City Council

Minutes Woodbury City Council Wednesday, October 09, 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 9th day of October 2024. Call to Order Mayor Anne Burt called the meeting to order at 7:30 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 Girl Scout Troop 50868 led the audience, staff, and Council to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Upcoming Referendum Mayor Burt explained that there is an upcoming referendum on the general election ballot, and it has to do with how to fund the Public Safety Campus Project. The project will include building renovations, and improvements that support the growing Public Safety staff and programs, safety store equipment, and improve access during emergencies. The City is putting forth a question to the residents on whether to pay for the Public Safety Campus through a temporary .5% sales tax plus a small property tax increase or to completely pay for this through property tax alone. A yes vote means the voter supports funding the project through a .5% sales tax for a duration of 20 years or less if the funds are collected sooner. A no-vote means the voter does not support funding the project through the .5% sales tax increase. The City put forth the sales tax funding option because it would be a shared investment with resident and non-resident shoppers. It is estimated that over half of the sales tax funding will come from non-residents. She encouraged residents to join her in a presentation and a tour of the current facilities to learn more about the project on October 1st from 6:30-8:00 p.m. There is information on the City’s website at woodburymn.gov/investinsafety. Early voting started on September 20th and will take place at City Hall. 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: Ashleigh Sullivan, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk; Kevin Sandstrom, City Attorney; Clinton Gridley, City Administrator; Ashley Bednar, Community Relations Technician; Eric Searles, Assistant Community Development Director/City Planner; Janelle Schmitz, Community Development Director; and Tony Kutzke, City Engineer Special Order of Business A. Presentation of Awards to Photo Contest Winners Community Relations Technician Ashley Bednar explained that City staff initiated the Focus on Woodbury Photo Contest in 1999 and is not a popular tradition. Woodbury Magazine operates the contest and the City still provides promotional support. She thanked Woodbury Magazine for keeping the tradition alive. First place entries were published in the October City update newsletter, and all winning images are on display for the Council meeting. She introduced the Editor of Woodbury Magazine, Hailey Almsted. Ms. Almsted thanked those who participated in the Focus on Woodbury Photo Contest. Each of the photographs reflects a unique perspective. She announced the following winners: Abstract 1st Place: “Soggy Christmas Lights” by Jane Andersen 2nd Place: “Christmas Tree Abstract #2” by Fred Manthey 3rd Place: “A Murky Paw Print” by Joe Praus Honorable Mention: Fire Red Daisy by Megan Valerius People  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 09, 2024 1st Place: “Grab the Rake!” By Taylor Limbeck 2nd Place: “Honoring our Fallen Heroes” by Pat Dolan 3rd Place: “Tummy Time Buddies” by Lanh Nguyen Pets 1st Place: “The Kitten That Thought He was an Owl” by Nora Franey-Anelli 2nd Place: “Hanging Out” by Julie Joyce 3rd Place: “Cooling Off” by Debrah Mullen Honorable Mention: “Fallons Portrait” by Lorrie Burdeski Places 1st Place: “Valley Creek Park Aurora” by Andy Venn 2nd Place: “Woodbury Days Celebration” by Kent Nye 3rd Place: “Sunset Over East Ridge Tennus” by Samantha Pantenburg Honorable Mention: “Powers Lake” by Todd Wiessner Seasons 1st Place: “Fall and Winter Collide” by Kent Nye 2nd Place: “Snowblind” by Adrian Koo 3rd Place: “Easter Sunrise” by Patrick Donaghy Honorable Mention: Autumn Glass by Baylie DeLong Wildlife 1st Place: “Bufflehead On Fox Run” by Justin Mueller 2nd Place: “Cardinal Courtship” by Steven Meisel 3rd Place: “The Cranes are Back” by Tome Hamre Honorable Mention: Burt and Ernie by Steven Kong B. Code Compliance Month Proclamation Mayor Burt read a Proclamation in full declaring Code Compliance Month. 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. Councilmember Date introduced Girl Scout Troop 58068. They are a group of 5th-grade Girl Scouts and are working on their inside democracy badge. She added that some of the Girl Scouts had issues they wanted to present to the Council. Sophia, Girl Scout Troop 58068, proposed a lifetime dog license for $30. This would save money for families with dogs and taxpayers. Families would no longer need to pay every two years. Staff would only need to process a dog license one time. Abby, Girl Scout Troop 58068, mentioned she thought the pet capacity should be raised to four cats or dogs, and that pets that stay in cages inside should not count because if they cannot go outside, neighbors cannot complain about pets pooping in their yard. She added that dogs are pack animals and like other dogs to play with. Victoria, Girl Scout Troop 58068, stated she thinks residents should be allowed to have chickens because people would be able to save money by not having to go to the store each week for eggs. She mentioned that her grandma’s neighbor has chickens and they can help cheer people up. Page 2 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 09, 2024 Kylie, Girl Scout Troop 58068, explained she would like to talk about how to fix the potholes in the roads because they are not good for car tires and she had to get stitches because her scooter tire got stuck in one. Nora, Girl Scout Troop 58068, mentioned that she believes people should have more than three pets and that the limit should be seven pets with up to four at one time. For example, four cats and three dogs. 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 – September 25, 2024 Item B East Ridge High School Additions; Amended Site and Building Plan, Project No. 28-2024-00562. This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and moved to the Discussion portion of the meeting. Item C To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-201 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the Axon Contract for Woodbury Public Safety Department Comprehensive Camera System. Item D To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-202 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the acceptance of a donation from the American Legion Post 501 and Newport Masonic Lodge of two portable fire suppression units. Item E To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-203 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota accepting the FY 2024 Byrne Discretionary Community Project Grants/Byrne Discretionary Grants program congressionally directed spending in the amount of $670,000. Item F To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-204 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the revised Capital Assets Policy and Procedures - Council Directive CD-FIN-5.11 Item G 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 September 20, 2024 in the amount of $2,066,605.59 and September 27, 2024 in the amount of $4,033,006.08. Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, to approve the Consent Agenda items with the exception of item 6B. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Mayor Burt mentioned two more fire suppression units were donated by the American Legion Post 501 and the Masonic Lodge of Newport. The City received congressionally directed spending in the amount of $670,000 from the Department of Justice. It will help pay for upgrades for body-worn cameras. Discussion Page 3 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 09, 2024 Consent Agenda Item 6B. East Ridge High School Additions; Amended Site and Building Plan, Project No. 28-2024- 00562 Assistant Community Development Director/City Planner Eric Searles explained that the members from the design team from the School District would give a presentation. Mayor Burt explained that the item was pulled from the Consent Agenda because people would be curious to know more information. Mark DuBois, lead architect of KOMA, explained that he was representing the South Washington School District. He provided the Council with an update and explained the project is happening as a result of the referendum last year which provided goals to increase student capacity, expand the CTE program, and safety upgrades. The design has approved all three goals. The building is currently designed for 1,700 students. The new design will hold about 2,300 students and will include six new science rooms, 12 new general education classrooms, and four new special ed classrooms. The project will include space for online learning. The cafeteria and kitchen will be expanded to accommodate the growing population. The CTE wing is being expanded to be a “flex build lab” and will allow for the construction trades to be developed in the program. The project will create a second secure entry point which will be at the activities entrance in order to expand the kitchen and cafeteria. In addition, the project will create more safety with traffic by rerouting the entryway into the site, as well as pick up and drop off sites and increasing the length of stacking in order to get more traffic off of Hargis Parkway. Once the improvements are complete, there will be a survey that will go out to determine the needs of the emergency radio system. Due to a change in the building code, a storm shelter is required in the building. A portion of the classroom design is to have a portion of it be a storm shelter that would hold up to 2,900 people. Mr. DuBois reviewed the description of the construction and the process of the plan. Kraus-Anderson will be the construction manager and will be in charge of the site and safety during construction. The current plan is to begin demolition and construction during spring break of 2025 and will continue through the summer of 2026. There will be staged construction, with the classroom and cafeteria construction being one of the first to be done. There will be a revised entrance and exit path that will be temporarily created for the activity center. There will be temporary barriers to help create a separation between construction and school. Mayor Burt asked Mr. Searles if there were any diagrams to share. Mr. DuBois shared a diagram of the site plan and access, and the site circulation for drop off and pick up. Mayor Burt asked what the timeline was from switching to the new site circulation plan for drop off and pick up. Mr. DuBois replied that he believed it would be in the summer of 2026. Mayor Burt wondered if the flow of traffic on Hargis Parkway would need to be reviewed sooner and asked staff to look into it. Mr. DuBois shared with the Council images of the architecture and explained all of the new materials would match the existing materials. Mayor Burt noted that the project was brought to the Planning Commission and asked if they had to vote on approving the project. She asked why the project did not show up as a Public Hearing. Mr. Searles explained that items that are before the Council that are final site and building plans do not require a Public Hearing per the City’s Code. Community Development Director Janelle Schmitz added that a lot of the site plans have a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or Planned Unit Development (PUD), which requires a Public Hearing. This project did not have an amendment to either so it did not require a Public Hearing. Mayor Burt noted that there are going to be 100 trees removed and replaced. She added that she believed that trees needed to be replaced by their circumference instead of replacing a tree with a tree. Mr. Searles agreed and noted that the Ordinance requires trees to be replaced by circumference. The City worked with the school to do a one-for-one spot replacement in order for it to be in compliance. Under the Code, there are two ways that tree preservation occurs. There are preservation of existing tree masses and there are tree replacement calculations. Due to the preservation that originally occurred, there are credits that were given and used for this project, which is why the diameter inches were not required. Councilmember Wilson asked if the Tree Ordinance had changed from 2008 to today. Mr. Searles replied that it has. Councilmember Morris asked if it met the current guidelines. Mr. Searles replied that it does. Mayor Burt asked if the trees originally on the site were planted or there before the school. Mr. Searles replied that they were planted. Mayor Burt asked how big the replacement trees would be. Mr. Searles replied that they would be 2.5-inch caliber trees. Councilmember Santini mentioned that one of the Planning Commission members asked about transplanting trees. Councilmember Morris noted that there are many trees that are being removed between the water treatment project and the school project. Mr. Searles replied that staff would be happy to look into evaluating options to preserve and relocate the trees. Councilmember Santini added that it would be helpful to see how viable it would be to transplant a tree. City Administrator Clinton Gridley explained that the Council has seen the tree removal plan for the water treatment plant, but they have not seen the replacement plan yet. There will be an extensive tree replacement plan. Mayor Burt asked if it was true that people are being added to the school but there is not going to be an increase in parking. Mr. Searles replied that there will be 208 additional stalls. Mayor Burt wondered if there would be adequate parking for the amount of students and staff. Mr. DuBois replied that there are technical calculations based on classrooms. The building was designed for 1,700 students with the intent of a future expansion. There are currently 2,100 students that are attending the school so technically the school would be adding 200 students. Mr. Searles added that staff have had discussions with the school staff on what they believe the capacity would look like since the school tracks the parking. The school has looked closely at the calculations for parking and feels comfortable. Page 4 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 09, 2024 Councilmember Santini asked if there was a smaller lot by the green fields that could be leased to the school if needed. Mr. Searles replied that it is an opportunity if parking capacity becomes an issue in the future. Councilmember Wilson expressed her appreciation for pulling the item from the Consent Agenda to the Discussion portion of the meeting because she was originally going to ask questions regarding the trees and parking. Mayor Burt clarified that the school currently has 1,900 students and will be adding an additional 400 students and 208 parking stalls. Councilmember Wilson asked what the parking situation currently was like. Mr. Searles replied that there have not been any current issues. Councilmember Morris noted that the Fourth of July will be hosted on the field and will need to communicate with Parks