um and a concern we have thought through and there's a couple of thought processes that we have gotten comfortable with. Number one, the building community understands completely what their margins are. So when this project is being built, they're going to be well they're going to be close to what their maximum sale price is likely. I don't see a scenario where the the building community builds a $600,000 house and receives $490. That's that means their costs were significantly higher than what their return was. They're going to build in the size, the amenities, and the the the finishes, etc. to support that ultimate sale price, whatever that is determined to be. That got us a long way into the comfort side. the it somewhat self-regulates in our in our mind because those who are going to be delivering this are forprofit and they're going to be very mindful of their margin as they should be. That's that's where their expertise is. So, we didn't think although we talked about it, we didn't think that there was a huge spike opportunity from that standpoint. Um, on the first time standpoint, ownership standpoint, we had some brief discussions on that. As we looked at the housing cycle, one of the barriers we have right now is we have a lot of housing products that are kind of frozen due to cheap debt, due to other products not being available. So there is some value sometimes in that cycle of housing as somebody moves from their existing home. Maybe this is their second home, maybe even their third home, but the move up opportunity would free up inventory into the um attainable housing. Normally people are moving up in their housing costs and so if they are currently in a town home p potentially and now they can move into a single family that frees up that town home. You get actually two attainable units under that approach. So that was one of the other areas. as we get into more of the the actual relationship with the with the builders, I think we are going to be able to investigate other tools that might be available to restrict unintended consequences. Um, I think that's a very fair line of question and it certainly is on staff's mind. >> Okay. >> Anybody else want to ask any other follow-up questions? chair. So, I mean, it's really just an allowable area for the 45 foot area. I mean, we're not saying all of this in red. So, ideally, it could go to 55 to 60. We're just saying we might have a chance to see this potentially as one of those areas. >> That's right. And I I guess I would just say I think without my just my own view having studied it, I think the incentives that we're offering are probably not strong enough to make a developer in today's environment say I want to build a 45 ft lot in that area. So I think as a city and as a staff, we probably ought to rethink that incentive structure if we if we really want to deliver that housing stock to the community. Um, now that market could change. I mean, the reality is I think median price, selling price in Woodbury has actually leveled off the last 18 months. I don't think people want to, it's not a popular thing to talk about, but it's still high, but it has leveled off a little bit from the growth we saw the three years before that, >> right? >> What kind of incentives do you think would be helpful? >> Uh, I think it's the upfront construction costs. >> Yeah. are where it has to come in because if I have to sell it for $4.90 I need to have the margin dollars not rate to make that work in the initial sellin and that is all about what's my inputs and if I have to pay market to build a 55 foot lot but I have an incentive the city's going to kick in whatever through the house whatever right I'm now making I don't >> I don't know what I'm talking about but if there's a way to incentivize me as the builder to reduce my inputs where I can hit the same or better margin dollars at that lower average selling price then >> construction grant from the city >> something like that. Yeah. Or the state or whomever and I don't think the city Yes. Something along those lines. That would be my view. >> Yeah. I think you know as this evolves I think there may be very real and honest conversations. What we don't know yet is who the ultimate builders and developers will be on these projects. How forthcoming they will be with their information and their challenges. What we do know is that there's a number of national builders that are interested in and have historically built in Woodbury. There's a lot of product that are out in across the country that are smaller that are not generally built in the Midwest. It is going to take a different product to be built here. I think that's that's going to be the question is will the building community bring in those types of product that square footage instead of a single family home being 2400 square ft 12 on each up down 1,200 on an average will they bring in a 900t product that alone will assist in some of the providing apples to apples you're right it's going to be challenging if they just you know bring the next product that they built on just to the west and try to put it into a 45 foot lot product. I 100% agree with everything you said. So, we're trying to identify some potential disruptors to bring a new product type. >> Um, before we have a motion here, I just for clarity, what we're recommending to council for their consideration would include, as is written now, the um AMI incentive on selling like that's going to be inculcated in the master plan that council will review if they ultimately vote on that. we're going to be that's what we're recommending today or is it I wasn't kind of clear Gina because it was kind of like you're talking about a range or I don't know if it's still under >> correct >> still evaluating it or if that's this is embedded in the master plan that we will ultimately recommend and council will ultimately vote on. Yeah, >> it is embedded in the plan on page 15 under the 45 to 50 foot lot. Um where we are talking about an anticipated um price range AMI 110 to 120 um but due to the uncertainty we didn't put a firm number in there essentially. So if you're recommending this report that is included with that document >> and so if that if it gets voted on by council and then we you know we're out in the development community and that needs to change it would just go through that would ultimately go through a PD process to change it right at that point >> it would come back it would come back with to the planning commission first then the council with additional context >> that was informed by the master plan as the starting point and as more information is known about why things did or did not occur in compliance with the master plan, the planning commission would ultimately uh be able to weigh into it through a PUD process. I think I think just to frame it a little differently, um I think there is a very real possibility that the dark brown areas come in at more of a 50 um meaning smaller lots and there is not is not that price point. But I think if they select and this is this is the unknown today, the most tangible unknown today is if they select a few different product types that are smaller square footage, the gap is not significant that they need to close in order to get more lots >> and that's