City Council

Minutes Woodbury City Council Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Pursuant to the due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting was duly held virtually and at the Woodbury City Hall, 8301 Valley Creek Road, on the 30th day of November 2022. Call to Order Mayor Anne Burt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Burt welcomed those listening and attending. She said members of the public may attend the meeting but will be required to comply with social distancing parameters as determined by the City. Members of the public may also join the meeting using a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device. Public comments will be accepted during the meeting both in person and by using the link to the virtual meeting to join the meeting and then submit your questions via the online Q&A feature within the meeting. Questions regarding the meeting will also be taken between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. via email council@woodburymn.gov or call 651-714-3524 and leaving a voicemail message. Pledge to Flag Audience, staff, and Council pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Roll Call Upon roll call the following were present: Mayor Anne Burt, Councilmembers: Kim Wilson, Andrea Date, Steve Morris, and Jennifer Santini. Absent: None Others Present: Kimberlee K. Blaeser, City Clerk; Kevin Sandstrom, City Attorney; Clinton Gridley, City Administrator; Chris Hartzell, Engineering Director; Eric Searles, Assistant Community Development Director/City Planner; Angela Gorall, Assistant City Administrator; and Annie Coyle, Assistant to the City Administrator/Deputy Clerk. There was approximately twelve (12) members of the public in attendance and twelve (12) members of the public attending virtually. Special Order of Business A. Report on November 16, 2022 Closed Session Regarding City Administrator Performance Review City Attorney Kevin Sandstrom stated a closed session was held on November 16, 2022 with all Councilmembers, Mr. Gridley and consultant Chad Weinstein being in attendance. Sandstrom stated the Mr. Gridley’s review was positive with some constructive feedback for next year. He stated the Council discussed and approved a salary increase that is equivalent to the salary cap in the State of Minnesota for city administrators. Open Forum The Open Forum is a portion of the Council meeting where a maximum of three persons will be allowed to address the Council on subjects, which are not a part of the meeting agenda. Persons wishing to speak must complete a sign-up sheet prior to the start of the meeting. Give the sign-up sheet to any staff person. Speakers are limited to two minutes each. The Council will listen attentively to comments but, in most instances, will not respond at the meeting. Typically, replies to the concerns expressed will be made via letter or phone call within a week. Consent Agenda All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion and an affirmative vote by roll call of a majority of the members present. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered a separate subject of discussion by the Council. Item A Approval of Council Minutes – November 9, 2022 Item B Approval of Minutes – November 16, 2022 Canvassing Board  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Item C To adopt the following resolution Resolution 22-222 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing execution of the agreements with Washington Conservation District and Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District for MS4 inspections. Item D To adopt the following resolution Resolution 22-223 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota affirming Council’s November 16, 2022, workshop direction to proceed with design for permanent water treatment, including 30 percent design for water softening; ordering additional temporary treatment vessels with down payment submittal. Item E To adopt the following resolution Resolution 22-224 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota an attached resolution for approval of agreement between the City of Woodbury and Washington County Community Services for Coordinated Mental Health Response. Item F To adopt a motion approving the 2023 City Council meeting calendar as listed in Council Letter 22-292. Item G To adopt the following resolution Resolution 22-225 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota establishing the 2023 Classification and Compensation Plan for Unrepresented Employees. Item H To adopt the following resolution Resolution 22-226 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the labor contract between the City of Woodbury and the Professional Fire Fighters of Woodbury IAFF Local 5178. Item I To adopt a motion appointing the persons, as listed within Council Letter 22-295, to City Advisory Commissions as well as appointment of Chairpersons and Vice Chair Persons (Chair and Vice Chair appointments are for one year) to each Advisory Commission, effective January 1, 2023. To adopt a motion approving the 2023 Council liaison and staff assignments as listed within Council Letter 22-295. Item J Request to Table Giza, Inc. dba MoonSoon Tobacco, 6671 Valley Creek Road, Cannabinoid Products License. This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda and added to Discussion. Item K Request to Table Smokeless Smoking, Inc., 8470 City Centre Drive, Cannabinoid Products License. This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda and added Discussion. Item L Denying Tobacco Sales License Application of Maan Altamimi and Tobacco Zone, Inc. Maan Altamimi, owner of Tobacco Zone, Inc. requested the Council to pull this item from the Consent Agenda. The City Council agreed to move the item to Discussion. Item M Denying Cannabinoid Products License Application of Maan Altamimi and Tobacco Zone, Inc. This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda and added to Discussion. Item N 2023 Legislative Initiatives. This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda and added to Discussion. Item O The abstract of bills includes payments made from the operating or project budgets for expenses of the city. The expenditures are from all funds of the city. Any purchased contracts requiring signature of the mayor and City Administrator is hereby approved. Staff recommends approval of the abstract of bills for November 4, 2022 in the amount of $962,069.16, November 10, 2022 in the amount of $2,517,548.82 and November 18, 2022 in the amount of $1,072,823.52. Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Wilson, to approve the Consent Agenda items with the exception of Items J, K, L, M, and N. Page 2 of 17  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Public Hearings A. Request to Continue: Haiku Japanese Dinkytown, Inc, 9965 Hudson Place, Suite 680, On Sale Wine and Beer Liquor License Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. City Clerk Kimberlee Blaeser stated the applicant and staff require additional time to complete the review of the application. She stated staff is asking the Council to continue the public hearing to December 14, 2022. Councilmember Santini moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, To continue the public hearing for the Haiku Japanese Dinkytown, Inc On Sale Wine and Beer Liquor License to the December 14, 2022 City Council meeting. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye B. Copper Ridge 9th Resubmittal; Rezoning; Conditional Use Permit; Preliminary Plat and Site and Building Plan, Project No. 28-2022-00508 Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Assistant Community Development Director/City Planner Eric Searles stated the applicant submitted an application for Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, and Site and Building Plan for a townhome development to be called Copper Ridge 9th. The project is proposed to include 111 market rate townhomes, which may be owner occupied or rented. The property is located at the northwest corner of Bailey Lake Road and Pioneer Drive. The property is currently zoned R-1, Urban Reserve District and is guided as Low Density on the Land Use Plan. Mr. Searles stated during the May 11, 2022 meeting, the City Council reviewed an application for the subject property that included 77 units within a three-story apartment building and 34 townhomes. The City Council received public testimony and conducted Council review which, amongst other things, gave direction to the Applicant that the scale of the proposed apartment may not have been in character with the surrounding properties. No formal vote was taken during the Council meeting. Mr. Searles added following that meeting, the applicant re-evaluated the site and withdrew the previous application. The applicant now proposes a horizontal townhome housing product versus the vertical form of the site design via the apartment product. The site design trades a reduction of building scale and height for a reduction of common and contiguous open space. Mr. Searles stated the original Copper Ridge PUD was approved at the April 26, 2017 City Council meeting which included the Copper Ridge 9th Resubmittal property. The approval identified the stormwater, transportation, and park improvements necessary to serve the subject site. The PUD further approved a density transfer to the subject property. He stated the overall PUD for Copper Ridge measured 146.99 gross acres which would have allowed for a total of 513 units to be constructed at 3.5 units per acre maximum density. The initial Copper Ridge development was constructed with a total of 377 units. However, the PUD limited the density transfer to the subject site to 45 units, instead of the remaining 70 units. The reason for transferring the density was the public benefit that this parcel provided