city of woodbury, minnesota september … agendas...one-quarter mile south of dale road and dale...

CITY OF WOODBURY, MINNESOTA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

SEPTEMBER 27, 2017

7:30 P.M.

PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL AGENDA TIMES ARE ESTIMATES.

1. Call to Order 2. Pledge to Flag 3. Roll Call 7:32 p.m. 4. Special Order of Business A. National Bakery Day Proclamation 17-239 B. Code Compliance Month Proclamation 17-240 7:35 p.m. 5. Open Forum

The Open Forum is a portion of the Council meeting where a maximum of three persons will be

allowed to address the Council on subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. Persons wishing to speak must complete a sign-up sheet prior to the start of the meeting. Give the sign-up sheet to any staff person. Speakers are limited to two minutes each. The Council will listen attentively to comments but, in most instances, will not respond at the meeting. Typically, replies to the concerns expressed will be made via letter or phone call within a week.

7:37 p.m. 6. 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 Council Member 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.

A. Approval of Council Minutes – August 30, 2017 B. Pioneer Drive and Dale Road Utility and Street Improvements, Approve

Acquisition of Easements, Approve Plans and Specifications, Establish Bid Date, Prohibition of Parking Staff recommends Council adopt:

1. RESOLUTION NO. 17-153, a resolution authorizing an acquisition in the amount of $51,290 for temporary and permanent easements from Karen and Gerald Argo for the Pioneer Drive from 500 feet north of Dale Road to One-quarter Mile south of Dale Road and Dale Road from Pioneer Drive to Erin Court Utility and Street Improvements project.

2. RESOLUTION NO. 17-154, a resolution authorizing an acquisition in the amount of $57,850 for temporary and permanent easements from Monica and Mark Frazer for the Pioneer Drive from 500 feet north of Dale Road to One-quarter Mile south of Dale Road and Dale Road from Pioneer Drive to Erin Court Utility and Street Improvements project.

17-241


CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

SEPTEMBER 27, 2017

7:30 P.M.

3. RESOLUTION NO. 17-155, a resolution approving the plans and

specifications and establishing an October 26, 2017 bid date for the Pioneer Drive from 500 feet north of Dale Road to One-quarter Mile south of Dale Road and Dale Road from Pioneer Drive to Erin Court Utility and Street Improvements project.

4. RESOLUTION NO. 17-156, a resolution prohibiting the parking of motor vehicles on either side of Pioneer Drive (MSAS 202+00.00 through 223+31.43) from 500 feet north of Dale Road to 1500 feet south of Dale Road, and on either side of Dale Road (MSAS 107+72.00 through 140+12.88) 600 feet west of Pioneer Drive to 700 feet east of Erin Court, for submittal to the Minnesota Department of Transportation as part of the Municipal State System procedures.

C. Tamarack Trunk Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation, Consultant Selection, Authorize

Preparation of Plans and Specifications, 2017 Budget Amendment Staff recommends Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 17-157, a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to negotiate and execute a contract with Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. as consultant for the Tamarack Trunk Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation project, authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the Tamarack Trunk Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation project and amending the 2017 Water and Sewer Utility fund budget.

17-242

D. Fraser Woodbury Clinic, Final Plat, Project No. 03-2017-00276

Staff recommends Council approval of the Fraser Addition, Final Plat, Project No. 03-2017-00276 subject to the conditions as outlined in Council Letter No. 17-243.

17-243

E. The Glen at Valley Creek, Final Plat and Development Agreement, Project 17-

2016-00226 Staff recommends Council approval of The Glen at Valley Creek Final Plat and Development Agreement, Project No. 17-2017-00226. Staff further recommends Council authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to execute the Development Agreement with all approvals subject to the conditions as outlined in Council Letter No. 17-244.

17-244

F. Woodbury Lakes 3rd Addition, Final Plat, Project No. 04-2017-00273

Staff recommends Council approval of Woodbury Lakes 3rd Addition Final Plat, Project No. 04-2017-00273 subject to the conditions as outlined in Council Letter No. 17-245.

17-245

G. Artis Senior Living of Woodbury, Final Plat and Development Agreement,

Project No. 16-2017-00249 Staff recommends Council approval of Artis Senior Living of Woodbury Final Plat, Project No. 17-2017-00249. Staff further recommends Council authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to execute the Development Agreement with all approvals subject to the conditions as outlined in Council Letter No. 17-246.

17-246


CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

SEPTEMBER 27, 2017

7:30 P.M.

H. 2017-2018 Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) Traffic Safety Enforcement Grant

Staff recommends Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 17-158, a resolution authorizing the Woodbury Public Safety Department to accept the 2017-2018 Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) Traffic Safety Enforcement Grant funds from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety.

17-247

I. Appointment of Paid-on-Call Firefighter/EMT

Staff recommends Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 17-159, a resolution appointing Steven Despiegelaere to the non-exempt position of Paid-on-Call Firefighter/EMT effective September 28, 2017.

17-248

J. Appointment of Full Time Paramedics Lewison, Heck

Staff recommends Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 17-160, a resolution appointing Spencer Lewison to the full time position of Paramedic effective September 28, 2017 and James Heck to the full time position of Paramedic effective November 6, 2017.

17-249

K. Appointment of Building Maintenance Technician

Staff recommends Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 17-161, a resolution appointing Andrew Stoffel to the position of Building Maintenance Technician effective September 28, 2017.

17-250

L. Abstract of Bills 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 August 25, 2017 in the amount of $1,252,105.37, September 1, 2017 in the amount of $918,428.48, September 8, 2017 in the amount of $1,300,484.47 and September 15, 2017 in the amount of $1,144,496.06.

7:40 p.m. 7. Public Hearings A. Adoption of the 2016 CAPER

Staff recommends Council:

1. Open Hearing

2. Close Hearing

3. Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 17-162, a resolution adopting the 2016 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report

17-251


CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

SEPTEMBER 27, 2017

7:30 P.M.

B. Schilling Place, Outlot A and Outlot B, Vacation of Drainage and Utility

Easements Staff recommends Council:

1. Open Hearing

2. Close Hearing

3. Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 17-163, a resolution ordering to vacate all of the drainage and utility easement over, under, and across Outlot A & Outlot B, according to the recorded Schilling Place plat thereof, City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota.

17-252

7:50 p.m. 8. Discussion A. Setting Proposed 2018 Levy and Public Hearing on Proposed Budget/Levy


1. Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 17-164, a resolution establishing a proposed tax levy and budget for 2018 for purposes of the Truth-in-Taxation public meeting.

2. Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 17-165, a resolution approving the proposed 2018 HRA tax levy for purposes of the Truth-in-Taxation public meeting

3. Adopt a motion confirming that the Truth-in-Taxation public meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:30 p.m.

17-253

8:15 p.m. 9. Transportation Report (2nd meeting of the month – May through October) 8:20 p.m. 10. Administrator’s Report 8:25 p.m. 11. Adjourn to Council Workshop The City of Woodbury is subject to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities

Act which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities. The City is committed to full implementation of the Act to our services, programs, and activities. Information regarding the provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act is available from the City Administrator's office at 651-714-3523. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 72 hours in advance of an event. Please call the ADA Coordinator, Clinton P. Gridley at 651-714-3523 (TDD 714-3568) to make arrangements.

4A CITY OF WOODBURY, MINNESOTA

Office of City Administrator

Council Letter No. 17-239 September 27, 2017 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator SUBJECT: National Bakery Day Proclamation SUMMARY Sue Johnson, of Dorothy Ann Bakery and Café, informed the City that September 28, 2017 is National Bakery Day. This is the first-ever official National Bakery Day in the United States, and Ms. Johnson has requested that the City Council adopt a proclamation formally acknowledging September 28 as a day to celebrate the independent retail bakery and its vital role to the community of Woodbury. Steve and Joan Conway, from Dorothy Ann Bakery and Café, will be attending the September 27, 2017 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council adopt the attached proclamation recognizing September 28, 2017 as National Bakery Day. Written By: Kimberlee K. Blaeser, City Clerk Approved Through: Jody Brown, Administration Services Director Attachments: Proclamation

PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA

NATIONAL BAKERY DAY – SEPTEMBER 28, 2017

WHEREAS, the variety and evolution of baked goods reflects the individual

character of the community where they are baked and traditions that are passed down from generation to generation; and

WHEREAS, it is the independent bakery’s warm and welcoming environment, joyful

staff, and celebratory culture that set it apart from other institutions; and WHEREAS, the City of Woodbury is home to a number of these cultural and

community gems, many of which boost families or groups of lifelong resident-customers; and WHEREAS, independent bakeries play an important part of the fabric of the

Woodbury community and celebrating those who help the community celebrate is an excellent way to call attention to locally owned bakeries.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, MARY GIULIANI STEPHENS, Mayor of the City of

Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota, do hereby proclaim September 28, 2017 to be:

NATIONAL BAKERY DAY

in Woodbury. I encourage the citizens of Woodbury to celebrate this day by attending special activities sponsored by the local bakery businesses and acknowledge their enduring presence and invaluable cultural contributions to the community of Woodbury.

This Proclamation was adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 27th day of September, 2017.

ATTEST: Mary Giuliani Stephens Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator (SEAL)

4B CITY OF WOODBURY, MINNESOTA

Office of City Administrator Council Letter No. 17-240 September 27, 2017 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator SUBJECT: Code Compliance Month Proclamation SUMMARY The American Association of Code Enforcement (AACE), a national code enforcement organization, observes October as National Code Compliance Month. Recognition and support of such a designation illustrates the value and importance of code compliance. A proclamation recognizing October 2017 as Code Compliance Month within the City of Woodbury has been prepared for Council’s consideration. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council adopt the attached proclamation designating October as Code Compliance Month within the City of Woodbury. BACKGROUND Code compliance is vital to the success of a community. Code enforcement has a great impact on the quality of life within the city and will play an expanded role as the city ages and grows. Code compliance is instrumental to health, safety, and welfare and promotes reinvestment into the community. Support from the community and its leaders is invaluable to the success of a code enforcement program. Written By: Matt Novak, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer Approved Through: Jody Brown, Administrative Services Director Attachments: Code Compliance Month Proclamation

PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA

CODE COMPLIANCE MONTH

OCTOBER 2017

WHEREAS, the American Association of Code Enforcement recognizes October as National Code Compliance Month; and

WHEREAS, code compliance is vital to the health, safety, and welfare of the

citizens and businesses of the City of Woodbury; and

WHEREAS, code compliance has a direct impact on the quality of life we enjoy in our community; and

WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the community and its leaders to support and

promote code compliance.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, MARY GIULIANI STEPHENS, Mayor of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota, do hereby proclaim October 2017 to be

Code Compliance Month in Woodbury. I encourage the residents and businesses of Woodbury to recognize the importance of code compliance and support efforts put forth by code enforcement staff to promote and protect our community standards.

This Proclamation was adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 27th day of September, 2017. Attest: Mary Giuliani Stephens, Mayor Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator (SEAL)

MINUTES WOODBURY CITY COUNCIL

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Page 1 of 35

6A

Pursuant to the due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting was duly held at the Woodbury City Hall, 8301 Valley Creek Road, on the 30th day of August 2017.

CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Mary Stephens called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

PLEDGE TO THE 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 Mary Stephens, Councilmembers: Andrea Date, Amy Scoggins, Julie Ohs, and Christopher Burns. Absent: None

Others Present: Kimberlee K. Blaeser, City Clerk; Dwight Picha, Community Development Director; Klayton Eckles, Engineering and Public Works Director; Nick Vivian, City Attorney; Clinton Gridley, City Administrator

Mayor Stephens welcomed those watching at home to join the Council meetings and call City Hall if they need information. She also referred to the manila brochures located on the chairs entitled "Welcome to the Woodbury City Council Meeting" and noted there are Public Input Sign-Up Sheets, and invited audience members to sign them and give them to a staff member if they wished to comment during the meeting.

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 two minutes each. The Council will listen attentively to comments but, in most instances, will not respond at the meeting. Typically, replies to the concerns expressed will be made via letter or phone call within a week.

Ms. Kim Wilson, 9146 Cambridge Alcove, shared a letter dated July 28, 2017 regarding the road oiling, seal cracking, etc. The work was supposed to have completed by September 1 and she requested an update on what was happening. Her kids think that they stopped right in front of her house; however, she has assured them that this was not the case. The work went halfway around her block and stopped; they have not seen anyone since. She also noted that there are a lot of other streets in her neighborhood that have not been finished either.

Mayor Stephens requested that the letter mentioned by Ms. Wilson be handed to Mr. Klayton Eckles, Engineering and Public Works Director so he could reply. Mr. Eckles reviewed the letter and explained that it was regarding the Reclamite project, which has been 100 % completed. Sometimes it is hard to tell if it has been done because it is a very quick process and the road does not necessarily change in appearance. However, he would have the project manager speak to Ms. Wilson tomorrow.

Ms. Wilson stated that the oil coating has been finished and it was easy to tell because of the sand that was put on top. However, looking at the bottom of the letter, it read that concurrent with this project there would be a contractor



Page 2 of 35

coming in to saw out the cracks, blowing out the dust, putting crack sealer in it, and then the nice coat of what looks like toilet paper on top.

Mr. Eckles agreed that there was more crack filling to be done. The City crews were talking about that today; however, he does not have any details on that. He would have them provide him with specifics and get back to Ms. Wilson with the timing and what could be done on that part of the project.

He continued by explaining that the crews ran into more work then what was anticipated with more cracks to be dealt with. Staff is working with the contractor to add on to the contract to get all of the work done. He will get more detail to share. Mayor Stephens requested that a communication be sent out with an updated schedule with respect to the work that would be done.

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 – August 9, 2017

Item B To approve the Fraser Woodbury Clinic Site and Building Plan subject to the following conditions:

1. Prior to the issuance of a Land Disturbance permit, the Applicant shall record the Final Plat. 2. Any future addition must be submitted and reviewed under Site and Building Plan

requirements. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall satisfy park dedication

requirements. 4. The Applicant shall provide revised architectural plans that add brick or stone on the front

columns to a minimum height of 24 inches. 5. This approval does not include signs. A separate sign permit is required for all proposed

signage. No cabinet signs shall be permitted. All signs shall include individually cut letters. 6. No exterior storage, including van storage, is allowed. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape financial security shall be submitted in

accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. 8. All areas of the site, where practical, shall be sodded and maintained. 9. All HVAC and other ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be hidden from view with

materials that match the materials and colors used on the building. 10. Any future or proposed trash enclosures shall utilize wooden gates and be constructed on

three sides using the same materials and patterns used on the building. The location shall be approved by the Planning staff. All refuse areas shall be sized and designed appropriately to allow recycling containers.

11. All freestanding light fixtures shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height measured from grade to the top of the fixture. The fixtures shall be shoebox style, LED, downward directed with flush lenses. Other than wash and decorative entry lighting, attached lighting shall be shoebox style, LED, downward directed with a flush lens

12. The Applicant shall submit a materials board prior to the issuance of a building permit. 13. 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. 14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall provide a snow removal and

storage plan detailing how snowfalls will be accommodated on site. 15. The Applicant shall be financially responsible for 100% of all storm sewer, sanitary sewer

and water main area and connection charges applicable to the property.



Page 3 of 35

16. 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.

17. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, a landscaping plan shall be approved, in writing, by staff.

18. All disturbed boulevards shall be restored with sod. The Applicant shall maintain the property to all property lines and to the curb of all public streets.

19. All sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities installed to accommodate the site are private and shall be the Developer’s responsibility for the design, installation, maintenance, repair, replacements, operation, protection, etc. All utility inspections shall be coordinated with the City’s Building Inspections Division.

20. The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining a land disturbance permit from the City’s Engineering Division prior to the commencement of any site activities as well as any necessary right-of-way permits.

21. The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining any other permits necessary from other agencies, MPCA, SWWD, etc. prior to the start of any site activities.

22. The Developer shall be responsible for protecting the proposed on-site storm sewer infrastructure and components and any existing storm sewer from exposure to any and all stormwater runoff, sediments and debris during all construction activities. Temporary stormwater facilities shall be installed to protect the quality aspect of the proposed and existing stormwater facilities prior to and during construction activities. Maintenance of any and all temporary stormwater facilities shall be the responsibility of the Developer.

23. This project shall require a General Stormwater Permit from the MPCA since more than one acre of land will be disturbed. In addition, a Stormwater Pollution Preventive Plan (SWPPP) shall be included on the Grading and Erosion Control Plan along with Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as concrete washout area, temporary sediment basins, stabilization methods for exposed areas, etc. These BMPs shall be clearly identified on the plan. The plan shall include permitee and inspector contact information.

24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Engineering Division shall review and approve the final grading and utility plans.

25. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, staff shall review and approve all fencing material located onsite.

Item C To adopt the following resolution RESOL NO. 17-140

Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota adopting the amended Council Directive CD-COMDEV-3.23 Density Policy

Item D To adopt the following resolution RESOL NO. 17-141

Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the removal of the stop signs on northbound Edgewood Avenue at Woodbine Avenue, northbound Garbe Avenue at Ridge Drive, three-way stop at Willow Lane and Garbe Avenue, three-way stop at Parkwood Drive and Oakwood Road, westbound Basswood Road at Woodhill Drive, northbound stop at west intersection of Evergreen Drive at Woodpark Boulevard, northbound stop at east intersection of Evergreen Drive at Woodpark Boulevard and authorizing the removal of the yield sign on eastbound Paul Road at Bielenberg Drive



Page 4 of 35

Item E To adopt the following resolution RESOL NO. 17-142

Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the installation of a two-way stop controlled intersection with stop signs located on eastbound and westbound Compass Pointe Road at Southridge Drive

Item F 2018 Trail Improvement Project, Consultant Selection, Authorize preparation of Preliminary Report. This item was removed and moved to the Discussion portion of the meeting

Item G To adopt the following resolution RESOL NO. 17-144

Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing application for and acceptance of the Inflow and Infiltration Mitigation Grant from the Metropolitan Council in September 2017, to be awarded in November 2019

Item H Wozniak Property, Negative Declaration of Need for an Environmental Impact Statement. This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and added to the Public Hearing on the same topic

Item I To adopt the following resolution RESOL NO. 17-146

Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota appointing Nathan Johnson and Daniel Tobritzhofer to the position of Public Service Worker – Streets effective August 31, 2017

Item J 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 August 4, 2017 in the amount of $841,990.78, August 11, 2017 in the amount of $1,114,062.20 and August 18, 2017 in the amount of $1,123,041.16

Mayor Stephens moved, seconded by Councilmember Scoggins, to approve the Consent Agenda items, with the exception of items F and H.

Voting via voice:

Amy Scoggins – aye Andrea Date – aye Julie Ohs – aye Christopher Burns – aye

Mary Stephens – aye



Page 5 of 35

PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. Pioneer Drive, Vacation of Right-of-Way, Continued from August 9, 2017 City Council Meeting

Mayor Stephens declared the public hearing open and recognized Mr. Klayton Eckles, Engineering and Public Works Director to give the background.

Mr. Eckles explained that this was a to consider vacating part of a permanent street and public utility easement on Pioneer Drive, south of Dale Road. This was a procedural action in that staff has been working very closely with the property owner as development has occurred.

The property owner is a farmer that has been working with the City to ensure that the property could be developed appropriately in the future. As part of that, the City acquired right-of-way a couple of years ago in anticipation of extending Pioneer Drive south of Dale Road. When the acquisition occurred, the City acquired 85 feet of width rather than the normal 75 feet in anticipation of the possibility that the street would need to be moved one way or the other in order to avoid oak trees, etc. Since that time, staff had a better understanding of the needs of the road and determined that there was no need for the extra 10 feet.

Coincidently, the City was also in the process of preparing the design of the roundabout improvements proposed at Dale Road and Pioneer Drive. As part of that project, the City saw that they would need a new additional right-of-way with the same property owner.

As part of one cooperative effort, the property owner has agreed to grant the City additional right-of-way for the roundabout and the City would vacate the unneeded portion of the right-of-way easement and return it back to the property owner.

The property owner has agreed and signed the documentation to grant the necessary right-of-way for the roundabout to the City. It still needs to be dedicated at the County level and filed.

Staff recommended that the Council adopt a resolution to vacate part of the Pioneer Drive permanent street and utility easements previously recorded, conditional upon recording of the Siekmeier Brothers, LLP Dale Road and Pioneer Drive easement agreement as described.

Councilmember Burns moved, seconded by Councilmember Scoggins, to close the public hearing.

Voting in Favor: Scoggins, Date, Ohs, Burns, Stephens Absent: None

Mayor Stephens opened opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council.

Councilmember Burns moved, seconded by Councilmember Scoggins,

To adopt the following resolution RESOL NO. 17-147

Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota ordering to vacate part of the permanent street and utility easement over, under, and across Pioneer Drive, according to the recorded Document No. 3986980 thereof, City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota, conditional upon recording of the Siekmeier Brothers, LLP. Dale Road and Pioneer Drive easement agreement necessary for the Dale Road and Pioneer Drive roundabout installation



Page 6 of 35

Voting via voice:



B. GreenMark Solar Garden, Interim Conditional Use Permit, Project No. 30- 2017-00265

Mayor Stephens declared the public hearing open and recognized Mr. Dwight Picha, Community Development Director to give the background.

Mr. Picha explained that GreenMark Solar has submitted an application for an Interim Conditional Use Permit (ICUP) for a community solar garden located at 6820 Military Road, the northwest corner of Military Road and Woodlane Drive. The applicant requested to build solar panels across approximately 39 acres. The property is zoned R-2, Single Family Estate District and is guided as Rural Estate on the Land Use Plan.

Mr. Picha shared an image of the property in relation to surrounding city-owned property and other estate developments. Military Road is a county road and Woodlane Drive is a collector street owned by the City.

In 2007, the Minnesota Legislature modified the renewable energy laws allowing for these types of facilities to be constructed within the State. Minnesota’s largest utility, Xcel Energy, is required to provide 31% of their retail electricity sales to be generated or procured using renewable resources by the end of 2020.

There is an old farm house and buildings in the center of the property that are to remain. There are several utilities on the site; major power lines along the west in a 200-foot easement; dual power lines along the north also in a 200-foot easement; and a major oil pipeline, which cannot have anything built upon it. There are existing trees and vegetation on the property and a majority of those are proposed to remain.

The project details include a 7-foot high vinyl coated chain link fence to be located inside a berm surrounding the solar panels. The height of the solar panels would be nine feet one inch, angled at 30 degrees, and the plantings proposed would be a minimum of eight feet in height.

Mr. Picha shared an image of the site with the location of the current utilities and the proposed location of the berm and solar panels. The berm was recommended by city staff and would be located along the majority of the south property line, along Military Road. There is a heavy grove of trees already which would not require a berm to be installed. There would also be a berm with shrubbery under the major power line. The berm on the east, along Woodlane Drive, would go up to the existing tree area and then go up and around the north part of the property. There is also an existing wetland on the property but it would not be altered with this proposal.

The screening proposed would be a 6-foot berm with 8-foot landscaping on top, slightly over 300 trees would be planted as part of the application. Mr. Picha shared rendered images of the property screening viewed from the outside one year after the landscaping had been planted and at ten years, once the plantings have had time to mature.

Mr. Picha then shared an image of the proposed necessary storm water ponding. Based on the PCA requirements for this type of facility, there is some ponding required. They proposed to install a couple of ponds and infiltration basins beyond the north side of the berm proposed along Military Road, before the property exits under a culvert under Military Road.

Adjustments had been made to the original planned berming and landscaping based on feedback received during neighborhood meetings and from city staff. The plans described earlier by Mr. Picha included the suggested plan changes.



