City Council

Minutes Woodbury City Council Wednesday, February 14, 2024 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 14th day of February 2024. Call to Order Mayor Anne Burt called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m., and she welcomed those attending the meeting both in person and virtually. Mayor Burt explained that members of the public may attend the meeting in person and may also join the meeting using a computer, tablet, or smartphone. She stated public comments will be accepted during the meeting both in person and virtually. Virtual questions should be submitted via the online Q&A feature within the virtual meeting link. Questions regarding the meeting will also be taken between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. via email at council@woodburymn.gov or at 651-714-3524. Questions received after 4:30 p.m. will be responded to in the next three to seven business days. Pledge to Flag Audience, staff, Boy Scout Troop 9005, and Council pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Boy Scouts Troop 9005 explained that there were completing their merit badge associated with citizenship in the community. 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; Janelle Schmitz, Community Development Director; Eric Searles, Assistant Community Development Director/City Planner; Jason Schirmacher, Woodbury CFO/Controller; and Chris Hartzell, Engineering Director. Special Order of Business No items scheduled 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 three 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 – January 24, 2024 Item B To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-25 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota accepting grant funds in the amount of $20,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts – Grants for Art Projects program to the City of Woodbury and approving the appropriate budget adjustment. Item C To adopt a motion to extend the project approvals for Commerce Hill Retail II, Project No. 03-2021-00478, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Council Letter 24-31. Item D Westwind Second Addition; Final Plat and Development Agreement, Project No. 33-2023-00538. This item was removed the Consent Agenda and moved to the Discussion portion of the meeting.  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 14, 2024 Item E Letter of Intent between the City of Woodbury and South Washington County Telecommunications Commission (SWCTC) for Central Park. This item was removed the Consent Agenda and moved to the Discussion portion of the meeting. Item F To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-26 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing execution of a professional services agreement with Bolton and Menk, Inc., for the 2026 Roadway Rehabilitation Project and preparation of preliminary reports. Item G To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-27 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota accepting grant funds in the amount of $100,000 for the Best Management Practices Cost Share Program from Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District and authorizing execution of the agreement. Item H To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-28 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota to approve grant applications to be submitted to the Flood Mitigation Assistance’s Localized Flood Risk Reduction Projects for Weir Drive Improvement and Lake Level Monitoring Equipment projects. Item I To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-29 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the Residential Irrigation Controller Program Cooperative Agreement between South Washington Watershed District and the City of Woodbury and approving the associated budget amendment. Item J To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-30 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing acceptance of grant funds in the amount of $50,000 from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Conservation Partners Legacy Grant Program for the Fish Lake Wetlands Vegetation Restoration to the City of Woodbury and approving the budget amendment. Item K To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-31 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing acceptance of the City of Woodbury PER and Pilot Grant Amendment #3, Contract #204381 from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Item L To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-32 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving of the Second Amended Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Woodbury and the City of Cottage Grove for the East Metro Public Safety Training Facility (HERO Center). Item M To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-33 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Woodbury and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 49 regarding the Central Pension Fund. Item N To adopt a motion to approve issuing a Cannabinoids Product license to Minnesota Fine Wines & Spirits LLC, 7150 Valley Creek Plaza, Suite 210. 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 January 19, 2024 in the Page 2 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 14, 2024 amount of $87,766.91, January 26, 2024 in the amount of $2,036,523.37 and February 2, 2024 in the amount of $1,078,756.69. Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, to approve the Consent Agenda items with the exception of items 6D and 6E. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Public Hearings Mayor Burt noted that there were new guidelines regarding the public hearing comments. She mentioned that comments should not go more than 10 minutes long. If the speaker determines that more time is necessary, they are advised to make a request to the mayor at least three days prior to the meeting. If there are more than three people who have requested to speak, the total time to speak may be reduced to allow for 30 minutes total for public comment. Remarks and points already made by someone else should not be repeated unless simply to state if they are in favor or opposed. Remarks should be limited to the subject at hand only. Speakers are encouraged to coordinate their presentations to any extent possible. Those in attendance of the public hearing will refrain from applause or other expression of emotion. Inappropriate language, outbursts and criticisms aimed at an individual groups are not allowed. A. Approval of Ordinance Amending Chapter 24, Article VI, Supplemental Performance Standards, Division 2, Accessory Buildings, Garages, Recreational Facility and Miscellaneous Structures, Section 24-281, Residential