and Recreation since the gathering area will be reduced. Mayor Burt added that the water treatment plant will be coming in as well. Councilmember Morris explained that he lives across the street from the school and many of his neighbors have concerns about 200 more drivers in the neighborhood and asked the school district about the increase in traffic. City Engineer Tony Kutzke replied that there are no proposed changes to the area. Councilmember Morris replied that it was disappointing and that there were already complaints filed with the traffic safety board. Mr. Gridley suggested making a motion to provide direction for the school to conduct a traffic study because then the school would need to pay for the traffic study. Councilmember Morris wondered if the traffic study had already been conducted since the engineering department explained that there would be no changes. Mr. Kutzke replied that there was no traffic study conducted on Pioneer Drive or Hargis Parkway. Councilmember Morris asked if the project did not trigger a traffic study. Mr. Kutzke replied that the original school and adjacent roads were built and planned for the eventual expansion so there was no trigger for a traffic study. Councilmember Morris explained that he did not feel comfortable making the request for the traffic study since he lives in the neighborhood. Councilmember Wilson asked what traffic calming measures would be appropriate in the area since the roads are already narrow and there are sidewalks. Councilmember Morris explained that people cut through the neighborhood roads because the backup to get into the school is large. Councilmember Morris mentioned that there will be another project coming up that will add additional traffic to an intersection east of the school. Mr. Gridley added that there will be major pipes coming in as well. Councilmember Morris replied that it is temporary traffic and he is more concerned about long-term traffic from projects. He asked that the Council would consider making a motion to include the traffic study. Mr. Searles stated that a traffic study would be conducted for the Math and Science Academy work and would include proposed new traffic in the intersections that are being affected. Councilmember Morris noted that it would not include the properties to the south. Mr. Searles asked to clarify what properties to the south. Councilmember Morris replied Plymouth Road, through Salem Drive West, to Hargis Parkway. Mr. Searles agreed that the traffic study would not include the southern properties. Mr. Gridley added that more parking can create more problems. Councilmember Santini asked what Councilmember Morris would like to see from the traffic study. Councilmember Morris replied that he did not know since he is not an engineer, but would like the traffic safety experts and engineers to address it and find suggestions. Councilmember Santini mentioned that it can be a behavioral item and may need to provide educational resources. Councilmember Morris explained that the turnover of drivers of consistent which is why the neighborhood is looking for an engineering solution. Councilmember Wilson pointed out that it goes down to behavior and that there needs to be a reason to change the behavior. Mayor Burt mentioned that it may not be as much about speeding, but more of having traffic in the neighborhood. Councilmember Morris replied that it was the speeding and the traffic. Mayor Burt wondered if the parking spots should be more limited to reduce traffic. Mr. Searles replied there could be an additional condition that states “The school district shall conduct a traffic study to evaluate existing and future traffic on adjacent residential streets. Said study shall identify mitigation improvements that shall be fully funded by the applicant.” The study may look at operational items such as a program to incentivize ride-shares or provide a number of best practices. Councilmember Morris and Mayor Burt agreed. Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Date, to approve the Amended Site and Building Plan for the East Ridge High School Additions, Project No. 28-2024-00562, subject to the following conditions and with the addition of condition 13: 1. This approval does not include signs. A separate sign permit is required for all proposed signage. 2. All areas of the site, where practical, shall be seeded or sodded and maintained. 3. All HVAC and other ground or roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be hidden from view with materials that match the materials and colors used on the building. 4. Any future trash enclosures shall utilize wooden gates and shall be constructed on three sides using the same materials and patterns used on the building. The location shall be approved by the Planning Division. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall provide a material board for review and approval by the Planning Division. Page 5 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 09, 2024 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. All disturbed boulevards shall be restored with seed or sod. The property owner shall mow and maintain to the curb of all public and private streets. 9. Prior to the release of the building permit, a landscape financial security shall be submitted. The landscaping plan shall meet all landscaping ordinance requirements including canopy coverage and tree and species diversification. 10. 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. 11. Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control phasing plans must be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a land disturbance permit. All site activities shall adhere to the City’s Land Disturbance and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, other City ordinances, NPDES permit requirements, MPCA requirements, and SWWD requirements prior to commencing any site activities. 12. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, a construction staging plan shall be submitted and reviewed and approved by Planning & Engineering staff. 13. The school district shall conduct a traffic study to evaluate existing and future traffic on adjacent residential streets. Said study shall identify mitigation improvements that shall be fully funded by the applicant. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Public Hearings Mayor Burt reviewed the City’s Public Hearing process and stated that in order to allow for a full airing of all speaker comments, individual remarks may not exceed 10 minutes each. If a speaker determines that more time is necessary, they are advised to make a request in writing to the Mayor at least three days prior to the hearing. If there are more than three (3) green sheets submitted to make comments at a public hearing, the Mayor may reduce the individual time allotted to each speaker so that all interested parties have the opportunity to provide their comments within the aggregate thirty-minute (30) public comment period of the public hearing process. Remarks or points already made by someone else should not be repeated unless simply to state that they are “opposed” to, or “favor” the issue. Remarks should be limited to the subject at hand only. Speakers are encouraged to coordinate presentations to the extent possible. Those in attendance at the Public Hearing will refrain from applause, or other expressions of emotion, whether in favor of, or opposition to, any particular application or argument. Inappropriate language, outbursts, or criticisms aimed at individuals or groups are not allowed. A. Certifying Delinquent Unpaid Special Charges - Property Cleanup to the Washington County Auditor Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Ms. Schmitz explained that as properties are issued code enforcement letters, they are given a specified time to correct the violation. Standard practice is to issue two written notices, the latter of which is also posted on the property. If there is still no correction, the City can choose to abate the nuisance and bill the property owner for the cost incurred. If the invoice is not paid, the cost is placed as a pending assessment on the property. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, the City may certify the unpaid special charges for property clean-up as a special assessment. The address is 7801 Winter Wheat Way and is charged $275. The parcel number is 29-028- 13-0010. 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 Santini moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, Page 6 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 09, 2024 To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-205 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota Certifying Delinquent Unpaid Special Charges - Property Cleanup to the Washington County Auditor. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Discussion (continued) A. Proposed Zoning Amendments for Cannabis and Hemp Businesses Mayor Burt explained she had asked staff why this item was not a Council workshop item and was told that there was no room in the workshop to discuss the item. The item will be similar to a workshop meeting since the Council will not be voting on anything but will instead provide direction and guidance to staff. Mr. Searles stated the discussion is moving from a license and permit standpoint into the zoning regulations for cannabis and hemp businesses. During the August 14, 2024, Council workshop, the Council requested that staff prepare some draft zoning Ordinances and Ordinance amendments related to cannabis and hemp businesses. Mr. Searles noted at the end of the 2023 legislative session, the State legalized adult-use cannabis in Minnesota. The law identified cannabis cannot be sold until the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) was established and able to issue licenses. That timeline is expected to be January 2025. Municipalities were given the ability to put in place interim ordinances (moratoriums) and the City of Woodbury adopted interim ordinances to allow time for the City to adopt appropriate zoning and other ordinances. Mr. Searles explained pursuant to the direction received at the August 14th Council Workshop, staff has drafted performance standards that will regulate all cannabis businesses and hemp businesses and proposed zoning districts where each type of cannabis and hemp- related business may be located as either permitted or conditional uses. Staff requests feedback in advance of both the Planning Commission review at their October 21st meeting and in advance of the anticipated Council public hearing and review of the final ordinance language at the October 23rd meeting. Mr. Searles stated at this time, staff is seeking direction from the Council regarding the following recommendations related to the regulation of cannabis and hemp within Woodbury. 1. Finalize ordinances to establish definitions and to allow cannabis retail use in the B-2, General Business District, and the B-3, Planned Shopping Center District as permitted uses and in the GW, Gateway District as a permitted accessory use to clinics for human care. 2. Finalize ordinance to establish performance measures that address location criteria (buffer), parking, odor, signage, lighting, noise, outdoor use, water conservation, security, and hours of operation. 3. Finalize ordinance related to temporary cannabis events including whether to allow onsite consumption. Mr. Searles reviewed the performance standards. The proposed code would create requirements for location criteria, parking, odor, signage, lighting, noise, outdoor use, water conservation, security, and hours of operation. He added that staff would like direction on the setback requirements between cannabis and hemp businesses. If the Council is interested in providing direction on this, staff would recommend a minimum setback of 200 feet between cannabis and hemp businesses. Another setback staff would like direction on is any building directly abutting Interstate 94 or 494. Mr. Searles explained that staff evaluated the zoning districts in order to look at the uses from a zoning standpoint and evaluate if it is an individual type use or if it could be a light use. From the staff’s perspective, they are light uses. The majority of the uses that are authorized by the State Statute are either a warehouse or a version of manufacturing use which would be permitted within the I-1 light industrial district as a conditional use. Conditional uses allow for additional review as a business is identified which will allow the Council to provide additional conditions. The second use is retail. Staff would like the Council to decide if it is too narrow in the number of retail districts that are recommended. There are a number of zoning districts where retail is allowed within the community. Staff are proposing that the allowance as a permitted use be narrower and allowed only in the B-2 General Business District as a permitted use, B-3, Planned Shopping Center District as a permitted use, and GW, Gateway District as a permitted accessory use for clinics for human care. Page 7 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 09, 2024 Mr. Searles reviewed the retail areas zoned B-2 or B-3 on I-94 and industrial areas zone I-1 along the I-94 corridor. The B-3 district is generally the Tamarack Village area and Woodbury Lakes. Many areas south of Hudson Road are in the I-1 District. Councilmember Wilson asked if the I-1 area would be an allowable area. Mr. Searles replied that it would be a conditional use and geared towards manufacturing the creation of the product. Growing operations would also be allowed in the I-1 District. There are only two areas in the community that are currently zoned I-1. Mr. Searles showed the Council a graphic of the I-494 corridor retail areas zoned B-2 and B-3 as well as industrial areas zoned I-1. He noted that one of the State Statutes is that cities would not use zoning tools to prohibit businesses. Even with buffers and restrictions, there is still enough real estate to meet the intent of the law. There is a small portion that is zoned B-3 by the Bielenberg Gardens area. There is a Hudson Road office park off Century Avenue and I-94 that has full restrictions even though it is zoned B-2. Mr. Searles explained that the final area that staff needs direction from the Council is in regard to temporary cannabis events. The State Statute states that cities cannot prohibit temporary cannabis events, but can draft standards and requirements for how they operate. The Council can give direction and limit whether or not onsite consumption of cannabis is allowed during the events. Mayor Burt asked if there would be a difference between hemp businesses and cannabis businesses moving forward. Assistant City Attorney Christina Benson replied that the City currently allows edible cannabinoid products. She explained the products as cannabinoid products as squares, and lower potency hemp edibles as a rectangle. Every square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares which means that every cannabinoid product is going to be in the bucket of hemp edibles. All cannabinoid products will be lumped into lower-potency