in accommodating stormwater management and wetland preservation for the entire Copper Ridge development, facilitation of the construction of Bailey Lake Road, and upsizing the park dedication provided at Oehlke Park. Page 3 of 17  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Mr. Searles stated the Comprehensive Plan has a goal to maintain the mix of housing which is 50% single family and 50% multi family. With the inclusion of this application the Copper Ridge development would provide roughly 274 single family detached town homes and 214 townhomes. Mr. Searles stated the applicant is requesting a rezoning of the entire parcel from R-1, Urban Reserve District to R-4, Urban Residential District. The R-1 zoning identifies a minimum lot size of 20 acres when no public utilities are provided and is considered a holding zone in advance of urban development. The rezoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the site can be served by municipal utilities and is consistent with the adjacent properties. Mr. Searles stated the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit which is required for all multifamily use projects. Mr. Searles stated the applicant is requesting Site and Building Plan approval for 111 townhome units. Access to the site is provided via 3 access points. The first access point would serve as the main access into the site by a private road from Bailey Lake Road. The second access point is located off of Granite Court and will be a private driveway to serve 12 townhomes, this access is aligned with Granite Lane, another private road serving the townhomes to the west. The third access is a private road within the bulb of the cul-de-sac on Granite Court on the north side of the property. This provides access to the northern units. Mr. Searles stated parking for the townhomes is regulated by ordinance which requires 3 spaces per dwelling unit plus 1 off street guest parking space per 5 units. The applicant is proposing 31 guest parking stalls which exceeds the ordinance requirement of 23 guest parking spaces. Furthermore, each unit will have parking spaces in each individual garage and within the driveways which are designed with a minimum length of 25 feet to accommodate parking. Mr. Searles stated the applicant has submitted a detailed landscaping plan that provides plantings throughout the development site, and is proposing a landscape buffer on the east side of the site to soften the transition from townhomes to single family homes. He noted as a condition of approval, the applicant shall reserve 12 evergreen trees to screen the unintended impacts such as parking and lights. Mr. Searles stated in 2019 the City constructed Oehlke Park located approximately 400 feet from the subject site and south of Bailey Lake Road, west of the subject property through the Copper Ridge PUD. The PUD allowed for additional park area to be acquired based on the total acreage of the Copper Ridge development and the subject property. Overall, the site is well served by four parks within .75 miles of the site. Mr. Searles stated the existing pedestrian network was designed to provide a significant amount of trails and sidewalks to access the adjacent neighborhood and park and open space amenities. The applicant is proposing a trail connection from Pioneer Drive into the site to serve the townhomes on the northern side of the property. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, the applicant shall submit plans that include a trail or sidewalk on the north side of Bailey Lake Road from Granite Court to Pioneer Drive. Mr. Searles stated based on feedback received at the initial concept neighborhood meeting regarding park capacity, the applicant made an effort to ensure the green areas between units is flat enough to be a useable private play area. These areas will not be programed but will be identified to be a private amenity to the townhome users. The applicant is also proposing a private dog park on the north side of the site. Mr. Searles stated the applicant has designed the townhomes to be complementary to the adjacent two-and three-story townhomes in Copper Ridge. The applicant is proposing a two-story townhome product with earth tone colors, accent banding, and color deviations to provide visual interest on longer elevations. The roof lines are varied with window dormers and each unit will feature a patio and dividing wall component. Mr. Searles stated 2 neighborhood meetings were held. A concept neighborhood meeting was held for this project on September 20, 2022 with 10 residents representing 7 properties in attendance. A total of 173 notifications were mailed to properties within 500 feet of the proposal. Comments raised during this first meeting included, concern about additional vehicle traffic being added to this area, concern about the school district being able to accommodate additional growth, park capacity, as the existing Oehlke Park is busy, interest in pursuing other unit options such as twin homes, detached villas and single family homes and pedestrian connections to the park and Pioneer Drive trail network. He stated the plan changes and additional information during the official neighborhood meeting included adding a pedestrian connection from the northern part of the site to Pioneer Drive, dedicated open play areas, rearranging guest parking areas, details on construction phasing, and architectural renderings. He stated the seconded meeting was the official neighborhood meeting and was held on November 3, 2022 with 10 residents representing 8 properties in attendance. A total of 173 mailings were sent to residents within 500 feet of the project, and staff emailed a list of 21 residents who provided their contact information with the previous submittal. Additionally, at the request of the residents to extend the notice to the entire neighborhood, staff worked with the Copper Ridge HOA to distribute the notice via email to the entire development. Questions and comments received at the meeting from the residents included; continued concerns with density and the approved density transfer; residents identify the need for additional park space, decreased units to match the ghost plat, or a different product option being a better fit; concerns with existing traffic volumes and speed, along with impacts this development will have on those factors; additional concerns raised about construction vehicles and cut through traffic when Dale Road is being improved, Dale Road construction is scheduled to begin in 2025; concerns with school district capacity and busing; building scale questions including length of buildings; consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for Low Density and Places to Live land use; and adequate guest parking spaces being provided based on surrounding developments to ensure parking doesn’t spill out of the site. Page 4 of 17  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Applicant Brian Friemann stated his appreciation to the Council for considering their application. He stated throughout the time they have been planning the project, he has understood there to be some conflict with the public and has been listening to those concerns and desires to work with the City instead of against. He stated they revised the plans to model the D.R. Horton neighborhood across the street in order meet the needs the public is looking for. He stated the home value will be between $380,000-$390,000. Rachel Nelson, 4649 Copper Ridge Drive, stated she is a nearby resident and commissioner of the City. She is a mom of two boys who will grow up in Woodbury and has a number of graduate and undergraduate degrees. She stated the research supports the stance that the building should not take place in its current form. She stated based on the research, she suggests to follow the current rules set in place to put the citizens of Woodbury over the profits of a developer. She stated 675 signatures from Woodbury residents have been collected who do not want the project to move forward. She noted during the Planning Commission meeting, the number was questioned which was disrespectful to the citizens. She stated online neighborhood pages have brought more awareness to the issue and more people are wanting to sign the petition. She stated her concern that the neighborhood meetings were scheduled 1 week apart during the week of Thanksgiving which is the most traveled holiday. She stated the build does not conform to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan nor to City Code. She stated it does not support the surrounding communities and instead bring health and safety issues as well as warrants additional public infrastructure services. Ms. Nelson stated the builder purchased the land as R-1 and questions the legality of the process since the builder knew it would need to be zoned R-4. She believes this should not be allowed, and if so, the number of units should be reduced so that at a minimum the build conforms to City Code and Comprehensive Plan. She stated in chapter 4, section 473 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan R-1 is defined as role of state which are areas intended for rural settings for state executive homes and are viewed by the City as a critical component of meeting the community goal. She stated R-4 is defined as high density residential which is 10-15 units per acre and are typically located long major streets, shopping or employment areas. She noted the approximation in high density locations to employment, goods, services and transit. She asked the Council where the details are to support the density build. She stated through the definition on density bonuses the plot of land clearly does not conform to density bonuses. She stated density transits are mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan 3 times and are not detailed