Page 7 of 35

This item was reviewed at the Planning Commission meeting on Monday, August 28 and Mr. Jerad Ducklow presented their findings. Mr. Ducklow stated that the commission and others were involved in a very productive meeting, good conversation, and items were brought up – some for and some against. Most of the concerns and discussions had were in regards to this use being on an R-2 zoned property. Ultimately, the Planning Commission was able to accommodate some of the negative concerns and items and were included in the staff report, particularly the visibility of the gate; limiting the amount of noise that would be coming from the site, if any; and some additional screening on the north and east sides of the project area.

The Planning Commission determined that the requests from the public seemed reasonable based on the fact that this type of use in this zoning is a bit of a stretch. The height of the berm and the landscaping would certainly help to accommodate the blocking and screening of the property.

Mr. Ducklow stated that for him and some of the other commissioners, the Interim Conditional Use Permit really allows the City to maintain control of this to ensure the property owner continues to abide by the regulations put forth in the staff report on an annual basis.

Mr. Picha noted that there were two neighborhood meetings held regarding this topic; July 10th and August 2nd. Discussions from those meetings were included in the Council packet. The conditions that the Planning Commission changed were reviewed, approved, and were in front of the Council for their consideration. He also pointed out that this property is currently agricultural land with either soybeans or corn being planted most years. As part of this project, they would be planting pollinator grasses below the solar panels for the natural vegetation of the site.

Mayor Stephens noted that Council received in their packet letters, emails, and summaries of conversations that came in and they were considered part of the public hearing. This evening, the Council also received the staff supplemental letter and the items that came in with that. She then referenced the following documents:

A letter from Julie Jorgensen, CEO GreenMark Solar A letter from GreenMark Solar A memorandum from Barr Engineering Supplemental Community Correspondence

Mr. T.D. Price, 4543 Woodlane Drive, noted that he had spent quite a bit of time researching this. He shared an image of an existing solar site and noted that he had dealt with this situation a couple of months before he actually saw one – he wished he had seen one earlier as up close and personal as they are really ugly.

He then cited an island that is one of the greenest places in the world off of the coast of Morocco, 250 miles east of the Casablanca; an island that is 15 x 35 miles and those people want to be totally green and preserve their island. They will not allow solar or wind power on 70% of the island because it would so turn off the tourists and they would lose 20% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

He also looked at the solar site up in Scandia. He has a friend that lives in a decommissioned NORAD missile site that still has the original missile site gate – if you go over the second gate they shoot you. Anyway, this first gate looks very similar to the gate at the Scandia solar site; barbed wire on top with very scary signs all over it. The location of the gate on the proposed solar garden site is pretty close to his driveway. In fact, all of the problems discussed at the Planning Commission meeting are on his property; the power poles and the generator that makes noise.

Also, many people think that they are really going to promote solar energy by having it in Woodbury. However, these solar sites can be anywhere in the five county area and local residents could still join in. The electricity generated by the solar gardens are not going into the surrounding properties for usage, it is going into the power grid. So it does not matter where the garden is located because the power is being put into the grid itself.

This distribution into the power grid is based on a law that is approximately 47 years old. Currently, a lot of the utilities are fighting this. There is a utility out west that has 1.8 million customers and they have estimated that in 10 years, they will lose approximately $1.1B. The problem is that a lot of this energy does not end up where it needs to



Page 8 of 35

be and they have to lock in a price for 25 years; the price of solar energy is going down, many are receiving a tax break, and then they are subsidizing when a property purchases this electricity. So this is not as simple as thought and it does not need to be located in Woodbury to promote solar energy.

He discovered today that GreenMark Solar has not been honest about this project. They obfuscated on what they are doing. What they have done is gone around and made sections for all of the property owners; so for his 400 feet of abutting property they have cherry picked a section where they could put a 10-foot tree in and hide the solar panels that are 100 feet away from the property line; also the trees are going to be seven feet apart. However, on the other part of his property it is a completely different story. There is a hill located in that area and they are proposing to install the solar panels on top of that. The 10-foot tree would not cover that view. He believes that there are sections on his, and other properties that do not correspond to reality. He stated that GreenMark has only shared a portion of his property sight lines with the Planning Commission, staff, and the Council.

He is the one that convinced the Planning Commission that this proposed use is a stretch; and now GreenMark is actually lying about the property and acting as if it is all the same level where the trees would be planted and the same level where the solar panels would go – it’s just not true. He took a 10-foot pole, placed it at various points on the property, and took photographs, which he shared with the Councilmembers.

Mr. Greg Novak, 4460 Woodlane Drive, owns the property on the northeast side of the proposed site. He learned from the Planning Commission that there would be no noise at the perimeter, it would be screened well with berms and trees, that the water run off would be addressed, the fence would be hidden, and the gate would hidden. If all of this is done as stated, he believes it would be very hard to see. He expressed his support for approval of the application.

Mr. Kevin and Ms. Kay Moquist, 4840 Woodlane Drive, lives on the south side of the property under consideration. They moved to Woodbury when there was less than 2,000 people and have enjoyed raising four children here, and they moved to their current residence 23 years ago. They are located directly across the street in a rural area that was zoned for 3-acre lots. After the initial April 4th neighborhood meeting, they felt there was strong opposition and did not expect the project to progress until they were notified sometime around the July 4th holiday. They subsequently attended the neighborhood meetings, established a signed petition of neighbors opposing the project, wrote a letter dated July 27th that they still stand behind – that this is an unreasonable use of this site. The basis of their position is to oppose a solar industrial complex based on the Comprehensive Plan being the guiding principle of how the land should be used in Woodbury. Their property is zoned Rural Estate and they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their property. They never thought it would be possible for the City of Woodbury to agree to allow 17 acres of 9-foot solar panels across the street, in an area zoned Rural Estate for 3-acre lots. He questioned the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan if it was not going to be followed. They do not agree that putting up a berm and planting some trees should allow them to get around the Comprehensive Plan by using an Interim Conditional Use Permit.

The also believe that the project is disruptive to their rural neighborhood where birds, deer, fox, and geese are being replaced by 9-foot solar panels. It would be a 30-foot elevation over their home and would not be screened from their view. Due to the fact that their house is turned towards the subject property, over half of the year their view would be looking at solar panels from their second floor master bedroom.

If this project were to continue, they believe it should at least be modified to shave the hill on the property from all view points. They also believe that if they were to sell their property it would be at a significant financial detriment. They are also bothered by the actions of representatives of GreenMark Solar and their owner; numerous phone calls to them and their March 24th letter were never acknowledged with a return call or correspondence. When they attended the April 4th meeting, the CEO of GreenMark indicated that she would be visiting their property the next day to address their concerns – she did not show up. Therefore, they believed the project to be over based upon the way the meeting went – supposedly the responses from the residents were to be shared with staff and Council. Those comments were not reflected at all as it was not an official meeting listed in the information that went to the Planning Commission. Subsequent to the meeting, the President – Mark Andrews – explained that this project was a done deal, had been in the works for nearly two years, and he already had outside investors lined up to acquire the $7M solar array project. It disturbed them to think that people outside of the community were benefiting from this project.



Page 9 of 35

In terms of property values, they find it really discouraging that the City of Woodbury and GreenMark are ignoring the impact on their property, representing that this would not negatively affect their property value. Mr. Mike Tierney of Aspen Solar has been quoted as saying it would be tough if this was his house and he had to look at it every day. Another quote from another journal said the aesthetics are horrible, it looks like a prison fence around my yard.

The Moquist’s do not anticipate living in the property for another 25 years to outlive the solar panel and believe they would be paid for a diminished value in their property. Outside investors are able to invest in this project – and apparently are already lined up – with a market rate of return and GreenMark is able to profit at their expense.

In summary, the Moquist’s hoped the Council would take into consideration their July 27th letter, the Comprehensive Plan, and would put themselves in their situation. They believed it would be unfair for the City to not follow the guidelines of the Woodbury Comprehensive Plan and allow a use for an industrial solar panel project based on the Interim Conditional Use Permits they are requesting. They requested that the Council maintain the integrity of the Woodbury Comprehensive Plan and vote to not allow the installation of the industrial solar array as proposed by GreenMark Solar.

Ms. Moquist said that if the Council decided to pass this, she would ask that the Council give them the same courtesy as Mr. Hines has. He has 30-foot to 40-foot pines round his house and he will never have to look at this. They moved to this neighborhood believing they would be in a rural area and they like to look at trees; however, without shaving down the hills and installing berms – she does not want to have to look at this for 10 years, it is really unattractive. In the wording, it just has to be obscured and it does not have to be covered. They do not want to see the panels and if there was any way that the Council could make that happen, they would appreciate it.

Mr. Roger Splinter, 4584 Valahalla Circle, stated that he served on the Environmental Advisory Commission as well as on the Parks & Natural Resources Commission; therefore, he knows that the City leadership is interested and very active in sustainability. This project is an example of energy technology of the future. Everyone knows about NIMBY – ‘not in my backyard’. Yet, everyone needs to consider that no matter what, it is going to be in someone’s backyard and in some cases in someone’s front yard. His goal has always been to minimize any negative impact by any project and maximize any benefit gained by that particular project. Therefore, he strongly supported this project as a further step to address the future sustainability, from an energy standpoint, for the City of Woodbury.

Mr. Tom Hinz, 4787 Manning Avenue S, Afton, MN stated that believes solar energy to be a good thing. His son lives in Denver and they have saved 5% on their electric bill on solar. He also believes this is a good use of the property.

Ms. Louise Hinz, 4787 Manning Avenue S, Afton, MN said that she has seen Woodbury grow during the 30+ years she has lived there. They have seen changes and lot of them has been in housing developments as the population is explosive here. She compared this project to a housing development, and houses are typically more than nine feet tall. So if a housing development was there instead, this discussion probably would not be taking place. However, this is less visible than a housing development, less traffic than a development, less noise than a development and so she sees this as having less of an impact than most of the developments in Woodbury. She also strongly supports the use of solar in general.

Ms. Eileen Trebesch, 9644 Hillingdon Road, was in support of the solar as it is the way of the future and agreed with Mr. Hinz comments. However, she would also respectfully ask that the Council take into consideration what the Moquist’s have offered – taking a look at both sides of the issue.

Mr. Chuck Robb Sr., 751 Markgrafs Lake Draw, has been a resident in Woodbury since 1969 and has seen a lot of changes. He has appeared before City Council’s before to dispute developments that were going on (unfortunately, he lost every time). He appeared this evening in support of this application as it is a great, great improvement over seeing more blacktop and more brick and mortar being constructed with more rain runoff, traffic, and overcrowding of the schools.



Page 10 of 35

When he first moved here there were 3,000 residents and it has mushroomed uncontrollably. It would be nice to see something slow it down a little bit. He believed that this project would be a great environmental project and should be approved.

Mr. Chuck Robb IV, 10820 Thone Circle, has lived in the City of Woodbury since 1969. He asked the Council to approve this project as solar energy is the way of the future.

Mr. David Burdeski, 4760 Crown Lane, stated that this property is the one on the far left of the property image with a grove of trees. Those trees are 25 years old and they will not be growing any taller. When he opens his garage door he sees approximately three-quarters of the property out of his front door. He does not have to walk to the end of his driveway. He did not believe that this would be a good use of the property; there are other areas further out that would be on the same power grid as this property. When he moved to his home, the area was originally designed for rural residential and this particular piece of farmland was going to be dedicated as open land and part of the Woodbury park system.

Mr. Burdeski continued by noting that the solar panels are not very attractive and are actually very ugly. They have to be hidden behind berms of dirt and trees in order to make them accessible. They are more concerned with what it looks like from the street; the people that drive on the street from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill are there for approximately 15 seconds. Mr. Burdeski lives there 24/7, as does the other neighbors and they do not like it there. It is not safe because they have to have a fence with warning signs that there is high voltage there. His fear is that with the high voltage lines running over the gas line – if the gas line were to rupture for any reason that would be an explosion that would be second to none. This property is also located within an established neighborhood; at least 25 to 40 years old. These people in the area would like to have this property nice.

The owners say that they cannot sell the property, which may be true. Two of his neighbors had their properties for sale; one for nine months and the other for a year and a half. This was mainly due to the high power lines in the area. This solar garden may not affect the surrounding property values; however, the ability to actually sell the property would be greatly diminished.

Mr. Burdeski also stated that GreenMark is out of Minneapolis and has no affiliation with Woodbury. They could not care less about what happens in Woodbury as they make some money off of these solar panels. There are no jobs to be made available with this installation; but yet everyone knows they will be asking for tax breaks – meaning the City and residents of Woodbury would have to absorb that tax break.

He shared a letter he received from Community Solar Energy stating their requirement that they be tied into a five megawatts solar panel system. The one under consideration is a one megawatt solar panel system; so they are going to have to find where they can tie into a four existing and established systems – or build new ones before they see any savings. He read a sentence from the bottom of letter as ‘based on a 500 megawatt community solar garden to be built, you could possibly save 25% possibly. Subscription in these programs are limited and current development projections show that less than 5% of Minnesota households may be able to participate in this solar project.’ This means a resident would have to buy a subscription to belong to some kind of a co-op to get a discount. They are not going to give it to you for free.

The letter also included a disclaimer from Xcel Energy that they are not affiliated with this in any way. The only reason that Xcel Energy is involved in this is because the State legislature mandates by law that the solar panels have to be able to supply some power; the power companies now have to purchase this by law. This is going to be a non-sustainable power supply that the power companies have to monitor; GreenMark does not have to monitor it. This means that the power companies need manpower; will need to pay employees to monitor these meters on the solar panels to know how much power they are buying. They can then determine how much they have to pay for it. What this boils down to is that these expenses are all going to be eaten up in any profits. According to the letter he received he would get a 5-10% discount. Based on his Xcel bill – after taxes and fees – last month was $110. If they provide the whole 10% discount – that is only $11 month. This amount would not make or break anyone. He could save more than that just by changing to energy saving light bulbs.



Page 11 of 35

Mr. Burdeski claimed that the meetings he attended was more about how the city planners could make this project look good for GreenMark; there was never any more discussion with the people who actually live there. It appears to be a one-sided deal that had already been set up.

Mr. Dennis Eagan of GreenMark Solar came forward to introduce himself and his team and to highlight a couple of key points they believe to be critical to this project. The people he had with him were their engineers from Barr Engineering, the owners of GreenMark Solar (Ms. Julie Jorgenson and Mr. Mark Andrews), and the property owner, Mr. Michael Hinz.

He expressed his appreciation to staff for helping them to look at opportunities that existed and what the criteria would be for them to be able to get an Interim Conditional Use Permit for this site based on the geographic location. He also expressed appreciation to the neighbors for their engagement and believes that with the neighborhood meetings and door knockings they have done that this has been a collaborative process.

Points he wished to make clear included:

They believe that with the conditions and then the three that were added at the Planning Commission meeting on Monday, August 28 that this application does meet the criteria for the City in terms of an Interim Conditional Use Permit. They also believe that this project adds value to the Comprehensive Plan.

They have demonstrated that this site is screened and, with the extensive berming that has been added and with the 300+ additional 8- to 10-foot trees, they believe that they can adequately ensure that the residents are not going to see the panels.

Based on the conversation at the Planning Commission meeting, the engineers have reduced the high spot on the northeast side. They have also looked at a new location for the gate and believe they have come up with an alternative for that. They have also looked at a third row of trees. Currently, they have proposed two rows of trees separated and interspersed at a triangle. They believe that by adding on the north side that third row to make sure the gaps are covered, that they can accomplish the very issue that allows this type of project to be placed in this because it is screened.

They also believe that this project will lessen the noise, light pollution, and road impacts than if a different type of development came forward.

They have heard the concerns about the transformer noise and have believe that, with the screening and placement of it 200 feet off of the road, the nearest home to this transformer is approximately 1,000 feet away. At 60 decibels, they do not believe that this transformer will create a noise issue. Also, this would be the only noise that would come off of this site. The panels are fixed and do not rotate or move.

They have challenged their engineers to lower the site on the south side. They are scraping it and will be going back to scrape part of the knoll on the north side to lessen the height of those panels.

A study has been provided that was not commissioned by themselves that shows home values at a solar site will not be negatively impacted.

An efficiency study has also been provided on what solar is and what it is not. This type of solar is distributed generations; so it is created right here, goes to the local sub-station, and it must be used local. Part of the reason for picking this site was because of the proximity to the three phase wires, the proximity to a local sub-station that had capacity for additional energy, and because of the encumbrances that have already been heard about – this high voltage lines and the pipeline that runs through this property.

They believe that they have found solutions for the three additional conditions that were put on by the Planning Commission. They look forward to continuing to work with staff and showing them these solutions and getting their feedback.



Page 12 of 35

Ms. Jane Thiegs, 4255 Woodlane Drive, stated that she was in favor of this proposal and was very much in favor of solar in general and using renewable natural resources. Looking at the way the country is going with using energy, she believes it is more important than ever, and timelier than ever, for Woodbury to take the lead in using this resource. She applauded the Council for considering it. She also expressed her compassion for the people that feel they would impacted.

She has a school going in next to her on a property that used to be farmland. When she moved to Woodbury in 1978 she loved the area and thought it would be great to be in the country forever; however, the school came along right next to them. They believed it to be a sad occasion because their children used to go on that property and chase geese; and they believed it would be an eyesore. They now love to listen to the children playing soccer over there – even at 7:30 on a Saturday morning. Things change and she was really in favor positive change, which this is.

Earlier this week as she was on her way back from Colorado, going through Nebraska she happened to pass a solar farm. Given the photographs that were shared this evening she would estimate that this solar farm was in its first year. Even with that it merely looked like a different kind of a crop to them. If may not seem like that to the residents who would be looking at this right now. She encouraged GreenMark to do whatever they could to make this project an enjoyable visual rather than an eyesore and for the City to respond as much as possible to the objections raised to make this a possibility and a reality.

Mr. Ernie Guevara, 4092 Woodlane Drive, expressed that he was in favor of the solar panels provided that they mitigate all of the other concerns from the people that are most affected by it; whether it be by putting in additional berms, additional fencing – invisible fencing would be great. The concerns raised are valid and he could empathize with them in terms of the ugliness of the panels. If they could not be seen from anywhere would be the ideal. However, it is a good thing to have solar panels and he encouraged the City to look forward to that. However, he believed that the serious impacts to the surrounding neighbors should be taken into consideration.

Councilmember Ohs moved, seconded by Councilmember Scoggins, to close the public hearing.



Councilmember Scoggins asked for more information on the zoning and how this use fits in – or doesn’t fit in. Mr. Picha replied that this area is a Rural Estate development area, with three acre lots with their own sewer and water systems – there are no public systems here like on the south side of the road. Hypothetically, they could build 13 homes on this property. The solar ordinance for the City limits the size of solar on individual properties and does not really address this type of thing. The ordinance states that it could be considered by the City Council through an Interim Conditional Use Permit. The Council would have to make the findings that this would be consistent with that ordinance.

Councilmember Date, in regards to the zoning, asked if the person who owns the property now would continue to live there and would be renting out the solar panels – how does that work. Mr. Picha replied that there is a 25-year lease – GreenMark is not purchasing this property but are leasing it for 25 years. This property is owned by the Hinz family and the house is a rental.

Councilmember Scoggins asked if there would be any benefit to Woodbury residents in particular for this or a way for residents to take advantage of possible savings on their electric. Mr. Dennis Eagan of GreenMark Solar returned and replied that the quick answer is that this particular solar installation, the three megawatts is going to be used primarily for institutional subscribers, similar to the type that the City of Woodbury subscribes too. This just happens to be in a different district.

Councilmember Scoggins, in regards to the gas line, asked if there were safety concerns with having something with this voltage over this pipeline. Mr. Picha replied that it was his understanding that GreenMark has met with the gas pipeline people and that they are requiring a 50-foot setback from the pipeline. Mr. Klayton Eckles, Engineering and



Page 13 of 35

Public Works Director also noted that there is already significant power on the site. Throughout the City there is gas and electrical facilities on virtually every lot in the City and the industry has found ways to make them compatible and co-exist. This will be thought about and addressed as they go forward. Staff is confident at this point that this would not be an obstacle.

Councilmember Date asked for more information to address the concerns of the residents on the view. Mr. Eagan replied that they are planning on shaving down the high spot near the Moquist property (lower south end of the lot) to get rid of some of that elevation and would be using that dirt to build the berm along the whole south corner. Then on top of that 6-foot berm they would be planting 8- to 10-foot trees in two rows, triangulating those and using best practices from the nurseries and from their landscape experts.

They believe they are going to be able to take part of the knoll on the north side and shave that down. Then they would potentially plant three rows of trees, triangulating the first two rows and then, where the gaps exist, to be able to place that third row to ensure that those gaps are covered. Year one, as seen on the renderings, there are gaps. They will do everything that they can, and have worked with staff, to mitigate as much of that as possible.

The question could be asked ‘why not just berm that north section’ – part of it is that when you berm a 6-foot and the elevation and the slope of those – it takes away from any potential opportunity that exists for the panels. When they first spoke with staff about this they were able to go much closer to the road; however, now they have a 60-foot easement on one side and a 75-foot easement on the other from the road for future use by the City of Woodbury, which has shrunk the site. They are trying to make sure they can take care of the concerns of the neighbors by screening but also having a viable project.

The other issue on the north that was raised at the Planning Commission meeting was the gate. The fencing all goes behind the tree line and, in some cases, behind the berm. By changing the angle and changing the location of the gate to get into the service road, we believe that they can accommodate that and better screen it as they move forward.

Mr. Picha commented, especially Military Road, staff has recommended they plat the property and give the City the right-of-way, which is consistent with what the City does with other development projects. In this case, if they built the berm close to the road – Military Road will be expanded sometime in the future so they wanted to make sure that the berm was outside of what would be needed for that expansion.

Councilmember Ohs asked if the easement on Military Road could be considered as a benefit to the residents. Mr. Picha replied that it was certainly desirable from the City‘s perspective because under the County use right-of-way process, the City is required to acquire any right-of-way for future road expansions. So yes, this would definitely be a benefit.

Councilmember Scoggins stated that if she understood correctly, the solar panels themselves do not make any noise, it is only the transformer. Mr. Picha confirmed that this was correct. It was also noted that one of the conditions added by the Planning Commission was that, post construction, no noise shall be audible at the property line at any time.

Councilmember Scoggins, in regards to the Interim Conditional Use Permit, asked if there were issues here – conditions weren’t meant, etc. – each year, what could happen. Mr. Picha replied that staff would be inspecting the site every year and if there were potential violations the Council would be reviewing it every year. If there were significant violations then the City Council could hold a public hearing and they could terminate the permit based on findings. Mr. Nick Vivian, City Attorney confirmed and stated that, depending on what the issues might be, there would be notification to the operator of any violations, there would be meetings with staff, and presumably, if those violations continued they would receive notice and an opportunity to come before the Council to address those issues, a public hearing would be heard, and the Council would have – in its discretion – the right to modify the permit, suspend the permit, or in aggressive circumstance terminate the permit.

Mayor Stephens also pointed out Condition #8 reads “Should the use terminate prior to term expiration, or the panels become inoperable for a period of six months; the Applicant shall have 60 days to remove the system or the



Page 14 of 35

City shall remove the use and assess the cost to the property owner.” She then asked if there was a way to streamline that to shore up the City’s right in that event. Mr. Picha replied that one of the things the City could do is to exercise a waiver of assessment and appeal. So if the Council were to determine that it should be removed for whatever reason or if it is abandoned the Council could order that and there would be no appeal process available. That is something that is done in some Development Agreements and is not unusual for the City. Mayor Stephens recommended that this be done, should this application move forward. Counsel Vivian also stated that it might be worth exploring a de-commissioning plan with security associated with that plan. Mayor Stephens agreed.