Districts Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Community Development Director Janelle Schmitz stated Patrick Bisek, a resident who lives at 4419 Dorchester Drive, has submitted an application for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding Section 24-281, Residential Districts. The Applicant is proposing to amend the ordinance to require properties zoned R-1, Urban Reserve District and R-2, Single-family Estate District a minimum 50-foot front yard setback for detached garages and accessory structures instead of the 100-foot front yard minimum setback currently required by ordinance. Ms. Schmitz explained that the current Ordinance language for detached garages and accessory structures is “Shall not be located in front of the principal building. Exception: A detached garage/accessory structure may be located in front of the principal building in the R-1 and R-2 districts, providing the minimum front yard setback to the accessory building is 100 feet.” The proposed amendment would change the exception would read “A detached garage/accessory structure, not exceeding 1,000 square feet in size, may be located in front of the principal building in the R-1 and R-2 districts, providing the minimum front yard setback to the accessory building is 50 feet.” Ms. Schmitz displayed a photo of what the 100-foot and 50-foot setback would look like on the applicant’s lot.. The 100-foot setback would require the applicant to remove several trees, and initially he had inquired about getting a variance. Staff reviewed the request and determined that the reasoning for the variance would not meet the practical difficulty standards and that an Ordinance amendment would be a better route . Staff believe that the proposed Ordinance amendment is reasonable, and preserves the intent of the Ordinance. Ms. Schmitz stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this item during the February 5, 2024 meeting and recommended approval with a 5-0 vote. She noted that the Planning Commission Chair Shannon Olsen was present to answer any questions. Planning Commission Chair Shannon Olsen stated that the discussion for this item was minimal and it centered on how many properties it would impact across the City. They also discussed the notification process for City residents. 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. Page 3 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 14, 2024 Councilmember Wilson asked to clarify if people are not allowed to build a garage in front of the home. Ms. Schmitz replied that under the proposed Ordinance, a garage can be in front of a house as long as it is set back a minimum of 50 feet . She clarified that the current Ordinance would require it to be 100 feet back. Councilmember Wilson asked if the applicant had to pay an application fee to have the Ordinance changed. Ms. Schmitz replied that the applicant did pay an application feeto process this request. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following ordinance Ordinance 2050 Ordinance of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota amending Chapter 24, Zoning, Article VI, Supplemental Performance Standards, Division 2, Accessory Buildings, Garages, Recreational Facility and Miscellaneous Structures, Section 24-281, Residential Districts. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye B. Gold Line Development; Planned Unit Development; Conditional Use Permit; Preliminary Plat; and Site and Building Plans; Project Nos. 05- 2023-00525, 05-2023-00527 and 05-2023-00528 and Gold Line Addition Final Plat; Project No. 05-2023-00526 Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Assistant Community Development Director/City Planner Eric Searles stated Eden Ventures, LLC has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat and Site and Building Plans for a new commercial development called Gold Line Development. The project is located at 500 Bielenberg Drive on approximately 36 acres and includes site and building plans for the first two commercial recreation uses, TopGolf and Main Event. The property is zoned B-1, Office Park District and is guided as Places to Work on the Land Use Plan. Mr. Searles noted that the original office building was built in 1979 and the original business was Western Life Insurance Company. Since that time, multiple tenants have leased space within that building. The building is currently near vacant outside of some data center uses. In April of 2022, the City Council approved the Gold Line Station Area Master Plan. A part of that master plan was to identify landscaping design themes and establish goals to create amenity spaces. The proposed TopGolf site plan includes a landscaped seating node off Bielenberg Drive which will enhance the station area. Mr. Searles explained that the TopGolf building is three levels and measures approximately 68,000 square feet. The golf entertainment use would employ 375-400 people. The second use is located on lot two and is the Main Event with the concept of eat, play and bowl. The building will be 48,000 square feet with approximately 200 employees. There is a third commercial lot for which the use is currently unknown. Mr. Searles stated that the application includes a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) request. The request is for flexibility with fence height and to allow the commercial recreation uses above 5,000 square feet via a PUD approval. The PUD flexibility is consistent with other flexibility that has been granted in the past. Both proposed uses can be evaluated as destination uses. The assets can be leveraged along with other community assets by the City’s new DMO, Destination: Woodbury. PUD flexibility is also requested to modify the maximum height of a fence to 170 feet to ensure errand shots remain in the field of play. Mr. Searles added that via a separate application, Eden Ventures, LLC has also requested Final Plat (Gold Line Addition) approval to create three commercial lots, one future development Outlot, and several infrastructure-related outlots. The necessary water, stormwater and sanitary sewer improvements are being requested to be constructed privately with the necessary securities posted by the Applicant. Mr. Searles stated that there would be two access points on Bielenberg Drive. Traffic studies conducted during the Gold Line project anticipated additional development activity to occur on the site and improvements were made to support the increased traffic. The improvements included signalization of both of the proposed access points. A detailed traffic study was also completed as part of this development project which identified minor improvements to the signal timing to accommodate additional traffic. Page 4 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 14, 2024 Mr. Searles mentioned that the project would include sidewalks that are designed to link the proposed uses with Bielenberg Drive. Parking would be in four distinct areas. It is anticipated that there will be some cross-parking between uses. There is a cross-access easements and cross-parking agreements that will be required which would allow patrons to park without risk of being towed. Parking area A is constructed for TopGolf and while the zoning code does not identify a parking requirement for golf entertainment uses, the code identifies that the City Council follows the review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend two parking spaces per hitting bay and one stall per two seats in the bar and restaurant areas and one stall per employee at the peak work shift. Parking zone B is the Main Event use with the zoning ordinance identifying required parking spots for bowling. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adding parking requirements for the restaurant use of one space per two seats plus employee parking for the Main Event use. Parking zones C and D can be used for future parking as future uses are identified. Mr. Searles reviewed the TopGolf architecture. TopGolf is proposed to be constructed with three different brick colors and a significant amount of glass. The Main Event would utilize four types of brick. A detailed landscaping plan has been submitted for the project. Due to the large amount of grading, there is significant tree removal as part of the application. There will be a unique landscape features within the center of the site that will break up the parking areas. The City Code requires stormwater management to be provided for all new developments. The location identifies stormwater infrastructure to be constructed in outlot A. Mr. Searles stated that a neighborhood meeting was held on January 4, 2024, with one City Councilmember present and no other members of the public present. The Planning Commission reviewed the item on February 5, 2024. Chair Shannon Olsen stated the Planning Commission asked questions regarding the connectivity to the development to the south. There was also discussion about not burdening the Public Safety Department. Staff confirmed that there would be adequate connectivity and also had conversations with Public Safety. Traffic flow was also heavily discussed with the Planning Commission and the traffic patterns will be intermittent instead of at the same time. Similar facilities had hours from 9 a.m. until 12-1 a.m. The Planning Commission discussed potential noise that could occur with the facilities. In addition, there was discussion regarding snow removal. There is a condition that snow cannot be stockpiled near the retaining wall or near the wetland. The Planning Commission validated the need for a 170-foot fence. Ms. Olsen noted that during the Planning Commission meeting there were several questions regarding parking such as could some of the parking be used as a park and ride for the Gold Line, and whether there was sufficient parking. There were questions about water use and a general assessment that it would be like other restaurant and bar use and would not add significant stress to the system. The Planning Commission recommended to approve the project. 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 Wilson asked if the project included the property going all the way to the Hartford Building or if it went up to the parking area. Mr. Searles replied that the project includes portions of the existing parking fields for the Hartford Building. Councilmember Wilson asked if there would be sidewalks on a portion of Bielenberg Drive for the Gold Line. Mr. Searles replied that there is a sidewalk proposed internal to the site. There is not a sidewalk proposed as part of the Gold Line project due to pipeline constraints. Councilmember Wilson asked if there was a sidewalk on the east side of Bielenberg Drive. Mr. Searles replied that there is a trail. Councilmember Wilson noted that this as a transit oriented development, she is disappointed that the parking lots front along the street. She added that she understands the need for the 170-foot fence but that this isn’t consistent with the vision for the Gold Line. She expressed her concern regarding the appearance from the road. Councilmember Santini asked why the netting and fence was not oriented towards the interstate. Mr. Searles replied that the applicant can discuss operational needs and how that impacted the design of the project. Representative of Eden Ventures LLC Todd Waldo stated the orientation of the building is due to guest play. Having the fence face the interstate would cause the sun to be in players eyes since the peak time of play is in the afternoon and evening. Most of the venues are designed in a northeast direction. He mentioned that there are 98 TopGolf locations and the 170-foot netting is for the health and safety of any operations happening off site. He noted that while he understood the desire to have more mature landscaping, this presented concerns due to potential maintenance issues with the netting, explaining that there are break away clips on the netting so if the load becomes too heavy, the net will break away and land on the turf so that it is contained and does not harm the structure. Mayor Burt asked Mr. Waldo what the material of the net was and the opening size. Mr. Waldo replied that the net poles are designed to be a sky gray color. The netting is black nylon webbing and does not allow golf balls through but allows for airflow. The poles are 170 tall and are 30-40 feet deep and are all self-supported. Page 5 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 14, 2024 Councilmember Date asked what would happen to the Hartford Building. Mr. Searles replied that the application does not include a demolition of the building. The City Code does not require an applicant to receive approval from the Council or Planning Commission to remove a building. The current owner has told Staff that they are currently working to find tenants for the office space. Outlot B was designed to provide additional options as potential uses of the building are identified and explored. Mayor Burt asked if Outlot B would not be developed at this time. She also asked if it is currently a part of the Hartfort Building parking lot. Mr. Searles replied that is currently a part of the Hartford Building parking lot and Outlot B will have blacktop removal and be regraded with the potential of providing parking in the future. Mayor Burt asked Mr. Searles to speak about the tree replacement policy. Mr. Searles replied that a detailed tree