hemp edibles. However, hemp businesses cannot sell cannabinoid products. Mayor Burt noted that edibles can also be something that is drinkable where liquor stores could sell products. She asked how that would affect the zoning maps. Ms. Benson replied that the maps reflect zoning for cannabis. Lower potency hemp businesses will be allowed in more districts than what is depicted in the maps. Mayor Burt asked if staff are anticipating that every liquor store, tobacco store, and restaurant that serves alcohol will be selling a cannabinoid drink. Mr. Searles replied that the market will eventually request that, but the Council can make different requirements. Staff recommend allowing this as an intoxicating beverage. He added that many municipalities are taking a similar direction since cannabinoid and low-potency products are going to be more readily available as an accessory use. Mayor Burt mentioned that current licenses are $10,200. She asked what would happen in the future. Mr. Searles replied that under State Statute the fee would go away. Mayor Burt asked if they would only have to pay the standard liquor license fee. Ms. Benson replied that the Registration Ordinance will be brought to the Council in a future meeting and will be more like $150. Mayor Burt mentioned that the topic is not about hemp businesses being licensed. Ms. Benson agreed and noted that the topic is about zoning districts for cannabis businesses. Mayor Burt asked to describe cannabis businesses. Ms. Benson replied that they would be selling plants, candy, powders, and tinctures. Councilmember Morris asked if there would be finished products. Ms. Benson replied that all of the cannabis businesses would only be able to sell finished products, plants, or flowers. Businesses would not be able to sell concentrated THC. There are three different types of businesses which include the micro, mezzo, and retailer. The industrial businesses include micro and mezzo growing and manufacturing. Mr. Searles explained that the Council has issued a number of licenses to cannabinoid businesses and not all of those businesses are identified in the B-2 or B-3 district. There are current businesses that are selling cannabinoid products that would not be eligible to sell cannabis if the B-2 and B-3 zoning requirements were in place. Councilmember Wilson asked why the City did not want visual sight from the highway to the businesses. Mr. Searles replied that it is a community profile and can make the community feel less desirable. Mayor Burt stated that Woodbury was recently ranked #1 in all of Minnesota for families. She explained that she liked the idea of not having any sign of business along I-94 or I-494. Councilmember Date mentioned that she did not have a strong opinion on whether a cannabis business is abutting a highway as long as there is no signage and the business is maintained and designed to the City’s standards. She explained that more limitations could lead to unintended consequences of pushing businesses into other places that the City would not like to have them. Councilmember Santini agreed and explained she is feeling the tension of not wanting businesses right off the highway but also not in the center of the City. Councilmember Morris noted page 112 of the Council Agenda Packet and referenced the business standards. He read item D which references the signage. He mentioned that signage would not include giant cannabis leaves and flowers, but it would look like a typical business on the outside. He stated that the proposed Ordinance would make sure that there is nothing that depicts cannabis products, cannabis flowers, hemp edibles, or hemp-derived edible consumer product that is visible on the front of the business, including the windows. It will look like a standard, generic retail location. He added that he is comfortable with how the standard is written. Councilmember Date explained she would not like it if there were many businesses called something like “Steve’s Cannabis Purple Flower” and had similar businesses lined up on the highway. She added she would like to see a limit to the signage in that situation. Page 8 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 09, 2024 Mayor Burt stated she did not know if the City could limit signage. She mentioned that Borofka’s has a large sign but the City would not want a huge sign that said marijuana or cannabis. Councilmember Date and Councilmember Morris agreed. Councilmember Morris mentioned that he would be in favor of restricting signage for retail businesses from the highway. Councilmember Santini asked what the interactive business would be for the manufacturing businesses. Mr. Searles replied that it would be business to business. There are opportunities to have tasting rooms. Mayor Burt asked if the manufacturing businesses were allowed to have smoking rooms. Ms. Benson replied that smoking is prohibited and is limited to edibles. She added that micro and mezzo businesses can both have retail. The mico business is the only one that can have onsite tasting. Councilmember Morris asked if they were limited in their retail scope. Ms. Benson replied that they could sell directly to consumers which is why the City can limit the number of them. Councilmember Morris asked why the City cannot label the micro and mezzo businesses as retail. Mr. Searles replied that the City could, but the primary use is industrial from a square footage standpoint. There are square footage requirements. Councilmember Morris asked if the City could set a standard of businesses selling retail to hold a retail license and must be in a zone that allows retail. City Attorney Kevin Sandstrom replied that by Statute, those particular categories are defined as both manufacturing and retail. Manufacturing businesses can sell retail. Ms. Benson expressed her concern that limiting the retail aspect could prohibit the business altogether. Councilmember Date asked Councilmember Morris why he would not want a cannabis business in the light industrial district. Councilmember Morris replied that it is not made for retail with parking and traffic. Mr. Sandstrom replied that since it is a conditional use, the Council could add restrictions and conditions. Councilmember Date mentioned that she would rather cannabis businesses be in the light industrial district because they are not at the mall and people need to drive to, so kids would not have easy access. Mayor Burt mentioned that the City could prevent cannabis businesses from being along the I-94 and I-494 areas. Councilmember Morris asked where the businesses would go then. Mayor Burt replied that they would be further into the City but just not along the highway. Councilmember Morris asked if Mayor Burt would want businesses in the I-1 district. Mayor Burt replied that she would want businesses in the I-1 district but just not along the highway. Mayor Burt asked the Council to come to an agreement with the guidance about cannabis businesses along I-94 and I-494 and then switch to discussing the B-2, B-3, and I-1 districts. Councilmember Santini mentioned that she can see both sides regarding businesses abutting the highway. Councilmember Wilson states she struggled with the whole thing because it was passed and forced the cities to take a certain amount of businesses, and the Council is charged to preserve what the City was originally intended to be, but these businesses could turn the City into something they do not want it to be. She added that she is getting confused about all of the requirements. She mentioned that the City is supposed to be family-friendly but does