Councilmember Burns noted that the R-2, Single Family Estate District zoning is one of the biggest challenges to him. He tends to think solar can be a very good thing for the City of Woodbury and a very good thing in general. He asked where something like this fit with the City’s zoning most clearly and would raise no doubts that it would fit with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning requirements. Mr. Picha replied that he does not believe that there is any area within the City where they would specifically recommend it without conditions, such as berming and landscaping because the entire community is going to develop over the next 10 to 15 years. However, the southeast corner of the City, where the 3M dump is and that is in the Urban Reserve area, which is post 2040 – would be a logical area to do this as well.

Councilmember Burns then asked if there was a classification or zoning type that would be more clearly a fit against struggling with R-2, Single Family Estate – pure agricultural zoning or something like that that something like this would fit better. Mr. Picha replied that the area he described as R-1, Urban Reserve District would be it. However, that area will be developing within the next 20 years. That would probably be the only other appropriate zone.

Councilmember Burns noted that the Moquist’s mentioned the Comprehensive Plan process and their feeling that this was inconsistent with prior Comprehensive Plans and their reliance on prior plans to make some of their decisions. He requested comments on the consistency of Comprehensive Plans and the fit for something like this – let’s put it one step further, if the City had contemplated solar gardens, etc. at that time this R-2 zoning does not really seem to fit with that. Mr. Picha replied that in the last Comprehensive Plan, which was done in 2010, sustainability is talked about in every chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and the City has done a lot of things to try to do some sustainable things. The City does allow solar panels on homes in the R-1 and R-2 districts, they allow 1,000 square foot on-ground installations for single-family homes, and 15 to 20 large commercial buildings in town that have major solar installations, and the City itself has them at the Public Safety and some at the HealthEast Sports Center. So the City has made an attempt to try to make the community much more sustainable and have taken many actions to try to make that happen.

Mayor Stephens expressed her appreciation to all of the residents for coming in and testifying, writing letters, and especially those that came back after the Planning Commission meeting, to the applicant for working with the residents and the staff on the concerns, and to staff – whom she always applauds because they do go over above and beyond – they do notice requirements, neighborhood meetings, and meet individually. Having said that she has some of the same concerns that some of the neighbors have who are supporting the solar with respect to the visibility. However, this is one of the mechanisms [Interim Conditional Use Permit] that the City can use to control that, per the words from Mr. Eagan – adequately assure the residents will not see the panels. She stated that she would like to see, not only control from there – she did not know if Moquist’s solution could be done by cutting down the berms as much as they need to be or – she would like to see GreenMark meet with them on possible plantings to screen their property year-round. It appeared to her that the residents do not want to wait 5 to 10 years for the screening to be effective; maybe there are shrubs or other plantings that could be installed during the growth phase of the trees. She would be in support of moving this forward if that is the condition that GreenMark is assuring them – that they will not see the panels and they are willing to work with staff and the residents on moving forward.

Mr. Eagan replied that they absolutely think long-term. He believes some of the scale seen in terms of the normal growth pattern in 10-years are correct. What could be done in the interim, year 1, year 2, year 3 – is their commitment. They would do everything that they could and still ensure that the trees live. There are some best practices that they have explored with the consultants for plantings and with the nurseries that they have called to find out how to best do this and manage this to ensure the growth of the trees. This is why they talked about the addition of the third row of trees on the north side. They agreed to work with the Moquist’s to address their concerns, or any other neighbor.



Page 15 of 35

Mayor Stephens recommended that language be added to Condition #14 regarding the assurance that the residents would not see the panels and that the applicant would work with the residents on that issue. Mr. Eckles stated that the City should be a little careful that they do not set an expectation that somebody cannot find some angle somewhere where they can see a panel. Mayor Stephens replied that she is taking the applicant at their word, that they would “adequately assure residents will not see the panels”; they are standing here saying that they are going to work with the homeowners to improve this in terms of visibility for those first three years and it should be one of the conditions. Granted, she does not expect people to come back and do the nick picky thing, but she is trusting the applicant when they say that, and the staff working with the applicant that they will be going out to these sites and working with them to assure that. She would just like a little more assurance in writing on that.

Mr. Clinton Gridley, City Administrator suggested that maybe the Council is providing broad direction that the City Attorney’s office can write language that is consistent with what the City could do legally, reasonably, and capture the intentions of the City Council.

Councilmember Burns asked if this item should then be tabled until the Council could see the language from the City Attorney’s office. Mr. Gridley recommended, if everything else was acceptable, to move forward with this conditioned on the City Attorney writing language that fulfills the Council’s direction.

Councilmember Burns stated that he would like to table this until the Council has seen the language. The public hearing has been closed and so this could be brought back as a continued item. Counsel Vivian asked where the City stood on the timing issue (120-day rule). Mr. Picha noted that the next meeting is scheduled for September 27th and he believes they would be okay; however, he suggested that the applicant waive that 120-day rule during this meeting.

Mr. Eagan replied that GreenMark Solar would be willing to work with the City Attorney and staff on the language and if the Council desires to hold this over to the end of September, then they would waive the 120-day ruling.

In response to the question as to whether or not this could be held over, Counsel Vivian replied that the Public Hearing has been closed and Council could certainly, if they desire, continue or table this discussion at its consideration until the next meeting in order to review the additional language.

Councilmember Burns moved to table GreenMark Solar Garden, Interim Conditional Use Permit, Project No. 30- 2017-00265 until the September 27, 2017 City Council Meeting.

Councilmember Date stated that she is not ready to hold this off for another month. She felt that they have had adequate discussion about what needs to be done. There are 22 conditions and she felt that in Condition #14 it was pretty clear about what the City is asking them to do. The Council is putting a bit of faith in that this would happen in the way they were talking about; and she thought that this writing provides it. Holding off for another month would not change much of the outcome long term.

Councilmember Ohs stated that she trusts that the applicant and the City Attorney could work on the language.

Councilmember Burns’ motion died for lack of a second.

Councilmember Scoggins stated that personally she likes the project. The concern she had was really related to the impact on the neighbors; however, she believes that with the conditions and with tightening up the language that the Council can achieve what they are hoping to; which minimizing the impacts and turning it into something that will be a really good project and that will be better than some of the neighbors think it will be. If she lived there she would have the same concerns and would want the City Council, staff, and the people who are bringing the project forward to do everything they could to minimize the impact.



Page 16 of 35

Councilmember Scoggins moved,

To adopt a motion approving the Interim Conditional Use Permit via RESOL NO. 17-148

Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota adopting findings of fact for GreenMark Solar Garden Interim Conditional Use Permit, Project No. 30-2017-00265, subject to the conditions as outlined in the Supplemental Council Letter No. 17-233 and with the additional conditions as discussed tonight

Mayor Stephens clarified that the additional conditions discussed were the City Attorney looking at the language and shore it up for Condition #14 and then language on the waiver for the procedure for the assessments. Mr. Picha noted that the other two changes were to add a second sentence to Condition #8 something like “prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit the landowner shall execute a waiver of assessment and appeal” and then based on the discussion, Condition #9 would be changed to read “The Interim Conditional Use Permit for the solar energy system use should shall terminate . . .” He also agreed with Mayor Stephens clarification on Condition #14 including language from the City Attorney.

Councilmember Scoggins agreed to add this to her motion, which was then seconded by Councilmember Ohs

Voting via voice:

Amy Scoggins – aye Andrea Date – aye Julie Ohs – aye Christopher Burns – nay


Mayor Stephens stated that she is looking forward to the further work that is being done on this project and an update back from staff when that gets done. Mr. Gridley noted that staff will provide the Council with the final language so that Council is aware of any changes that are made to the conditions.

Mayor Stephens also expressed her appreciation to the applicant for being willing to work with the two property owners that still have concerns on the visibility.

C. Artis Senior Living, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, Site and Building Plan, Project No. 16-2017-00248


Mr. Picha explained that Artis Senior Living of Woodbury, LLC has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Preliminary Plat, Site and Building Plan for a development to be called Artis Senior Living. The property is located on the south side of Afton Road, just east of Tower Drive. The Presbyterian Church is located to the west, along with some twin homes, single-family homes to the south, large lot single-family properties to the east, and to the north is a single-family home and a property owned by the City of Woodbury.

The property is currently zoned R-4, Urban Residential District and is guided as Low Density on the Land Use Plan, which allows up to 3.5 units per acre. This site is 7.38 acres in size with three single-family homes, all of which were built in the 1950s. This area was subdivided in the 1960s originally without any sewer or water and the road has been upgraded several times. This proposal would be to take down the three single-family homes and replace them with the senior living facility. The proposal is to install a one-story residential type building with a stone and residential type architecture to it.



Page 17 of 35

Mr. Picha shared an image of the proposed site plan. The property currently has three driveways exiting onto Afton Road; the proposal would reduce that to two driveways at each end of the parking lot. Parking would be available between Afton Road and the building with a total of 41 spaces. They are proposing a one-story building approximately 13,000 square feet in size. The proposal is for a total of 72 beds within the facility, 64 to be built initially and expansion for another eight – up to 72.

There was an item on previously about the City’s density policy regarding senior projects; there have been several built over the years. The Planning Commission reviewed that policy on a couple of occasions and have recommended changes to it where each bed within the facility would count as 0.33 units per acre. Under that calculation, the density for this would be approximately 0.32 units per acre.

There is significant tree coverage with a lot of mature trees; they are saving 46% of the existing trees and they have a significant landscaping plan which would add an additional 130 trees to the site. Just above the remaining wooded area would be a stormwater pond infiltration area added. There are currently no stormwater facilities in this area.

Stormwater was one of the issues with the neighborhood; the property would have to meet all of the City’s current requirements for stormwater facilities. With this it would require some stormwater facilities to be built off-site. Mr. Picha shared an image showing the location of the pipes to be installed in conjunction with the stormwater pond to be installed in the southeast quadrant of the site. They will also be building a stormwater system and have worked with all of the neighboring properties. There are some drainage issues in the area now; however, this will correct those issues. They are proposing a combination of a stormwater pipe that would be bored through an existing tree area to minimize any damage to that to an existing pond. And then another infrastructure project that would take it north and underneath Afton Road and into the stormwater pond that is located just behind a building. There has been extensive work done on this with the City and with many of the property owners in the area to come to a conclusion.

Mr. Jerad Ducklow from the Planning Commission gave their report by noting that this is seen as a need in the community. Most of the concerns around this project were regarding the traffic on Afton Road. Staff has assured the Planning Commission that it appears as if the capacity on this is approximately one-third right now. With this project there would be multiple stormwater easements obtained; staff and the neighbors are for that part of the project to clean up and solve the drainage issues they have had. All-in-all this looks like a good project.

Mr. Picha also shared that there will be an internal sidewalk system for the residents with an 8-foot decorative fence around it. There has been a lot of neighborhood input into this project with two official neighborhood meeting; one on May 22 and August 16. There has also been many individual meetings with property owners around it to work with them about the stormwater issues, landscaping, and other things.

Mayor Stephens explained that Council did receive a supplemental letter from staff following the Planning Commission meeting and it appears that there was one additional condition (number 24) added to that.

Mr. Craig Chamberlain, 8231 Afton Road, provided his support of the Artis Senior Living project. He recognized that there is a growing need for Alzheimer’s facilities like this, especially in Minnesota. This project appears that it would fit well into the neighborhood. Also, the stormwater plan looked pretty good to him. His property is one that is most affected and this will benefit him by reducing the amount of standing water on his lawn. The stormwater system will also allow the existing stagnant pond to have an outlet, thus cleaning it up quite a bit. Maybe now when kids put fish into the pond they won’t die in a few seconds. He also added that Artis, Loucks [surveyor], and the City staff were great to work with.

Councilmember Burns moved, seconded by Councilmember Ohs, to close the public hearing.





Page 18 of 35

Councilmember Ohs stated that she was at the Planning Commission when they discussed this so she had no questions.

Councilmember Scoggins commented that she was glad that there were some things that could be done about the stormwater. She recalled issues that were raised in this area a number of years ago and that was one of her initial questions – would they be able to help relieve some of the issues with the stormwater. She also believes that this is a good project.

Councilmember Burns noted that this is not very far away from the Washington County sponsored project that is going to be on that corner as well. Mr. Picha confirmed that the project mentioned is just on the west side of Tower Drive, approximately 700 feet away.



Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota adopting the findings of fact, approving the Preliminary Plat and Site and Building Plan, Project No. 16-2017-00248, all subject to the conditions as outlined in Supplemental Council Letter 17-234

Voting via voice:



D. Commons Plaza, Amended Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Site and Building Plan, Project No. 16-2017-00248


Mr. Picha explained that this project is part of the Seasons Commons area originally, approved in 1996. They would like to amend that Planned Unit Development (PUD) and they are requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Building Plan review. There is a restaurant currently on this site and they are proposing to take that down and build a combination of smaller buildings, which would add up to 13,808 square feet on this 2.42 acre site. The only access to this property is off of Commons Drive, across from LifeTime Fitness.

Mr. Picha shared an image of the existing PUD and the uses along Radio Drive; this site, Valvoline, Tires Plus, a retail building, Wild Bills Sports Saloon, and the office building across the street, and LifeTime Fitness. Tamarack Road is upgraded as well as Commons Drive to the City’s current standards.

Mr. Picha then shared an image of the proposed site plan with the only change being made is the site access; it has been recommended to move that to the north (currently it is in the center of the site). The intent is to move the site access as far away from the intersection of Tamarack Road and Commons Drive as possible for site lines and better access into the area. This would still have a good distance offset from the LifeTime Fitness entrance on the east side of the street. This is being designed in such a way that when this road is redone in the next few years that there could be a sidewalk added if the Council so determines. Currently, there is a sidewalk on the south side of Tamarack Road but no sidewalks or trails on Commons Drive. He recalled for the Council that CityPlace to the north and Tamarack Road are developing a nice pedestrian system in this area. The desire was to ensure there was enough room to accommodate that in the future if the street is redone and the Council so wishes.



Page 19 of 35

The proposal is for four buildings and would include one drive-thru for the proposed coffee shop. The approval would also allow up to 4,500 square feet of retail use, which would include the coffee shop. That is also how the parking was calculated and it would have 101 parking spaces, which more than meets the ordinance requirements.

Mr. Picha shared renderings of what the proposed buildings would look like; 82% Class 1 materials (the ordinance requires at least 65 % Class 1 materials). The primary building materials are brick, stone, and glass with some metal accents around it.

The property was developed originally before many of the City’s stormwater requirements were initiated, which they are now required to meet. They are showing two infiltration ponding areas along Radio Drive and Tamarack Road, and also an underground system that would be used to meet all of the stormwater system requirements.

There would be some landscaping on the site, most of it would have to be removed as part of this redevelopment. However, in the long run this landscaping plan has a lot more plantings on it than the current site does and meets all of the ordinance requirements.

Mr. Jerad Ducklow from the Planning Commission shared their report by explaining that even though they were disappointed to see Craft Kitchen vacating this property, it appears as though the City would end up with an increase in retail, potentially jobs, in an area that is described in the Land Use Plan as Places to Shop. It is also hoped that the buildings along Radio Drive would help them as far as visibility and sustainability for businesses themselves.

The biggest concern raised by the Planning Commission that was reiterated by the Commissioners was the intersection of Tamarack Road and Commerce Drive, in particular going southbound on Commerce Drive and taking a left (eastbound) onto Tamarack Road – there is a little bit of a bend and a little bit of a knoll. On the north side of Commerce there is a right only turn lane. Staff assured the Commission that they were going to work with engineering to ensure that traffic would be evaluated so that it would be acceptable.

Staff recommended approval of this application.

Ms. Danielle Philippon, 1111 Fallbrook Lane, lives seven blocks from the old Craft Kitchen, has lived there for 15 years, and worked for Craft Kitchen for three years. In that three years in customer service she got to know and talk with a lot of people from Woodbury. The last thing they want to see is another Caribou Coffee as there are lots of Caribou Coffee shops, Starbucks Coffee shops, and the coffee shop that was there failed. Now it is a nail shop. She is sad to see all these strip malls popping up six to seven blocks from her house – and vacant ones at that. Things are not staying. When she tells people what was happening they are like ‘seriously, another CVS, another Walgreens, another coffee shop, and another mattress store’ – it’s just sad. It is where restaurants come to die is what people are saying. It may be too late now but maybe in the future something could be done.

Councilmember Ohs moved, seconded by Councilmember Scoggins, to close the public hearing.



Councilmember Ohs asked Mr. Picha to explain how the Council really does not have a lot of control on what happens at this site. Mr. Picha replied that the City has a Comprehensive Plan that shows different types of land uses, retail being one of them. Then there are some retail zoning districts but the City is really limited on what they can require for uses. As long as those uses are listed in the zoning ordinance, and there are probably 30 to 40 different types of retail uses, their ability is limited to just those types of uses in general. It is unfortunate that this restaurant is going out at this point. In reading the newspapers, the restaurant business is difficult. Some of the best restaurants in Minneapolis are closing; it is hard to control what the consumer wants. Certainly the City of Woodbury does not have that ability.



Page 20 of 35

Councilmember Date, to expand on Mr. Picha’s comments, what is there right now is proposed retail and proposed coffee shop. She assumed it would be via lease; however, she then asked to what extent does that lease or whatever goes in there have to be retail. Could it end up being a restaurant if one showed interest in going in that property? Does it have to be coffee shop because it says coffee on this proposal? Mr. Picha replied that no it does not have to be, they can have 4,500 square feet of restaurant uses. If they wanted to have more than that then they would have to come back to the Council and have another public hearing and go through that process.

To clarify, Councilmember Date stated that right now it is proposed retail but theoretically if a permit or lease application came up for a restaurant or something else that would still be open. So the Council is not necessarily driving it but it is being built to be something that would be viable. Mr. Picha confirmed and stated that besides retail uses in the B-2 zoning district it could be office uses, a dental office, or any type of medical type thing. It is really open on what they can have within this facility. This PUD limits it to one drive-thru facility, which is now anticipated to be a coffee shop. If they want to change that they will need to come back and could probably have one other restaurant of 2,500 square feet from the current approval. That is how the parking was calculated. Restaurants need more parking than general retail; there are parking requirements of one space for every 185 square feet for general retail, but for restaurant type uses there is a different calculation – much higher because of the demand.

Councilmember Burns said that he attending the Planning Commission meeting on this matter and, like Mr. Ducklow said, a lot of people were sad to see Craft Kitchen go. However, they otherwise understood the process and what happened.

Mayor Stephens commented that she too liked Craft and she had heard from Ms. Beavens ahead of time and read some of the comments. The trends in the restaurant industry are changing and she believed that the market was responding to that. Woodbury does support and promote entrepreneurialism within the community and has been part of their strategic plan and are very happy when the County – with their new Community Development Administration has made that a top priority and is open to business. Washington County will be the last county in on that program to give small businesses and entrepreneurs an opportunity to get information and best practices and access capital. Personally, she belongs to WOW (Women of Woodbury) which are women entrepreneurs who are all independent entrepreneurs within the community supporting each other as they try to grow those businesses. They do love local and do like the entrepreneurs – but it can sometimes be a difficult market.

Mayor Stephens expressed her concern about the increased traffic and asked how that has been addressed or if they do or do not have concerns over the increase in traffic. Mr. Picha replied that the majority of the traffic in this area is the night-time traffic peak hour and a restaurant like what is there now is the worst for the peak hour traffic. With this proposal, the coffee shop would obviously be busier during the earlier periods of the day. Engineering reviewed this proposal and felt that the traffic from this would probably be no more than or less than the current traffic there.

Mr. Klayton Eckles, Engineering and Public Works Director said that even prior to this project there were some concerns about where Commons Drive and Tamarack Road intersect. There is additional effort going into looking at that for a long-term solution that would work there. In general, the increasing traffic in this area could lead to some need to change that intersection in some way. This project itself would have a very small impact on that; however, there is a condition that engineering would review the traffic in this area immediately before the project and then also a year from now. This is something that engineering would want to do even without the project.



Page 21 of 35


To approve the Conditional Use Permit via RESOL NO. 17-150

Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota adopting the findings of fact

Voting via voice:



Councilmember Burns moved, seconded by Councilmember Scoggins, to adopt a motion approving the Amended Planned Unit Development, Site and Building Plan, Project No. 16-2017-00248, all subject to the following conditions

1. All conditions of the original Planned Unit Development shall remain in full force and effect. 2. This approval does not include signs. A Comprehensive Sign Plan is required for the proposed development.

The Comprehensive Sign Plan may include, at the direction of the City, items such as no cabinet signs, all signs shall include individually cut letters and all directional and order board signage shall include Class I material bases.

3. No more than 4,500 square feet of restaurants are permitted onsite. 4. One drive-through use shall be permitted for the subject property. No additional drive- through businesses/uses

shall be permitted. 5. Odor suppression equipment shall be installed for all restaurants. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape financial security shall be submitted in accordance with

the Zoning Ordinance. 7. All areas of the site, where practical, shall be sodded and maintained. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscaping plan shall be approved by the Planning staff. 9. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be hidden from view with the same materials used

on the building in accordance with City Code requirements. 10. Any future or proposed trash enclosures shall utilize wooden gates and be constructed on three sides using the

same materials and patterns used on the building. The location shall be approved by the Planning staff. 11. All refuse areas shall be sized and designed appropriately to allow recycling containers. 12. 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 in writing. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall provide a snow removal and storage plan detailing

how snowfalls will be accommodated on site. 14. The Applicant shall be financially responsible for 100% of all storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main area

and connection charges applicable to the property. 15. 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 storm water does not leave the project site.

16. All disturbed boulevards shall be restored with sod. The property owner shall mow to the curb line of all adjacent streets and to the property line to the north.

17. It shall be the property owners’ responsibility to submit an operation and maintenance plan for the long-term care of all on-site storm sewer, sanitary sewer, watermain and roadway systems and components to the City for review and approval. The Developers, Property Owners and/or the Associations shall be responsible to carry out these operation and maintenance activities and to submit the appropriate documentation to the City as specified.

18. All sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities installed to accommodate the site are private and shall be the Developer’s responsibility for the design, installation, maintenance, repair, replacements, operation, protection, etc. All utility inspections shall be coordinated with the City’s Building Inspections Division.



Page 22 of 35

19. The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining a land disturbance permit from the City’s Engineering Division prior to the commencement of any site activities as well as any necessary right-of-way permits.

20. The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining any other permits necessary from other agencies, MPCA, SWWD Watershed, etc. prior to the start of any site activities.

21. The Developer shall be responsible for protecting the proposed on-site storm sewer infrastructure and components and any existing storm sewer from exposure to any and all stormwater runoff, sediments and debris during all construction activities. Temporary stormwater facilities shall be installed to protect the quality aspect of the proposed and existing stormwater facilities prior to and during construction activities. Maintenance of any and all temporary stormwater facilities shall be the responsibility of the Developer.

22. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Engineering Division shall review and approve the final grading, utility and stormwater plans.

23. All light poles shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height, including base, and shall be shoebox style, downward directed, with LED lamps and flush lens unless approved in writing by the Zoning Administrator. Other than wash or architectural lighting, attached security lighting shall be shoebox style, downward directed with flush lens. In addition, any entry lighting under canopies shall be recessed and use a flush lens. Shields shall also be added as directed by the City.

24. Prior to opening and 12 months following the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Engineering Department shall conduct traffic counts at the intersection of Commons Drive and Tamarack Road.


As a procedural item, Councilmember Burns noted that the project number on this item was the same project number as the previous item and requested that staff make the necessary adjustment.