out or defined. She stated when they are mentioned it is correlated with preserving natural resources. She listed where density transit is and stated the builder is doing the opposite of what is mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan and stated by the definition provided in the plan, the City should deny the project because it does not conform to it. She stated density transfers are mentioned once in the City Code in section 2740 which is the section the mentions tree protection in new developments. She stated it does not mention developers being allowed to pack as many homes as they can on a small plot of land. She stated due to the amount of units the developer is estimating to plot, it is considered high density and is not preserving natural resources. She stated density transfers are meant to provide greenway corridors, and preservation of natural resources. She stated the builder was never intended to receive a density transfer because the definition defines it to go to natural resources. She asked the Council to consider changing the laws and guidelines to reflect the deducting of drainage and other non-buildable areas. Ms. Nelson stated the builder is in conflict with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan under places to live guidelines. She listed various examples. She stated the build does not conform to the current townhome builds specifically with parking spaces and home groupings. She stated in regards to parking spaces the current plan has half of the parking spaces or open spaces available compared to neighboring townhomes which is not compatible. She stated while it meets the minimum set by the City, it does not prove to be similar to adjacent land use which is the City Code. She stated in regards to housing blocks no other townhome or build has as many houses in a block and isn’t consistent with adjacent land use. Ms. Nelson stated she listed outlines listed in City Code 2443 to grant Conditional Use Permits and how they are inconsistent with the build including placing more youth in schools which can overwhelm schools (part b and c of City Code 2443, district 833 referendum), and force schools to redraw lines which can impact youth cognitively and socially. She stated research shows up to 30% of youth will face cognitive delays, exhibit social distress, delay social growth and adversely impacts test scores which is due to their scholastic lives. Ms. Nelson stated last week Commissioner Dave stated his concerns regarding youth in schools being impacted by developments. She stated the City Code is clear in stating existing infrastructure with schools must be able to absorb the additional demand. She stated the problem lies in the analysis portion of the plan since the City “doesn’t build schools.” She stated this can be an opportunity to be a part of the solution and use the land for a 9th grade school where attendees would not be drivers thus less impact on the roads and density and the land is adjacent to a current high school. She stated high density zones are correlated with higher crime rates and shared statistics that support her claim. She noted with bus shortages more youth will be walking to schools and expressed her concern for higher rates of violent crime. She stated the higher rate of crime goes against City Code and increases additional traffic congestion which will decrease property values. Ms. Nelson stated the parcel of land has been known for 6 years and wondered when the transfer happen and if D.R. Horton sold the land knowing they were in violation of the law. She stated current homeowners bought homes knowing the surrounding land was zoned R-1. She stated if the development was in before, houses would not have sold as much as they did. She stated the project does not fulfill the criteria of approving based on the Comprehensive Plan, nor does it warrant the approval for Conditional Use Permit as outlined in City Code 20443, and impacts the surrounding schools and students, it impacts crime rate and impacts the value of current homeowners. She stated profits are being put over the people of Woodbury. She thanked the Council and stated the people are not in support of the project moving forward. Kelsey Solberg, 4524 Cobalt Drive, noted there are 2 entrances into the development instead of 3 which was outlined on the map. She agrees with everything Ms. Nelson stated and that the esthetics will make the buildings look like an apartment and won’t look Page 5 of 17  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 30, 2022 esthetically pleasing. She stated there has not been a resident who has come to the Council meeting stating their agreement with the project. She noted many people who agree the project should not continue to move forward are not available to come to the Council meeting, adding that many residents care about the project. She asked the Council why the project would be considered if the public is not in agreement with it. She stated many people moved to Woodbury to get space and see nature instead of being in the city and are upset with more developments being built. She stated her desire to create communities where people will stay and stated townhomes are often temporary until residents move into homes. She expressed her concern with the potential for higher crime rates. She residents have expressed the desire to place a park in the development instead of more units and stated her concerns of not providing an additional park. She stated her disappointment in the City for not feeling heard and listened to. She stated she does not believe the vote should have counted to move the meeting to November 30, 2022 because there were not enough Councilmembers to pass the vote. She stated it felt unprofessional for more members to be online during the meeting than in person and for the attorney to not officially state it was appropriate. Daniel Belka, 1556 Clippership Drive, asked if Ms. Nelson’s comments provided were given to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting. Mr. Searles stated similar information was provided in the advance of their deliberations at the Planning Commission meeting. Mayor Burt asked if it was done verbally or written. Mr. Searles stated it was done verbally. Joshua Pescini, 4645 Copper Ridge Drive, asked if the City Council has considered schools as infrastructure. Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to close the public hearing. Voting in Favor: Wilson, Date, Morris, Santini, Burt Absent: None Mayor Burt opened opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council. Councilmember Date stated due to the proximity to her home she would abstain from discussion and voting. Mayor Burt asked for clarification around Planning Commissioners being online versus in person. City Attorney Kevin Sandstrom stated State statue allows two basis in which people in a public meeting may participate remotely or virtually. This can happen in an emergency declaration (Covid-19) and a non-emergency declaration. In the scenario, the City has an ongoing public emergency for the pandemic related issues and the Commissioners who were on remotely were doing so under the public emergency. Mayor Burt asked if two Commissioners were allowed to be virtual under the emergency declaration. Mr. Searles confirmed this happened during the meeting. Mayor Burt asked clarification around the legality of rezoning from R-1 to R-4. Mr. Sandstrom stated the Comprehensive Plan and the future use of the parcels allows for an R-4 zoning density to be put in place. He stated City Staff have determined that it is consistent and appropriate with the surrounding areas and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the R-1 zone is a placeholder to change in the future and likely in a way that will be denser. He added the City anticipated the zone would change in the future. Mayor Burt asked what the history of zoning was for the D.R. Horton lot. Mr. Searles stated it was R-1 zoning in advance of the development review. Mayor Burt asked what the history of zoning was for the Copper Ridge development. Mr. Searles stated it was originally R-1 and was rezoned to R-4. Councilmember Morris stated almost every development that is opened requires rezoning and is a part of the natural process and is an expected change as a part of development. Councilmember Morris stated he can appreciate the testimony and concern of residents and stated it does not deviate majorly from the Comprehensive Plan and does not believe it is a bait and switch. He stated he believes it matches the intent of the master plan when it was approved and the criteria’s. Mayor Burt asked Mr. Searles to explain the history of the planning that went into the project. Mr. Searles stated the P.U.D. was approved in 2017, the density transfer was clearly identified from the D.R. Horton property to the previous owner of the acreage. Mayor Burt asked if it had been known for 5 years. Mr. Searles agreed. Mayor Burt asked when the zoning gets adjusted. Mr. Searles stated it typically gets adjusted at the front end of a preliminary plat review application and does not occur during each phase. Mayor Burt asked if it was done at the beginning. Mr. Searles agreed. Councilmember Wilson asked to clarify. Mr. Searles stated the rezoning action takes place at the preliminary plat level, not at the final plat which is the phase level. He stated in 2017 the P.U.D., the C.U.D., the preliminary plat and the rezoning application for the entire Copper Ridge acreage was approved. He stated the final plats are approved over time. Mayor Burt asked if this section of land was rezoned at the P.U.D. level. He stated it was not and was a deliberate decision to ensure there would be initial review at the preliminary plat level since the property was not preliminary platted during the P.U.D. phase of