inventory was provided that lists the size, species, and dimensional characteristics. If the tree is proposed to be remove, they are replaced by a calculation that is identified within the Ordinance. If the site cannot provide adequate space for all of the replacement trees, there are mechanisms under the City Code where the trees could be planted on a City park or a payment in lieu can be paid by the developer. For this project, it is anticipated that there will be a payment be the developer. Mayor Burt asked if the landscaping plan was going to happen right away. Mr. Searles replied that it would be a part of phase one with the possibility of the second row of landscaping being held off. Mayor Burt asked if the landscaping could survive in the midst of so much concrete. Mr. Searles replied that Staff are confident that they would survive because they are within protected median areas. Councilmember Date noted there is a lot of asphalt included in the project and asked if there has been discussion about using some kind of pervious asphalt. Mr. Searles replied that there were not discussions as part of the application. City Code does not identify it as a stormwater best practice. He added that it is an opportunity to add some of these options to City Code in the future under the Environmental Stewardship initiative. Councilmember Date asked if TopGolf would be opened all year. Mr. Searles replied that the bays are heated and that TopGolf has designed the systems to accommodate all weather. Councilmember Date asked Mr. Waldo what the usage in Brooklyn Center is in the winter months. Mr. Waldo replied that it is one of the top performers across the country, since it allows people to get out during the winter. He added that the temperature can be controlled in each of the bays. Councilmember Date agreed with Councilmember Wilson’s concerns regarding not having so much parking adjacent to the Gold Line corridor. She added her concern regarding eliminating so many trees and receiving a payment in lieu as well as what would happen to the Hartford Building and fear that it would become vacant next to a new development. Councilmember Morris asked whether they had considered flipping Lots 2, 3 and Outlot B to address the orientation of the building and the streetscape. Mr. Searles replied that they did, which was the purpose of Outlot B in keeping options open, including both commercial or residential uses. He added if Lot 2 was flipped, the rear of the building would face Bielenberg Drive. Staff have thought through what would be more appealing and inviting and does not think flipping the building would do so. Councilmember Morris agreed with Councilmember Date’s comments regarding payment in lieu of tree replacement and asked that the Council consider removing that condition due to the amount of asphalt. Councilmember Date asked where the payment for the trees goes. Mr. Searles replied that it typically funds the park planning budget and planting new trees in parks. He added that it is earmarked in the budget and accounted for in a very deliberate fashion to plant new trees. Councilmember Morris explained that he was the Council liaison at the Planning Commission meeting and there was discussion about the hours of operation and that people could be allowed to be out until 2 a.m. which is allowed by Ordinance for liquor establishments. He commented that the nearest residential area is 1,000 feet away from the facility. City Administrator Gridley noted that only on Friday and Saturday are the operating hours until 2 a.m. Councilmember Morris asked if the Council had any concerns about operating hours or the proximity of the nearest residential area. Councilmember Wilson asked if a notice went to homeowners in close proximity. Mr. Searles replied that there are no residential areas within the required 500-foot notice area. Staff have heard from some residents in the area with questions regarding lighting and noise. He added that by having the building in the proposed location closer to the freeway and further from the residences, it would help mitigate noise. Councilmember Wilson explained that she wants a TopGolf in the City but is not a fan of the layout and that there was a lot of planning that went into making the transit corridor appealing. She added that she was shocked that there was not a sidewalk on the west side of Bielenberg because if someone got off the Gold Line there would be no way to walk to the buildings. Mayor Burt asked to clarify where the sidewalk would be. Mr. Searles identified a sidewalk that would be located on private property and maintained by private property owners. Councilmember Wilson asked if the sidewalk would be near Bielenberg Drive. Mr. Searles replied that the sidewalk parallels Bielenberg Drive but is shifted slightly to the west, and as such will be on private property. Page 6 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 14, 2024 Councilmember Date noted that there were reasons such as the Tamarack Swamp location that prohibited the expansion of the trail corridor along Bielenberg Drive. She asked if that is why the sidewalk was on private property. Mr. Searles replied that there were constraints within the property due to the pipeline that runs parallel to Bielenberg Drive. Councilmember Date commented that it was not a miss in planning from the Gold Line staff but rather was due to a lack of space. Councilmember Morris mentioned that the Planning Commission did a good job asking question regarding light pollution. He asked Mr. Searles to review the lighting plan and the goals associated with it. Mr. Searles replied that the lighting uses LED lights throughout the parking lot lights which is consistent with the commercial development patterns in the City. For the facility itself the light source is from the driving range bays. Councilmember Morris asked if the targets were also interiorly lit. Mr. Waldo replied that the targets were interiorly lit. Councilmember Morris noted that the netting is nearly invisible and can be seen a bit more in the daytime. He noted that he would like to include an additional condition in the PUD that the netting is not allowed to have signage or graphics associated with it. Mayor Burt asked Mr. Waldo if they have advertised on the inside. Mr. Waldo replied that they have tried to do that in the past with not much success because it adds extra load to the netting. The only advertising they have done has been internally facing. He noted that if someone were to drive along the TopGolf frontage they would not be able to see the parking lot because there is a retaining wall which creates a visual buffer. Mayor Burt asked Mr. Searles if there is an existing retaining wall or if it