E. Wozniak Property, Rezoning, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, Project No. 27-2017-00271

Consent Agenda Item H: Wozniak Property, Negative Declaration of Need for an Environmental Impact Statement

Mayor Stephens explained that before this public hearing can take place Council needs to consider the Consent Agenda Item H, which was the negative declaration for a need for an Environmental Impact Statement. She then introduced Mr. Paul Burandt, who had provided a comment letter. She then apologized to Mr. Burandt because she knew there was a worksheet prepared, and then a worksheet is sent out with notice so agencies, cities, and individuals have an opportunity to comment on that worksheet. Then staff responds to the comments; however, Mr. Burandt apparently did not receive the response.

Mr. Paul Burandt, 10350 Dale Road, stated that he and his wife own and farm property adjacent to the proposed EAW site number 2. He had a copy of the EAW and read through it; however, not all of the issues that they say are addressed he believes have been. This is why he wrote a letter to Ms. Sharon Doucette, Environmental Resources Coordinator in early August; within the 30 day comment period. It is this letter that he did not receive a response to. In addition, Mr. Burandt did not receive a visit from Alliant Engineering that prepared the document, nor any City individual in regards to the development.

Most of the property that he owns and farms lies adjacent to this proposed development. Almost all of his 75 acres drains into Control District Pond (CDP) #82, in addition to some 1,600 acres encompassing the runoff into that drainage pond. This pond is landlocked from the bigger Bailey Lake, which is a lake that flows through Woodbury and ultimately to Cottage Grove and to the Mississippi River. His concern was about a comment that was made that agriculture is favorable to residential development. In most cases they try to be responsible tillers of the land, growing crops; however, the report never addressed what he believed to be more important – that being that in addition to growing crops right adjacent to the proposed site, they also raise livestock. He is unaware of many residents that like to live right next to livestock facilities. So he had concerns about the affects of that in relation to the manure spreading that he does on his farm and all of that draining into the CDP #82. Once the pipe from the proposed development connects to Bailey Lake, all of this water that has been infiltrating into the ground over all of



Page 23 of 35

these years will now make green water in Bailey Lake, which would not be a popular thing. He is not necessarily against development of the neighboring property and he certainly would benefit from it eventually. But it is a growing pain that must be dealt with and this Environmental Assessment Worksheet did not address it. He believes that it is important since he uses anhydrous ammonia – a form of nitrogen, urea, manure, and fertilizer. He tries to apply it carefully; however, due the size of his operation and the number of years that he has been doing it they have never had to worry about surface water, non-point runoff, etc. With the installation of the overflow pipes and basins, whether gated and controlled or not, at some point this untreated water that they have running off of their farm is going to get to Bailey Lake.

In the spring they encounter frozen ground and then they get a rain event in March or April and a lot of the manure that they have spread from November through March ends up in the local pond. It may not be solids but it is the nutrients that end up down there. To add to that, they get water from Bailey Nurseries infiltration holding pond to the north with the fertilizers that they use on their potted plants into his property, along with the water from Section 25. In fact, in some springs he could take a canoe down their waterway and into the pond. So he has concerns about that.

Mayor Stephens asked that Ms. Doucette get back to Mr. Burandt as this is a legitimate concern as they are planning on installing outlets and pipes in there to get to Bailey Lake and the issues he has mentioned are real issues and what water gets into Bailey Lake.

Mr. Klayton Eckles, Engineering and Public Works Director stated that he and staff know Mr. Burandt very well; he’s been in farming in and around Woodbury for many years. By and large he has adapted his practices to account for the fact that every time he turns around it seems there is a new development popping up near his farming operation. Mr. Eckles is confident that if Mr. Burandt and the environmental coordinator sit down and talk about this that maybe there would be something that Paul could do to tweak his practices and staff could look at the things he is talking about. He believes there could be some design ideas that could address his concerns – in the storm pipes as well – an interim design strategy. He said he would have Ms. Doucette contact Mr. Burandt so the three of them could sit down, have a conversation, and come up with a solution. Mr. Burandt stated that he would be open to sitting down with Alliant as well as it would be important to cover before the Council approves it.

Mr. Picha pointed out on the map which properties were covered by the EAW, including Mr. Burandt’s. The development being proposed is only on the west side of Woodbury Drive and is not adjacent to Mr. Burandt. Some of the things that Mr. Eckles talked about could be addressed when the adjacent property develops sometime in the future. He also commented that this is something that the City has been dealing with for 50 years and it is no different than any other area where there has been farmland next to a residential development. There are many ways this can be addressed as they go along.

Councilmember Scoggins asked how what they just hear affects the Council considering Consent Agenda Item H. Mayor Stephens replied that, according to Mr. Picha that the Council can go ahead and make a motion recommending what staff has recommended. Mr. Picha concurred and stated that the State Law says that the Council could not approve a project property when the same property owner has adjacent property without going through an EAW.

Councilmember Scoggins moved, seconded by Councilmember Ohs, to Certify the Environmental Assessment Worksheet prepared for the Wozniak Property as an adequate examination of the environmental impacts of the proposed development




Page 24 of 35

Councilmember Scoggins moved, seconded by Councilmember Ohs, to approve the Findings of Fact and the Record of Decision on the EAW


Councilmember Scoggins moved, seconded by Councilmember Ohs,


Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota declaring no need for an Environmental Impact Statement

Voting via voice:




Mr. Picha explained that the property under consideration is approximately 89.5 acres and is located generally west of Woodbury Drive, south of Salem Meadows East, the Oehlke property is directly to the north, and to the south are some large exception parcels and a small church on the corner of Woodbury Drive and Dale Road.

There was some discussion in the staff meeting about where the exact urban service area boundary for these two parcels. The specific plan said that when the final grading plans come in for these parcels that the City would sewer all of the land that can be feasibly done through that process.

Mr. Picha shared an image of the site plan for the application for a preliminary plat. It would be 159 total units; 50 villa or detached townhome-type units, and 109 single-family units. Each lot would be approximately 75 feet in width by 125 feet as a minimum. Access to the property would be via two driveways from Woodbury Drive. As indicated in the staff report, the northern driveway would be adjacent to the Metropolitan Council (MetCouncil) lift station. Staff has been working with the MetCouncil and they are agreeable to a road realignment there. The applicant will have to pay for that road. Based on discussions with Washington County they do not want that access to be opened until Woodbury Drive is upgraded in the future. Therefore, the access to this property would be the southern entryway on Woodbury Drive and then the road going north into the proposed Glen View Farms project. Stubs have been provided into the exception parcels on the southwest corner of the site, about one-third to one-half of those parcels could be developed into urban type uses.

The park dedication on this project includes a nice savannah oak forest along the edge of Bailey Lake and that will be a park dedication requirement. The remainder of the park dedication would be in cash. There is a major stormwater facility as part of this project. There is 1,600 acres that drains all of the way from the Stonemill Farms development and Bailey Nursery area, down to the point on Woodbury Drive. There would be a major stormwater pipe installed down to Bailey Lake with an overflow through the center of the development and through a stormwater pond. This would also provide an emergency overflow from that 1,600 acres.

Tradition Development LLC is the developer on this project and they are currently doing the Twenty-One Oaks development on the corner of Dale Road and Pioneer Drive. Mr. Picha then shared an image of the location of the different lot sizes, which are similar to the Twenty-One Oaks development.



Page 25 of 35

Mr. Picha also shared an image of the proposed trail system that is proposed to be added to the development. He pointed out that there is a current road right-of-way on Salem Meadows that goes down into this property; however, there is no actual road there. Staff recommended that it not be continued into Salem Meadows because it would be very difficult from a grading perspective. However, they are recommending that it be used for a trail connection.

Mr. Jerad Ducklow, Planning Commissioner, shared the Commission’s report noting that Woodbury continues to be a community that people what to live, which is a great problem to have. Because of this, the community continues to see these high end quality projects and the details on this project show another example of that.

Mr. Picha stated that there was one neighborhood meeting held regarding this project on July 25th, with 12 residents in attendance. Most of the comments were about the potential road extension, which would not be occurring and general stormwater how that would be handled.

Mr. Paul Burandt returned and commented that most of his concerns were regarding Site 2, which the EAW included as a preliminary site plan. He was concerned about the plan of where the single family homes would be included on it versus townhomes. Also, how the lay of the land would be before they could develop in regards to livestock operation with people living with their backyards 15 feet away from where he spreads manure.

He just did not want to be back in front of the Council two years from now when unfortunate wonderful neighbors that want to use their swimming pool or barbecue and their house is going to be covered in flies, like his is.

Mr. Picha replied that as part of the EAW, they had to draw a concept plan for the east side of the property, on the east side of Woodbury Drive. However, that is not germane to the discussion this evening. This is a discussion staff could have with Mr. Burandt when someone proposes to develop that area.

Mr. Duane Heng, 9524 Dale Road, commented that there has been a tremendous loss of trees. He believes that 180 trees have been taken out in the Bailey ponding area. With all of the new construction going on Dale Road, there has probably been another 100 to 200 trees taken out. He would like to see the line of oaks, mainly Burr Oaks, that are all of the way across the 210 acre lots remain. The developers have said, because of the grading, they would probably lose them and he did not believe that Woodbury could afford to lose more trees. He asked that the trees be protected as they are an extension of the savannah.

Mr. Heng noted that there is a dedicated park and the developer is going to use that as an advantage in selling his lots. At the previous meeting, the City talked about how they were going to install boardwalks to get over to the other side and put walkways all around the lake. He owns property on both sides of the lake and there is no way that he would allow any pathway put around his private property; all of his neighbors on the west side say the same thing. There is not room for a walkway on the other side. He believes the City should reconsider because it would be used by the developers as a selling aid and the City would not obtain permission from any of the landowners on the west side because they want their privacy.

Mr. Picha replied that he believes that there are some Burr Oaks along the south property line and they are proposing to take those out. Most of the Burr Oaks are along Bailey Lake and that entire area is being dedicated to the City for a park.

Mr. Jacob Fick, with Tradition Development Co., noted that there are a line of trees along the south edge of the development area with a number of oaks. They are fully aware that any oak tree that has the possibility of being saved is going to be a benefit to anyone purchasing a house there. They do plan to have a row that extends to the south and would include sanitary sewer and water main to be extended to those properties to extend the ability in the future to develop those two 10-acre parcels or additional properties to the south. There are going to be trees removed; however, the number would be minimal. The grades do tie in very well with the existing trees along Bailey Lake and they will try to save as many trees as possible.

In response to the talk about a trail around Bailey Lake, Mr. Picha replied that there has been a general discussion and it is shown on the Comprehensive Plan that ultimately it would be nice to have some type of trail bridge over Bailey Lake going to the west to Ashton Ridge. Obviously that is a difficult project to do but it is something that



Page 26 of 35

people have been made aware of that. In the long-term, it would be really nice to be able to connect from a pedestrian perspective all of the neighborhoods that have been developed on the west side of the lake and the east side. The trail is being built so that it could be extended in the future – if that ever happens.

Councilmember Ohs moved, seconded by Councilmember Burns, to close the public hearing.



Councilmember Date noted that the park dedication area appears to be tight and squished to her and she has a real concern about all of these new developments and the City squishing in all of the little play parks wherever they can fit. Whereas, in the rest of Woodbury they have created nice, green spaces around the parks. She requested that staff take another look at that to see if it could be made a little more seamless.

Mr. Fick returned and explained that the lot referenced by Councilmember Date is going to be their private HOA facility that they would put a pool house, a pool, and a clubhouse on – very similar to what they did at Twenty-One Oaks.

Councilmember Date asked for clarification that they are not proposing to put in a public park in that space. Mr. Picha confirmed and stated that it is a private swimming pool. She then stated that she believes the Comprehensive Plan or the Park Plan identifies this as a place the City would put in a park. Mr. Picha replied that this was not his understanding. Councilmember Date noted that she believes this to be one of their search areas. Mr. Picha replied that this has been reviewed extensively by the parks department and they have a consultant working on where these parks are going to be placed in the future. They have both reviewed this application and given their concurrence.

Mr. Clinton Gridley, City Administrator stated that if she desires, staff could confirm what she claimed and give a report back that can be shared with the rest of Council. Councilmember Date noted that if this is approved as is then it does not leave the City room for a park in that space. Mr. Gridley asked for confirmation that this is a preliminary plat and not a final plat. Mr. Picha confirmed; however, if it is approved this evening they would be ready to develop the property soon. Mr. Gridley stated that researching Councilmember Date’s concerns would not take a large amount of time to confirm or have some alternate determination.

Councilmember Date elaborated in that she is not necessarily concerned about this project individually; however, there are a lot of projects coming in, and the City has all of these search areas but parks are not being put into the search areas as areas get developed. This is a concern of hers.

Mayor Stephens recommended, given that they are preserving this long line of savannah oaks and providing payment in lieu of park dedication, that they move this project forward. However, Councilmember Date raises a really good point and requested staff not only look at it for this project but get a report back on all of the areas they are looking at – what is still available, what has been eliminated – and have that come with all of the future plans. Mr. Gridley replied that this would be coming to Council in October to look at all of the Phase II parks, pull them all together in a more comprehensive way and have a presentation by Parks and Natural Resources. He also agreed to provide that information when each of these projects come forward for review.

Mr. Fick also noted that they have had discussions with staff regarding a neighborhood park and where that might be placed. He also shared that there is approximately 5 to 6 acres of parkland that is being dedicated along the lake and up along Salem Meadows.



Page 27 of 35

Councilmember Burns moved, seconded by Councilmember Ohs,

To adopt the following ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 1942

Ordinance of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota rezoning certain property from R-1, Urban Reserve District and R 2 Single-Family Estate District, to R-4, Urban Residential District

Voting via voice:



Councilmember Scoggins brought up the fact that Bailey Lake, even though it is called Bailey ‘Lake’, is really a stormwater pond. She fears that if they continue to call it Bailey Lake that it could be used as a selling point as a lake. Mr. Eckles replied that she brought up a great point and it has been debated a bit by staff; however partly it is just that every developer that comes into town wants it to be a lake because it is a marketing point and it is on the maps as a lake. But it is not a lake on the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) map. It is a major storm facility for the city. It will never be the type of lake that people think it is and would be a good topic for staff to discuss. Mayor Stephens suggested that this topic be added to the team that is reviewing the names of CD-P85 and CD-P86. Council agreed that this would be a good place for this discussion to occur.

Councilmember Burns moved, seconded by Councilmember Ohs,

To Approve the Conditional Use Permit via RESOL NO. 17-151

Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota adopting findings of fact

Voting via voice:



Councilmember Burns moved, seconded by Councilmember Ohs, to adopt a motion approving the Wozniak Property Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat, Project No. 27-2017-00271, all subject to the conditions as outlined in the Supplemental Council Letter No. 17-236


F. Glen View Farms, Rezoning, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, Project No. 27-2017-00260




Page 28 of 35

Mr. Picha explained that the property under consideration is the old Oehlke farm. To the west of the property is Salem Meadows, to the south is the Wozniak Property Planned Unit Development that was just approved, to the east is farm field and St. Ambrose Church, and to the north is Resurrection Church and the old Oehlke farmstead. The home and the buildings are still located there.

As this is the same situation as the previous discussion, Mr. Picha continued on to the Preliminary Plat and shared an image of the same. There is a public street that needs to be extended; the application had this pointed out on the Preliminary Plat. Mr. Picha noted that when Resurrection Church was approved there was a concept plan done that showed the road curving to the west. After reviewing this in detail with this developer it was discovered that there is significant slope from east to west and it would not be feasible to put it on that alignment. Therefore, it has to go somewhere more in the general center of the site. There is a condition of approval that this road location would be done in the very near future. Staff, Resurrection Church, and the developer have been working together on that. This road would be extended whenever Resurrection Church develops or sells off the parcel on the west side of that road. The other access points would be Providence Road that goes into Salem Meadows. There was significant discussion of that at the neighborhood meetings. The concerns were about through traffic into Salem Meadows, as well as the intersection of Dorchester Drive and Bailey Road. There have been several significant accidents at that location. Staff spoke with the County and as part of the upgrade to Bailey Road, they understand that this intersection needs to be upgraded as there are no turn lanes at that location right now. The other two access points would be on Woodbury Drive and the one to the south to the Tradition project.

Initially, the access to this development will be off of Woodbury Drive and to the south the condition of approval says Providence Road will not be extended until the project is completed and the intersection to Dorchester Drive and Bailey Road is upgraded.

Mr. Picha shared an image of the proposed trail systems which includes sidewalks on all of the streets and going to the south. This project has a mix of 54 detached townhomes and 144 single-family units, minimum width of 65 feet on this 60 acre parcel. A condition was added for additional landscaping between the old Oehlke farmstead and the two parcels are lots next to the Salem Meadows development.

The other big issue with the neighborhood was stormwater. There is a large ravine that runs right though and a lot of that water would be redirected into a storm sewer in the street that would be extended and then directly connecting to Bailey Lake. The plan also shows a large storm sewer going into Salem Meadows; engineering is working with the developer and because both of these parcels are developing at the same timeframe that staff would be able to bring this stormwater down and bypass that stormwater pond that is near Salem Meadows.

Mr. Jerad Ducklow, Planning Commission presented their report by noting that this appears to be another very attractive residential project. Many things that Mr. Picha had already stated were the improvements on the drainage, the accessibility on the roads, the timing of it, the staging of it to ensure that it is done properly and not impose any additional issues with the neighbors. He also noted that a representative from Resurrection Church was at the Planning meeting and he does not believe that anyone has complimented Mr. Searles as highly as they did. He commended staff for working with them so well and garnering this compliment.

Mr. Lee Swanson, 10316 Dale Road, stated he is Mr. Paul Burandt’s neighbor and his concern is there are two trunk lines going up to his property and not up to his. He can visualize a developer wanting to purchase his five acres but they would not be able to get to those trunk lines. He fears being landlocked in and around Mr. Burandt’s place. He just built a new home and might want to live there another 15 to 20 years and Mr. Swanson might want to sell in a couple of years. He just did not want to be landlocked and not being able for those developers to get to those two trunk lines. Mr. Picha replied that when Wozniak comes in with a development proposal staff would make sure they meet with Mr. Swanson at that time and get his issues resolved.

Councilmember Burns moved, seconded by Councilmember Scoggins, to close the public hearing.




Page 29 of 35


Councilmember Date asked if the City was getting any park dedication fees or if there would be parkland as part of the development. Mr. Picha replied that this was all cash. All of the pieces along the west side of the property is generally stormwater ponding or just a preserved area. If one were to look at the topography, it is not feasible to build trails through that area so staff is not suggesting giving any credit for park dedication for that – it would be strictly cash.

Councilmember Date commented that the map where Mr. Picha shows the two properties connecting, shows the two sidewalks going on opposite sides of each other; however, maybe this was at such a preliminary stage that it does not matter. It may be something that if they were to be aligned it would enhance the walkability for everyone. Mr. Eckles noted that the sidewalks had not been finalized yet. However, he would ask the engineers to review this a bit more to ensure that the sidewalk alignment there is the way the City would want it.

A representative of The Excelsior Group, LLC came forward and replied that subsequent to the original plans they had worked with Tradition and staff and there has been some tweaks and will continue to do that as necessary.


To adopt the following ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 1943

Ordinance of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota rezoning a certain property from R-1, Urban Reserve District and R-2, Single-family Estate District, to R-4, Urban Residential District

Voting via voice:




To Approve the Conditional Use Permit via RESOL NO. 17-152

Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota adopting findings of fact

Voting via voice:





Page 30 of 35

Councilmember Burns moved, seconded by Councilmember Scoggins, to adopt a motion approving Glen View Farms Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat, Project No. 27-2017-00260, all subject to the conditions as outlined in Council Supplemental Letter No. 17-237


DISCUSSION – CONSENT AGENDA ITEM F: 2018 Trail Improvement Project, Consultant Selection, Authorize Preparation of Preliminary Report

Ms. Kim Wilson, 9146 Cambridge Alcove, noted that 2016 was an awesome year for the City in terms of how they assessed sidewalks and trails. The trails that have been proposed this year are 2018 road construction season and it does not appear to be charged back to the homeowners in road reconstruction project areas. When she questioned this for the year 2016, she was repeatedly pointed to the Council directive and the task force committee report that was adopted that said trails would be assessed at 100% to the road rehabilitation project areas.

In 2016, each homeowner was assessed $131.81 and did not go towards the minimum assessment policy. Her 33% was approximately $840 and it got raised to $2,474 to meet the minimum. So the City, in the 2016 area, collected over $223,000 in trail assessment costs; now in 2017 there is not seen an assessment to homeowners; and in 2018 no assessment to homeowners. The city is now eating those costs.

Mr. Wilson stated that she would really appreciate an answer on why the change in a policy that was enacted in 2015, 2016, and then totally changed again in 2017.

Mayor Stephens noted that this item involves three trails that were identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) on Lake Road, Valley Creek Road, and Pioneer Drive. She expressed her appreciation to Ms. Wilson for pulling this item as it is a good opportunity for Council to have a separate discussion on this outside of the CIP and the general discussion on looking at adding the trail on Pioneer Drive. She then asked Mr. Klayton Eckles, Engineering and public Works Director to address Ms. Wilson’s issue on the assessments and then describe the three trail segments.

Mr. Eckles replied that all three of these trail segments are along major roadways. The City does not assess major roadways charges to the homes unless they were to have an actual access to driveway onto that major roadway. The issue brought forth is not really material to the question at hand. The question at hand was does the City Council want to study the feasibility and look at the design issues associated with adding trails to those major roadways.

As to these major roadways, staff has heard and seen that there could be safety issues with pedestrians, they are traveled at much higher speeds and with higher volumes. What they have tried to do as a design concept or policy is have trails on both sides of those major roadways. The sections of roadways under consideration are sections of road where there is not an existing trail.

The issue brought by Ms. Wilson concerned assessment and repairs to existing trails and not adding new trails. Staff recommended that the Council authorize the consultant to do a study and also then move into the design phase, and ultimately construction if Council chooses to go forward with the project.

Councilmember Ohs asked if there hadn’t been a fatality on one of these as well. Mr. Eckles replied in the affirmative, there had been at least one fatality on the Lake Road area and there had also been a couple of other accidents with pedestrians on Lake Road and, more recently, one on Pioneer Drive as well.

Mayor Stephens noted that the Pioneer Drive trail was the one they talked about adding as they were going to be looking at these other ones. The Valley Creek Road trail to be added is on the north side of where the City took down the road and removed the stop sign. Then Lake Road, that segment is the section that Council had talked about several years ago when they looked at a roundabout and decided not to do it there. Most recently, staff returned to Council with changes on the configuration of Lake Road, which they decided not to go ahead with; however, there was not much discussion on the trail.



Page 31 of 35

Councilmember Date noted that on Lake Road there was a small gap and asked if there was a reason why that trail is not proposed to be connected. The reply was that there is already a trail located there. Councilmember Date then asked if there were any other places within the City that are comparable to these that might have been missed or if these were the biggest problem areas. Mr. Eckles replied that there are definitely other areas of the City where they do not have trails on both sides; some of those are county roads and some are rural county roads. These are roads that are already essentially developed or have known issues. Staff was looking at them as a package because they’ve been perennial questions. He could not think off of the top of his head where staff would recommend a similar project and he would not want to expand on this project any more than it already is. This would be a major project and have quite a bit of impact on the neighboring properties. Staff will have to deal with residents and talk to them about those issues, etc.

Councilmember Scoggins noted that one of the good things about these trails, especially along Lake Road and Pioneer Drive, is that there is a lot of pedestrian traffic to the different schools that goes along these areas – Woodbury High School, East Ridge High School, Lake Middle School, Middleton Elementary – so that for her is one of the things that causes these areas to make a lot of sense for putting in the trails.

Mr. Eckles noted that one of the things long-term for the City to continue to think about on Lake Road is that getting across the roadway is a real challenge for pedestrians. Part of that is because of the design of the roadway as a four lane undivided road. A study had been done recently that looked at potentially going to a three lane there. Staff would still say that is probably ultimately where they should be looking for that road section; however, that is not part of this proposal.