Copper Ridge. Councilmember Santini stated it was because there were different owners. Councilmember Morris stated to use the master plan to avoid this scenario in the future. Councilmember Wilson asked if this was a master plan. Mr. Searles stated there was not a master plan done by the City but there were planning activities that extended beyond the property that was approved in this case it was done through a ghost plat exercise and other detailed plans which helps move it towards a master plan like effort. He stated it was not to scale like the South of Dale master plan. Councilmember Wilson asked what neighborhood was surrounding the land. Mr. Searles stated it was developed and built by D.R. Horton. Councilmember Wilson asked if D.R. Horton owned the land where the current project is. Mr. Searles stated they did not. Councilmember Wilson asked if D.R. Horton owned the land south of Bailey Lake Drive where the storm water pond is. Mr. Searles Page 6 of 17  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 30, 2022 stated they did not and it is included in the parcel. Councilmember Wilson asked if this was a portion of land owned by someone else at the time. Mr. Searles agreed. Councilmember Santini stated it was someone willing to be a part of the P.U.D. Councilmember Wilson asked if the City had two entities who agreed to be a part of the P.U.D and did a density transfer on a parcel that someone else owns. Mr. Searles stated confirmed and stated in return for the utilization of the roadway, the stormwater management, the wetland preservation and the park dedication amenities. Councilmember Santini stated the benefit for the landowner was to know the use the land can get out of instead of being vacant. Councilmember Wilson asked what the benefit of D.R. Horton was. Mr. Searles stated the developer would be premature for the rest of the land area without the connection of Bailey Lake Road to Pioneer Drive. Mayor Burt asked what that would mean without the connection. Mr. Searles stated without that they would not have the ability to subdivide the rest of the holdings. Mayor Burt asked if this was ghost platted in 2017. Mr. Searles agreed. Councilmember Wilson asked what it was stated as in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Searles stated it is stated as low density residential. Councilmember Wilson asked if it was considered high density residential. Mr. Searles stated it is considered low density. Councilmember Santini stated it is looking at the entire development conditions 1-8. Councilmember Wilson asked even if it’s owned by someone else. Councilmember Morris stated the Comprehensive Plan doesn’t go parcels but by generic areas and will be changed to R-4 when it is developed. Councilmember Wilson asked if other densities are listed in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Searles agreed and stated it is not needing to be high density because of the density transfer that occurred. Councilmember Wilson asked if would be considered high density if an owner asked to put in 111 units. Mr. Searles stated it would be considered medium density since it is 9.5 units per acre while the high density category begins at 10 units per acre. Mayor Burt asked to clarify the 3 entrance points and asked if Granite Court is a private or public street. Mr. Searles stated it is public. Mayor Burt asked if some townhouses in the new development would go out on Granite Court. Mr. Searles agreed. Mayor Burt asked if D.R. Horton had driveways that meet out to Granite Court. Mr. Searles agreed. Mayor Burt asked if parking is allowed on Granite Court. Mr. Searles stated parking is allowed since it is a public street. Mayor Burt asked to confirm there are 3 entrances with public roads into the development. Mr. Searles confirmed and stated the comments made earlier about 2 access points is understandable since the trip distribution is off of two points, but there are technically 3 access points. Councilmember Santini asked if access point B south would get in and out on Bailey Lake Drive. Mr. Searles agreed. Mayor Burt asked if the intent of access point C was to allow residents in the north to have an access point. Mr. Searles agreed. Mayor Burt asked how many townhouses are in Baileys Arbor. Mr. Searles stated 686. Mayor Burt asked how many single family homes are in Baileys Arbor. Mr. Searles stated it is in the 200s. Mayor Burt stated having lived in the area it hurts her heart to hear terms as “those people” since they are expensive priced homes that people will be moving into. She stated she has friends and family that live in the townhomes and are regular people and do not have significant crime in the area. She stated she does not accept those kind of comments about townhouses and those that live in them. Councilmember Santini asked if there was an opportunity to build a connection of trail on the north side going west of the current established townhomes so people would not have to walk out to Pioneer Drive. Mr. Searles stated a majority of the land is stormwater management with the use being power line easement and stormwater management. He stated the property to the north is owned by the City and would give future opportunity to evaluate to provide alternate trail connections. Mayor Burt noted on the map it shows much open land in the area and asked for clarification on what City owned land refers to and if it would be developed in the future. Mr. Searles stated generally the City generally does not develop privately but may identify a public use for the land. Councilmember Morris stated he lives off of Bailey Lake Drive and has been pleased the grove of trees have been preserved. Councilmember Wilson asked how many Planning Commissioners were in person during the meeting. Mr. Searles stated 3. Councilmember Wilson asked to clarify if the townhomes will be purchased in advanced or rentals. Mr. Searles stated there is an effort to be transparent and that for all properties that are for sale, a percentage are rentals. He stated the desire is for residents to not be misled in the process. He stated each individual lot will have its own parcel ID and will be individually sold but the individual buyer could decide to rent. Councilmember Wilson asked if there would be an HOA. Mr. Searles agreed. Councilmember Wilson asked if the HOA would have laws around the percentage of rental properties. Mr. Searles stated it is not unusual for HOA’s to address how they want to govern rentals within their boundary. Councilmember Morris stated his HOA has limits on rentals and other restrictions in the community. Councilmember Wilson noted there are no trails or sidewalks through the development. Mr. Searles confirmed that was correct and added it is complicated to add a layer of sidewalks or trails with the 25 foot driveway length and can lead to more problems. Councilmember Wilson asked if the roadways were 25 feet. Mr. Searles stated they are 26 feet. Councilmember Wilson asked if there would be any sidewalks or trails for youth to walk to school. Mr. Searles stated there are not. Councilmember Morris stated length of cul-de-sacs were previously discussed in the bike and pedestrian plan and asked if there are any longer than 900 feet. Councilmember Morris stated he has walked through the area and there is only one sidewalk and agrees with Councilmember Wilson’s comment. Councilmember Wilson stated her concern is older neighborhoods have been forced to have sidewalks and trails while a new development does not have the same requirement. Councilmember Santini agreed with Councilmember Wilson’s comments and stated there should be more connectivity. Mayor Burt asked if they would be private roads in the development. Mr. Searles agreed. Mayor Burt asked what the speed limit is on the private roads and if the City has jurisdiction over it. Mr. Searles stated private roads are allowed to have lower limits than a public Page 7 of 17  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 30, 2022 road. He stated typically an association would determine the limits for private roads. Councilmember Morris asked if the property in the west were private roads. Mr. Searles agreed. Mr. Searles stated the cul-de-sacs are roughly 700 feet. City Engineer Chris Hartzell stated the bike and pedestrian plan requires 900 feet for cul-de-sacs. Mayor Burt stated sidewalks are being added main thoroughfare but not to side streets. Councilmember Wilson asked if new sidewalks would be placed in all new developments. Councilmember Morris disagreed. Councilmember Date stated cul-de- sacs do not require sidewalks and new developments on public roads require a sidewalk on one side of the road. She added sidewalks have not been required for private drives. Councilmember Wilson asked to clarify if there are sidewalks on every street. Councilmember Date stated they are on every public road that is not a cul-de-sac unless the cul-de-sac is 900 feet or longer. Mayor Burt stated this is not in contrast to the current plan for sidewalks and pedestrian. Councilmember Wilson disagreed and stated it is not a cul-de-sac. Mayor Burt stated it is a private road and would not fall under the requirements. Mr. Hartzell stated single family residential home setbacks are significantly different since the intention is one day a sidewalk or trail in the right away could be placed in the future. Mayor Burt asked if the City gets to claim right away in this situation. Mr. Hartzell stated no. Mr. Searles stated private drives allow 35 feet from the back of the curb to the garage front while a platted right of way boulevard is 12-14 feet which allows more space for a sidewalk and vehicles to park in the driveway. Mayor Burt asked to clarify the obligation regarding schools infrastructure. Mr. Searles stated the City has regular meetings with the school district during developments