City Council

Minutes Woodbury City Council Wednesday, October 23, 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 23rd day of October 2024. Call to Order Mayor Anne Burt called the meeting to order at 7:34 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, and Council pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Roll Call Upon roll call the following were present: Mayor Anne Burt, Councilmembers: Kim Wilson, Andrea Date, Steve Morris, and Jennifer Santini. Absent: None Others Present: Ashleigh Sullivan, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk; Kevin Sandstrom, City Attorney; Clinton Gridley, City Administrator; Janelle Schmitz, Community Development Director; Eric Searles, Assistant Community Development Director/City Planner; 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. Donna Stafford, 762 Lake Ridge Drive, stated that the Woodbury Public Safety Department participated in the pink patch project. The K9 fund helped purchase all of the pink badges that were distributed to the residents. She noted that October is breast cancer awareness month, and she recently celebrated 19 years as a breast cancer survivor. She explained that badges can be ordered on the Woodbury Police K9 Fund website and will be available all year long. All proceeds from the pink patches will be donated to the local breast cancer oncology clinic. 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 – October 09, 2024 Item B To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-206 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the 2024 HOME Program Subrecipient Agreement with the Dakota County Community Development Agency and authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to execute said agreement.  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 23, 2024 Item C To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-207 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to execute an engineering consulting services contract with WSB, for engineering design services for the Westwind 3rd Addition Utility and Street Improvements Project (Private Construction). Item D To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-208 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota accepting grant appropriation from the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program. Item E To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-209 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing acceptance of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Local Climate Action Grant, execution of a grant agreement for Rooftop Solar at Fleet Services and approving the associated budget amendment. Item F Authorize Acceptance of Grant Funds and Execution of Grant Agreements for Tamarack Road, Woodlane Drive, and Valley Creek Road Trail Project. This item was removed the Consent Agenda and moved to the Discussion portion of the meeting. Item G To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-213 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the purchase of one Mack Granite 42BR SA cab chassis vehicle from Nuss Truck & Equipment, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $105,598 through the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Venture, and a total expenditure amount not to exceed $118,662. To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-214 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the upfitting of one dump truck cab chassis to include the purchase and installation of one dump system with snow/ice control system to Towmaster, LLC Monroe for an amount not to exceed $206,265 through the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Venture. Item H To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-215 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota appointing Deputy City Clerks. Item I 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 October 4, 2024 in the amount of $2,271,221.87 and October 11, 2024 in the amount of $3,322,685.55. Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, to approve the Consent Agenda items with the exception of item 6F. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Discussion Consent Agenda Item 6F. Authorize Acceptance of Grant Funds and Execution of Grant Agreements for Tamarack Road, Woodlane Drive, and Valley Creek Road Trail Project. Page 2 of 11  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 23, 2024 Councilmember Wilson pulled this item for discussion and noted that once the grant is accepted, then the project cannot be changed. She asked if the four- to three-lane conversion would be happening. City Engineering Director Chris Hartzell replied that it is not a done deal. The million dollars that the City has received was for the four- to three-lane conversion which is a safety countermeasure on the project. If the Council decided not to accept the grant, the million dollars would go away and the Council would need to find a new funding source and discuss what traffic safety measures would be needed on the roadway. Mayor Burt asked if the City has obligated itself to do the four- to three-lane conversion. Mr. Hartzell replied not until the grant was accepted. He mentioned that the project would not be until one to two years and the Council could decide not to do it at a later date. However, if the Council decides not to use federal money, it is more difficult to get federal grants in the future. Councilmember Wilson expressed her concern that the City is still receiving public input on the project if the lane conversion is already locked in. Mr. Hartzell explained that the lane conversion is a small element of the project and the City desires to receive public input on many other elements. Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-210 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing acceptance of grant funds for Tamarack Road from Weir Drive to Radio Drive Pavement Rehabilitation and subject to and conditional upon preparation and execution of a written grant agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-211 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing acceptance of grant funds for Woodlane Drive (Bailey Road to Wooddale Drive) Pavement Rehabilitation and subject to and conditional upon preparation and execution of a written grant agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Councilmember Morris asked what is the latest time the grant could be accepted. Mr. Hartzell replied that the Council could delay the acceptance of the grant but it would delay the project. Councilmember Morris wondered if the grant acceptance could be pushed to the next Council meeting in order for the Council to see the feedback from the public. Mayor Burt asked Mr. Hartzell if there was any formal feedback. Mr. Hartzell replied that he did not have the formal feedback with him, but there was some social media feedback where complaints were expressed regarding liking the ability to switch lanes when someone is driving slowly. He noted that it is a safety issue for cars to be switching lanes to go past slower drivers in the area. He added during the open house, everyone who attended was appreciative of what the City was doing and is hoping to for the safety improvements. Councilmember Date stated that she is not in favor of tabling the item because she is excited about the four-to-three conversion and would like to move forward. Councilmember Morris agreed and noted that he is in favor of the project. He added that he is taking into account what Councilmember Wilson said about asking the public for their feedback and not seeing the feedback before making a decision. Mayor Burt noted that Mr. Hartzell provided some public feedback and asked what is normally done to gather feedback. Mr. Hartzell replied that feedback typically comes during the project improvement hearing. The Council previously gave the City a pre- approval to apply for the grant and do the four- to three-lane conversion. Councilmember Date mentioned that when asking the public for feedback, it should be clear what the City is looking for feedback on and what the City is not seeking feedback on. Mr. Hartzell replied that the public feedback form was clear and did not provide a space to give an option to not do a four- to three-lane conversion. Councilmember Wilson explained that during the Lake Road lane conversion, there were supposed to be trails on both sides of the road. There was a portion that did not get a trail because once the grant was accepted, changes could no longer be made. She noted that when City policies change, the project cannot change with it. Councilmember Morris pointed out that the trail was eventually included, but at the time it was a timing issue. Mr. Hartzell clarified that the Lake Road Trail Project and Lake Road four- to three-lane project were happening at the same time. The Highway Safety Improvement Program is about the improvement of roadways, not trails. If things are Page 3 of 11  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 23, 2024 added to the project, then it would change the scope of the project. Therefore, the grant would need to be reevaluated to see if the project still qualifies for the same amount of funding. Typically, it results in a reduction of funds. Councilmember Morris noted that when staff asked for public input it was for other elements of the project and not regarding the four- to three-lane conversion. He explained that accepting the grant is not an issue for him because City staff did not ask the public if they should do a four- to three-lane conversion. He mentioned that he would still like to see additional feedback. Councilmember Wilson mentioned that she was at an open house and was approached by a number of people who said they were not happy about the project while there were a number that said they were happy about the project. She expressed her concern about locking into a project when there are a number of questions that have not been answered, such as turn lanes into the high school. She asked how that would be addressed if there can not be any changes once the grant is accepted. Mr. Hartzell replied that turn lanes do not change the safety measures and are something that be discussed. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-212 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing acceptance of grant funds for Valley Creek Road Trail Project and subject to and conditional upon preparation and execution of a written grant agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Councilmember Santini asked if the project would be delayed in the area due to the pipe for the water treatment. Mr. Hartzell replied that it would be and would happen after the water pipe would be put in. Councilmember Wilson asked if the project would require any eminent domain practice on it. Mr. Hartzell replied that there would not be any eminent domain, but there would be impacts along the way. He added that the pipe for the water treatment plant would be going through the corridor. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Councilmember Wilson asked if the Tamarack Road project would require eminent domain. Mr. Hartzell replied that it does relate to the trail on the north side which was presented to the Council during the public improvement hearing. Councilmember Wilson stated she would like to change her vote for the first motion. Mayor Burt asked City Attorney Kevin Sandstrom how to do that procedurally. Mr. Hartzell explained that the public improvement hearing already moved forward, so by denying the Resolution, it was simply removing funding. Councilmember Wilson stated that she would not change her vote and would approve the funding. She mentioned that everyone knows how she feels about eminent domain. 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 Page 4 of 11  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 23, 2024 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. Domesticated Pets- Chickens Amended Ordinance; Project No. 2024-00559 Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Community Development Director Janelle Schmitz stated the City of Woodbury is proposing amendments to Chapter 5, Animals and Fowl, Article II, Domesticated Animals, Division 1 Generally, Section 5-17.- Domesticated Pets; and Chapter 24, Zoning, Article I, In General, Section 24-4 Definitions; and Chapter 24, Zoning, Article VI, Supplemental Performance Standards, Division 2, Accessory Buildings, Garages, Recreational Facility and Miscellaneous Structures, Sections 24-285-24-300 Reserved. The intent of these amendments is to allow for the keeping of chickens on properties within the R-1 and R-2 districts and provide requirements for chicken coop structures. Ms. Schmitz explained that chickens are currently considered livestock and are only permitted to be kept on properties that are five acres or larger. Chickens are allowed in all residential districts as long as they are on five acres or more. The last time the Ordinance was reviewed was in 2011. Over the last 13 years, staff and City Council have received inquiries annually regarding keeping chickens on properties less than five acres in size. In order to determine community support for this reduction, a question was added to the 2024 Community Survey. This question asked residents how much they would approve if at all, of the City allowing residents to keep backyard chickens on residential lots. The results identified around 6 in 10 respondents strongly or somewhat approve of backyard chickens being allowed on urban properties of one acre or larger. Around 9 in 10 respondents voiced approval of backyard chickens being allowed on rural estate properties of three acres or larger. Conversely, around 6 in 10 residents somewhat or strongly disapproved of backyard chickens being allowed on a standard city lot. Ms. Schmitz noted at the June City Council retreat workshop, the Council discussed the results of the community survey and directed staff to prepare an Ordinance amendment that would expand the allowance of chickens into the R-2 “Rural Estate” district. The proposed Ordinance would allow three chickens (hens only) per property on lots measuring 0-3.99 acres and one chicken per acre on properties over four acres. One chicken coop would be permitted and chickens must be kept in a chicken coop. A chicken coop would not be considered an accessory structure, therefore underlying zoning district regulations for accessory structure number and location are unaffected by the change. Chicken coop locations would only be allowed in the rear yard, outside of all easements 25 feet from all dwellings, and 10 feet from all property lines. The area and height would be required to be 50 square feet in the area, and a maximum of 5 feet in height. Following the review by the City Council in June, staff posted an article in the City Newsletter about the upcoming change and provided staff contact information for any additional questions on the topic. Staff received feedback from seven residents which included two general clarification questions, two that continued to be opposed to allowing chickens at standard residential lots, and three that would have liked to see the proposed Ordinance include the R-4 zoning district. The Planning Commission reviewed the item during the October 7th meeting and recommended approval by a 6-0 vote. Planning Commission Member John Kollm explained that the questions from the Planning Commission included confirming what zoning types would be allowed to have chickens. He added that the Planning Commission reviewed the setback provisions for chicken coops and clearly defined chickens as allowable versus roosters as not being allowed. The Planning Commission recommended updating the Ordinance amendment to increase the setbacks of the coops to 20 feet from the property line and 50 from all dwellings, in order to minimize any potential impacts on neighboring properties. Mayor Burt mentioned that she listened to the Planning Commission meeting and appreciated the recommendation and the thought behind the recommendation. 