Mayor Stephens asked where on Radio Drive the County has long-term for expansions. Mr. Eckles replied that he does not have anything in front of him; he was actually thinking about the transportation reports. Mr. Gridley noted that they improved Radio not that long ago.

Councilmember Scoggins brought up that there is currently a crosswalk on Pioneer and Bailey Ridge Drive. That was proposed to be removed and that was included in the packet as a Council memo. She understands the reasoning behind this but if there is a crosswalk people automatically assume it is safer and is a good place to cross; however, in this case it may not be. Leaving it there until the trail is put in – she did not understand why it could not be left there until they put in the whole project.

Mr. Eckles noted that this was to be part of his transportation report – to talk a little bit about what happened in the last month on that. There was a neighborhood meeting and he offered to provide a quick update. As background, he stated that the Traffic Control Committee last year had looked at this crossing location and had recommended that the crosswalk be removed at this location. There have been residents that have complained about the safety of the crosswalk, the school district deemed that they were no longer going to staff the crossing guard at that location as it is a fair distance from the school and they have difficulty giving consistent staffing to all of these crossing locations. In talking to the school they actually supported the crosswalk removal as well.

Since that time, staff did not get the crosswalk removed and the plan was to remove it this summer. Unfortunately there was a student on a bicycle that was hit by a distracted driver at that location, while crossing that intersection. When reviewing that situation, it was a situation where the City had a higher speed roadway with a pedestrian probably feeling safe in the crosswalk. As they have done more research into this they found that there is more data available on this topic of higher speed roadways and pedestrian crossings. They discovered at the federal level that on these high speed roadways where crosswalks are marked with paint and that the speeds are over 40 miles per hour, they are finding that these crosswalks are less safe than if they are not marked with paint. It seems counterintuitive but they are finding that the pedestrian feel safe because of the paint but the paint does not address the distracted driver issue. It does not add a whole lot more notability or appearance for the driver. This fits in with what staff has observed on these higher speed roadways where they seem to see problems and more risk and more serious injuries.

When the Traffic Control Committee looked at this again, talked to the school districts some more, and came up with some alternatives. Just this month, staff canvased the neighborhood and asked for feedback and input and then had a neighborhood meeting. They then notified the residents of where they were headed. The recommendation of



Page 32 of 35

the Traffic Control Committee is to remove the paint but leave the signage, which does provide some indication to the drivers that there is an upcoming crosswalk. However, by removing the paint it would eliminate that sense of security that the pedestrian might get and they might then cross with more caution.

Councilmember Ohs asked if all pedestrian crosswalks were the same. Mr. Eckles replied that the City has about 4,000 legal pedestrian crossings / crosswalks. A legal crosswalk is just an intersection; any intersection is a legal crosswalk for residents. The City has approximately 400 that are painted and as staff looks at that they would probably like to reduce the number of those. They are a maintenance issue and they not only cause a false sense of security but they also create expectations in the neighborhood that the City would put paint wherever there is a crosswalk and staff ends up with a mushrooming maintenance expense of continuing to paint these every year. What staff has been trying to do on the Traffic Control Committee is to develop a coherent strategy and, in some cases, maybe less is more. The other thing they would try to look at in a more plan worthy way is when do they go to the really extreme flashers and the push button actuators that have been added in a couple locations around town. These are really expensive and anyone who has a child near one of these intersections believes that they should be put in place; unfortunately, the City cannot put forth thousands of those in the City.

Staff is looking at the philosophy that ‘less is more’ and it put a little more awareness in the pedestrian’s mind that they need to be careful at this location, even though it might be a legal crosswalk – it does not mean that it’s necessarily a safe crosswalk.

Councilmember Ohs asked, at these 400 crosswalks, if some were painted and some were signed, or are they all signed and painted. Mr. Eckles replied that there is a mixture. Several years ago staff did not really know what to do and were trying to decide what the right answer was on this. They started doing everything at every one. Now there is sign pollution and paint pollution and staff needs to revisit that issue.

Mayor Stephens stated that she liked the idea of looking at a strategy as she has always said they need more tools in their toolbox for pedestrian safety. She also knows that there is no one right answer. She does not have any background to speak on this other than personal. She does feel more safe if something is marked with a crosswalk, painted lines, and she tells her grandkids that those are the places that are safe to cross. Maybe that is a false sense of security in terms of crossing. If they were not there she would pay more attention because is not marked as a crosswalk.

Councilmember Ohs stated that personally, she believes that the school district taking away the crossing guard was not a good move. However, she did not want to get into that too much for this because there were not here to talk about the routes to school or anything like that. However, she believes that taking out the paint lets them off of the hook. She has not heard anything from them about this and personally believes they made a bad choice there. Her thoughts that if the guard was not there consistently, then provide one that would be. She also believed that the way that intersection had been treated has not been good and the alternative route that has been given to the students takes a lot longer. She believes the crosswalk should stay but she also believes that the crossing guard should be added back in. Mr. Eckles replied that he believes that the school district would not put a crossing guard there; they have made that very clear.

Mayor Stephens stated that she thought that they were going to look at pursuing the Safe Routes to School grants and her understanding was that there were two options with that: 1) resources for the crossing guards and 2) infrastructure dollars. Mr. Gridley replied that was part of the Council memo they received to give an update on that. Unfortunately, that is not going to be qualified for in 2018 – there seems to be a lot of staff work to be able to qualify for Safe Routes for School.

Councilmember Date stated that she is all for finding consistency throughout the City. If the study says that removing crosswalk paint makes them safer, that might be something to consider. However, in this particular circumstance she believes that the crosswalk should remain. If the trail is to be put in next year her concern is that they would be changing traffic flow multiple times. When installing the trail next year then absolutely remove the crosswalk paint.



Page 33 of 35

Mr. Eckles noted that when he went to the national conference this topic was discussed and the speaker asked how far anyone would go out of their way to find a safe crosswalk. For him it was that he would not walk an extra 75 feet because he has confidence that he could look both ways, find a gap, and walk across. The reality is that people are not going walk a long distance to go a different route. The question is do we want to have the paint on the road so that they have that sense of security or not.

Mr. Gridley asked the Council just how granular do they want to be. From a policy stand point, do they want to put themselves in a position of being the determining entity of when crosswalks stay and when crosswalks go. Certainly when traffic signals are installed, Council approves those as they are a bigger deal. However, if they want to have review authority of crosswalks, then that’s a different level of Council review.

Councilmember Burns stated that he believed this one to be a bit different because of the accident. If they were talking about an area where a child had not been hurt they would not be having this discussion right now. This is different because of that, different because of the schools, and it is different because they do not want that to be repeated. He does agree that Council does not want to debate every crosswalk.

Mayor Stephens stated that, based on her understanding from the discussions had, that Council wants the paint to come off but not before the trail is built so that it could be done at the same time. Councilmember Scoggins stated that she agreed with Councilmember Ohs in that the crosswalks should all be consistent. To that end, staff should remove all of the painted crosswalks – not tomorrow necessarily.

Councilmember Burns stated that he does not believe that the City can have a ‘one size fits all’ policy. Mayor Stephens also noted that tonight at 11:10 p.m. is probably not the time to be talking about those things. She was glad that it had been brought up and staff should take the feedback.

Mayor Stephens stated that she is willing to have the paint removed because of the recommendation of the experts and did not want to take on the responsibility of deciding that from a safety or non-safety standpoint. She then asked each Councilmember to weigh in on whether or not to take this particular crosswalk paint out or leave it in.

Councilmember Ohs agreed that all crosswalks are not create equal and agrees that the paint provides a false sense of security [remove]

Councilmember Scoggins stated that she was against taking it out [keep]

Councilmember Date agreed that she does trust the experts; however, in this circumstance she was uncomfortable removing this particular sidewalk [keep]

Councilmember Burns concurred with Councilmember Date [keep]

Mr. Eckles noted that staff would not remove the crosswalk paint at the intersection of Pioneer and Bailey Ridge Drive until such time as the new trail is installed.

Councilmember Scoggins moved, seconded by Councilmember Date,


Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to negotiate and execute a contract with SEH, Inc. as consultant for the 2018 Trail Improvement Project and authorizing the preparation of a preliminary report for the 2018 Trail Improvement Project



Page 34 of 35

Voting via voice:



TRANSPORTATION REPORT (2nd meeting of the month, May-October)

Mr. Klayton Eckles, Engineering and Public Works Director gave the following update:

2017 Roadway Rehabilitation Project

This project continues on course and on schedule. The whole southern half of the east project area (Phases 1-4) are all either substantially complete or getting final paving after Labor Day. Phase 5 is going see the final paving in mid-September.

The western project area is somewhat similar, Phases 1, 2, and 3 are substantially completed. Staff is reviewing the turf growth and there will most likely be some repair work there. Phase 4 will see final paving, which has been scheduled for September 9. Phase 5 is in curb removal and replacement. The first lift of paving will be following in the next couple of weeks. Phases 6 and 7, north of Lake Road, curb removal and replacement is expected to start next week.

2017 Reclamite Project

This is actually two separate projects; the Reclamite is one contractor and then the crack sealing is another. The Reclamite project went very well. At this point staff is thinking that they want to do the 2014 and the 2017 project areas with Reclamite. From there forward staff would probably come back the year after the rehabilitation project and do the Reclamite. So far the results seem fairly positive.

Valley Creek Road Concrete Repairs

This project is all done now; it did involve a full closure of approximately one week.

Woodlane Drive – Pavement Project

Mr. Eckles brought up the Valley Creek Road Concrete Repair project because the County is looking at a repaving of Woodbury Drive from Tamarack all of the way down to Park Crossing. This project has a couple of issues with it:

There is a major tunnel underneath the roadway and that tunnel has problem; they have to completely close the road for about six days to do the work on that

A pre-construction meeting took place today and the contractor is asking for a couple of extra days of complete closure; however, the good news is that they feel like with eight days of complete closure they may be able to get this entire project completed. The alternative was to have partial closures and swapping traffic back and forth and taking approximately six weeks to complete.

While they have this closed for the tunnel work, they are going to try to get the paving work done as well. If they can completely shut it down for that extra couple of days they believe they can get all of the paving done

Tentative start is somewhere around September 14 and the detour would be over to Radio Drive Also the contractor is working closely with the work that is happening on Highway 95/Manning Avenue

and the plan would be to get that open and fully servicing before this happens

Mayor Stephens asked if the County reached out to the businesses and do they have a plan for marking and directing people on the detours to get to the businesses that are affected by this. Mr. Eckles replied that he did not attend the



Page 35 of 35

meeting today and he would check on that. They may not be quite as comprehensive but staff could also work with them in terms of the City’s In Touch system, etc.

ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT

Mr. Clinton Gridley, City Administrator gave a verbal update of upcoming City meetings.

Neighborhood Meeting 1. None scheduled

Planning Commission Meeting, September 18, 2017 1. Antenna Ordinance 2. Uptown Suites at CityPlace, Site and Building Plan, Project No. 04 2017-00266

Council Budget Workshop, September 13, 4:00 p.m., Public Safety Education Center

Council Meeting, September 27, 2017 1. 2016 CAPER

Other Meetings 1. Parks and Natural Resources Commission, Sept. 5, 7 p.m., Tamarack Nature Preserve, 1825 Tower Drive 2. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Task Force Meeting, September 14, 7:30 a.m., Ash and Birch Conference

Rooms 3. Housing and Redevelopment Authority, September 27, 7:10 p.m., Council Chambers

ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Stephens suggested that the Council Workshop meeting that was to take place immediately after this City Council Meeting be rescheduled.

She then adjourned the meeting at 11:19 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________________________ Kimberlee K. Blaeser, City Clerk Approved by the Woodbury City Council on September 27, 2017


Office of City Administrator Council Letter No. 17-241 September 27, 2017 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator SUBJECT: Pioneer Drive and Dale Road Utility and Street Improvements

Approve Acquisition of Easements Approve Plans and Specifications Establish Bid Date Prohibition of Parking

SUMMARY At the Council Workshop on June 15, 2016, direction was provided to amend the proposed improvements to only include Pioneer Drive from 500 feet north of Dale Road to One-quarter Mile south of Dale Road and Dale Road from Pioneer Drive to Erin Court including a roundabout in the intersection of Dale Road and Pioneer Drive. On October 12, 2016, the City Council approved a letter of engagement with WSB & Associates, Inc., approved the preliminary report, authorized preparation of plans and specifications, and authorized negotiation of easements for the project area. To better facilitate street and utility improvements and various private utility relocations the project shall be split into two phases. Phase one improvements in 2017 and 2018 will focus on grading and private utility relocations necessary within the right-of-way for the future utility and street improvements and phase two improvements in 2018 will focus on construction of the roadway infrastructure. Currently temporary construction easements and permanent easements are required from two adjacent property owners. These two property owners have requested payment in consideration for the dedicated easements, because of significant impacts to the existing single family property staff concurs with payment for the easements. The permanent and temporary easements requiring payment are located in the eastern section of the project along the north and south side of Dale Road. These permanent and temporary easements are required to expand the existing roadway and storm sewer utilities, and provide site grading to match adjoining roadway grades. The temporary easements shall expire on November 30, 2018 and the permanent easements shall remain in perpetuity. As part of the Pioneer Drive from 500 feet north of Dale Road to One-quarter Mile south of Dale Road and Dale Road from Pioneer Drive to Erin Court Utility and Street Improvements project,

Council Letter No. 17-241 September 27, 2017 Page 2 portions of Pioneer Drive and Dale Road are being reconstructed. Pioneer Drive is on the City’s State Aid system and eligible to collect State Aid funds for a portion of the construction costs. Dale Road will also meet the requirement for State Funds. Due to State Aid rules, it is necessary for Council to adopt a resolution restricting parking along these roadways to attain Municipal State Aid approval and to collect funds for a portion of the roadway rehabilitation costs. A location map of the improvement area is included with this council letter. The proposed parking restrictions on Pioneer Drive from 500 feet north of Dale Road to one quarter mile south of Dale Road and on Dale Road from 600 feet west of Pioneer Drive to 700 feet east of Erin Court is consistent with parking restrictions currently in place on Pioneer Drive north of Dale Road and necessary for the proposed roadway improvements. BACKGROUND The estimated cost to complete the project, including engineering and administrative cost, is $4,243,862. The City of Woodbury will pay for the improvements with the Phase II Major Roadway Special Assessment Fund, Trunk Water & Sanitary Sewer Fund, and Central District Trunk Storm Sewer Fund. The improvements include reconstruction and widening of Dale Road, from 600 feet west of Pioneer Drive to 700 feet east of Erin Court, construction of Pioneer Drive 1500 feet south of Dale Road, and installation of a roundabout at the Pioneer Drive and Dale Road intersection. PROJECT STEPS No Parking Resolution - The proposed design for this road section will consist of two 12-foot wide thru lanes, one 14-foot wide center turn lane, and two 7-foot wide shoulders with curb and gutter. Two10-foot wide asphalt trails are proposed on each side of Dale Road separated by a 13-foot wide landscaped boulevard. Based upon the existing roadway design, parking would not be permitted along either side of Pioneer Drive from Radio Drive to Lighthouse Lane, and on either side of Dale Road from 600 feet west of Pioneer Drive to 700 feet east of Erin Court, consistent with the parking restrictions on Pioneer Drive north of Dale Road. In order to obtain Minnesota Department of Transportation approval of the proposed design and funding, it is necessary to adopt a resolution specifically prohibiting parking. Attached is a resolution which, if adopted, would prohibit parking along Pioneer Drive and Dale Road within the current project limits. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolutions:

1. Authorizing an acquisition in the amount of $51,290 for temporary and permanent easements from Karen and Gerald Argo for the Pioneer Drive from 500 feet north of Dale Road to One-quarter Mile south of Dale Road and Dale Road from Pioneer Drive to Erin Court Utility and Street Improvements project; and

Council Letter No. 17-241 September 27, 2017 Page 3

2. Authorizing an acquisition in the amount of $57,850 for temporary and permanent easements from Monica and Mark Frazer for the Pioneer Drive from 500 feet north of Dale Road to One-quarter Mile south of Dale Road and Dale Road from Pioneer Drive to Erin Court Utility and Street Improvements project; and

3. Approving the plans and specifications and establishing an October 26, 2017 bid date for

the Pioneer Drive from 500 feet north of Dale Road to One-quarter Mile south of Dale Road and Dale Road from Pioneer Drive to Erin Court Utility and Street Improvements project.

4. Prohibiting the parking of motor vehicles on either side of Pioneer Drive (MSAS

202+00.00 through 223+31.43) from 500 feet north of Dale Road to 1500 feet south of Dale Road, and on either side of Dale Road (MSAS 107+72.00 through 140+12.88) 600 feet west of Pioneer Drive to 700 feet east of Erin Court, for submittal to the Minnesota Department of Transportation as part of the Municipal State System procedures.

BUDGET IMPACT The estimated project cost to complete the utility improvements, including engineering and administrative cost, is $4,134,722. The City will pay for the improvements through major roadway and trunk funds.

A summary of project funding is as follows: Funding Source Phase II Major Roadway Special Assessment Fund $3,607,708Trunk Water & Sanitary Sewer Fund $241,711Central District Trunk Storm Sewer Fund $394,443

Total Project Funding $4,243,862 Written By: Theron Drier, Engineering Project Coordinator Approved Through: John Bradford, Engineering and Public Works Deputy Director/City Engineer Attachments: Resolutions (4) Engineering File No: 34-2014-04

Project Costs Total Pioneer Drive and Dale Road Utility and Street Improvements $4,134,722Easement Acquisition (Argo and Frazer Parcels) $109,140

Total Project Cost $4,243,862

RESOLUTION NO. 17-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY,

MINNESOTA AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF $51,290 TO KAREN AND GERALD ARGO FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PERMANENT AND

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS FOR THE PIONEER DRIVE FROM 500 FEET NORTH OF DALE ROAD TO ONE-QUARTER MILE SOUTH OF DALE

ROAD AND DALE ROAD FROM PIONEER DRIVE TO ERIN COURT STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS

WHEREAS, the City needs permanent and temporary construction and utility easements across one parcel for the Pioneer Drive from 500 feet north of Dale Road to One-quarter Mile south of Dale Road and Dale Road from Pioneer Drive to Erin Court Street and Utility Improvements, and

WHEREAS, Parcel 5 is owned by Karen and Gerald Argo and the City desires to

approve permanent and temporary easement acquisition by payment of $51,290. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of

Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota as follows:

1. Payment in the amount of $51,290 to Karen and Gerald Argo for the acquisition of a permanent and temporary construction easement over Parcel 5 (Geo 27-028-21-34-0010) is hereby authorized.

2. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized to execute said

documents.

This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 27th day of September, 2017. Attest: Mary Giuliani Stephens, Mayor Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator (SEAL)

RESOLUTION NO. 17-


RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY,

MINNESOTA AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF $57,850 TO MONICA AND MARK FRAZER FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PERMANENT AND

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS FOR THE PIONEER DRIVE FROM 500 FEET NORTH OF DALE ROAD TO ONE-QUARTER MILE SOUTH OF DALE

ROAD AND DALE ROAD FROM PIONEER DRIVE TO ERIN COURT STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS

WHEREAS, the City needs permanent and temporary construction and utility easements across one parcel for the Pioneer Drive from 500 feet north of Dale Road to One-quarter Mile south of Dale Road and Dale Road from Pioneer Drive to Erin Court Street and Utility Improvements, and

WHEREAS, Parcel 6 is owned by Monica and Mark Frazer and the City desires

to approve permanent and temporary easement acquisition by payment of $57,850. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of


1. Payment in the amount of $57,850 to Monica and Mark Frazer for the acquisition of a permanent and temporary construction easement over Parcel 6 (Geo 34-028-21-21-0001) is hereby authorized.

2. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized to execute said

documents.


RESOLUTION NO. 17-


APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTABLISHING AN

OCTOBER 26, 2017 BID DATE FOR THE PIONEER DRIVE FROM 500 FEET NORTH OF DALE ROAD TO ONE-QUARTER MILE SOUTH OF DALE ROAD AND DALE

ROAD FROM PIONEER DRIVE TO ERIN COURT UTILITY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS

WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized the preparation of construction plans and specifications for the Pioneer Drive from 500 feet north of Dale Road to One-quarter Mile south of Dale Road and Dale Road from Pioneer Drive to Erin Court Utility and Street Improvements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of

Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota as follows: 1. The plans and specifications for the Pioneer Drive from 500 feet north of Dale

Road to One-quarter Mile south of Dale Road and Dale Road from Pioneer Drive to Erin Court Utility and Street Improvements, which were prepared pursuant to the City Council’s authorization, are hereby approved as the plans and specifications in accordance with which said improvements shall be constructed.

2. That a date to receive bids for said improvements is hereby established on

October 26, 2017, or as amended by the city engineer. 3. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause to be published in the

Woodbury Bulletin and in Finance and Commerce, at least twenty-one (21) days before the date for opening of bids, a notice to bidders for the construction of said improvements as required by law.

This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the

Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 27th day of September, 2017. Attest: Mary Giuliani Stephens, Mayor Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator (SEAL)

RESOLUTION NO. 17-


THAT PARKING OF MOTOR VEHICLES IS HEREBY PROHIBITED AT ALL TIMES

ON EITHER SIDE OF PIONEER DRIVE (MSAS 202+00.00 THROUGH 223+31.43) FROM 500 FEET NORTH OF DALE ROAD TO 1500 FEET SOUTH OF DALE ROAD, AND ON EITHER SIDE OF DALE ROAD (MSAS 107+72.00 THROUGH 140+12.88) 600

FEET WEST OF PIONEER DRIVE TO 700 FEET EAST OF ERIN COURT WHEREAS, the City of Woodbury has submitted to the Commissioner of

Transportation the plans and specifications for the Pioneer Drive Extension Project (500 feet North of Dale Road to 1,500 feet south of Dale Road) and Dale Road (Pioneer Drive to Erin Court), MSAS #192-119-001, in the City of Woodbury; and

WHEREAS, state aid funds will be expended on the improvement of this street;

and WHEREAS, approval of the proposed construction project must be conditional

upon certain parking restrictions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of


1. That parking shall be prohibited within the corporate limits on both sides of Pioneer Drive Extension Project (500 feet North of Dale Road to 1,500 feet south of Dale Road) and Dale Road (Pioneer Drive to Erin Court).

