Planning commission backs Slick City indoor slide and trampoline park at Suthers Ridge with 28% cap on recreational space

The Woodbury Planning Commission on March 3 recommended approval of a conditional use permit for Slick City, a proposed indoor slide and trampoline park that would occupy 50,000 square feet at 587 Southers Ridge Parkway, while placing a 28 percent cap on commercial recreation tenant space in the building to protect the broader places-to-work land-use intent.

Staff told commissioners the property is in a BCD (business campus district) and is part of the Suthers Ridge Industrial planned unit development approved by City Council on April 27, 2022. Slick City would occupy roughly 28 percent of the building; staff and the applicant said the 28 percent cap reflects the amount of tenant space proposed and signals that any larger recreational expansion would require an amended conditional use permit and additional review of parking and traffic impacts.

“We're excited to bring this family entertainment concept,” Mike Kelly, who with his wife Annie is the franchisee for the proposed location, told the commission, noting corporate-owned Slick City locations are operating elsewhere and his family expects the first Minnesota opening in Maple Grove in the coming week.

Staff noted the Suthers Ridge Plan Unit Development set a parking ratio of one stall per 647 square feet, which the staff calculation translated into a requirement of 77 parking spaces for the proposed use; the site graphic shown to commissioners identified 79 stalls, with customer parking in front of the building and employee parking in rear areas. Staff estimated roughly 25 employees at the busiest shift and said the proposed use’s peak hours are primarily afternoons, evenings and weekends, which staff expects to be complementary to weekday office/warehouse tenants in the same building.

Commissioners asked about the cap and how it compared with recent approvals; staff explained earlier projects in other business parks had 15 percent caps but that the percentage is tied to building size and the applicant's proposal. “We implemented the cap based on the square footage of the building and how much it occupies,” staff said, adding that a cap gives staff and the commission a formal trigger to study parking and traffic if future expansion is proposed.

Several commissioners raised operational questions about ingress, egress and semitrailer circulation around the building given the site’s original design as industrial/warehouse space. The applicant and staff described a separation of peak hours by tenant type and said other nearby buildings have complementary weekend and evening uses without recurring parking shortfalls. Commissioners also asked about program demand and peak daily attendance; the applicant said comparable facilities report daily attendance that can range from several hundred on off-peak days to more than 1,000 on peak Saturdays, and that birthday parties and field-trip bookings typically consist of short, drop-off sessions that moderate parking demand per visit.

Commissioner Jarrett and others urged attention to loading and truck movements and recommended ensuring employee parking remain in rear stalls to separate customer traffic. Commissioner Thomas Harrington asked whether the cap would be adjusted if the math would have supported a higher percent; staff confirmed the cap reflects the proposed tenant percentage and would have matched a higher building share had that been proposed.

The Planning Commission moved and seconded a recommendation to approve project 01-2025-00572 with standard conditions in the staff report and the additional clarification to condition language to specify net versus gross square footage where referenced. The commission voted in favor; the recommendation will advance to the City Council for its March 12 public hearing.

No neighborhood residents attended the mailed neighborhood meeting on Feb. 18, staff said. Staff and the applicant told the commission they expect the recreational use’s weekend and evening peaks to complement weekday office/warehouse activity in the same building and that the existing parking layout—79 stalls identified—meets the parking calculation for the proposed use under the PUD ratio.