and comprehensive planning processes. He stated the City maps out growth in the short and long term. He added the City reaches out to schools to understand what their needs and concerns when it relates to growth. Mayor Burt stated an unfortunate burden is placed on schools as they determine funding in order to support their needs. She added in other states the developer is required to provide funding to schools to support the growth but is unfortunately not provided in Minnesota. She stated it is an unfair burden but is the way it is set up. Councilmember Wilson asked Mr. Friemann if there were plans on building, maintaining ownership and renting out. Mr. Friemann stated he did not and that they are phasing the project with the first focus being on the first 25 units which come off of Granite Court. He stated his intention to speak with the Council at length about renters in the development. He stated the HOA would be set up to manage the property regardless of who the resident is. Councilmember Wilson asked if the HOA would lay out the number of rentals versus ownership. Mr. Friemann stated he did not have the intention to do so. Mayor Burt asked if there would be limitations on rentals. Councilmember Wilson stated there is no difference between a renter and a homeowner. She added there seems to be some concern and would like a clear understanding with the plan listing “owner occupied and rented.” Mr. Friemann stated the intent was to establish “owner occupied and rented” from the beginning. Councilmember Santini asked if applicants can be denied or approved based on ownership or rental. Mr. Friemann stated rental or ownership will not contribute to an applicant being denied or approved. Mayor Burt stated Bailey Arbor originally was owner occupied and since then many have turned to rentals and are still nice neighborhoods. Councilmember Wilson stated her disagreement with density transfers. She stated this piece of parcel was offered a density transfer and does not know how to undo something the City has already allowed. She asked what the legality is and if they are still beholden to an agreement that was made in 2017, or if there are any limitations on how quickly it needs to be developed. Mr. Sandstrom stated the City is bound to the agreements made in the beginning since a P.U.D. is an ongoing agreement between the City and the original developer. She asked if that was still the case with a new developer. Mr. Sandstrom stated yes since the property was a co-applicant. Councilmember Wilson asked if the agreement carries forward if there is a new property owner. Mr. Sandstrom agreed. Councilmember Wilson suggested using the density net instead of the gross in order to decrease the amount of homes built and allow green spaces within the plan. She stated each month a development comes before Council and encouraged the public to be aware and get involved in order to make change. She expressed her concern with the growth of the City, and school infrastructure. She stated it seems like a done deal since it happened in 2017. She expressed her appreciation to the developer for the hard work he put in with the property. She stated she feels like they continue to cram houses in lots because of density transfers and disagrees with it. Mayor Burt expressed her appreciation to Staff and the developer for working with the community to do their best to meet the needs of the residents. Councilmember Morris stated he did not see a snow removal plan and asked if a snow removal plan needed to be a condition for approval. Mr. Searles stated he did not believe it was a condition but could be added. He stated the intent is to utilize the north side of snow removal. Councilmember Morris stated his concern is the east side since it is close to the trail side and could deteriorate the trees over time if snow continues to be pushed against it. He asked the Council to consider including a condition for the snow removal plan to be reviewed by the City Planning Commission before approval. Councilmember Morris asked to review the parking plan. Mr. Searles stated the code generally requires 1 guest parking spaces per 5 units. He stated developers plan guest parking spaces in reasonable walking distances within the development. He stated in some cases there is an ability to add additional parking spaces and noted areas where the current project could add additional guest parking areas. He stated Staff reviewed the 1 per 5 spaces and was comfortable if even if built at the minimum and would still function well. Councilmember Morris stated there are many restrictions with street parking due to public safety issues such as getting fire truck and emergency vehicles through. He asked if there are any considerations for parking on Granite Court and asked if street parking was used as a calculation for the 1 to 5 ratio for parking and units. Mr. Searles stated street parking is not a part of the calculation. Page 8 of 17  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Councilmember Morris noted he did not see any guest parking available for the units along Granite Court. Mr. Searles agreed. Councilmember Wilson asked if it was feasible for cars to park along Granite Court. Mr. Searles stated there are pockets but a number of conflict points in front of the driveways. Councilmember Wilson asked if the units to the south and east are single car. Mr. Searles confirmed. Councilmember Wilson asked how many bedrooms they would have. Councilmember Morris stated one stall per bedroom. Councilmember Wilson stated she would like to see more parking and feels like townhouses often do not have enough parking for the number of bedrooms. Mr. Searles stated there are opportunities to add guest parking if that is a want from the Council. Councilmember Morris expressed his concern for the western side not being serviced with guest parking and them needing to use Granite Court which includes additional concerns from a public safety standpoint. He added that he does not like the way it’s serviced and does not accommodate anyone on the west side. Mr. Searles stated the townhome driveways will perform more like a single family home and will have two car garages as well as have a 37 foot back of curb. He stated unlike single family homes, the driveways would not have a gap between the driveways. He stated as it relates to private street A, it is not uncommon for the streets to be elongated and parking be provided there. Councilmember Morris asked if it could have an impact on impervious surface. Mr. Searles stated it would be minor and wouldn’t be a barrier. Mayor Burt stated she likes the condition of adding additional parking. Councilmember Wilson added snow removal. Councilmember Morris stated as a property owner, there are rights for property owners to do what they want with the property as long as it meets the conditions. He does not see anything that would preclude that doesn’t satisfy the requisitions. He stated his appreciation for residents that have spoken up with their feedback and agrees with some of it while also disagreeing with some of it. He stated the voices have been heard and matters but certain opinions are not everyone’s opinion and all opinions are equal. He encouraged the public to continue to be involved and stated not everyone will get their way. He stated the Council has legal obligations and considerations to do on behalf of the residents and property owners Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following ordinance Ordinance 2030 Ordinance of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota rezoning certain property from R-1, Urban Reserve District to R-4, Urban Residential District Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – abstained Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Discussion during the motion: Councilmember Wilson disagreed with Councilmember Morris’ statement that property owners can do whatever they want with their property. She stated in this particular scenario the agreement already took place in 2017 which is why she will vote the way she will, not because someone can do whatever they want with their property. Councilmember Santini stated the lesson learned from this process for the future is more understanding from the master plan. She stated her understanding in the frustration from residents. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 22-227 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota adopting findings of fact, with the additional conditions added to the resolution as follows: 1. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, the applicant shall add additional guest parking spaces as approved by Planning staff; and 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a snow storage plan. Said plan shall be approved by Planning staff prior to permit release. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – abstain Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Page 9 of 17  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To approve the Copper Ridge 9th Resubmittal Preliminary Plat and Site and Building Plan, Project No. 28-2022-00508, subject to the following conditions as outlined in Council Letter 22-302, and with the following conditions: 1. The existing Copper Ridge PUD shall remain in full force and effect. 2. The CUP approval shall expire one (1) year from the date of City Council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension has been granted. 3. The Final Plat shall be approved by the City Council and released for recording prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. Prior to the release of the Final Plat for recording, the Applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement. 5. The PUD shall have architectural consistency throughout the entire project by using complementary architectural features, colors and materials on all buildings. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a materials board. All proposed materials shall be approved by the Planning staff. 7. Prior to the application of the building material, the Applicant shall construct sample material mock-ups on site for all of the buildings. 8. All fencing and retaining wall materials shall be complementary to the building materials and shall be approved in writing by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Retaining walls greater than four (4) feet in height shall be engineered and detailed calculations shall be submitted to the City. Said retaining walls shall include fencing when directed by the City. 9. Prior to the release of the building permit, a landscape financial security shall be submitted for at least 150 percent of the estimated cost of landscaping including sod. 10. A maximum of 111 residential units shall be permitted for the project. 11. Within six (6) months of the Certificate of Occupancy, if directed by the Planning staff the Applicant shall provide and install a maximum of 12 additional eight (8) foot evergreen trees. These plantings shall be utilized to screen site lighting, close screening gaps, parking areas, and the like. 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a plan identifying placement of no less than four (4) inches of an acceptable topsoil mix as determined by Planning staff. 13. Prior to installation of sod, the Applicant shall provide written verification that a minimum of four (4) inches of topsoil has been placed throughout the site. Prior to installation of the sod, the City shall inspect and approve the placement of the topsoil in writing. 14. All areas of the site, where practical, shall be sodded or seeded and maintained. The property owner shall mow and maintain all site boulevards to the curb line of all public and private streets. 15. Any future trash enclosures shall utilize wooden gates and be constructed on three (3) sides using the same materials and patterns used on the building. Locations shall be approved by the Planning Department. 16. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, a final stormwater management plan shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Engineering Department. 17. Any and all sidewalks shall be owned, maintained, repaired and replaced by the property owner. All trails located outside of the ROW shall be owned, maintained, repaired and replaced by the property owner. 18. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, final utility plans shall be approved in writing by the Engineering Division. 19. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, the Applicant shall submit an operation and maintenance plan to the City for review and approval. 20. The Applicant shall be financially responsible for all applicable water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer area and connection charges. Rates applied shall be those in effect at the time of Final Plat approval and shall be memorialized in the Development Agreement. 21. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any necessary right-of-way permits from the City’s Engineering Division prior to commencement of any site activities. The Developer will also be responsible for obtaining any other permits necessary from other applicable agencies, such as, MPCA, Watershed District, Washington County, etc. prior to commencing any site activities. 22. The Applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and must obtain a land disturbance permit along with any necessary right-of-way permits from the City’s Engineering Division prior to the commencement of any site activities or site disturbance. The Applicant will also be responsible for obtaining any other permits necessary from other applicable agencies such as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES Permit for construction activities. 23. All public utility improvements and connections to the public systems shall be designed by the City in accordance with all City standard specifications, standard detail plates and standard plans. Easements necessary to accommodate public utility improvements will be determined by the final design and shall be shown on the Final Plat. Responsibility for construction of public utility improvements will be determined at the time of Final Plat approval. 24. All rights-of-way, easements and outlots shall be kept free of plantings, retaining walls, signage, etc. that would affect their intended purpose. 25. The Applicant shall be financially responsible for any cost incurred for removal and/or relocation of existing small utilities, utility poles, undergrounding existing overhead electric utilities and other associated private utilities adjacent to and within the development and/or related to the public improvements needed to service the development. 26. Street lights shall be required to be installed by the Developer, at their cost, as directed by the City. Page 10 of 17  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 30, 2022 27. The location of landscaping irrigation lines shall be shown on the utility plan for irrigation of medians or at locations where irrigation lines cross public streets. 28. The irrigation system shall be designed to meet the following design requirements:  System must be designed by a certified irrigation contractor.  The system, including pumps, controllers, connections and irrigation line placement must be submitted for review and approval, in writing, by City staff.  Private irrigation wells as a back-up irrigation source are not permitted.  Irrigation heads shall be placed a minimum six (6) inches from back of curb, trail, sidewalk, or other hard surface.  EPA WaterSense approved smart controllers shall be used. The controller shall be approved by Engineering Staff in writing.  MP rotator heads or equivalent shall be used throughout. 29. Construction access for large equipment shall primarily utilize the private drive off of Bailey Lake Road. Only vehicles needing to construct the northwest site improvements may utilize Granite Court. 30. The Applicant shall provide a copy of the proposed covenants for staff review and approval. The standards for maintenance shall be equal to adjacent developments and shall be recorded against the property. 31. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall dedicate the outlot with the stormwater ponds to the City at no cost and free of encumbrances. 32. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City shall review and approve the landscaping plan in writing. The Applicant shall provide a detail on the foundation plantings for each unit which will include perennials and shrubs. 33. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, the Applicant shall submit plans that include a trail or sidewalk on the north side of Bailey Lake Road from Granite Court to Pioneer Drive. The Engineering Department shall review and approve the trail or sidewalk, in writing. 34. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, the Applicant shall submit plans that vary the front and rear building lines. 35. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, architectural plans including building color variety, shall be reviewed and approved by Planning staff. Per Council’s direction, adding numbers 36 and 37 as follows: 36. Prior to issuance of a land disturbance permit, the applicant shall add additional guest parking spaces as approved by Planning staff. 37. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a snow storage plan. Said plan shall be approved by Planning staff prior to permit release. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – abstain Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Discussion A. City Code Amendment Chapter 2 Administration, Adding Article IX, Local Lodging Tax Assistant City Administrator Angela Gorall stated at the October 19 City Council workshop meeting, Council was presented a Destination Marketing Organization (DMO) Business Plan for 2023-2028. The plan included a recommendation to adopt an ordinance to establish a local lodging tax. She stated Council provided direction during that meeting to move forward. She stated the key policy question for consideration is Woodbury being a destination. She stated this question has been reviewed thoroughly when reviewed with the business plan and believe by promoting and marking various facilities, features and assets to the community it could benefit the local economy further. She stated this is proposed to be completed through the destination marketing organization or DMO. She stated various chapters were reviewed in the business plan to determine if Woodbury meets the standard of being a destination benefitting from the further marking and promotion. She stated the recommendation was to establish a DMO and establish the local lodging tax to be the funding source to support the DMO operations. She stated the business plan provided the framework for the services of the DMO, governance staffing and budget. Ms. Gorall stated the ultimate purpose is to attract visitors for the purpose of enhancing the local economy through purchase of room nights, food and beverage, retail items, medical series, transportation or visitor services. Ms. Gorall stated the proposal is for a 3% local lodging tax. She stated 95% of the lodging tax must be used by statute for the purposes of marketing and promoting the City as a tourist and convention center. She stated the proposal is for tax collections to be completed by the Minnesota Department of Revenue with an effective date of April 1, 2023. Page 11 of 17  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Ms. Gorall stated all lodging businesses were notified and asked for feedback and none was provided. Mayor Burt asked if Woodspring Suites had been sold and had a name