The agenda’s most contentious topic was the proposal involving ordinance numbers 2025-46 through 2025-48, which addressed the Clay Whley Road Mixed-Use project. Principal Planner Bernice Gonzalez outlined the plans for annexation, comprehensive plan amendment, and zoning amendments. John Adams, representing the applicant RJWA Incorporated, expressed agreement with staff recommendations, stating the project was in line with anticipated growth in St. Cloud.

Significant debate ensued over the current traffic conditions, with Chair Philip Lantry and others voicing concerns over an already strained infrastructure. Lantry pointed out the severe level of service categorized as “F” for traffic in the area. He questioned the rationale behind proceeding with annexation when existing infrastructure appeared inadequate.

Gonzalez clarified that the meeting’s focus was on high-level applications, with detailed traffic impact assessments to follow at the site development stage. Despite these assurances, skepticism remained, with Lantry highlighting the isolation of the area due to limited access roads and questioning the adequacy of public facilities to support additional development.

Further concerns arose regarding the legal aspects of the annexation process. Some members acknowledged that the decision should be based on whether the application met statutory requirements, such as contiguity and preventing enclaves, rather than personal opinions or frustrations. A member noted that no legal objections appeared in the reports to justify opposing the annexation.

The meeting also addressed the city’s broader transportation strategy. Tammy Ranki, the mobility and special projects manager, presented updates to the transportation element of the city’s comprehensive plan. This update, the first since 2002, aimed to align with the transportation mobility master plan and the Vision Zero safety action plan to enhance safety, sustainability, and efficiency. The plan proposed a shift toward a multimodal transportation system, accommodating all users, including cyclists and pedestrians.

Ranki emphasized the need for financial feasibility, highlighting that mobility fees collected from new developments would fund necessary infrastructure improvements. The discussion included analysis of existing roadways, future needs, and a focus on improving connectivity and safety for non-vehicular users. Participants raised questions about terms used in the plan, such as “data inventory,” and sought clarity on map labeling errors, which were acknowledged and set for correction.

Concerns about the potential strain on the city’s services due to the annexation were reiterated, with members stressing the need to evaluate infrastructure implications thoroughly.