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 explained that she was happy to see that the Ordinance proposal included zoning district R-2. She explained that it feels like “big government overreach.” She noted that a five-foot-tall chicken coop would mean many people would need to crouch down when entering the coop. She added that a three-chicken maximum was a little “lean”, especially on large acreage properties. She noted that Cottage Grove allows six chickens, with a coop that can be 10 feet tall on regular lots. Oakdale allows six chickens. St. Paul Park allows four chickens. St. Paul allows 15 chickens with a tiered application. So noted that the other cities allow for more chickens on city lots, while the City is proposing only three chickens on rural, estate lots. She stated she would like to see the amount of chickens increased, and the height of the coop to be increased so that people can access and clean it comfortably. Councilmember Date agreed with Councilmember Wilson’s comments regarding the coop height being increased. She mentioned that she did not know what the correct maximum number of chickens should be, but liked that the City was starting conservatively. She added that many residents would like to see chickens on City lots. She stated that there are many homeowners associations that will not Page 5 of 11  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 23, 2024 allow for chickens, which limits places where chickens are allowed. She added that increasing the number to four-six chickens seems like a reasonable adjustment. Mayor Burt asked staff how the five-foot coop height limit and the number of chickens were determined. Assistant Community Development Director/City Planner Eric Searles replied that staff spoke with a number of other municipalities on their experience and saw a common theme of a five-foot height maximum. He added that staff would not have any technical concerns about increasing the height to six or seven feet. Staff decided to start with three chickens based on the Council’s direction to limit the areas that allow chickens. He added that staff would not have an issue with increasing the maximum number of chickens allowed. Councilmember Santini pointed out that anything over 10 acres is exempt from this. She wondered if a 50-square-foot chicken coop would be big enough for nine chickens if it was on a nine-acre property. She noted that in the Ordinance, chicken runs would be a part of the chicken coop. Mr. Searles explained the chicken run and chicken coop definitions that are in the Code. He mentioned that an existing fence would not be viewed as a chicken run or chicken coop and would not be restricted to the 50 square feet requirement. Councilmember Morris mentioned if there was a fence, a chicken coop would not be required. Mr. Searles agreed. Councilmember Santini explained a chicken coop is where chickens lay their eggs. Councilmember Wilson pointed out Cottage Grove’s requirements which include the ability to have two structures totaling no more than 2,500 square feet. Councilmember Date suggested reevaluating the item in a year. Councilmember Wilson agreed and mentioned that she would like to see a maximum of six chickens and to allow seven-foot-high chicken coops for rural estate lots. Ms. Schmitz asked for clarification on whether those requirements would be for properties on four acres and below and then an additional chickens for each acre above the four acres. Councilmember Wilson replied that the one chicken per acre was too restrictive, as the ordinance also allows one horse per acre. Mr. Searles suggested having two chickens per additional acre. The Council agreed to the suggestion. Councilmember Wilson asked if the measurements for the chicken coop would need to be adjusted due to there being more chickens allowed. Mr. Searles suggested starting off conservatively and then reevaluating it in a year so staff could receive feedback and make adjustments to bring back to the Council. Mayor Burt asked if there was more feedback that was given from the public. Ms. Schmitz replied that the only feedback was the seven comments that were indicated in the Planning Commission report. There has been no feedback regarding the number of chickens or the height of the chicken coops. Councilmember Date mentioned that her daughter is working on increasing the pet capacity in the City. She noted that the ordinance limits the number of pets someone can have to three, but with this proposed amendment, they would be allowed six or more chickens. She asked the Council to think about whether a three-pet limit makes sense in the future since it also includes caged animals. She added many people in the City probably do not even realize that they are over the Ordinance when it comes to the number of pets allowed. Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Wilson, To adopt the following ordinance Ordinance 2061 Ordinance of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota amending Chapter 5, Animals and Fowl, Article II, Domesticated Animals, Division 1 Generally, Section 5-17.- Domesticated Pets; and Chapter 24, Zoning, Article I, In General, Section 24-4 Definitions; and Chapter 24, Zoning, Article VI, Supplemental Performance Standards, Division 2, Accessory Buildings, Garages, Recreational Facility and Miscellaneous Structures, Sections 24-285-24-300 Reserved with the changes that the chicken coop can be up to seven feet in height and up to six chickens are allowed on a lot up to 3.99 acres, and additional two chickens per acre on lots more than 4 acres in size. Councilmember Wilson asked if there would be an application and licensing fee. Mr. Searles replied that there would not be a permitting process. Councilmember Date pointed out that a dog license is required for the City and asked if that could be discussed in the future. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye B. Goddard School; Conditional Use Permit; Preliminary Plat; and Site and Building Plan; Project No. 01-2024- 00564 and Diamond Addition Final Plat; Project No. 01-2024-00565 Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Page 6 of 11  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 23, 2024 Ms. Schmitz stated that Goldridge Companies has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, and Site and Building Plan for a new daycare to be called Goddard School. The proposed daycare is 13,780 square feet and the property is located east of Settlers Ridge Parkway and north of Eastview Road. The property is zoned BCD, Business Campus District and guided as Mixed Use on the land use plan. Via a separate application, Goldridge Companies has also requested Final Plat (Diamond Addition) approval to create one commercial lot and one outlet for future development. Ms. Schmitz explained a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required. The findings included consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, health and safety, public infrastructure series, screening and landscaping, architectural standards, zoning, and traffic. Ms. Schmitz stated the main access point for the daycare will be off Diamond Drive on the east side of the site. The intersection of Diamond Drive and Eastview Road will provide full access to the site. No access is provided off of Settlers Ridge Parkway. The Zoning Ordinance requires one stall per 200 square feet of building area for daycare uses. The proposed site plan identifies 13,780 square feet of building area, which requires the Applicant to provide 69 parking stalls. The proposed site plan identifies 46 parking stalls to be installed initially with an additional 23 stalls shown as proof of parking which are not intended to be built unless demand is identified. Staff is comfortable with the proposed parking due to the peak drop off and pick up nature of the business. The site is designed with a private sidewalk that connects to the sidewalk along Diamond Drive to the east of the site. This will connect to the larger trail network, as there are also trails along Eastview Road and Settlers Ridge Parkway. Ms. Schmitz mentioned the Architectural Ordinance requires buildings to be constructed of 65 percent Class I material, such as brick, glass, and stone. The building is shown to be constructed of 65 percent Class I materials including stone, glass, and copper. The remaining 35% is proposed as fiber cement panels. The Ordinance requires all commercial projects to install 25 percent canopy coverage. To meet this and other landscaping requirements, the Applicant is proposing to install 28 trees, 207 shrubs, and many perennials and grasses throughout the site. The property to the north has a robust landscaping plan that softens the north border of this site. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, staff shall review and approve the final landscape plan and canopy coverage requirements. Ms. Schmitz explained the Planning Commission reviewed the project during the October 21st meeting and recommended approval by a 5-0 vote. Mr. Kollm explained that the focus of the commissioner’s questions included the proof of parking plan, the parking concept with the current operation they have in the City, the traffic flow, the compatibility of the building design, landscaping on the south side of the project, and the trash location and pickup process. The Planning Commission recommended adding a condition that the trash pickup should not occur during the drop-off period before 9:00 a.m. or the pickup period after 4:00 p.m. in order to avoid any safety hazards to parents and children. 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 stated she was pleased to see the proof of parking. She asked how the number for proof of parking is determined. Ms. Schmitz replied that the property owner and operator looked at what is best practice, and what staffing looks like, and compared it to the other location in Woodbury. The one parking spot for every 200 square feet was put into the Ordinance to account for potential future uses of the building, should it be converted to something else in the future. The one stall per 200 square feet is the office parking ratio, the most-likely reuse of the building. Mayor Burt asked about the outlot and why it would not be used for the site. Ms. Schmitz explained that this parcel was originally part of the property to the north that was developed with a multi-tenant light industrial use. The daycare only needed a certain amount of land, so the extra land will remain an outlot for the time being but will ultimately be incorporated into the future development to the south. Mayor Burt asked why the condition requires the trash enclosure to have wooden gates and wondered if composite wood could be used instead since wood decays. Mr. Searles replied that the minimum condition is for it to be a wood gate to provide visual screening of the dumpsters, but over the last several years there have been very few wooden gates that are installed and are typically composite wood. Mayor Burt asked if moving forward the condition could be to make the material composite. Mr. Searles agreed. Councilmember Date asked what