change. Mr. Searles stated he is unsure if ownership changed but the name changed to Extended Stay. She stated they estimate $650,000-$750,000 tax collected from the lodging tax annually. She stated no new hotels are anticipated in the next 5 years. Ms. Gorall stated the next steps included notifying MNDOR to request tax collection; Staff further developing a task force structure, goals and purpose; and further ordinances and resolutions such as governance and oversight, special revenue fund and budget and potential Administrative or Council directives. Mayor Burt stated they are still asking for legislative help and possibly using 2/3 of the lodging tax for capital improvement projects. She stated establishing this first would not preclude that ability from potentially happening in the future. Councilmember Wilson stated she does not have an issue with the lodging tax since it seems to be standard. She expressed her concern in expanding City government where most cities are using a non-profit to run visitors or destination marketing. She stated the City is desiring to keep it internal and use employees or expand government in order to do so which is concerning to her. Councilmember Date stated Councilmember Wilson’s concern is noted and added DMOs are done in a variety of ways. She stated based on her experience, there are pros and cons to the approaches. She stated the non-profit approach has drawbacks such as losing the control of being able to market the City in the way they want to and to be able to use those funds for marketing to enhance what is already happening. She stated there is no way to undo it if they go down the non-profit direction while going through the local government option allows additional options in the future if it does not work. She stated the City can act as a pilot to see what works best. Councilmember Wilson stated everyone she has contacted to ask how their visitor’s bureau run they say it’s through a non-profit. She stated because of that, she will vote accordingly. Councilmember Santini asked if extended stays would be under the lodging and related services. Ms. Gorall agreed. Councilmember Santini asked if relocation housing for short periods of time would be excluded. Mr. Searles stated from a zoning perspective they have looked at those uses as an accessory to multi-family versus lodging land use. Councilmember asked if Staff feel comfortable with who is being captured and the clarity behind it. Ms. Gorall noted State Statute would also dictate and bring clarity. Councilmember Date asked if Airbnb’s are included in the tax. Councilmember Santini asked if Airbnb’s are allowed in the City. Mr. Searles stated according to the ordinance they are not permitted. He added there have been Airbnb’s listings in the past. Councilmember Morris asked if complaints on an Airbnb could be filed as a code enforcements. Mr. Searles stated it has occurred a number of times due to complaints from adjacent residents. Ms. Gorall stated if Airbnb’s were allowed, they would need to pay the lodging tax. Councilmember Santini asked how travel websites and agencies get notified and taxed. Ms. Gorall stated the Department of Revenue would take care of that and will notify all lodging establishments. Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following ordinance Ordinance 2231 Ordinance of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota amending Chapter 2 Administration by adding Article IX, Local Lodging Tax. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt a motion authorizing staff to publish the Summary of Ordinance amending Chapter 2 Administration by adding Article IX, Local Lodging Tax. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Page 12 of 17  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 30, 2022 B. Consent Agenda Item 6L. Denying Tobacco Sales License Application of Maan Altamimi and Tobacco Zone, Inc. Maan Altamimi, 7762 Lakeview Lane, requested to pull this item for discussion and stated there was an error in his application and he had worked with his lawyer when he found out. He asked if there was a way to resubmit an application and have an extension. He noted he currently has a license in White Bear Lake for a similar commercial property and business as in Woodbury. Mayor Burt stated her understanding that there was incorrect information regarding where he was born on the application and in addition, there is a misdemeanor on his record. Mr. Altamimi stated his lawyer said the misdemeanor shouldn’t show up, doesn’t understand why it did, so he would like to resubmit his application. He asked if he could resubmit his application if there is a misdemeanor that shows up. Mr. Sandstrom stated the issue is a gross misdemeanor conviction on Mr. Altamimi’s record in relation to charges to a motor vehicle excise tax fraud from a fraudulent certificate. He stated a basis for denial was the failure to disclose that information and misinformation on the location of his birth and incomplete or falsified information on an application deems a basis for denial. He stated due to the gross misdemeanor on his application, it will not change with a new application. Mayor Burt asked if due to Woodbury’s ordinance if background checks are looked each year with new application submissions. Mr. Sandstrom stated the City is entitled to review and do a background check every year. Mayor Burt asked if this ordinance is for Woodbury and could not exist in other cities. Mr. Sandstrom agreed. Mayor Burt stated for the two reasons listed, Mr. Altamimi could try to resubmit an application but the gross misdemeanor would likely be found again. Mr. Altamimi explained an expungement has begun on the gross misdemeanor and stated he is a law abiding citizen, ex- military and an Army Ranger. He stated he is unsure if the expungement would help his application. Mr. Sandstrom stated if the expungement is granted, the City Code states if an application is denied, resubmission is not allowed for at least a year. Mr. Altamimi asked if he would be refunded for the amount he has put forth on the application. Mayor Burt stated there is a license fee and an application fee. Mr. Altamimi asked if he was getting refunded. City Clerk Kimberlee Blaeser stated she is unsure what the basis is for refund, and would be under the Council’s jurisdiction to decide. Councilmember Santini noted he also applied for the license of cannabinoid products. Mayor Burt asked if when applying for the license if applicants are paying for the entire year. Ms. Blaeser stated they are and the $500 background fee is used for City Staff to do background checks. Mr. Altamimi stated he is more concerned with the THC license refund. Mayor Burt stated if they are not approving the license the City cannot accept money for the license, but believes the City should keep the $500 background fee. Mr. Altamimi agreed. Mr. Sandstrom stated there have been occasions in the past, the Council has allowed applicants to withdraw their application in advance of the formal action of the Council to deny it. Mayor Burt asked if that would mean the City would not charge the application fee. Councilmember Date and Councilmember Wilson stated it would mean Mr. Altamimi would not have to wait a year to reapply due to his misdemeanor. City Administrator Clint Gridley encouraged the Council to consider the fact that Mr. Altamimi has submitted a formal application with a signed statement stating the information is correct and the City has completed a background check. Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 22-228 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota denying tobacco sales license application of Maan Altamimi and Tobacco Zone, Inc with the condition of reimbursement of the tobacco license fee of $300. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Discussion during the motion: Councilmember Morris stated he would like the motion to include a refund of the license fee but not the background check. Mayor Burt stated $300 would be reimbursed for the license fee and $10,200 would be reimbursed for the cannabinoid license fee. C. Consent Agenda Item 6M. Denying Cannabinoid Products License Application of Maan Altamimi and Tobacco Zone, Inc. Page 13 of 17  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 22-229 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing denying the cannabinoid products license application of Maan Altamimi and Tobacco Zone, Inc. with the condition of reimbursement of the license fee of $10,200 Discussion during the motion: Mr. Altamimi asked if he could resubmit in one year. Mayor Burt stated he could resubmit a year after this time. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye D. Consent Agenda Item 6J. Request to Table Giza, Inc. dba MoonSoon Tobacco, 6671 Valley Creek Road, Cannabinoid Products License. Councilmember Wilson pulled this item for discussion and stated she will be voting differently because of the inconsistency in granting businesses different things and she would like it to be consistent for all businesses. Councilmember Date asked if the applicant will continue to pay a licensing fee while they are operating even if the discussion is being tabled. Mr. Sandstrom stated it has been determined their memorandum of understanding engaged with staff. Councilmember Wilson asked if the two businesses, Giza, Inc. dba MoonSoon Tobacco and Smokeless Smoking Inc. would be able to continue selling THC products while other business are not allowed. Mayor Burt stated no other applications have come through and it is her understanding if another application came through and are 500 feet from a school the Council would need to consider the same thing. She added in the meantime, re-evaluation of more detail will be a continued process. Councilmember Wilson asked for clarification and believed it was by a certain date. Assistant to the City Administrator/Deputy Clerk, Annie Coyle stated the memorandums of understanding will be offered to existing businesses who ae selling cannabinoid products on or before November 9, 2022 that apply for licensure and are within the 500 foot criteria. She added they must pass all other requirements of the licensure including the background check. Mr. Sandstrom stated if a business decided to start to sell THC products now and are within the 500 foot criteria, they are too late and would be denied since the ordinance has been passed. Councilmember Wilson asked if businesses have not applied yet and are within the 500 foot criteria if they would need to cease selling. Mr. Sandstrom agreed. Councilmember Morris stated if businesses have not applied yet they are selling illegally. Councilmember Date stated if an application comes before the Council there can be additional conversations but with the known information, there are only two businesses within the 500 foot criteria. Councilmember Wilson stated her concerns with inconsistencies creating more complications later on and is not equitable to all businesses. She stated it is not an equitable ordinance and she will vote different because of it. Mayor Burt stated her hope that legislation will be able to pass something within the year to bring clarity instead of having the burden on cities. Councilmember Morris stated business owners are not selling the product and not paying attention and are following the ordinances. Councilmember Wilson reiterated the importance of having an ordinance that is for everyone. Councilmember Morris agreed. Councilmember Date stated the business existed before the school and wouldn’t want to put it out of business because of that. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Date, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 22-230 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota tabling the Cannabinoid Products License application of Giza, Inc. dba MoonSoon Tobacco located at 6671 Valley Creek Road. Page 14 of 17  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye E. Consent Agenda Item 6K. Request to Table Smokeless Smoking, Inc., 8470 City Centre Drive, Cannabinoid Products License. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Date, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 22-231 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota tabling the Cannabinoid Products License application of Smokeless Smoking, Inc located at 8470 City Centre Drive. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye F. Consent Agenda Item N. 2023 Legislative Initiatives. Councilmember Wilson pulled this item for discussion and stated her concern of not having strong enough language for the permanent water facility. She stated the park section is specific and detailed while the water treatment section simply says to advocate. She stated the water treatment facility and the east well fields hooked up should be a top priority in the City. Mayor Burt agreed and stated the challenge is the legislature has nothing to do with the settlement money to get it covered. Councilmember Wilson stated it does not have to do with the settlement money. Mayor Burt stated it is a legislative priority. Councilmember Wilsons stated if they can ask legislatures for bonding for the Central Park, they can ask for bonding to hood up the east well fields. Councilmember Date stated they are asking the federal government to hook up the east well fields and are in the process already. She stated it is a priority. Mr. Gridley stated the best option is to keep it at $15 million and adjusting it would put it into different considerations. He stated when speaking with governor’s staff the best approach is to stick with what was done the previous year. He recommended adjusting the $18.5 million to $15 million. Mayor Burt stated the previous change to $18.5 million was guidance on inflation. Councilmember Morris stated there is justification for the new number. He added the City rarely goes to the State for money and the $3.5 million will go back to the citizens of Woodbury and asked why they would not advocate for that. Mr. Gridley stated a factor of moving to the $18.5 million is it usually is 50/50 funding and if it is a higher level of funding by the municipality it is a plus in terms of the legislature’s review of it. He stated there is good justification of inflation, and cost of the project. He stated there is movement with bonding requests. Mayor Burt stated there is a higher probability at $15 million and lowers the probability at $18.5 million. Mr. Gridley agreed and stated they have communicated with the government’s office that they would be at $15 million. Councilmember Santini asked if it could be a negotiation tactic of the sales tax. Mr. Gridley stated it is two different committees with two different considerations. Councilmember Morris stated using DMO money for capital would significantly reduce the City’s power. Mr. Gridley stated in regard to Central Park, they have great capital estimates and are further along in the process with the number more defined. He stated it is a dynamic situation which is why they kept the language broad and that they are continually working with the State. He stated big things are going on with the federal and state levels in terms of what are acceptable levels of PFAS, which could have a substantial impact. He stated they want to uncover every dollar possible with is why they are going through complex grant processes. He stated he cannot pinpoint a number and that there is a lot of design to go. He stated the water is the top priority and have not swayed from that. Mayor Burt asked if the $15 million was decided last year or if it was developed over time. Mr. Gridley stated it was decided last year and added. Councilmember Wilson stated the acceptable peas levels in the water will continue to go down and could continue to change and fluctuate throughout the next 5 years. She stated anything that does not get funded from state of federal or the 3M grant comes to the taxpayers to fund. Councilmember Morris stated his understanding when the City asks for money they will want to see justification on where the money is going to. He noted the City is not ready for this yet since they are 30% into the design phase. He added a number hasn’t been determined yet because other details need to be in place before determining a number that can be justified. Councilmember Wilson stated the east well field is not covered under the settlement agreement or consent agreement. Councilmember Morris stated the request for funding has already been given and is already there. He stated in order to go to the legislator, the City needs to know what they will be asking for. Mayor Burt stated when that is known, numbers can be more specific. Page 15 of 17  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Councilmember Santini noted with the State it is important to advocate for the community to 3M and to enforce the consent agreement and settlement agreement. Councilmember Date asked to delete the word “pursue” in the language for the federal request because it is stated what is needed. Councilmember Wilson agreed. Councilmember Date stated it should read “what we need, 2023 Federal Appropriations in to form of congressionally directed spending.” She stated the word “pursue” could be included after. The Council agreed. Councilmember Date, seconded by Mayor Burt, To adopt a motion proposing the 2023 Woodbury Legislative Program with the following modifications: 1. Regarding the Legislative Initiative Community-Wide Permanent Water Treatment, modify the language to state: “Fiscal year 2023 federal Appropriations in the form of congressionally directed spending. Pursue low cost loans or similar tools such as tax-exempt municipal bonds, public-private partnerships, the state revolving loan fund or the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program to finance water treatment projects not fundable through the State’s Conceptual Drinking water Supply Plan. 2. Regarding the Legislative Initiative Central Park Renovation and Expansion, modify the language to state: “State bonding bill support of $15 million for the renovation and expansion of this regional facility. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Discussion during the motion: Councilmember Date stated she understood Councilmember Morris’ logic but Mr. Gridley’s comments were practical. Councilmember Morris stated in the future he would like to push for the $18.5 million with the lobbyists since the bonding is unknown. Transportation Report (2nd meeting of the month, May-October) No items scheduled City Administrator’s Report City Administrator Clinton Gridley gave a verbal update of upcoming City meetings.  December 1, 2022 –Neighborhood Meeting for La Lake Park concept design project open house, 5:30 p.m. in Birch Conference Room  December 5, 2022 –Planning Commission Meeting Cancelled  December 6, 2022 –Parks and Natural Resource Commission, 6:15 p.m. tour, 7:00 p.m. meeting at Central Park Valley Creek room A and B conference rooms  December 14, 2022 –Public Hearing has no items scheduled  December 14, 2022 –City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers  December 14, 2022 –Economic Development 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers  December 14, 2022 –Authority Housing and Redevelopment Authority 7:05 p.m., Council Chambers Page 16 of 17  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Adjournment Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Voting in Favor: Wilson, Date, Morris, Santini, Burt Absent: None Respectfully submitted, _________________________________________ Kimberlee K. Blaeser, City Clerk Approved by the Woodbury City Council on December 14, 2022 Page 17 of 17