not know where these businesses could go since there are a number of dance studios and gymnastic gyms around. Mayor Burt added that the businesses will need to decide if it makes sense to rent space in any of the locations. Councilmember Santini added that they will also need to get a license through the State. Councilmember Morris explained that cities have been having discussions regarding restricted products since the prohibition and did not agree with Councilmember Wilson’s comments that if people use this product, they are automatically a certain type of person. Councilmember Wilson disagreed that she made that comment and explained that when prohibition became legal, the State was not forcing cities to open bars. This is different because the State is mandating cities to take a certain amount of businesses into the City. Councilmember Morris stated he did not care about businesses being off of the highway since they have additional criteria and restrictions. He agreed with Mayor Burt’s comments about businesses needing to make a decision on where the best location would be for their business and that the market would likely solve that issue for them. He pointed out all of the restrictions proposed for the City and noted that they are extremely restrictive. He disagreed with Councilmember Wilson’s comment that this is not “who we are as a community.” He stated that he is “yes” to allowing businesses in the I-94 and I-494 corridor. Councilmember Wilson asked why the City would not want to allow businesses on the I-94 and I-494 corridor. Councilmember Morris replied that they would not want the City to be “welcome to Woodbury, pot central.” Councilmember Wilson asked if the City could limit the amount of shops along the highway. Councilmember Santini replied that they were in other ways with the restrictions of the distance between other businesses. Councilmember Wilson asked how much frontage the City had on the highway. Mr. Searles replied that the City has quite a bit, but the restriction is that businesses could only be in the zoning districts that have freeway frontage. Councilmember Date mentioned that she is leaning towards not restricting businesses from abutting the highway. She explained that the reason she would not want to restrict is she would rather have businesses on the outskirts of the City instead of in the City. She added that there could be tax revenue by people getting off the highway to get products and then leaving. She asked if there were sign size limitations and if it included the name of the business. Ms. Benson replied that the City can restrict the size of the sign, but due to the First Amendment, they would not be able to restrict the name of the business being displayed. Councilmember Morris stated that he would make the restriction that there can be no signage visible on 494. Councilmember Wilson mentioned that it is not fair for one type of business to have that restriction. Councilmember Morris agreed. Councilmember Date asked if there could be a restriction on neon signs. Mr. Searles replied that it would be a restriction. Councilmember Date stated she is fine with having businesses off of the highways. Page 9 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 09, 2024 Mr. Sandstrom asked why hemp businesses were not included. Mr. Searles replied that staff saw a difference between cannabis and hemp and from a previous Council direction, regulations of cannabis businesses would be viewed differently. He added that from other discussions, it is less likely to have pure hemp businesses, while it is more likely that there will be pure cannabis businesses. Councilmember Morris pointed out that many hemp businesses will be marketed as a cannabis business. He stated he would like to add hemp business with the cannabis businesses. Mr. Sandstrom asked if there was a difference between leaves and flowers and if there was a distinction included in the requirements. Mr. Searles explained that in the end, they would have some policy documents that would depict the distinctions. Councilmember Morris asked if a permit was needed for permanent signage. Mr. Searles replied that a permit is required for most new signs but there are “face changes” that do not require a permit. If there is a cabinet sign and a new sign comes in and is placed within the cabinet, the City does not permit that sign. The proposed provision would allow the City to regulate the sign since the City would not see some signs through a permit process. Mayor Burt asked the Council to provide staff with direction regarding businesses along the highway frontage or not. Councilmember Date stated she was a yes but could have her mind changed. Mayor Burt stated she was a no and did not want cannabis businesses along the highway. Councilmember Morris stated he was a yes. Councilmember Wilson asked what communities said no to having cannabis businesses along the highway. Mr. Searles replied that he did not know and would need to look back. He added most were out of the State. Councilmember Santini asked if the Tavern was abutting I-94. Mr. Searles replied that they were abutting because the parcel line abuts the highway. Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Date’s perspective and explained that she is fine with the cannabis businesses abutting the highway but could have her mind changed. Mayor Burt asked the Council to discuss B-2 and B-3 zoning districts. The Council asked Mr. Searles what staff needed guidance on. Mr. Searles replied that the question staff need answered is whether or not the rationale makes sense to have cannabis businesses in the B-2 and B-3 districts. He explained that it is a more restrictive approach. Mayor Burt stated she is in agreement with having cannabis retail businesses in B-2 and B-3. Councilmember Date asked if the City was able to limit the amount of licenses. Mr. Searles replied that the City is able to, but the Council previously provided direction to use zoning to limit licenses instead of having a licensing cap. Ms. Benson added that when talking about limiting the number of businesses, it is not limiting the amount of hemp business or manufacturing. She explained the three businesses that are being discussed are the micro, mezzo, and retail businesses. Councilmember Wilson asked if that was based on the population and the law. Mr. Searles agreed and added that it is 1 per 12,500 allowed by law. Councilmember Morris mentioned that the Council would be able to restrict where a business could go. Councilmember Wilson stated that she would like to take the most restrictive approach for the next year or two because the Council would always be able to loosen the restrictions. Mayor Burt asked Councilmember Wilson what her thoughts were on the B-2 and B-3 zoning. Councilmember Wilson replied that she does not like it but does not have a choice. She added that she does not like being forced to do anything. Councilmember Santini noted that there is a daycare center in the B-3 district. Mr. Searles agreed and explained that there would be some portions of the B-3 district that would not be permitted to have cannabis use because of the buffer restrictions and the location criteria. Councilmember Date asked where else a cannabis business could go in the zoning. Mr. Searles replied that it could go from a retail standpoint to the Gateway district since it allows retail as an accessory use. Neighborhood commercial, Fc1, Fc2 (Freeway Corridor district), the City Center district, and mixed-use would be possibilities for a cannabis business. The B-2 and B-3 districts are the properties