the setback was for the project. She noted that the playground fence looked like it was on the border with the outlot and asked if that was correct. Ms. Schmitz replied that Councilmember Date was correct and that there are no setbacks for fences. She added that the building setback is 38 feet from the property line. Councilmember Date explained that the daycare should be thinking ahead to consider that a building could be just south of the daycare with a playground right there. She added that as a parent, that would be a deterrent for her. Page 7 of 11  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 23, 2024 Councilmember Wilson asked if the outlot was a future buildable lot. Ms. Schmitz replied that since it is an outlot, it is not buildable in its current form, but it can be combined with the property to the south and re-platted in the future. Councilmember Morris asked what the outlot was zoned. Ms. Schmitz replied that it was zoned Business Campus. Mr. Searles pointed out condition of approval #20 which identifies a modification to the landscaping plan, which will require additional landscaping along the southern border. Either the fence will move north, or the Applicant will need to acquire a landscape easement from the property to the south to add the landscaping. With this added condition, there will be some separation between the two uses. Councilmember Santini encouraged staff to look into having a one-way traffic pattern since it is currently designed to be two-way. Councilmember Date agreed. Councilmember Santini noted that condition #21 originally was about having earth tones for the sun- shade. She asked Mr. Searles what the thought was on the coloring for the sun-shades. Mr. Searles replied that the intent of condition #21 is to limit corporate identity being added within the sun-shades and other areas. Councilmember Santini commented that the City is trying to limit that in this situation and asked if it was limited in the past. Mr. Searles replied that the City has regulated it in other like uses, such as fast-food restaurants. Councilmember Santini noted that there is a blue sun-shade in the graphic and wondered if it was Goddard’s corporate colors. Mayor Burt asked if blue was allowed. Mr. Searles replied that he would identify this particular shade of blue as corporate identity and therefore it would not be allowed. Mayor Burt asked who decides what is complementary. Mr. Searles replied per the conditions of approval, planning staff would make that determination. Mayor Burt asked what a complementary color would be instead of blue. Mr. Searles replied it would likely be green due to the surrounding area’s architecture. There are a number of different color pallets on the buildings to the north. Councilmember Wilson asked why the City would not want corporate identity to be a part of the building. Mr. Searles explained that the City has regulated corporate identity for some other uses that have been much more likely to incorporate their corporate identity colors throughout their building site. In order to be consistent, the City has to regulate areas that are less egregious in order to be fair to those that are more likely to saturate their site with corporate identity. Councilmember Wilson noted that Chick-fil-A has red corporate colors and asked if their seating and umbrellas could be red. Mr. Searles replied that from a corporate identity standpoint, they would not be allowed to have red umbrellas. Councilmember Morris explained that as a marketing director, he would take his corporate color palette and put as much corporate color as he could on the building and on the site. The Ordinance is to address that and helps protect the community aesthetic. Councilmember Wilson mentioned she would like to review the Ordinance in the future. Councilmember Morris asked if they would be paving the proof of parking area or if would it remain unpaved. Ms. Schmitz replied that it would be unpaved. Councilmember Morris asked if Goddard decided to expan the parking in the future if the trees planted in these areas would need to be replaced at that time. Mr. Searles replied that by right, 30 percent of trees can be removed on a development site without having to replace them. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-216 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota adopting findings of fact for Goddard School Project No. 01-2024-00564; Preliminary Plat; and Site and Building Plan; project number 01-2024-00564 and Diamond Addition Final Plat; Project No. 01-2024-00565, all subject to the conditions outlined Supplemental Council Letter 24-266. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye C. Proposed Zoning Amendments for Cannabis and Hemp Businesses Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Mr. Searles explained that the Council has discussed this many times so far. At the end of the 2023 legislative session, the State of Minnesota legalized adult-use cannabis. Pursuant to the direction received at the October 9th City Council meeting, staff has finalized the recommended performance standards which will regulate cannabis businesses and hemp businesses. Staff also finalized zoning districts where each type of cannabis business may be located as either permitted or conditional uses. The proposed Ordinances have been drafted to be more restrictive based on Council direction. The Council directed staff to bring back the Ordinance approximately