going to be ultimately what we watch over the next year. >> And town homes wouldn't qualify for the >> AMI. They wouldn't be I shouldn't say qualify. They wouldn't be governed by the AMI either if they decided to build town home product. >> Correct. Got one more question. >> Okay. Has the city contemplated the idea of letting the developer pick the price cap with the idea of the more they restrict the price cap, the more concessions they might get on develop area of the lot or their setbacks or anything like that? Yeah, that that is exactly why as part of the master plan, we did not recommend a hard number because we know that there will be an opportunity for those future conversations with the end user and if the end user has a package that checks a number of different boxes that will be brought back in front of the planning commission and council to review in totality to see how many of the goals are met. So theoretically, and I kind of doubt this would happen, but if a developer came back and said, "I'll do 70% AMI, but I need the concessions across the board on all these things." That could be a a submitt. >> Those are the conversations we're trying to incentivize having. >> What are the actual barriers? >> Or two years from now, the state may have a program to fund something like that that they could bring to the city, too. And I don't even know about, >> right? But chair, I guess that the text says right, it's 110 120% of the area AMI due to the uncertainty. We do not recommend and instead it should be established within the PUD. >> So I think we're >> so it could it could come back at 125, it could come back at >> 105. I >> we don't know until we have those detailed conversations about what is necessary, what are the barriers to providing the product that we're looking to provide. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, thank you for everybody for the discussion. I think we got to incentivize the building. That's I'm I'm on the record. Uh but let's uh I think uh staff would be looking for uh a motion for consideration. >> I move to approve project 2025-0000604 as submitted. >> Is there a second? >> Second. Okay. Um all in favor say I. I. I. I. I. All opposed. Okay. This uh master plan uh has been uh approved uh recommended to for consideration at the next city council meeting on May 13, 2026. Thank you everybody. Um so with that we will now move to the council report. Council member Stafford, welcome. >> It's nice to be back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, um, been crazy busy lately, but one of the things I want to recognize is that today is National Firefighters Appreciation Day and we have some of the finest firefighters around. I appreciate them. Um, we had a joint bienial Woodbury Cottage Grove workshop whereby Woodbury City Council, um, Cottage Grove City Council, we come together more just to see what each one has going on and we are more alike than we know. But one of the things that occurs we and it happens in Woodbury every other year and Cottage Grove every other year. So this year we were at Central Park. So we were able to feature Central Park. Um we one of the traditions is a trivia contest and there is a trophy for Woodbury and Cottage Grove and Cottage Grove did take it home this year because we had a tie it was a tie and we had a tiebreaker question and there was a miscalculation by one of our council members about our 800 foot water tower. Not even going to say who it is. Uh the road reconstruction pipeline road closures, they've begun, as you all probably know. Staff is doing a great job of of updating closures, detours, add extra time. You can't get in here, you can't get in there. Um the water treatment plant, Woodbury High School construction is going on. staff is working diligently to minimize the disruption because of the activities at both uh public safety is aware they will be assisting as we get events at the sports center and at the high school. Speaking of traffic and detours, the annual Woodbury Lions Garage sale is this weekend. So, there's going to be a lot more traffic. It starts many start on Wednesday, but it technically starts Thursday, Friday, Saturday. So, if you've got plans to tour Woodbury traffic and detour this weekend, um we did issue proclamations for the public service recognition week, the police officer recognition week, peace officer memorial day is May 15th, the EMS recognition week, and the volunteer recognition week events coming up. Um, it is great sadness that one of our public works utilities workers was killed in a tragic accident last week. Um, it has affected the public works department deeply and it is the the young man's name is Evan Jorgensson. his visitation and funerals at Crossroads Church on Tuesday from 4:00 to 7:00 and and it'll be well represented by the city. The public safety groundbreaking, our new building finally um will be on Friday, May 8th from 1 to 2:30 in the public safety education center. And it's probably going to be the last opportunity we're going to get to go in that building. uh they've been diligently working to move people around and and without any interruption of service and they've done an amazing job. I'm especially appreciative of all of our public safety workers um because they're all on board with this. They know it's going to be cramped. They know it's going to be inconvenient, but they have pledged and and it it won't happen that there'll be any interruption of services at all. Uh, True Lens, formerly South Washington County Cable TV, um, has moved to Central Park. Their ribbon cutting and open house is on Tuesday, May 12th from 2:00 to 4:00 at their new location, which is on the second floor of Central Park. If you haven't been there, it's amazing. If you've ever been to the old South Washington County Cable and see what they've got now, they're thrilled and we're happy to have them in Woodbury earlier today. And Eric will attest to this. We were invited to tour the new Amazon Last Mile site. It's their distribution center. It is absolutely amazing. Just amazing. It's a welloiled machine. Now, Amazon has about 3/4 of a million square feet along Hudson Road. This facility is about 250,000 square feet and it's it's the approval of that process as it went through and some of you may remember the distribution center coming through. Um, one of our council members asked the question if we could schedule tours. I and and immediately my mind goes to planning commission ought to see the end result of what they see what we see on paper and and they were so welcoming and it just it's one of the most fine oiled machines. I'm very proud to have them in Woodbury and I think that's about all we've been up to. >> Thank you Council Member Stafford for that report. A lot of great stuff going on. Busy traffic season. Um, last uh item six here is approval of the minutes from our last meeting on February 23rd, 2026. Does anybody have any edits for the minutes as drafted? >> I found a few typos, but I gave them to Gina ahead of time. >> Excellent. Anybody else? Okay. Anyone want to offer a motion to approve the minutes? >> Yeah, we'll go. I move to approve the February 23rd, 2026 minutes. >> Second. >> Okay. >> All in favor? >> I >> I minutes are approved >> and meeting. Thank you.