with the highest level of owner participation and are typically the best run. Councilmember Date agreed with Councilmember Wilson’s comments regarding starting off more restrictive. She added that it makes sense to go with the recommendation from staff. Councilmember Morris stated he did not like the second criteria for the location criteria which says “within 500 feet of a day care facility”. He mentioned that he did not think toddlers would be influenced because the signage restrictions would prevent that. Mayor Burt mentioned that there could be teenagers working at a daycare. Councilmember Morris explained that because of the signage restriction, toddlers would not be marketed to or influenced. He added that he is fine with B-2 and B-3 as long as number two was removed under the location criteria. Councilmember Date mentioned gymnastic gyms and dance studios would provide more exposure than a daycare. She added that there is no way to keep cannabis businesses away from kids and would need to use signage and marketing to limit exposure to children. She stated that she would be fine removing the daycare restriction. She mentioned that she is worried about a cannabis business being near Jerry’s because a lot of middle school students go there after school. Mr. Searles explained that a part of the daycare provision removed the area by Jerry’s. Councilmember Wilson asked if the City limits alcohol sales near daycare centers. Mr. Searles replied that the City does not limit because it is a Statute. Councilmember Morris mentioned that all the cannabis businesses would be age-restrictive by State Statute and asked what the Council was hoping to restrict. Mayor Burt clarified that Councilmember Morris was comfortable with the B-2 and B-3 zoning but to take away the restriction on locations near daycares. Councilmember Date agreed. Mayor Burt asked what Councilmember Wilson and Councilmember Santini thought. Councilmember Wilson replied that she would like to keep it as restrictive as possible and to keep the 500 feet from daycare restriction. Councilmember Morris stated he would be fine with having one year of Page 10 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 09, 2024 being as restrictive as possible and having a restriction on the number of permits for 2025 and then figuring out all the details throughout the year. Councilmember Wilson agreed. Councilmember Wilson expressed her fear that the State would not be ready and just start handing out licenses and then the cities would need to figure out the guidelines. Councilmember Santini stated she would be fine removing the daycare restriction since it is hard to regulate all the other children's activity places. Mayor Burt clarified that the Council is fine with B-2 and B-3 districts but to remove the daycare restriction. She asked what the Council thought about the I-1 district for manufacturing cannabis businesses. Mr. Searles noted that they would be permitted uses so the Council would have the opportunity to review the details. Councilmember Santini replied that she was fine with the proposal for the I-1 district. Councilmember Date replied that it is more restrictive than it needs to be but is fine with it. Mayor Burt stated that the Council is comfortable moving forward with the I-1 district requirements. Mayor Burt asked the Council to provide direction for the Gateway district. Ms. Benson added that accessory uses would be permitted in the Gateway district. Councilmember Date replied that she did not know what an accessory use was and did not know why the City would not allow them to do the same thing. Mr. Searles replied that it is a medical use and that they are regulated by the State and have been operational for several years. The current business has reached out to the City and asked to apply for a combination permit and have a high probability of receiving that license from the State since they are medical. Councilmember Morris asked if the medical business would still have the same signage restrictions. Mr. Searles replied that they would since it is a cannabis business. Councilmember Wilson asked if they would be dealing with prescriptions or retail. Mr. Searles replied that they are currently only working with prescriptions but would have the ability to sell retail. Mayor Burt asked if the Gateway district would only be allowed for medical use businesses. Mr. Searles agreed. Councilmember Wilson asked how the medical businesses in the Gateway district would be more restrictive. Mr. Searles replied that the zoning would make it more restrictive. Councilmember Wilson asked how it was fair that they were allowed to sell retail but other cannabis retail stores would not be able to in the Gateway district. Mr. Searles replied that they are currently selling cannabis products. He added that they have gone through the investment within the facility. Because it is highly regulated, they have security protocols in place and a number of investments in the suite. Councilmember Morris asked if medical marijuana was allowed to be prescribed under the age of 21. Councilmember Wilson replied that they were allowed. Councilmember Morris asked how someone under the age of 21 would be allowed access to the building. Ms. Benson replied there are rules around places like a medical marijuana clinic such as having specific doors to enter. Councilmember Morris asked if the medical marijuana business in the City was being permitted separately. Ms. Benson replied that the Council has provided direction to allow the principal use of a building for cannabis retail in the B-2 and B-3 districts. Staff are allowing space to care out for an existing business to have an accessory, which is why staff recommended having the Gateway district as an option too. Councilmember Date mentioned that it does not seem fair, but the direction will be more restrictive to start, and the City can observe how the medical center operates. Councilmember Wilson asked if Councilmember Date wanted to restrict it to the one existing business. Councilmember Date replied that she is open to any medical business that has an accessory use. Councilmember Santini asked if a cannabis medical business could be in a different district. Councilmember Date explained that the business as an accessory could be permitted in the area, but retail alone is not permitted in the area. Mr. Searles added that a medical business alone is an existing statutory requirement. Mayor Burt stated she is fine with the Gateway district restriction. Councilmember Date agreed. Councilmember Wilson stated she is fine opening it up to the one business but not to other businesses coming in. She expressed her concerns that the retail aspect could overtake the medical. Mr. Searles replied that staff could put “existing as the date of this chapter” and therefore, it would only be the one business. Councilmember Date mentioned that she was not in favor of that in case there was a medical business that put in the time and effort and would be able to do the business better than others due to the restrictions put in place. Councilmember Morris disagreed since it is a different business. Mr. Searles stated that staff are not anticipating a lot of medical cannabis expansion at this point. Mayor Burt mentioned that she is not in favor of restricting the distance between cannabis businesses since it is a free market. Councilmember Wilson agreed and asked why it was a proposed restriction. Mr. Searles replied that staff wanted to give the Council visibility to all of the tools that they can access. Councilmember Santini noted that a landlord