2. The placement of "No Parking" signs along said roadway is hereby authorized.


6C CITY OF WOODBURY, MINNESOTA

Office of City Administrator Council Letter No. 17-242 September 27, 2017 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator SUBJECT: Tamarack Trunk Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation

Consultant Selection Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications 2017 Budget Amendment

SUMMARY The Engineering and Public Works Department annually budgets for routine sanitary sewer system maintenance. Based on routine inspections, numerous sanitary sewer structures and pipes have been identified as requiring severe maintenance and repair at this time. This project will include rehabilitation of the 1970 Tamarack Trunk Sanitary Sewer Extensions and 1982 Timberlea Estates Sewer Extensions. As shown on the attached map, the project location is generally in the central area of the City and runs underneath the Tamarack Nature Preserve area and contains three project areas. The exact project components will be determined during the preparation of plans and specifications and more detailed project cost estimates. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) will provide Engineering reports, design and field work for this project, based upon their experience in the area, project expertise and developer input. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to negotiate and execute a contract with Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. as consultant for the Tamarack Trunk Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation project, authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the Tamarack Trunk Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation project and amending the 2017 Water and Sewer Utility Fund budget. BUDGET IMPACT The SEH contract is $151,500. This contract is for all required engineering services including preliminary report preparation, plans and specification preparation, administration and field services. The Tamarack Trunk Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation is not included in the 2017 Water and Sewer Utility Fund/Sewer Division adopted budget so it is necessary to amend the budget to authorize the $151,500 of expense for the engineering service contract. This will be funded by

Council Letter No. 17-242 September 27, 2017 Page 2 use of reserves from the Water and Sewer Utility fund. The 2018 proposed budget presented to council at the September 13 workshop included $1,538,000 for the Tamarack Sanitary Sewer Main rehabilitation in the Water and Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund/Sewer Division. This amount will be decreased by $151,500 for consultant costs prior to the final budget adoption. Written By: Theron Drier, Engineering Project Coordinator Approved Through: John Bradford, Engineering and Public Works Deputy Director / City

Engineer Attachments: Resolution Engineering File No: 08-2017-02

RESOLUTION NO. 17-


AUTHORIZING CONSULTANT SELECTION, AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE

TAMARACK TRUNK SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION AND AMENDING THE 2017 WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FUND BUDGET

WHEREAS, the City wishes to rehabilitate the Tamarack Trunk Sanitary Sewer; and

WHEREAS, the City is proposing to utilize the services of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. as consultant for the Tamarack Trunk Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation; and

WHEREAS, Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. has been the design engineer for

similar projects and is qualified to complete the necessary engineering services for the Tamarack Trunk Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation project; and

WHEREAS, the City is proposing to utilize the services of Short Elliott

Hendrickson Inc. for the Tamarack Trunk Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of

Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota as follows: 1. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. is hereby selected to perform the consultant

design services for the Tamarack Trunk Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation project. 2. Authorization is hereby given to enter into a consultant contract with Short

Elliott Hendrickson Inc. for consultant services for the Tamarack Trunk Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation project.

3. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized to execute the above

consultant contract. 4. It is hereby ordered that the plans and specifications for the Tamarack Trunk

Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation project be prepared. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury,

Washington County, Minnesota to approve the following expense increases to the 2017 City Budget:

Fund / Department Amount Water & Sewer Utility Fund/Sewer Division Professional Services-Engineering (501-085-00-00000-5303) $151,500

Resolution No. 17- September 27, 2017 Page 2

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following 2017 City Budget revenue increases be made: Fund / Department Amount Water and Sewer Utility Fund Use of Reserves (501-000-00-00000-4424) $151,500


Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 27th day of September, 2017. Attest: Mary Giuliani Stephens, Mayor Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator (SEAL)

6D CITY OF WOODBURY, MINNESOTA


Council Letter No. 17-243

September 27, 2017

TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator

SUBJECT: Fraser Woodbury Clinic

Final Plat

Project No. 03-2017-00276

SUMMARY

Fraser has submitted an application for Final Plat approval for a lot created as part of a minor

subdivision, to be used for a one-story medical office clinic. The property is zoned B-4, Office

Warehouse District and is guided as Places to Work on the Land Use Plan

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends Council approval of the Fraser Addition, Final Plat, Project No. 03-2017-00276

subject to the following conditions:

1. The Site and Building Plan conditions remain in full effect,

2. Prior to the release of the Final Plat, all permanent easements and rights-of-way (R-O-W) necessary

for existing and proposed street and utility improvements shall be granted to the City at no cost.

3. The Applicant shall be financially responsible for 100% of all storm sewer, sanitary sewer and

water main area and connection charges applicable to the property.

PUBLIC PROCESS

N/A

BACKGROUND

Fraser Woodbury Clinic, Site and Building Plan, was reviewed and approved by the City Council on

August 30, 2017. The approved site plan allowed for the construction of a 25,000 square foot, one-

story medical office building.

Written By: Gina Gore, Community Development Technician

Approved Through: Eric Searles, City Planner

Dwight W. Picha, Community Development Director

Attachments: 11 x 17 Plans


September 27, 2017

Page 2 of 2

6E CITY OF WOODBURY, MINNESOTA


Council Letter No. 17-244 September 27, 2017 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator SUBJECT: The Glen at Valley Creek

Final Plat and Development Agreement Project 17-2016-00226

SUMMARY Washington County CDA has submitted an application for a Final Plat to be called The Glen at Valley Creek. The applicant is requesting to build a 42-unit affordable senior multi-family building. The property is located at 7987 Afton Road, zoned R-4, Urban Residential and is guided as Low Density on the Land Use Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approval of The Glen at Valley Creek Final Plat and Development Agreement, Project No. 17-2017-00226. Staff further recommends Council authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to execute the Development Agreement with all approvals subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat approval shall remain in

full force and effect. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Final Plat for recording, the Developer shall provide updated plans

showing drainage and roadway easements. These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department.

3. The Developer shall be financially responsible for 100 percent of all storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main area and connection charges applicable to the property. These charges are identified in a preliminary report prepared for the project and shall be in the Development Agreement.

4. All permanent easements and rights-of-way (ROW) necessary for existing and proposed street and utility improvements shall be granted to the City at no cost or paid for by the Developer.

5. The Developer shall receive written approval that all obligations have been completed prior to dedicating all outlots. Any and all future tax obligations shall be paid by the Developer.

6. The Final Plat shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit.

Council Letter No. 17-244 September 27, 2017 Page 2 of 3 BUDGET IMPACT All improvements will be constructed by the Applicant. PUBLIC PROCESS N/A BACKGROUND At their June 14, 2017 meeting the City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, and Site and Building Plan for the redevelopment of this parcel. The approval included the development of a 42-unit senior, affordable apartment building. In recognition that the demand for housing units affordable to low-income seniors in Minnesota far exceeds the supply of existing units, the Washington County CDA Minnesota has entered into a pilot program with the Housing Finance Agency to help finance The Glen at Valley Creek. The project would be limited to households with at least one member who is 62 years of age or older and would serve households with incomes below 50 percent of the area median income ($31,560 for a household of one or $36,200 for a household of two). Currently, of the 26,000-plus housing units in Woodbury, only 61 units in the City are income restricted to serve such low-income households. Written By: Eric Searles, City Planner Approved Through: Dwight W. Picha, Community Development Director Attachments: 11 x 17 Plans

Council Letter No. 17-244 September 27, 2017 Page 3 of 3

LOUCKS

SCALE IN FEET

0 30 60

N

N

Know all persons by these presents: That Washington County Community Development Agency, a public body corporate and politic of the State of Minnesota, owner of

the following described property situated in the County of Washington, State of Minnesota, to wit:

All that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, described as follows, to-wit:

Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 28 North, Range 21 West; thence South along the East line of said Northeast Quarter

for 403.00 feet; thence North 85 degrees 0 minutes West for 329.98 feet; thence North parallel with the East line of the Northeast Quarter for 375.56 feet

to the North line of said Northeast Quarter; thence Easterly along said North line for 328.69 feet to the point of the beginning, Washington County, Minnesota.

Abstract Property.

Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as GLEN AT VALLEY CREEK and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use the public way and/or the drainage and

utility easements as created by this plat.

In witness whereof said Washington County Community Development Agency, a public body corporate and politic of the State of Minnesota, has caused these presents to

be signed by its proper officer this ______ day of __________________, 20____.

WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

By: _______________________________________________, as _______________________________

STATE OF MINNESOTA

COUNTY OF _________________________

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ______ day of __________________, 20____, by _____________________________________, as

_________________________ of Washington County Community Development Agency, a public body corporate and politic of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the

agency.

__________ ________________________________ ________________________________

Notary Public, ____________________ County, Minnesota Notary Printed Name

My Commission Expires _________________________

I Max L. Stanislowski do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota;

that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on

this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, existing as

of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this Plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat.

Dated this ______ day of __________________, 20____.

_______________________________________________

Max L. Stanislowski, Licensed Land Surveyor,

Minnesota License No. 48988 STATE OF MINNESOTA

STATE OF MINNESOTA

COUNTY OF _________________________

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ______ day of __________________, 20____, by Max L. Stanislowski, a Licensed Land Surveyor.

__________ ________________________________ ________________________________

Notary Public, ____________________ County, Minnesota Notary Printed Name

My Commission Expires _________________________

WOODBURY, MINNESOTA

Approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Woodbury, Minnesota this ______ day of ____________________, 20____.

By _____________________________________ By _____________________________________

Chair Secretary

This plat was approved by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Minnesota, this ______ day of ____________________, 20____, and hereby certifies compliance with all

requirements as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2.

By _____________________________________ By _____________________________________

Mayor Clerk

COUNTY SURVEYOR, Washington County, Minnesota

Pursuant to Chapter 820, Laws of Minnesota, 1971, and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section

505.021, Subd. 11, this plat has been reviewed and approved this ______ day of __________________, 20____.

By _____________________________________ By ______________________________________

Washington County Surveyor

COUNTY AUDITOR / TREASURER, Washington County, Minnesota

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 9, taxes payable in the year 20___ on the land

hereinbefore described have been paid. Also, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.12, there are

no delinquent taxes and transfer has been entered on this ______ day of __________________, 20____.

By _____________________________________ By _____________________________________

Washington County Auditor/Treasurer Deputy

COUNTY RECORDER, Washington County, Minnesota

Document Number ____________________

I hereby certify that this instrument was recorded in the Office of the County Recorder for record on

this ______ day of __________________, 20____, at ______ o'clock ____ .M. and was duly recorded in

Washington County Records.

By _____________________________________ By ______________________________________

Washington County Recorder Deputy

[ ]

6F CITY OF WOODBURY, MINNESOTA


Council Letter No. 17-245 September 27, 2017 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator SUBJECT: Woodbury Lakes 3rd Addition

Final Plat Project No. 04-2017-00273

SUMMARY Ramco-Gershenson, Inc. has submitted an application for Final Plat approval to create one lot of record from the existing Woodbury Lakes Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1. The original Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Final Plat was approved considering both sites as retail or restaurant spaces. With the approval of the Amended Planned Unit Development for Woodbury Lakes Theater, these lots need to be consolidated. The property is located in the northwest corner of the Woodbury Lakes mall site. The property is zoned B-3, Shopping Center District and is guided as Places to Shop on the Land Use Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approval of Woodbury Lakes 3rd Addition Final Plat, Project No. 04-2017-00273 subject to the following conditions: 1. The original Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit remains in full force

and effect. 2. Prior to the release of the Final Plat, all permanent easements and rights-of-way (R-O-W)

necessary for existing and proposed street and utility improvements shall be granted to the City at no cost.

3. The Applicant shall be financially responsible for 100% of all storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main area and connection charges applicable to the property.

PUBLIC PROCESS N/A

Council Letter No. 17-245 September 27, 2017 Page 2 of 3 BACKGROUND At their June 23, 2004 meeting the City Council approved the Woodbury Lakes shopping center. The approval included 393,000 square feet of retail shopping square footage. To date the majority of the center has been built with the subject area being vacant since the original approval. At the May 31, 2017 City Council meeting, the Amended Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, and Site and Building Plan application for Woodbury Lakes Theater was reviewed and approved by Council. The approval was for a nine-screen movie theater to anchor the Woodbury Lakes Shopping Center. Written By: Gina Gore, Community Development Technician Approved Through: Eric Searles, City Planner

Dwight W. Picha, Community Development Director Attachments: 11 x 17 Plans

6G CITY OF WOODBURY, MINNESOTA


Council Letter No. 17-246 September 27, 2017 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator SUBJECT: Artis Senior Living of Woodbury

Final Plat and Development Agreement Project No. 16-2017-00249

SUMMARY Artis Senior Living of Woodbury, LLC has submitted an application for Final Plat approval for a development to be called Artis Senior Living. The applicant is requesting to combine three (3) existing lots into one lot of record. The proposed development is located on Afton Road east of Tower Drive. The property is currently zoned R-4, Urban Residential District and is guided as Low Density on the Land Use Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approval of Artis Senior Living of Woodbury Final Plat, Project No. 17-2017-00249. Staff further recommends Council authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to execute the Development Agreement with all approvals subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of the Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat approval shall remain in

full force and effect. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Final Plat for recording, the Developer shall provide updated plans

showing drainage easements on adjacent properties. The plans and easements shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department.

3. Prior to the release of the Final Plat for recording, the Applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement.

4. All permanent easements and rights-of-way (ROW) necessary for existing and proposed street and utility improvements shall be granted to the City at no cost or paid for by the Developer.

5. The Developer shall be financially responsible for 100 percent of all storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main area and connection charges applicable to the property. These charges are identified in a preliminary report prepared for the project and shall be in the Development Agreement.

6. The Final Plat shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit.

Council Letter No. 17-246 September 27, 2017 Page 2 of 3 BUDGET IMPACT All improvements will be constructed by the Applicant. PUBLIC PROCESS N/A BACKGROUND At their August 30, 2017 meeting the City Council approved the Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, and Site and Building Plan for the redevelopment of three existing residential homes located on Afton Road. The approval included the development of a 72-unit memory care facility. Written By: Mike Mrosla, Planner I Approved Through: Eric Searles, City Planner

Dwight W. Picha, Community Development Director Attachment: 11 x 17 Plans

SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS

WOODBURY, MINNESOTA

This plat was approved by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Minnesota, this_______ day of _________________,

20___, and hereby certifies compliance with all requirements as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2.

By By

Mayor Clerk

COUNTY SURVEYOR, Washington County, Minnesota

Pursuant to Chapter 820, Laws of Minnesota, 1971, and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd.

11, this plat has been reviewed and approved this _______ day of _________________, 20___.

By: By:

Washington County Surveyor

COUNTY AUDITOR / TREASURER, Washington County, Minnesota

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 9, taxes payable in the year 20___ on the land hereinbefore

described have been paid. Also, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.12, there are no delinquent taxes and

transfer has been entered on this _______ day of _________________, 20___.

By: By:

Washington County Auditor/Treasurer Deputy

COUNTY RECORDER, Washington County, Minnesota

Document Number

I hereby certify that this instrument was recorded in the Office of the County Recorder for record on this _______ day of

_________________, 20___, at

______ o'clock ____ .M. and was duly recorded in Washington County Records.

By: By:

Washington County Recorder Deputy

Know all persons by these presents: That Artis Senior Living of Woodbury, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

owner of the following described property situated in the County of Washington, State of Minnesota, to wit:

All that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 28, Range 21, Washington

County, Minnesota, described as follows:

Commencing at the southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence on an assumed

bearing North 89 degrees 49 minutes 19 seconds East, along the south line of said Northwest Quarter of Northwest

Quarter, 616.90 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing North 89 degrees 49

minutes 19 seconds East, along said south line, 389.50 feet, to a point on said south line, 459.51 feet west of the

southeast corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North 0 degrees 38 minutes 44 seconds

West, parallel to the east line of said Northwest Quarter of Northwest Quarter, 305.81 feet; thence North 14 degrees

11 minutes 14 seconds East 310.37 feet to the center line of Upper Afton Road, also known as County Highway No.

16, as now established; thence North 55 degrees 26 minutes 32 seconds, along said center line of Upper Afton Road,

188.06 feet; thence North 57 degrees 32 minutes 11 seconds, along said center line of Upper Afton Road, 131.88 feet;

thence North 59 degrees 56 minutes 24 seconds, along said center line of Upper Afton Road, 235.28 feet, to the

intersection with a line run parallel with the west line of said Section 16, a distance of 466.9 feet easterly therefrom;

thence South 00 degrees 05 minutes 34 seconds West, along said line run parallel with the west line of Section 16 and

466.90 feet Easterly therefrom, 903.94 feet to the point of beginning.

Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as ARTIS SENIOR LIVING OF WOODBURY, and does hereby dedicate

to the public for public use the public ways, and does also dedicate the drainage and utility easements as created by this

plat.

In witness whereof said Artis Senior Living of Woodbury, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, has hereunto set their

hands this _______ day of _________________, 20___.

ARTIS SENIOR LIVING OF WOODBURY, LLC

_________________________________________ _________________________________________

(Signature) (Title)

STATE OF MINNESOTA

COUNTY OF

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _______ day of _________________, 20___, by

_________________________________________, as _________________________________________, on behalf of the

company.

_________________________________________ _________________________________________

(Signature) (Printed Name)

Notary Public ____________________ County, _______________

My Commission Expires __________________________________

SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS

LOUCKS

I Max L. Stanislowski do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly

Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all

mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been,

or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section

505.01, Subd. 3, existing as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this Plat; and all public ways are

shown and labeled on this plat.

Dated this day of , 20 .

Max L. Stanislowski, Licensed Land Surveyor,

Minnesota License No. 48988

STATE OF MINNESOTA

COUNTY OF

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _______ day of _________________, 20___, by Max L.

Stanislowski, a Licensed Land Surveyor.

_________________________________________ _________________________________________

(Signature) (Printed Name)

Notary Public ____________________ County, _______________

My Commission Expires __________________________________

SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS

LOUCKS

1 INCH = 40 FEET

[10.00]

SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 28, RANGE 21,

WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA

DENOTES FOUND ALUMINUM DISK

DENOTES 1/2 INCH OPEN IRON MONUMENT

FOUND, CAPPED "LS 48988", UNLESS OTHERWISE

SHOWN

DENOTES 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRON

MONUMENT SET, MARKED "LS 48988"

A

F

T

O

N

R

D

.

TO

WE

R D

R.

R

A

D

I

O

D

R

.

VALLEY CREEK RD.

SITE

VICINITY MAP

SCALE IN FEET

0 40 80

NORTH

NORTH

NOT TO SCALE

6H CITY OF WOODBURY, MINNESOTA

Office of City Administrator Council Letter No. 17-247 September 27, 2017 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator SUBJECT: 2017-2018 Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) Traffic Safety Enforcement Grant SUMMARY The Woodbury Public Safety Department has been awarded a grant from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, for the project entitled 2017-2018 Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) Traffic Safety Enforcement Grant which is in effect October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018. Council approval is needed in order to accept these funds. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Woodbury Public Safety Department to accept the 2017-2018 Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) Traffic Safety Enforcement Grant funds from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety. BUDGET IMPACT The grant’s maximum value is $43,775. Funding has been accounted for in the 2017 Adopted Budget and the 2018 proposed budget under the General Fund – State Grants & Aids and will offset already budgeted overtime costs in the General Fund – Police Division. BACKGROUND The funds will be available on a cost reimbursement basis and will be used to conduct highly publicized overtime enforcement projects addressing traffic safety issues, with an emphasis on impaired driving, speeding, passenger protection use, and distracted driving. The Washington County Sheriff’s Office is the fiscal agent for this grant and will administer TZD funds on our behalf. The Woodbury Public Safety Department has received grant money for several years from the Office of Traffic Safety for participating in their TZD (formerly known as Safe & Sober) program. Written By: Susan Trapp, Administrative Assistant Approved Through: Michelle Okada, Support Services Supervisor

Lee Vague, Public Safety Director/Police Chief Attachments: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. 17-


AUTHORIZING THE WOODBURY PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT TO ACCEPT

TOWARD ZERO DEATHS (TZD) TRAFFIC SAFETY ENFORCEMENT GRANT FUNDS FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY

WHEREAS, the Washington County Sheriff’s Office, acting as Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) Grant fiscal agent, has submitted a grant proposal to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, for the purpose of traffic enforcement and traffic safety; and

WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety has awarded the

Woodbury Public Safety Department with TZD Grant funds as a result of this proposal; and WHEREAS, the TZD Grant funds will be used to conduct highly publicized

overtime enforcement projects addressing traffic safety issues, with an emphasis on impaired driving and passenger protection use; and

WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute 465.03 requires a city to accept grants by

resolution expressing the terms prescribed by the donor in full; and WHEREAS, a resolution from the City Council authorizing the Woodbury Public

Safety Department to accept grant funds is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of

Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota that the acceptance of funds from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety for Toward Zero Deaths Traffic Safety Enforcement Grant program during the period of October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018 is hereby authorized; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief of Police is hereby authorized to

execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the Woodbury Public Safety Department.


Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator on the 27th day of September, 2017. ___________________________________ Mary Giuliani Stephens, Mayor Attest: _____________________________________ Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator (SEAL)

6I CITY OF WOODBURY, MINNESOTA


Council Letter No. 17-248 September 27, 2017 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator SUBJECT: Appointment of Paid-on-Call Firefighter/EMT SUMMARY Due to lower then preferred staffing levels at the Afton Road fire station, the City posted the Paid-on-Call Firefighter/EMT position for recruitment. The City received applications and conducted a thorough review of the application materials submitted. After interviewing numerous candidates, staff recommends the appointment of Steven Despiegelaere to the non-exempt position of Paid-on-Call Firefighter/EMT effective September 28, 2017. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution appointing Steven Despiegelaere to the non-exempt position of Paid-on-Call Firefighter/EMT effective September 28, 2017. BUDGET IMPACT The appointments are filling current vacancies. BACKGROUND Steven Despiegelaere’s starting salary shall be $11.63 per hour and shall be increased according to the established pay plan as approved by City Council. His appointment is contingent upon successful completion of a criminal background check, drug test, physical examination and psychological examination. These conditions have been met. In addition, he will be required to serve a minimum of a two (2) year probationary period. Written By: Jean Schowalter, Human Resource Specialist Approved Through: Jody Brown, Administration Services Director Attachments: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. 17-


APPOINTMENT OF PAID-ON-CALL FIREFIGHTER/EMT

STEVEN DESPIEGELAERE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 28, 2017.

WHEREAS, the City of Woodbury has an opening for a part-time non-exempt

Paid-on-Call Firefighter/EMT; and

WHEREAS, the City has accomplished the due diligence of hiring for the position by posting, evaluating and interviewing applicants.


Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota as follows: 1. Appoint Steven Despiegelaere to the non-exempt position of Paid-on-Call

Firefighter/EMT effective September 28, 2017. 2. Establish a two (2) year probationary period.

3. Establish his salary at $11.63 per hour and approve future increases according to

the established pay plan as approved by City Council. 4. Condition his employment upon successful completion of a pre-employment

criminal background check, physical examination, psychological examination and drug screen.

5. Establish the position as Fair Labor Standards Act non-exempt. 6. Declare that the employment is at will with no guarantee of continued

employment.


6J CITY OF WOODBURY, MINNESOTA

Office of City Administrator Council Letter No. 17-249 September 27, 2017 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator SUBJECT: Appointment of Full Time Paramedics Lewison, Heck SUMMARY Due to business need, the City posted for the full time paramedic position. The City received applications and conducted a thorough review of the application materials submitted. After interviewing the candidates, staff recommends the appointments of Spencer Lewison to the full time position of Paramedic effective September 28, 2017 and James Heck to the full time position of Paramedic effective November 6, 2017 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution appointing Spencer Lewison to the full time position of Paramedic effective September 28, 2017 and James Heck to the full time position of Paramedic effective November 6, 2017. BUDGET IMPACT The appointment is filling current needs and vacancies. BACKGROUND Mr. Lewison is currently a Paramedic for HealthEast Medical Transport and also a Flight Paramedic for ALS Aero Care. Prior to that he worked as an Emergency Department Technician at Abbott Northwestern and also as a MT/Paramedic at Mayo Clinic Health System. He completed his Paramedic training at Chippewa Valley Technical College. He is on the National Registry as a Paramedic. Mr. Heck is currently a Paramedic for Hennepin EMS and is also a Firefighter/EMT with the Lexington Fire Department and the Lake Johanna Fire Department. Prior to that he was a Paramedic with the White Bear Lake Fire Department. He completed the EMS (Paramedic)

Council Letter No. 17-249 September 27, 2017 Page 2 program at Century College. Mr. Heck has been employed by the City of Woodbury since 2014 as a Paid on Call EMT. He is on the National Registry as a Paramedic. Mr. Lewison’s and Mr. Heck’s starting salary shall be $28.56 per hour and shall be increased according to the established pay plan as approved by City Council. In addition, they will each be required to serve an eighteen (18) month probationary period. Written By: Jean Schowalter, Human Resources Specialist Approved Through: Jody Brown, Administration Services Director Attachments: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. 17-


APPOINTMENT OF SPENCER LEWISON AS FULL TIME PARAMEDIC

EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 AND JAMES HECK AS FULL TIME PARAMEDIC EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 6, 2017

WHEREAS, the City of Woodbury has openings for full time paramedics; and WHEREAS, the City has accomplished the due diligence of hiring for the

position by posting, evaluating and interviewing applicants. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of


1. Appoint Spencer Lewison to the position of full time Paramedic effective September 28, 2017 and James Heck to the position of full time Paramedic effective November 6, 2017.