a year after it was adopted in order to further review it. Page 8 of 11  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 23, 2024 Mr. Searles mentioned that the performance standards include location criteria (buffer), parking, odor, signage, lighting, noise, outdoor use, water conservation, security, and hours of operation. He noted that while creating the performance standards, staff reviewed regulations from across the country and the State. He noted that he would further review the zoning districts and where the I-1 light industrial district is in the community. Retail businesses would be located in B-2, B-3, and GW zoning districts. The I-1 district is a conditional use in order to allow the Council to further review project details. He showed the Council a graphic of the zoning districts and pointed out the I-94 corridor retail areas zoned B-2 or B-3 and the I-94 corridor industrial areas zoned I-1. The commercial areas within the B-2 and B-3 districts are surrounding Tamarack Village, the Woodbury Lakes area, and the Woodbury Commons area. A small area that allows I-1 is near River Town Drive. He reviewed the I-494 corridor retail areas zoned B-2 or B-3 which included near Woodbury Village, and an area off of Lake Road and I-494. He reviewed the I-494 corridor industrial areas zoned I-1 which included an area along Wooddale Drive and Woodlane Drive. Bailey Road includes an area that allows for B-3 zoning which is the Bielenberg Gardens shopping center area. Century Avenue and I-94 allows for B-2 zoning. Mr. Searles mentioned that State law does not permit cities to prohibit temporary cannabis events. The Council provided staff with direction to draft Ordinances to not allow for on-site consumption. The proposed draft has that change included. Mr. Searles noted that there is a minor text amendment to the signage section 24-304, which includes that “any other logo, picture, image or symbol intended to denote or suggest cannabis, hemp, or related paraphernalia” is not allowed on the exterior wall, window or monument signage. There are also minor text amendments to section 24-145 and section 24-304 to include “lower-potency hemp edible retailers” and “lower-potency hemp edible” to the language in order for manufacturers to understand that lower-potency hemp is also included. The Planning Commission reviewed the item during the October 7th and 21st meeting and recommended approval by a 5-0 vote. Mr. Kollm noted the Planning Commission focused on questions to understand the zoning requirements, how the buffer zones could work within the zones, and how the guidelines laid out relate to existing guidelines around tobacco and alcohol-related businesses. He added that the commissioners discussed exterior and interior signage, water conservation for the manufacturing uses, and security requirements. Ultimately, the commissioners agreed with the draft Ordinance as written. Josh Wilken-Simon, 9891 Hudson Place, #100, stated he is the owner of Legacy Cannabis. He noted that overall he supports the proposed Ordinance. He mentioned that during the last Council meeting, Mayor Burt stated that Woodbury is voted number one for children. He explained that he is a father to two children and is a cannabis operator. He explained safety and security are important to him in order to run a morally legitimate business so that cannabis does not fall into the hands of children. He expressed his appreciation of the City having a cautious approach. He stated that he brought before the Council a small technical issue with the licensing type which was corrected through the definition of a cannabis retailer. He added that if the Council or staff has any questions for him, he would look forward to continuing to work with the City. 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 Morris asked if people would be allowed to consume cannabinoid products near the beer tent at Woodbury Days. Assistant City Attorney Christina Benson replied that it would be considered a lower potency hemp edible product and would not be a cannabis product. She added that she believes the Office of Cannabis Management will likely treat lower potency hemp edible beverages like a temporary liquor license. The more potent cannabis products would not be permitted. She mentioned that there is not much clarity from the Office of Cannabis Management about how temporary cannabis events will be run. Councilmember Santini mentioned that during the Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners were discussing the Ordinance and the requirements for cannabinoid products to be a certain distance away from athletic fields, schools, and parks. They wondered if cannabinoid products, such as low-potency edibles, would be allowed at Woodbury Days since it would be close to a park and athletic field. Councilmember Morris stated he would want to treat cannabinoid products like other regulated products such as tobacco and alcohol. He mentioned that he would not want to be overly restrictive. He added that he is fine with being restrictive this year, but in a year he would like to reevaluate and attempt to treat these products like the other regulated products. Councilmember Wilson asked if cannabinoid businesses would be allowed on the I-94 corridor. Mr. Searles replied that based on the direction from the Council, businesses would be allowed along the corridor. There would be no provisions within the drafted Ordinance that would prohibit a