could limit what they lease their space to. Mayor Burt asked the Council if they agreed to not restrict the distance between cannabis businesses. The Council agreed. Mayor Burt asked to clarify the restriction of hemp businesses being close together. Mr. Searles replied that it was a similar question as before and if the Council did not want to restrict cannabis businesses from being close together, then staff would recommend to be consistent and not restrict hemp businesses as well. Page 11 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 09, 2024 Ms. Benson noted that from her understanding, the Council would like to treat hemp businesses like liquor or tobacco stores. She asked if the Council could discuss the location criteria they desire for hemp businesses. Mayor Burt stated she would like to follow the same guidelines as a liquor store. Councilmember Date stated she did not think there should be any restrictions. Councilmember Morris mentioned he would want the same restrictions as a tobacco store. Councilmember Date asked if products would be over the counter at a place like Walgreens. Councilmember Morris noted that with tobacco, the State does not restrict consumer use. Ms. Benson replied that there is no childproofing, but believed that products were still over the counter. State Statute says that edible cannabinoid products have to be held behind the counter, but she did not know about beverages. Councilmember Wilson noted after January, the City would not be licensing hemp businesses. Ms. Benson agreed and added that the City could only register them. Mr. Searles mentioned that if the Council has regulations, then there will need to be enforcement activities. Mr. Searles stated the last item to discuss is on-site consumption at events. He added that smoking is prohibited. Ms. Benson mentioned that one of the performance standards includes business activities and operations that have to be indoors. Therefore, a temporary cannabis event is only permitted indoors, such as a wedding venue. Councilmember Date stated she was fine with it. Mr. Sandstrom asked how this would affect restaurants with outdoor patios. Ms. Benson replied that it is only for cannabis businesses. Mr. Sandstrom replied that it was not in accordance with how the cannabis Ordinance is structured. Mr. Searles replied that after Council direction, staff will bring it back with more of a focus on cannabis businesses. Councilmember Date wondered what Woodbury Days would look like. Ms. Benson replied that they would follow the security requirements including having an entrance that is secure and locked. The cannabis employee would have to go back into another secured area to get to products and then bring them to the consumer. The City cannot prohibit the sales but can prohibit where it is consumed. Cannabis events are 21+. Councilmember Santini asked if someone could sell low-potency hemp drinks at Woodbury Days. Ms. Benson replied that low-potency hemp products would not be permitted. Mr. Searles stated that staff would advise the Council to be cautious since they do not know what those types of events will look like. The Council agreed. Councilmember Wilson asked if bars would be allowed on the windows. Mr. Searles replied that staff would need to research the requirements for security. Councilmember Wilson noted that she would not like to look at a lot of bars on windows. Councilmember Morris stated he would like to see a restriction on the total amount of licenses for one year because everything is moving fast with not a lot of detail, and the City wants to be restrictive to see how everything shakes out. He added that he does not want to do that forever, but to temporarily have restrictions. Councilmember Date mentioned that the City already has seven cannabinoid businesses and to limit the amount of licenses to seven is too few. Councilmember Morris pointed out that it would be for cannabis businesses. Councilmember Date replied that they should assume that they would want to convert to a cannabis store and would be open to a different number. Councilmember Morris asked Ms. Benson what the numbers would be to fulfill the population requirement. Ms. Benson replied that it would be eight cannabis licenses for non-liquor stores. Mayor Burt stated she does not want to restrict the number because she does not think there are enough retail spaces and does not think there will be a lot of businesses coming for a license. Councilmember Wilson disagreed and added that she thinks the businesses will grow and Woodbury is a great place for a business. Ms. Benson stated that there are 22 licenses available with 14 being for liquor stores, and 8 for non-liquor stores. Not all of the liquor stores have used the license. Councilmember Santini explained that she did not believe the City would get all eight licenses but having a cap could help in case there were a lot of businesses that came into the City in a year. She added that she does not like to limit the amount of licenses but would be comfortable if it was temporary. Mr. Searles explained that that would be part of registration instead of zoning. Transportation Report (2nd meeting of the month, May-October) Mr. Kutzke provided an update on the 2023-2024 Roadway Rehabilitation Project in Royal Oaks. Pavement is down for phase 7 and are looking to get the south section of Queens Drive paved and the road built in the next four weeks. The south side of the eastbound lanes of I-94 are being constructed with a number of lane and ramp closures. They are expected to last one to two more weeks. There will be some ramp closures at Radio Drive which will last until mid-November. The southbound/eastbound ramp unexpectedly closed due to some construction work. Drivers can still get on eastbound I-94 by going southbound and taking a left turn onto Woodbury Lakes Road. Mr. Kutzke explained that there are additional MnDOT projects on Valley Creek Road on the east side of 494 for the northbound 494 ramp. The ramp is closed due to ADA improvements and will last about three weeks. Mr. Kutzke noted that the majority of the Gold Line roadway construction is completed. There are still a number of lane closures. Landscaping is being installed. Mayor Burt asked if someone was watering the landscaping since there was no rain in the forecast. Mr. Kutzke replied that the irrigation was installed and turned on. Page 12 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 09, 2024 Mr. Kutzke stated the Bielenberg Drive and Currell Boulevard project is mostly completed. Currell Boulevard has curb on the road with additional concrete work to create driveway entrances completed. Pavement will be placed next. Mr. Kutzke mentioned that the Woodlane Drive and Hargis Parkway distribution pipeline work is now contained to the Arbor Drive and Hargis Parkway intersection to make some connections for the existing well. The roadway closure on Hargis Parkway from Woodlane Drive to Arbor Drive has been rerouted to help the school gain access. City Administrator’s Report Mr. Gridley gave a verbal update of upcoming City meetings. • October 21, 2024 – Planning Commission Meeting • October 23, 2024 – Council Workshop meeting • October 23, 2024 – Public Hearings Adjournment Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to adjourn the meeting at 10:24 p.m. Voting in Favor: Wilson, Date, Morris, Santini, Burt Absent: None Respectfully submitted, _________________________________________ Ashleigh Sullivan, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Approved by the Woodbury City Council on October 23, 2024. Page 13 of 13