2. Establish an eighteen (18) month probationary period.

3. Establish Mr. Lewison’s and Mr. Heck’s wage at $28.56 per hour and approve

future increases according to the established pay plan as approved by City Council.

4. Condition their employment upon successful completion of a pre-employment

criminal background check, psychological examination, physical examination and drug screen. These conditions have been met.

5. Establish the positions as Fair Labor Standards Act non-exempt. 6. Declare that the employment is at will with no guarantee of continued

employment.


6K CITY OF WOODBURY, MINNESOTA

Office of City Administrator Council Letter No. 17-250 September 27, 2017 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator SUBJECT: Appointment of Building Maintenance Technician SUMMARY During the 2017 budget process, the Healtheast Sports Center thoroughly reviewed operations and staffing. Through this process, the Park and Recreation Department recommended and received approval for an additional full time Building Maintenance Technician to support operations. Staff recommends the appointment of Andrew Stoffel to the position of Building Maintenance Technician effective September 28, 2017. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution appointing Andrew Stoffel to the position of Building Maintenance Technician effective September 28, 2017. BUDGET IMPACT The appointment is filling current needs and vacancies. BACKGROUND Since 2013, Mr. Stoffel has been the Assistant Manager for the Lakeville Arenas. Prior to that he had been employed by the City of Woodbury as a Building Shift Supervisor. He completed his Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration/Marketing from the University of Minnesota Duluth. He is a Certified Ice Technician from the U.S. Ice Rink Association and is a Certified Arena Manager through the Ice Skating Institute. Mr. Stoffel’s starting salary shall be $21.26 per hour and shall be increased according to the established pay plan as approved by the City Council. In addition, he will be required to serve an eighteen (18) month probationary period. Written By: Jean Schowalter, Human Resources Specialist Approved Through: Jody Brown, Administration Services Director Attachments: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. 17 -


APPOINTMENT OF ANDREW STOFFEL AS A BUILDING MAINTENANCE

TECHNICIAN EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 28, 2017

WHEREAS, the City of Woodbury has an opening for a Building Maintenance Technician; and

WHEREAS, the City has accomplished the due diligence of hiring for the

position by posting, evaluating and interviewing applicants. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of


1. Appoint Andrew Stoffel to the position of Building Maintenance Technician effective September 28, 2017.

2. Establish an eighteen (18) month probationary period.

3. Establish Mr. Stoffel’s wage at $21.26 per hour and to approve future increases

according to the established pay plan as approved by City Council. 4. Condition his employment upon successful completion of a pre-employment

criminal background check. This condition has been met. 5. Establish the positions as Fair Labor Standards Act non-exempt. 6. Declare that the employment is at will with no guarantee of continued

employment.



Office of the City Administrator

Council Letter No. 17-251 September 27, 2017 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING

Adoption of the 2016 CAPER SUMMARY Beginning in Federal Fiscal Year 2010, the City of Woodbury became a direct grantee of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) via the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Concurrently, the City of Woodbury became a direct grantee of HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds accessed via membership in the Dakota County HOME Consortium (DCC). The program year for these funds runs from July 1 to June 30. An Annual Action Plan (AAP) is adopted not later than the May 15th preceding the beginning of the program year, and the City must submit a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) that reviews the prior year not later than September 30 of each year. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve the attached resolution adopting the 2016 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report BUDGET IMPACT The CAPER is a reporting document and as such has no impact on the budget. PUBLIC PROCESS Determining appropriate priorities and policies for the City’s investment of HUD funds has included a series of meetings and presentations including but not limited to the following:

1. January 12, 2016 public meeting on funding priorities for 2016 AAP. 2. January 27, 2016 City Council adoption of funding priorities for the 2016 AAP. 3. March 23, 2016 public hearing regarding the proposed 2016 AAP. 4. April 14, 2016 community meeting to gather input regarding the proposed 2016 AAP. 5. May 11, 2016 City Council adoption of the 2016 AAP. 6. August 21, 2017 community meeting to review the Draft 2016 CAPER.


7. A public comment period ran from August 22, 2017 to September 20, 2017. No comments were received.

BACKGROUND The 2016 CAPER reviews the time period from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 and is known as Program Year 2016 (PY16). The City of Woodbury received a PY16 annual CDBG award of $178,535 and also receipted an additional $67,978.25 of CDBG program income from loan payments and investment earnings. The program income number is noticeably higher than in previous years chiefly due to unscheduled principal repayments of Woodbury HRA loans issued with CDBG as the funding source. The City of Woodbury received a PY16 annual HOME award of $49,894 through its membership in the DCC. The City of Woodbury’s PY16 HUD investments are listed below in descending order:

Carver Lake Park Rehab ($175,506.32 in CDBG expenditures during PY16 completing this activity which had seen previous expenditures in an amount of $65,679.39 during PY15);

Evergreen West Park Rehab ($60,647.31 in CDBG expenditures with additional investments forthcoming in PY17);

Project administration ($31,024.57 in CDBG); and HOME Administrative Fee to Dakota County ($1,467 in HOME).

As part of the 2016 AAP, the City appropriated $118,793 of CDBG and $84,943 of HOME along with any additional HOME program income available between July 1, 2016 and the financing closing to The Glen at Valley Creek, a senior affordable housing project being developed by the Washington County Community Development Agency (CDA). The project has experienced a delay connected to the private activity bonds required for the permanent financing of the project. This delay is beyond the control of either the City or the CDA and as such the City Council authorized an extension of the written agreements governing the appropriation of the CDBG and HOME funds to April 13, 2018. The City of Woodbury has met its timely expenditures tests for both programs. The HUD funds are received on a July-to-June program year basis while the City has a January-to-December fiscal year. Written By: Karl Batalden, Housing and Economic Development Coordinator Approved Through: Dwight W. Picha, Community Development Director Attachment: 1. City Council Resolution

2. 2016 CAPER

RESOLUTION NO. 17-


APPROVING 2016 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL

PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT

WHEREAS, effective July 1, 2010 the City of Woodbury is a direct recipient of

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds via the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and a subrecipient of HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) dollars through membership in the Dakota County HOME Consortium; and

WHEREAS, HUD requires recipients of CDBG and HOME to submit a

Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) each year not later than September 30; and

WHEREAS, Woodbury’s Program Year 2016 for CDBG and HOME funds as

funded within Federal Fiscal Year 2016 ran from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City of Woodbury held a public hearing on September 27, 2017

to discuss the 2016 CAPER. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of

Woodbury that the City of Woodbury’s 2016 CAPER is approved; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the

City of Woodbury that the City Administrator or his designee is directed to submit the 2016 CAPER to HUD.


Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 27th day of September, 2016. Mary Giuliani Stephens, Mayor Attest: (SEAL) Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator

Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report

for CDBG and HOME, Program Year 2016

Prepared for the Department of Housing and Urban Development Presented to the Woodbury City Council on September 27, 2017

by

Karl Batalden

City of Woodbury Community Development Department 8301 Valley Creek Road Woodbury, MN 55125

[email protected] (651) 414-3438

City of Woodbury 2016 CAPER 2

OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)

Table of Contents

CR-05: Goals and Outcomes. . . . . . . . 3 CR-10: Racial and Ethnic composition of families assisted . . 6 CR-15: Resources and Investments . . . . . . 7 CR-20: Affordable Housing . . . . . . . 9 CR-25: Homeless and Other Special Needs . . . . . 11 CR-30: Public Housing . . . . . . . . 14 CR-35: Other Actions . . . . . . . . 15 CR-40: Monitoring . . . . . . . . 19 CR-45: CDBG Specific Questions . . . . . . 17 Attachment 1: PR26 . . . . . . . . . 21 Attachment 2: PR03. . . . . . . . . 23 Attachment 3: July 2017 HUD Letter of Determination of Compliance . 27 Attachment 4: Notice of August 21, 2017 Community Meeting . . 29 Attachment 5: Notice of September 27, 2017 Public Hearing . . 31 Disclaimer: The City of Woodbury submits its Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, or CAPER for short, to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) via a secure internet-based web portal known as the eConPlanning Suite. The information is submitted to HUD in a different format, however, the content is the same.



CR-05 - Goals and Outcomes Progress the jurisdiction has made in carrying out its strategic plan and its action plan. 91.520(a) This could be an overview that includes major initiatives and highlights that were proposed and executed throughout the program year. Beginning in Federal Fiscal Year 2010, the City of Woodbury became a direct grantee of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds via the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Concurrently, the City of Woodbury became a sub-recipient of HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds accessed via membership in the Dakota County HOME Consortium (DCC). The City of Woodbury does not receive Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) or Housing for People with AIDS (HOPWA) funding. Many of the tables in this report are pre-populated by HUD's eCon Planning Suite and only reflect CDBG investments. HOME investments as well as local investments may be referenced in the text but are not necessarily reflected in the pre-populated tables from HUD. Woodbury received funds between July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017. This time period is referred to as Program Year 2016 or PY16 for short. CDBG and HOME investments are guided by the City of Woodbury’s 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan with specific objectives and goals enumerated within the 2016 Annual Action Plan, as adopted via City Council resolution on May 11, 2016. The City of Woodbury received a PY16 annual CDBG award of $178,535 and also earned an additional $67,978.25 of CDBG program income from loan repayments. PY16 HOME funds are received through the Dakota County HOME Consortium. Please see Dakota County’s CAPER for additional HOME-related information. During PY16, the City of Woodbury invested HUD funds in:

Carver Lake Park Rehab ($175,506.32 in CDBG expenditures during PY16 completing this activity which had seen previous expenditures in an amount of $65,679.39 during PY15);

Evergreen West Park Rehab ($60,647.31 in CDBG expenditures with additional investments forthcoming in PY17);

Project administration ($31,024.57 in CDBG); and HOME Administrative Fee to Dakota County ($1,467 in HOME).

With regard to the senior affordable housing project to which the 2016 Annual Action Plan allocated both CDBG and HOME, this activity has faced a delay in the permanent financing, due to the over-subscription in Minnesota of tax-exempt private-activity bonds. As such, the City has extended its CDBG and HOME funding approvals and anticipates the project drawing down these funds in the first half of calendar year 2018. The City of Woodbury has met its timely spending tests for both CDBG and HOME. The HUD funds are received on a July-to-June program year basis while the City has a January-to-December fiscal year. Woodbury will carry forward unexpended CDBG funds into the next program year and anticipates meeting the annual May 1st timely spending test as in previous years.



This report describes the expenditures of funds as well as the City’s progress toward meeting the goals established in the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and 2016 Annual Action Plan. This report also includes several HUD-specific tables and charts to assist in the evaluation of the City of Woodbury’s Program Year 2016. Comparison of the proposed versus actual outcomes for each outcome measure submitted with the consolidated plan and explain, if applicable, why progress was not made toward meeting goals and objectives. 91.520(g) Categories, priority levels, funding sources and amounts, outcomes/objectives, goal outcome indicators, units of measure, targets, actual outcomes/outputs, and percentage completed for each of the grantee’s program year goals.

Goal Category Source / Amount

Indicator Unit of Measure

Expected –

Strategic Plan

Actual – Strategic

Plan

% Complete

Expected –

Program Year

Actual – Program

Year

% Complete

Affordable Ownership

Affordable Housing

CDBG: $

Public Facility or

Infrastructure Activities other

than Low/Moderate

Income Housing Benefit

Persons Assisted

0 2450 2521 2450 97.18%

Affordable Ownership

Affordable Housing

CDBG: $

Direct Financial

Assistance to Homebuyers

Households Assisted

32 0 0.00%

Affordable Rental

Affordable Housing

CDBG: $ Rental units constructed

Household Housing

Unit 40 0 0.00% 4 0 0.00%

Table 1 - Accomplishments – Program Year & Strategic Plan to Date Assess how the jurisdiction’s use of funds, particularly CDBG, addresses the priorities and specific objectives identified in the plan, giving special attention to the highest priority activities identified. During PY16, Woodbury's use of CDBG and HOME focused in two primary areas: completeing the Carver Lake Park rehab and beginning the Evergreen West Park rehab as well as preparing for the commencement of construction at the senior affordable rental project that will be known as The Glen at Valley Creek. These areas are identified as high priorities for the use of funds within the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan as amended via Council Resolution on February 24, 2016.

During PY16, the City completed the Carver Lake Park rehab and began the Evergreen West Park rehab. Given the City’s July-to-June program year, parks projects such as these almost always begin in one program year and finish during the subsequent program year. Investments in public facilities assist low- and moderate-income households at a neighborhood-level as opposed to a household level.

Within HUD’s PR-03 report attached to this document via eConPlanning Suite module CR-00, The Glen at Valley Creek is identified as a PY16 activity. With the new eConPlanning Suite, the City of Woodbury was required to establish this activity when



setting up the 2016 Annual Action Plan. Funds will not be disbursed until final clarity is achieved regarding the permanent financing for the project. This is expected to occur prior to May 1, 2018.



CR-10 - Racial and Ethnic composition of families assisted

Describe the families assisted (including the racial and ethnic status of families assisted). 91.520(a)

CDBG White 0 Black or African American 0 Asian 0 American Indian or American Native 0 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 Total 0 Hispanic 0 Not Hispanic 0

Table 2 – Table of assistance to racial and ethnic populations by source of funds Narrative During PY16, Woodbury invested most of its CDBG resources in public facilities projects. With regard to these park projects, the City is not able to accurately describe the racial or ethnic status of the families assisted. However, also during PY16, the City of Woodbury invested local HRA funds to assist 26 households with direct financial assistance via the HRA's housing loan programs. These households included 19 White households, three Asian households, three Black or African American households and one household that self-identified as being of more than one racial or ethnic background.



CR-15 - Resources and Investments 91.520(a) Identify the resources made available

Source of Funds Source Resources Made Available

Amount Expended During Program

Year CDBG CDBG 232,320 267,178 HOME HOME HOPWA HOPWA ESG ESG Other Other

Table 3 - Resources Made Available Narrative Due to the availability of unexpended CDBG funds at the end of PY15 as well as program income earned from the repayment of previously-issued CDBG-backed housing loans, the City of Woodbury was able to expend $267,178.20 in CDBG--an amount larger than its PY16 grant award of $178,535. Additional details regarding these expenditures may be seen in the City's 2016 PR26 report as attached to Section CR-00 of this CAPER. Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments

Target Area Planned Percentage of

Allocation

Actual Percentage of Allocation

Narrative Description

City of Woodbury 100 100 Municipality Table 4 – Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments

Narrative The CDBG funds invested as part of the Carver Lake Park and Evegreen West Park projects were invested as LMA projects which serve low- and moderate-income households on an area basis following the methodology established by HUD and communicated to Minneapolis HUD Field Office staff in advance of the funding action. Leveraging Explain how federal funds leveraged additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements were satisfied, as well as how any publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that were used to address the needs identified in the plan. Woodbury leverages many non-federal resources with its use of CDBG and HOME. The largest leveraging factor comes into play when the City’s HRA loan programs are considered. During PY16, the City of Woodbury HRA used its local resources to issue 26 loans in an amount of $628,047.95. During this same time, the City of Woodbury



focused its PY16 HOME and CDBG affordable housing resources on The Glen at Valley Creek. Due to delays connected to the over-subscription of tax-exempt private-activity bonds, this project will not commence construction until calendar year 2018. No publicly owned land or property within Woodbury was used to address needs identified in the plan.



CR-20 - Affordable Housing 91.520(b) Evaluation of the jurisdiction's progress in providing affordable housing, including the number and types of families served, the number of extremely low-income, low-income, moderate-income, and middle-income persons served.

One-Year Goal Actual Number of Homeless households to be provided affordable housing units 0 0 Number of Non-Homeless households to be provided affordable housing units 4 26 Number of Special-Needs households to be provided affordable housing units 0 0 Total 4 26

Table 5 – Number of Households

One-Year Goal Actual Number of households supported through Rental Assistance 0 0 Number of households supported through The Production of New Units 4 0 Number of households supported through Rehab of Existing Units 0 1 Number of households supported through Acquisition of Existing Units 0 25 Total 4 26

Table 6 – Number of Households Supported Discuss the difference between goals and outcomes and problems encountered in meeting these goals. The PY16 goal specific to the creation of affordable housing through the senior affordable housing project is listed in the 2016 Annual Action Plan, Section AP-20. The PY16 goal was to provide CDBG and HOME financing to this rental project leading to four HOME-assisted units. Because this project was delayed, the four affordable rental units were not produced. However, as referenced above in Section CR-05, the City’s municipal HRA issued loans to 26 households during PY16 using local funds. These locally-funded loans are noted in Table 12 above and allow the City to report on affordable housing achievements in existing units that had not been identified as one-year goals in the 2016 Annual Action Plan. Discuss how these outcomes will impact future annual action plans. These positive outcomes illustrate how CDBG and HOME leverage local resources. Additionally, these strong outcomes will result in future program income which will in turn inform future annual action plans given that additional resources lead to additional opportunities for investment.



Include the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income persons served by each activity where information on income by family size is required to determine the eligibility of the activity.

Number of Households Served CDBG Actual HOME Actual Extremely Low-income 0 0 Low-income 0 0 Moderate-income 0 0 Total 0 0

Table 7 – Number of Households Served Narrative Information While no CDBG or HOME funds were used to fund an affordable housing activity during PY16, the narrative above has referenced the 26 loans closed during PY16 using local HRA resources. Of these 26 loans, they served:

9 households earning between 51 and 80 percent of AMI; 7 households earning between 81 and 100 percent of AMI; 8 households earning between 101 and 115 percent of AMI; and 2 households earning between 116 and 120 percent of AMI



CR-25 - Homeless and Other Special Needs 91.220(d, e); 91.320(d, e); 91.520(c)

Evaluate the jurisdiction’s progress in meeting its specific objectives for reducing and ending homelessness through: Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs Woodbury supports Washington County and its participation in the Suburban Metro Area Continuum of Care (SMAC). It is difficult to find accurate data on homeless populations in Woodbury and for the purposes of PY16 reporting, no CDBG or HOME resources were spent on homelessness initiatives. Woodbury encourages discussions between private and public enterprises on the topic of homelessness to help SMAC achieve their goals and objectives. With regard to specific actions and goals, Woodbury anticipates reducing the impact of homelessness and addressing housing and supportive needs through two primary steps. First, the City continues to offer zoning flexibility to Woodbury Lutheran Church so that the March component of the St. Paul Area Council of Churches’ “Project HOME” can be hosted in Woodbury. Second, as is more clearly illustrated within their 2016 Continuum of Care Application, SMAC continued to:

Reach out to homeless persons and assess their needs both through data management within HMIS as well as participation in the annual public places count of homeless individuals and families. This count not only identifies individuals and families who may need help but also helps let housing stakeholders better understand what options are available to counter homelessness.

Increase the number of permanent supportive housing beds available for chronically homeless persons by prioritizing beds for the chronically homeless. The number of chronically homeless (CH) decreased from 2015 to 2016 by 7 people. The sheltered count increase of 2 people can be attributed to Coordinated Entry (CE) working to identify households experiencing CH and prioritizing them for services and improved outreach strategies. SMAC decided to clearly define what a dedicated CH bed is, therefore decreasing the number of dedicated beds from 145 in 2015 to 105 in 2016. Previously, projects have counted prioritized beds as dedicated beds. In 2016, SMAC requested programs only report beds that are dedicated through a grant agreement. SMAC wanted a better understanding of the true number of dedicated vs. prioritized beds. With a clearer picture of dedicated beds and the release of CPD 16-11, all projects within the purview of SMAC have elected to dedicate all turn-over beds through the 2016 NOFA competition. SMAC will show an increase in dedicated beds from 2016 to 2017.

While the City supports these efforts the permanent supportive housing is not geographically located in Woodbury.

Help homeless persons transition to permanent housing and independent living through strategic planning both by utilizing Anoka County’s “Bridge to Benefits” online assessment tool as well as Washington County’s participation in the state pilot program allowing online application for benefits.



Help low-income households avoid becoming homeless both through funding of social service providers as well as aggressive outreach to health care institutions. SMAC works closely with the local hospitals and care providers to ensure that social workers and other medical personnel are engaged in plans to end homelessness and are engaged in referral processes to Washington County and other related public sector agencies.

Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons In Washington County, there are 24 beds at an emergency shelter that are available all year with another 36 beds available on an overflow basis. In addition, there are 50 beds available at transitional housing facilities and an additional 35 beds available at permanent supportive housing facilities. Transitional housing facilities are meant to be temporary housing, usually with supportive services, to help stabilize a household moving to independent, permanent housing and are generally available for period up to 24 months. Additionally, Washington County Community Services coordinates crisis assistance to families at risk for homelessness or currently homeless. Support services provide approximately 500 households annually with stabilizing assistance. The program provides direct financial resources including emergency shelter, rent deposit and rent payment assistance. Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: likely to become homeless after being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); and, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs With regard to shortening the period of homelessness for all households, in order to evaluate success of programs in moving persons from transitional and emergency shelter to permanent housing, we need to have a data system that reliably collects and reports data. The Housing Collaborative currently measures how long it takes from a household’s FHPAP “date of contact” to the date the household obtains housing. Information is also pulled from the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) able to track the number of days in emergency shelter. This data is shared regularly at Housing Collaborative meetings so providers can evaluate their own programs and make improvements. Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again Washington County has two main programs to serve veterans including 1) Washington County



Community Services which includes the Veterans Service Office and Housing Unit and 2) Minnesota Assistance Council for Veterans. Washington County Community Services provides primary access to veterans for mainstream resources and veterans benefits. Emergency shelter through hotel/motel vouchers is also provided as needed. Homeless or near homeless veterans are also referred to the Minnesota Assistance Council for Veterans (MACV) which serves homeless veterans with other needs. MACV is a statewide non-profit organization which focuses on housing, employment, and legal assistance for veterans and their families. They have been operating within Washington County for 25 years, and have established strong partnerships and linkages within the community. MACV has a variety of programs and grants that support their mission, including grants from the Veterans Administration (VA) such as Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) that provides both Prevention and Rapid Re-housing of homeless veterans into Washington County communities. MACV also provides transitional housing options for homeless veterans, operating sites that provide scattered site and residential housing options, to include their first transitional home for women veterans. MACV’s Department of Labor grant, Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP), assists homeless veterans into employment. MACV also coordinates the metro-wide homeless veteran annual StandDown event, which serves over 900 veterans within a two-day period. MACV leverages other State, Veteran Service Organization, and Foundation grants to provide direct assistance to homeless and at-risk veterans to insure housing stability.



CR-30 - Public Housing 91.220(h); 91.320(j) Actions taken to address the needs of public housing The City of Woodbury does not operate as a public housing authority although it supports the public housing initiatives and operations of the Washington County Community Development Agency (WCCDA) within Woodbury’s boundaries. Actions taken to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership The WCCDA serves as the public housing agency (PHA) for our community. The WCCDA has shared with Woodbury that resident involvement in policy and decision making is very important in Washington County. Each rental property has a resident council to plan social and philanthropic activities. There are two Resident Advisory Boards with representation by public housing residents and Housing Choice Voucher participants. The Resident Advisory Boards participate in policy and decision making related to those programs. The Resident Advisory Board also recommends a resident or participant to be involved at higher level policy making with a commissioner seat on the WCCDA Board. Actions taken to provide assistance to troubled PHAs N/A.