cannabis business as long as it was within the B2, B3, or I-1 districts. Mayor Burt mentioned that she was previously not in favor of having cannabis businesses along the highways because she did not want cannabis businesses to be advertised off of the highway. The majority of the Council had agreed that it would be fine to have businesses along the highways. Councilmember Morris pointed out that the signage requirements were changed. Mayor Burt replied that she would be fine discussing the matter again, but would also move forward with the direction the Council agreed to previously. Councilmember Wilson noted the minutes had a lot of discussion about the businesses being along the highways and signage. She quoted Councilmember Morris’ comments which read “Councilmember Morris stated that he would make the restriction and there can Page 9 of 11  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 23, 2024 be no signage visible on 494.” Mr. Searles mentioned staff felt confident that the direction the Council was providing, was for staff to draft the Ordinance to not have the interstate provisions within it. Councilmember Wilson asked if temporary cannabis events would need to come before the Council to receive a special license. She asked if there would be a limit to the amount of events and if the events could take place in a parking lot. Mr. Searles replied that the amount of events would not be limited because the State Statute would not allow it. The events are likely to take place within private property parking lots. Ms. Benson added that there is a performance standard for cannabis and hemp businesses which includes temporary cannabis events that state all uses and activity shall be conducted indoors. For now, the events would have to be indoors. She mentioned that they are going to prohibit on-site consumption for now and see what a cannabis event looks like in different cities and then be less restrictive after there is more understanding. City Attorney Kevin Sandstrom added that an event where there would be no consumption would be something like a farmers market where people would purchase products and bring them home. Councilmember Wilson asked if a permit would be required for an event like a farmer's market. Ms. Benson replied that temporary cannabis events will need to have a permit just like a special event. Councilmember Wilson mentioned that the City cannot limit the amount of cannabis events there are, but can limit the amount of garage sales a resident has. Ms. Benson replied that the City can restrict the number of events for specific businesses. There is a general consensus that the way the law is read is that they have preempted your ability to limit any other number of types of businesses. Councilmember Wilson asked if the Ordinance limited the number of shops the City can have. Ms. Benson replied that the number of retailers would come to the Council in November through the registration Ordinance. Councilmember Wilson asked about the bars on the windows and if they needed to be inside but visible outside. Mr. Searles replied that the bars would slightly be seen when but are required to be inside the building. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Date, To adopt the following ordinance Ordinance 2062 Ordinance of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota amending Chapter 24 – Zoning as presented and including the proposed staff edits. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Discussion (continued) No Items Scheduled Transportation Report (2nd meeting of the month, May-October) No items scheduled City Administrator’s Report City Administrator Clinton Gridley gave a verbal update of upcoming City meetings. • October 24, 2024 – New Resident Event, 5:00 p.m., M Health Fairview Sports Center, 4125 Radio Drive • November 2, 2024 – City Council Advisory Commission Annual Interview Process and Workshop, 8:00 a.m., Cherry Conference Room and Council Chambers, City Hall • November 4, 2024 – Planning Commission Meeting Councilmember Wilson clarified that there would be no workshop at the November 2nd meeting. Mr. Gridley agreed and noted the topical items would be postponed to November 6th. Councilmember Santini pointed out that the Agenda Packet states that the November 2nd meeting is at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Gridley replied that the meeting needed to be adjusted because there was such a good turnout. Page 10 of 11  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 23, 2024 Adjournment Mayor Burt stated that pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota State Statute section 13D.03 and based on the advice of staff, the City Council will convene in a closed City Council meeting. The matters to be reviewed in the Closed Session will be to hold confidential discussions about the status and strategy of ongoing union contract labor negotiations and for the City Council to provide input and direction to staff on the negotiation. Pursuant to the statute, the meeting shall be recorded, and the tape preserved for two years following the signing of the contract. At the next regular City Council meeting for the benefit of the public, they will summarize the discussion or action that took place at the Closed Session. Councilmember Morris, seconded by Councilmember Date, to adjourn the meeting to a closed session at 9:16 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 November 6th, 2024. Page 11 of 11