will be built. Mr. Searles replied that the retaining wall is proposed to be built. Councilmember Morris noted that there is a specific grading along the southern and eastern lines. He asked what the conditions from the Planning Commission were on snow removal and the retaining walls. Mr. Searles replied that the Planning Commission had extensive discussions regarding snow removal for the interior of the field of play. Snow will be pushed to the sides and is not removed from the target areas. The parking lot areas has a snow storage plan. The Planning Commission does not want snow storage in close proximity to Outlot C because there is a large retaining wall there and they do not want there to be long-term weight and impact on the retaining wall or drainage into Outlot C. The Planning Commission also focused on the impact to the stormwater management in Outlot A. Councilmember Morris asked if there would be any signage associated with TopGolf. Mr. Searles replied the overall development would be allowed a monument sign along the freeway and there would be a shared monument sign for the full development. There would also be an option to have a sign on Bielenberg Drive as well. Councilmember Morris asked if the signage was a part of the plan. Mr. Searles replied that the sign reviews are administrative, and not done through the Planning Commission or Council process. Councilmember Santini asked what the site line would be like from the freeway. She added that she wants TopGolf in Woodbury but is concerned that the orientation of the building does not seem inviting. Mr. Searles replied that the front elevation would be facing Interstate 494 and will be like the Brooklyn Center location. There will also be some vegetation that will help soften the netting presence. Councilmember Morris added that this will be hidden behind buildings and will not be against a roadway. Councilmember Santini replied that it feels more natural to have the front of the building on Bielenberg. Councilmember Morris noted that seeing people playing at TopGolf would be more inviting. Mr. Waldo added that there will be people coming from across the metro to play TopGolf and that access and visibility are important since it is off two major highways. Councilmember Morris asked what existing parking would be available for the Hartford Building if the parking is taken away. Mr. Searles replied that the required parking is based on the utilization within the building. When there are more tenants identified the parking yield will be necessary and required to be installed. Mayor Burt asked what would happen if someone wanted to lease half of the building. Mr. Searles responded that the utilization of Outlot B and/or the construction of a parking ramp would be required as part of the tenant improvements as a private obligation to the building owner. Mayor Burt asked if the building owner was selling a portion of the land. Mr. Searles replied that the building owner was selling a portion of the land but keeping the Hartford Building. Councilmember Wilson asked if the building owner was aware of the parking obligation. Mr. Searles replied that the building owner was aware. Councilmember Wilson stated that she wants TopGolf and Main Event in the community but does not know if the layout is consistent with what was previously discussed for the Gold Line corridor. She added that there is typically light pollution with TopGolf locations and understands the concerns neighbors had. She added that she wished that the notices went farther than 500 feet so that more residents could have been notified. Mayor Burt added her appreciation for all the work Staff and the Planning Commission have done. Page 7 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 14, 2024 Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Mayor Burt To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-34 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota adopting findings of fact with the additional condition that no signage or graphics shall be adhered to or printed on the proposed netting. Councilmember Date acknowledged that there are potential issues with the some of the design elements for the project, but there is also potential for cohesiveness with downtown and for people to gather and be entertained in Woodbury along the Gold Line. Councilmember Santini noted that she appreciates and takes into account the work of the Planning Commission, Staff and community input, and how the perspectives that they bring to the discussion and consideration really help the Council as they evaluate projects like this. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Mayor Burt, to approve the Gold Line Development Planned Unit Development (PUD), Preliminary Plat and Site and Building Plans, Project Nos. 05-2023-00525, 05-2023-00527 and 05-2023-00528 all subject to the conditions outlined in Council Letter 24-44. 1. The PUD and CUP approval shall expire one year from the date of City Council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension has been granted. 2. The Preliminary Plat approval shall expire six months from the date of the City Council approval unless a Final Plat has been requested or a time extension granted by the City Council. 3. Permitted, conditional and accessory uses within the Planned Unit Development shall be consistent with the underlying zoning districts except that the following uses shall be permitted via the PUD and CUP: a. One single-story commercial recreation use over 5,000 square feet. b. One three-story commercial recreation use over 5,000 square feet. 4. The PUD shall have architectural consistency throughout the entire project by using complementary architectural features and materials on all buildings. Materials used within the Planned Unit Development shall be complementary with materials used on the existing office building. 5. All future buildings shall be reviewed and approved through the Site and Building Plan process and shall meet or exceed the requirements of the City’s architectural and parking ordinances. 6. All future site plans shall be designed in a manner consistent with the approved PUD plan. 7. Bicycle racks are required for each site, racks should be located conveniently and with ample setback from the sidewalk a (2 feet minimum). Bike racks cannot be located within required landscaped areas or required parking stalls. 8. Pedestrian scale lighting shall be reviewed and approved by Planning staff, in writing, 9. All signage shall meet the sign code. All branding, logos and the like shall be counted as signage and may not be permitted based on maximum sign allowances. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, staff shall approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for review and approval by the Building Inspections Division. 11. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, the Applicant shall record a cross access easement agreement which allows perpetual use and access by all properties within the subdivision. 12. Odor suppression equipment shall be installed for all food service with designs and specifications approved by Planning staff. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all Applicants shall submit a materials board. All final building materials shall be approved by the Planning staff in writing. 14. Prior to the application of building materials, the Applicant shall construct sample material mock-ups on-site. The mock-ups shall be approved by the Planning staff. 15. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, the Applicant shall execute an approved Operations and Maintenance Plan for all onsite infrastructure. 16. The Developer shall provide a snow removal and storage plan detailing how snowfalls will be accommodated on site. Snow storage shall not be in or within direct upstream drainage areas of stormwater ponds and/or wetlands. 17. All fencing and retaining wall materials shall be complementary to the building materials and shall be approved in writing by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. Retaining walls greater than four (4) feet in height shall be engineered and detailed calculations should be submitted to the City. 18. The site plan authorization shall permit a maximum parking lot pole height of 25 feet, including base. Furthermore, all lights shall be shoebox style, downward directed, with LED lamps with flush lenses. Other than wash or architectural lighting, Page 8 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 14, 2024 attached security lighting shall be shoebox style, downward directed with flush lenses. In addition, any lighting under canopies (i.e. building entries) shall be recessed and use a flush lens. 19. All HVAC and other roof- or ground-mounted equipment shall be hidden from view with materials that match materials and colors used on the building. 20. Any future trash enclosures shall utilize City approved materials and be constructed on three sides using the same materials and patterns used on the building. Locations and materials shall be approved by the Planning Division. 21. No exterior storage shall be permitted. 22. All drive aisles shall have a minimum width of 25 feet. 23. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site shall be required and maintained by the Developer during construction to ensure that sediment and stormwater does not leave the project site. 24. All disturbed boulevards shall be restored with turf. The property owner shall mow and maintain to the curb of all public and private streets. If a native planting approach is proposed, a minimum of three-year maintenance agreement shall be provided to ensure proper implementation which shall be secured within the Development Agreement. 25. All utility inspections shall be coordinated with the City’s Building Inspections Division. 26. The Applicant shall extend the trunk water, storm sewer and sanitary sewer to the site privately. The City shall design and inspect the improvements with final terms identified within the Development Agreement. 27. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining a land disturbance permit from the City’s Engineering Department prior to the commencement of any site activities as well as any necessary right-of-way permits. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. The landscaping plan shall meet all landscaping ordinance requirements including canopy coverage and tree and species diversification. 31. Prior to project approvals, the Applicant shall finalize the tree replacement calculations and method of achieving replacement or payment in lieu. All tree replacements plans shall be approved by the City in wiring. 32. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any other permits necessary from other agencies, MPCA, watershed, etc. prior to the start of any site activities. 33. Grades at all intersections where a vehicle must stop shall be 1.0 percent or less for at least 100 feet from the stop location or an alternate standard approved by the Engineering staff in writing. 34. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, all right-of-way widths and street names shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Planning staff. All required right-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City at no cost and free of encumbrances. 35. Concrete driveway aprons shall be required at the intersections with City streets as per City detail plates and specification. 36. The Developer shall be responsible for installing the sidewalks within the project. Subsequent to installation, the sidewalks within the project and shall be maintained by the property owner. Such maintenance shall include but not be limited to promptly removing ice and snow, other obstructions, and repair and replacement as necessary to ensure the safe passage of pedestrians. This includes sidewalk connections located within the right-of-way that ultimately connect to the City trail system. 37. The Development Agreement shall identify park dedication requirements for the entire project area. 38. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, a final stormwater management plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City. 39. 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. 40. 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 and right-of-way necessary to accommodate public street and utility improvements will be determined by the final design and shall be shown on the Final Plat. 41. Prior to the release of the Final Plat, the financial participation for the required traffic mitigation shall be memorialized in the Development Agreement. 42. All rights-of-way, easements and outlots shall be kept free of plantings, retaining walls, signage, etc. that would affect their intended purpose. 43. 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. 44. Street lights shall be required to be installed by the Developer, at their cost, as directed by the City. 45. The Final Plat shall be approved by the City Council and released for recording prior to the issuance of a building permit. 46. 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. 47. The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies. All site activities shall adhere to the City’s Land Disturbance Ordinance, MPCA and local watershed district requirements. Page 9 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 14, 2024 48. No signage or graphics shall be adhered to or printed on the proposed netting. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Mayor Burt, to approve the Final Plat for Gold Line Addition and authorizing the City Administrator and Mayor to execute the Development Agreement Project No. 05-2023-00526 subject to the Final Plat conditions outlined in Council Letter 24-44. Final Plat Conditions: 1. The Final Plat shall include all necessary easements to match the utility plans. 2. This Final Plat approval shall be contingent on meeting all required findings of Section 21-16 of the Woodbury City Code. 3. Prior to the release of the Final Plat, a Development Agreement shall be executed. 4. The Developer shall be financially responsible for 100 percent of all storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main area and connection charges applicable to the property. 5. Plat approval and release shall be conditional on adherence to all requirements of the city attorney, including, but not necessarily limited to, any express requirements contained in the city attorney’s plat opinion. 6. All permanent easements and rights-of-way (ROW) necessary for existing and proposed street and utility improvements within the plat boundary shall be granted to the City at no cost or paid for by the Developer. 7. All standard front, rear and side yard lot easements shall be shown on the plat. Standard front and rear yard easements are 10 feet and side yard easements are five (5) feet. Where public utilities are adjacent to side or rear lot lines, easements shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide on each side of the lot line. If the utilities are deeper than 10 feet, the easement width for each lot is calculated at a 1:1 depth-to-width ratio from the centerline of the utility. The easement width must then be adjusted to the nearest five-foot increment. If additional easements are not provided, then the layout of the watermain shall be adjusted. 8. The Final Plat shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Mayor Burt asked what the timeline is. Mr. Waldo replied that the goal is to have Top Golf opened by the end of 2025. Construction is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2024. C. Abatement Resolution Relating to the Tax Abatement Financing of the Central Park Renovation Project Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Woodbury CFO/Controller Jason Schirmacher explained that the overview is to review the financing plan for the Central Park renovation project, the tax abatement requirements, the next steps and the public hearing. The Central Park project has over 15 funding sources. Staff have worked to maximize all available up-front funding sources to limit borrowing. The City will use tax abatement authority to issue tax exempt general obligation bonds. The structure of repayment of bonds is around expiring 1-94 tax abatements and existing expiring debt levies. The will be no increase in the City’s tax levy. Mr. Schirmacher explained that the City is using tax abatement only as the authority for issuance of G.O. debt. No individual parcels that are indicated in the abatement will have any impacts. A public hearing is required for the abatement as well as identification of the parcels that are to be abated and a passage of a resolution. The resolution that is before Council is to grant the abatement of the identified parcels. It is required to identify parcels with enough City tax to show coverage of 105% of the average annual bond principal payments. Taxes are not actually abated, rather they are just showing adequate coverage and authority to issue the bonds. Identification and abatement of these parcels does not impact the taxes paid by these parcels in any way. Mr. Schirmacher noted that the next steps are to prepare for the bond sale, have a call with rating agency (Standard and Poor’s), Council approves the sale of the bonds on April 10, 2024 and close the receipt of funds on May 1, 2024. Page 10 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 14, 2024 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. Mayor Burt noted that Rec facilities cannot use general obligation debt. She added that the Council in the past used the same steps for the bond issuance for the Sports facility. Mr. Gridley explained that essentially it was pledging the properties for the value of them or collateral for the debt. The goal is to have the lowest possible interest costs and the mechanism proposed achieves that. Councilmember Santini asked if the properties are notified about the abatement. Mr. Schirmacher replied that he did not believe there was any notification. Representative from Ehlers Jason Aarsvold replied that there is no direct notification to the property owners other than their parcel numbers being listed in the public hearing noticed posted in the paper. Councilmember Morris asked if the parcels can be pledged in the future. Mr. Gridley replied that they cannot be pledged in the future. Councilmember Morris asked if that would matter in the future. Mr. Gridley replied that the next big project, the Public Safety building, will not be effected since it has a general obligation, traditional bonding. There is nothing in the CIP that indicates a future recreation use. The sports center will eventually pay itself off. The City’s tax base is big enough that there is not much of a jeopardy of not having areas where a pledge would go against another one. Councilmember Wilson noted that in the past, the Stone Crest Villa was the tax abated property. Councilmember Morris replied that it was the TIF. Councilmember Wilson asked if since it was an abatement, the funds could only stay within the Central Park project. Councilmember Santini replied that nothing is actually being abated. Councilmember Morris explained that the City is going to get a loan and the City needs to put collateral up to pay the loan off. This is proof to the people that will give the City the loan that the City has enough assets to repay the loan. Mr. Schirmacher explained that when the tax levy money comes in, he does not see it as tax abated money versus non tax abated money since it all comes in as tax revenue. Mayor Burt asked Mr. Aarsvold to explain how the abatement works in different words. Mr. Aarsvold explained that the actions are prescribed by law so that was written by the bond Council in such a way that will allow the City to prove that the bonds were issued. After the steps are taken, it will function just like any other tax levy for any other debt. Parcels are being identified because it is legally a requirement. Councilmember Wilson asked if it was an abatement similar to the I-94 abatement. Mr. Gridley replied that it was and had similar language but that it functioned differently. Mr. Schirmacher added that the I-94 tax abatement was for economic development whereas this was not for economic development. An economic development requires a separate fund for the money to go into. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-35 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the tax abatement financing of the Central Park Renovation Project. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Discussion Consent Agenda Item 6D. Westwind Second Addition; Final Plat and Development Agreement, Project No. 33-2023- 00538 Councilmember Wilson pulled this item for discussion and noted that new PFAS advisory levels have been presented. The well levels have not changed but the standards of what is considered safe has changed, which means many of the wells in the City are considered higher in readings than what the standard is. She noted she would be voting differently. Page 11 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 14, 2024 Mayor Burt asked Mr. Searles what discretion the City has to deny a final plat. Mr. Searles replied that the Council would have to go back through the conditional use permit to determine that the findings were no longer met, and it would require a number of Council actions. Mayor Burt noted that the City has taken steps to delay new development areas in order to address the issue with water. This particular item was not subject to that delay, and has already been preliminarily approved and is onto the final plat development. Councilmember Wilson agreed that everything had been approved before the new guidelines. Councilmember Morris explained that this project has 130 units which consistent with the restriction on the number of units on the property. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, to adopt a motion approving the Westwind Second Addition, Final Plat, Project No. 33-2023-00538. Staff further recommends Council authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to execute the Development Agreement with all approvals subject to the conditions as outlined in Council Letter 24-32. 1. All conditions of Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat approval shall remain in full force and effect. 2. The Final Plat shall include all necessary easements to match the utility plans being prepared by the City’s consultant engineer. 3. The final street names shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Building Official. 4. To cure the prematurity of the roadway network, the Applicant shall improve Dale Road to a two-lane divided roadway with designs approved by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall either privately construct these improvements or may request a 429 assessment for the City to allow for public construction. The construction shall be memorialized within the Development Agreement. 5. To cure the prematurity of the roadway network, the Applicant shall improve Pioneer Drive to the south boundary of the subdivision with designs approved by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall privately construct these improvements which shall be secured via the Development Agreement. 6. The Developer will be required to grade the future park area, construct all required trails and parking lots improvements, at their cost, with timing, design and specifications approved by the Parks and Recreation Department in writing. 7. Prior to the release of the Final Plat, a Development Agreement shall be executed. 8. The Developer shall be financially responsible for 100 percent of all storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main area and connection charges applicable to the property. These charges are identified in a preliminary report prepared for the project and shall be in the Development Agreement. 9. Plat approval and release shall be conditional on adherence to all requirements of the city attorney, including, but not necessarily limited to, any express requirements contained in the city attorney’s plat opinion. 10. All permanent easements and rights-of-way (ROW) necessary for existing and proposed street and utility improvements within the plat boundary shall be granted to the City at no cost or paid for by the Developer. 11. All standard front, rear and side yard lot easements shall be shown on the plat. Standard front and rear yard easements are 10 feet and side yard easements are five (5) feet. Where public utilities are adjacent to side or rear lot lines, easements shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide on each side of the lot line. If the utilities are deeper than 10 feet, the easement width for each lot is calculated at a 1:1 depth-to-width ratio from the centerline of the utility. The easement width must then be adjusted to the nearest five-foot increment. If additional easements are not provided, then the layout of the watermain shall be adjusted. 12. The Final Plat shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. 13. Park dedication shall be satisfied via a combination of land and cash dedication. Final dedication shall be memorialized in the Development Agreement. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Consent Agenda Item 6E. Letter of Intent between the City of Woodbury and South Washington County Telecommunications Commission (SWCTC) for Central Park. Councilmember Wilson pulled this item for discussion and explained that she has expressed her feelings regarding leasing space in city facilities in the past and her concerns remain the same and that she will be voting differently. Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, to adopt a motion authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to execute the Letter of Intent between the City of Woodbury and South Washington County Telecommunication Commission for Central Park. Page 12 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 14, 2024 Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Transportation Report (2nd meeting of the month, May-October) No items scheduled City Administrator’s Report Mr. Gridley congratulated City Engineer Chris Hartzell for being appointed to the Met Council Transportation Advisory Board’s Technical Advisory Committee. Mr. Gridley gave a verbal update of upcoming City meetings.  February 15, 2024 –Neighborhood Meeting, 5:00 p.m., Council Chambers  February 20, 2024 – Economic Development Commission Meeting, 7:30 a.m., Public Works Building, Carver Conference Room, 2301 Tower Drive  February 26, 2024 – Planning Commission Meeting  February 28, 2024 – Council Workshop Meeting Adjournment Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to adjourn the meeting at 9:23 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 February 28, 2024. Page 13 of 13