CR-35 - Other Actions 91.220(j)-(k); 91.320(i)-(j) Actions taken to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment. 91.220 (j); 91.320 (i) The City of Woodbury encourages the development of a diversity of housing to accommodate people of all ages, income levels and family status. The City works to identify areas for residential growth in a range of types, styles and affordability while maintaining high quality building standards and amenities. With respect to low- or moderate-income households seeking to reside in Woodbury, there are three chief obstacles or barriers to affordable housing:

Land is more expensive in Woodbury than it is in other communities in the area. As such, the development cost for housing is more expensive. Given the complicated financing mechanisms for the creation of affordable housing, such added costs make it more difficult to add affordable housing in Woodbury than in some of our neighboring communities.

Available dollars for the funding of affordable housing is extremely competitive and can

sometimes be lacking for new development. Specifically, there are not typically enough nine percent Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) dollars available from Washington County to fund a project in one LIHTC funding cycle, adding time and expense to any project. Additionally, the State of Minnesota is proposing to reduce the number of credits allocated to Washington County which will further complicate this problem. Furthermore, the amount of private activity bonds required to leverage the four percent LIHTC dollars is currently over-subscribed within the State of Minnesota

Property values are climbing in the community which often leads to increased rents for

rental households while also leading to higher costs for homeownership acquisitions. Also, City staff have heard from a variety of lenders and realtors that the City’s homeownership loan programs, while helpful and effective, are sometimes seen as undesirable by sellers in multiple-offer listing scenarios. As such, even when income-qualified households have access to financing to assist with a transaction, the very nature of the transaction may itself be a barrier.

The City of Woodbury’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies several ways in which the City of Woodbury and the Woodbury HRA promote affordable housing including but not necessarily limited to:

Density Bonuses Developer Negotiations HRA Loan Programs Partnerships Site Identification and Acquisition Tax Exempt Bonds

Specific examples of the implementation of the comprehensive plan’s housing element include the recently opened 45-unit LIHTC-financed Views at City Walk, the success of Twin Cities



Habitat for Humanity and their 73 homes in Woodbury, the Woodbury HRA loan programs and the pending Legends of Woodbury. Actions taken to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) As with many policy arenas across multiple community boundaries, the chief obstacle to meeting underserved needs is one of available financing. The City of Woodbury has just completed its seventh year as a direct grantee of CDBG and HOME and staff is tracking the budget conversations in Washington, DC which may lead to significant—or even complete—cuts to the CDBG and HOME budgets. A direct corresponding result of such budget cuts is the reduction in resources to fund programs and projects that would be candidates for CDBG or HOME investments. Even with the nature of the budget cycles, however, the City did meet underserved households in PY16 via the locally funded HRA loan programs as mentioned above in Sections CR-10 and CR-20. The City is committed to sound conservative investment practices and using the CDBG and HOME funds for loans or other types of deferred financing will allow the City, over the long-term to create program income thus insulating us to a degree from the budgetary fluctuations at the federal level. Given that PY16 was only Woodbury’s seventh program year, however, these loans will take time before they result in significant amounts of program income in any given year. Actions taken to reduce lead-based paint hazards. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) Woodbury is still a relatively young community with the vast majority of its residential units constructed since 1978, the year in which the presence of lead in paint was banned. Nevertheless, approximately 2,271 housing units in Woodbury were constructed in the pre-1978 timeframe so a proportion of Woodbury’s households may, theoretically, live in homes that have exposure to lead-based paint. According to the Minnesota Department of Health, in Washington County during the 2012 birth year, 2,311 children (less than 6 years of age) were tested for exposure to lead and only eight had levels between 5µg/dL and 14.9µg/dL. So in Washington County, roughly 0.3 percent of children tested had elevated blood levels that would warrant action. This rate is significantly less than the State average of about one percent. Data is lacking at the municipal level and Woodbury accepts that lead exposure data for the County in this case is likely similar to the exposure risks in Woodbury. Minnesota Statutes 144.9504 and the Minnesota Department of Health Childhood Lead Case Management Guidelines for Minnesota dictate responses to different blood lead levels:

If levels are less than 10µg/dL, information is entered into the surveillance database, and no additional follow-up is pursued.

If levels are 10µg/dL or greater, educational intervention is called for. This includes giving the children’s caretakers a letter and information on how to reduce and/or avoid exposure to lead in the environment.

If levels are 20µg/dL or greater (or 15ug/dL for more than 90 days), environmental follow-up is necessary. This includes assessment of walls, windows, etc.; abatement or



hazard reduction; and follow-up sampling. Levels of 60µg/dL or greater indicate a medical emergency, and immediate action is

taken. The City of Woodbury follows these state guidelines and will continue to do so. Actions taken to reduce the number of poverty-level families. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) Table DP-03 of the 2015 American Community Survey data suggests that 3.5 percent of individuals who live in Woodbury live below the poverty level. Sadly, this amount is more than double the 1.7 percent poverty rate measured by the 2000 Census. On the positive side, however, when compared relatively, the poverty rate in Woodbury continues to remain considerably less than the national level given that the 2015 American Community Survey suggests that 14.7 percent of individuals in the United States live below the poverty level. The City of Woodbury acknowledges that the Woodbury Community Foundation has begun working at the local level on jobs and housing initiatives that may help to reduce the number of Woodbury residents living below the poverty level. Additionally, the unemployment rate in Woodbury has decreased to 2.9 percent as of June 2017, down from the all-time high of 6.9 percent seen at the depths of the recent economic recession. This return to a full employment is reinforced by data from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development showing that Woodbury’s commercial and industrial growth has led to the availability of 23,021 jobs in the community as of the fourth quarter of 2016, an amount higher than pre-recession levels. As with the past, the largest industrial sectors in Woodbury continue to be “Education and Health Services” and “Trade, Transportation and Utilities”. The continued construction activity for both new and reinvestment projects will lead to increased job availability and hopefully the number of Woodbury residents living below the poverty level will decrease correspondingly. Actions taken to develop institutional structure. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) The City of Woodbury does not face significant gaps in the institutional structures in the community as it has significant partnerships with the Woodbury Community Foundation, the Workforce Development Board, local athletic associations, local schools and civic groups and more. Additionally, from an infrastructure perspective, multiple departments within the City are focusing on identifying transportation and trail gaps in the community so as to better connect Woodbury residents to each other, to employment opportunities and to recreation amenities and services. Actions taken to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) The City of Woodbury is committed to a philosophy of facilitating development. Long-term planning tools and policies offer land use incentives such as density bonuses while the availability of federal as well as state, regional and local funds help bring developers together that result in coordinated projects. Given that Washington County is a sub-allocator of LIHTCs, enhanced coordination exists within the affordable housing funding community because there are only enough nine percent LIHTCs available to fund a project every other year. As such, developers and social service agencies have become adept at working closely with the WCCDA to achieve success.



Identify actions taken to overcome the effects of any impediments identified in the jurisdictions analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. 91.520(a) Woodbury complies with the Fair Housing Act and other civil rights laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. To promote compliance with these fair housing related acts and laws the City participates in the Fair Housing Implementation Council (FHIC). The FHIC is a collaborative group representing the Twin Cities metropolitan area entitlement jurisdictions and other governmental agencies. The purpose of the FHIC is to facilitate and initiate implementation of affirmative activities having metro-wide significance identified in a regional analysis of impediments to fair housing choice (“AI”). In 2014, the FHIC contracted with HousingLink to author an AI for 2015-2019. The AI was adopted with the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan, but the 2015 AAP identified certain flaws in the document and stated that the AI would be amended during PY15. In October 2015, HUD’s Region V Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) office asked the FHIC to pause with the process connected to the amendment of the AI. Subsequently, Region V FHEO Director Maury McGough developed a “road map to revise Analysis of Impediments” dated February 26, 2016 that anticipates the AI being successfully amended not later than April 15, 2017. Working collaboratively with a wide variety of community groups, an addendum to the regional AI was completed. The completion of this addendum caused HUD to write a “Letter of Determination of Compliance” dated July 17, 2017, which is attached in Section C-00 of this CAPER. As directed by HUD staff, the staff time that the City of Woodbury invested in this process meets the requirements of this fair housing component to the CAPER.



CR-40 - Monitoring 91.220 and 91.230 Describe the standards and procedures used to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and used to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements The City of Woodbury enters into formal contractual agreements with all CDBG and HOME sub-recipients and performs both desk monitoring and site monitoring. In addition to these specific events, Woodbury staff routinely monitors settlement statements and other documentation connected to the CDBG- and HOME-funded loan programs Citizen Participation Plan 91.105(d); 91.115(d) Describe the efforts to provide citizens with reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on performance reports. Specific to this 2016 CAPER, a public meeting was held at Woodbury City Hall on August 21, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Cherry Conference Room. The meeting was noticed in the August 9, 2017 edition of the Woodbury Bulletin. This meeting was held during the development of the CAPER as required by the Citizen Participation Plan and the meeting corresponded to the beginning of a 30-day comment period. No stakeholders attended the August 21, 2017 meeting. A subsequent public hearing on the CAPER was held at the regularly scheduled September 27, 2017 City Council Meeting. The public hearing was noticed in the September 13, 2017 edition of the Woodbury Bulletin. No stakeholders delivered testimony or comments at the September 27, 2017 public hearing. At the time of this version of the CAPER, no comments from the public have been received. In addition to citizen participation connected to the CAPER, the City would like to point out the following public forums on HUD-related topics relevant to PY16:

January 12, 2016 public meeting on funding priorities for 2016 Annual Action Plan March 23, 2016 public hearing regarding the proposed 2016 Annual Action Plan April 14, 2016 public meeting regarding the proposed 2016 Annual Action Plan May 11, 2016 City Council adoption of the 2016 Annual Action Plan



CR-45 - CDBG 91.520(c) Specify the nature of, and reasons for, any changes in the jurisdiction’s program objectives and indications of how the jurisdiction would change its programs as a result of its experiences. N/A. Does this Jurisdiction have any open Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grants? No. [BEDI grantees] Describe accomplishments and program outcomes during the last year. N/A.



Attachment 1 Woodbury 2016 PR26



Attachment 2 Woodbury 2016 PR03



Attachment 3 HUD Determination of Compliance re Fair Housing VCA



Attachment 4 Notice of August 21, 2017 Community Meeting



Attachment 5 Notice of September 27, 2017 public hearing


Office of City Administrator Council Letter No. 17-252 September 27, 2017 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator SUBJECT: Schilling Place, Outlot A and Outlot B

Public Vacation Hearing Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements

SUMMARY The property owners of Schilling Place, the Schilling Family, is requesting to vacate all of the drainage and utility easement over, under, and across Outlot A and Outlot B, Schilling Addition. The easement was created as part of the St. Therese of Woodbury project for drainage and utility purposes related to a stormwater basin with the intention to be vacated upon future platting. The owners of Schilling Place submitted a final plat, Schilling Place 2nd Addition, which dedicates a public drainage and utility easement over the new stormwater basin location, which was approved by Council on June 14, 2017. The existing easement is not required for any public utility. An easement that no longer serves a public purpose can be vacated, allowing the underlying property owner greater use of the property. See attached location map and the extent of the easement vacation map. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution ordering to vacate all of the drainage and utility easement over, under, and across Outlot A & Outlot B, according to the recorded Schilling Place plat thereof, City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota. BUDGET IMPACT The property owners, the Schilling Family, have supplied funding for 100 percent of the advertising and recording costs of vacating the public drainage and utility easement. PUBLIC PROCESS The necessary public hearing notices were sent to the affected property owner and public hearing notices were published for two consecutive weeks in the local newspaper notifying the public of the proposed vacation.

Council Letter No. 17-252 September 27, 2017 Page 2 BACKGROUND A public hearing has been established for the September 27, 2017 City Council meeting to consider the vacation of drainage and utility easement on Outlot A and Outlot B, Schilling Place, City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota. The public drainage and utility easement on Outlot A and Outlot B, Schilling Place, to be vacated were originally platted with the St. Therese of Woodbury development plat. It was anticipated this easement was needed to accommodate drainage and utility requirements. Since the platting of Schilling Place, configuration of the stormwater basin changed. In order to allow the underlying property owner greater use of the property, all of the drainage and utility easement encompassed by Outlot A and Outlot B, Schilling Place shall be vacated. The owners rededicated the drainage and utility easements as part of the replatting of the property and will be recorded with the Schilling Place 2nd Addition plat. The purpose of the public vacation hearing is to provide interested parties an opportunity to learn more about the proposed easement vacation. Legal advertisements notifying the public of the vacation hearing were placed in the Woodbury Bulletin on September 13, 2017 and September 20, 2017. A letter notifying the affected property owners was sent on September 6, 2017. Attached are a resolution, location map, existing easement map and a proposed easement map for the previously recorded easement on Outlot A and Outlot B, Schilling Place, to be vacated and the extent of newly created easements on the Schilling Place 2nd Addition. Written By: Teresa Keller, Engineering Project Coordinator Approved Through: John Bradford, Engineering and Public Works Deputy Director/City

Engineer Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Existing Easement Map 3. Proposed Easement Map

Engineering File No: 29-2017-03

RESOLUTION NO. 17-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY,

WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA

VACATING THAT PART OF THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT

PREVIOUSLY RECORDED WITH

OUTLOT A AND OUTLOT B, SCHILLING PLACE,

ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF,

CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA

WHEREAS, a public hearing was set for September 27, 2017, to vacate a part of the

drainage and utility easement previously recorded with Outlot A and Outlot B, Schilling Place,

according to the recorded plat thereof, City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota, described

as follows:

All of the Drainage and Utility easements, as created and dedicated in the plat

of SAINT THERESE OF WOODBURY, according to the recorded plat

thereof, lying within Outlot A and Outlot B, SCHILLING PLACE, according

to the recorded plat thereof, all in Washington County, Minnesota; and

WHEREAS, the vacation public hearing was held pursuant to notice as required by

law, on the 27th day of September 2017; and

WHEREAS, the Mayor announced that the meeting was open for public hearing for

said vacation of all drainage and utility easement previously recorded with Outlot A and Outlot B,

Schilling Place, and all persons who desired to do so were afforded the opportunity to express their

views thereon; and

WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the public to vacate all drainage and utility

easements previously recorded on Outlot A and Outlot B, Schilling Place.


Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota that a public ponding and drainage and utility easements

previously recorded with Outlot A and Outlot B, Schilling Place, described as follows, be vacated.

All of the Drainage and Utility easements, as created and dedicated in the plat

of SAINT THERESE OF WOODBURY, according to the recorded plat

thereof, lying within Outlot A and Outlot B, SCHILLING PLACE, according

to the recorded plat thereof, all in Washington County, Minnesota.

This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor

and attested to by the City Administrator this 27th day of September, 2017.

Attest: Mary Giuliani Stephens, Mayor Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator (SEAL)

Existing Easement Map

Proposed Easement Map




September 27, 2017

TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator

SUBJECT: Setting Proposed 2018 Levy and Public Hearing on Proposed Budget/Levy

SUMMARY

Minnesota Statutes require that the City Council adopt a 2018 proposed levy and budget for

purposes of the required Truth-in-Taxation public meeting. The Council will have the option to

decrease the tax levy prior to adoption in December but not increase the tax levy above the amount

adopted at this meeting. This action must take place by September 30, 2017. Statutes also require

the Council to set a date for a public meeting on the proposed tax levy and budget adoption.

2018 Proposed Tax Levy and Budget

2018 Budget

Workshop

September 27th

Council Meeting

Total Dollar Levy $34,129,643

$34,129,643

Percent Change 2017/2018 3.79% 3.79%

Impact on Median Value

Home $31

$31

Percent Change in Total

City of Woodbury Tax 3.19%

3.19%

Total Proposed Budget $84,169,680 $84,169,680

Truth-in-Taxation Public Meeting Date

Staff recommends December 13, 2017 as the public meeting date for the property tax levy and

budget adoption.


September 27, 2017

Page 2 of 2

RECOMMENDATION


1. Adopt a resolution establishing a proposed tax levy and budget for 2018 for purposes of

the Truth-in-Taxation public meeting.

2. Adopt a resolution approving the proposed 2018 HRA tax levy for purposes of the Truth-

in-Taxation public meeting

3. Adopt a motion confirming that the Truth-in-Taxation public meeting is scheduled for

Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:30 p.m.

PROCESS

The public budget process is as follows:

● City Council review of proposed 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan – May 17

● City Council adoption of the 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan – May 31

● City Council review of budget parameters and long-term financial projections – July 19

● City Council Budget Workshop – September 13

● City Council adoption of the preliminary tax levy and budget – September 27

● City Council Budget Update at a City Council Workshop – November 15

● Truth-in-Taxation Public Meeting - December 13

● City Council adoption of the property tax levies and budget – December 13

Written By: Tim Johnson, Finance Director

Approved through: Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator

Attachments: Resolutions (2)

RESOLUTION NO. 17-


ESTABLISHING A PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX LEVY

AND BUDGET FOR 2018

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota as follows:

1. There is hereby proposed a general tax levy for 2018 for the purposes indicated: General Fund Operations Levy $24,143,795 Emergency Medical Services Levy 665,909 Capital Improvement Levy 2,178,825 Street Reconstruction / Maintenance Levy 3,281,882 Tax Capacity Debt Levy 2,239,102 Tax Abatement Levy 410,480 Market Value Based Referendum Levy 959,650 2018 TAX LEVY $33,879,643

2. The Woodbury Housing and Redevelopment Authority tax levy is 250,000 for 2018.

3. There is hereby proposed a Budget for 2018 in the amount of $84,169,680.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is authorized and directed to provide the property tax levy amounts to the County Auditor of Washington County by September 30, 2017.


RESOLUTION NO. 17-


ESTABLISHING A PROPOSED WOODBURY HOUSING AND

REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY LEVY OF A SPECIAL BENEFIT TAX WITHIN THE AUTHORITY'S AREA OF OPERATION FOR 2018

WHEREAS, on September 27, 2017 the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Woodbury, Minnesota (the "HRA") pursuant to the authority granted in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, has by resolution levied a special benefit tax in the amount of $250,000 (the "Tax") within the HRA’s area of operation; and

WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6 requires that the

City consent by resolution to the levy of the Tax; and WHEREAS, the levy does not exceed 0.0185 percent of taxable market value in

the City; and WHEREAS, State Law requires the certification of a proposed tax levy no later

than September 30, 2017 for “Truth in Taxation” purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City

of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota that the City hereby consents to the proposed levy of the Tax by the HRA for “Truth in Taxation” purposes. Final approval of the proposed levy will be determined in December 2017.


Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 27th day of September, 2017. Attest: Mary Giuliani Stephens, Mayor (SEAL) Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator

City Administrator's Report Sept. 27, 2017

10 The following information is provided to keep the City Council and staff informed of the activities and events of the city. Points of clarification may be addressed during the City Administrator's Report portion of the agenda; however, if discussion of any of these items is necessary, placement on a future City Council agenda should be directed. Community Development: Significant Projects – August 2017 Business Name Address Amount

Commercial Additions/Alterations

Leasehold Improvements/Remodels with permit value above $100,000:

Minnesota Eye Consultants 7125 Tamarack Road $4,062,000

Duluth Trading Company 9320 Hudson Road $569,000

Valley Creek Apartments – Reroofing 1671/1717 Century Circle $373,000

Waxing the City 295 Radio Drive, Suite A $152,000

Archonix Systems 8425 Seasons Parkway, Suite 105 $150,000

Betsy’s Salon 7774 Hargis Parkway, Suite 130 $130,000

Total Commercial Additions/Alterations $5,584,000

New Businesses Minnesota Eye Consultants 7125 Tamarack Road N/ADuluth Trading Company 9320 Hudson Road N/ABetsy’s Salon 7774 Hargis Parkway, Suite 130 N/A The Community Development Department hosted its annual Development Tour Tuesday, Aug. 15. There was a great turnout, with approximately 35 people representing the various commissions and committees of the city as well as representatives from the county board and other elected officials. The group boarded a coach bus and toured many active development sites within the city. The tour was narrated by Dwight Picha, Community Development director. Dinner was provided for the group before the tour and they enjoyed some time to network and socialize. Staff couldn’t have asked for a better day for the 13th annual Woodbury Business Connect. This year’s event was held Sept. 14 on the patio of the new Whole Foods Taproom at CityPlace, which served as an excellent venue, especially with the beautiful weather that day. There was a great turnout of approximately 80 brokers, developers, property managers and site selectors. In addition to a

City Administrator's Report Sept. 27, 2017 Page 2 welcome by Mayor Stephens, the event had four keynote speakers who spoke of their positive experiences working in Woodbury. Staff received many compliments about the event, venue and speakers. Engineering and Public Works: Engineering- The Engineering Division held a neighborhood meeting for the 2018 Roadway Rehabilitation Project on Aug. 22. There were 81 properties represented with an engaged attitude toward the project. The meeting’s purpose was to inform residents of the upcoming project and receive feedback that will help define the project scope. Details of the project costs and assessment calculations were not shared at the meeting. Residents were informed that this information would be provided at a future neighborhood meeting. Staff also informed residents of the Council’s consideration of assessment policy and utility rate changes that may impact the assessment calculations. A few residents expressed interest in further evaluating options for extending sanitary sewer and water main utilities to the Salem Meadows and Erin Court neighborhood areas. While these neighborhoods have recent and proposed development bringing utilities in the proximity of the neighborhoods, there may be challenges to serving the areas. The Roadway Rehabilitation Project timing provides a great opportunity to review the feasibility and estimated costs to provide the utility extensions. Staff will include this review in the project feasibility study. As with all changes, it is anticipated that there will be residents who will express opposition to utility extensions in the neighborhood. With the current age of the well and septic systems on most lots within project area, initial review indicates the timing is appropriate for further study. While the recent water/sewer rate charges have eliminated water and sewer assessment from these projects, new laterals to previously unserved areas would be assessed. Another issue brought up by a few residents during the meeting is traffic calming and the addition of pedestrian facilities within the Eagle Valley and Wedgewood neighborhoods. An initial review of curb conditions indicated full curb replacements may be necessary on sections of Eagle Valley Drive and Wedgewood Drive. Full curb and full pavement replacements include the reconstruction of the roadway sections to current City standards. For these roadways, this may include narrowing of the roadways from the existing 32 feet width to 28 feet wide. The addition of pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks will be included in this discussion. Additional discussions on the project scope will be coordinated with the neighborhoods expressing interest in studying utility extensions and pedestrian facilities. Staff looks forward to working with the neighborhood to further study the project scope and setup the next neighborhood meeting to review support and opposition for these requested study items. A second neighborhood meeting will be scheduled prior to the public improvement hearing.

City Administrator's Report Sept. 27, 2017 Page 3 Public Works- The rehabilitation of sanitary lift stations 1, 4, 8 and 10 is in progress. Over the next several months, construction activities (including bypass pumping and equipment installation) will be occurring at all four sites. The rehabilitation of Commonwealth water tower in spring of 2018 has been awarded to SEH. In preparation for the rehabilitation, activity is occurring at the site this fall including excavation for utility installation and cellular communication transfer preparation. The Utility Division’s 2017 gate valve repair is underway and includes approximately a dozen sites between Radio Drive and Woodbury Drive from north to south. The Utility and Street Divisions are partnering on site restoration efforts and anticipate completion by early October. Well 7, located in the Tamarack Well Field, has been removed from rotation for scheduled rehabilitation that began the week of Sept. 4. Equipment and site activity can be expected on the north end of Woodpark Boulevard and the trail adjacent to Tamarack Nature Preserve into early 2018. Parks and Recreation: HealthEast Sports Center (HSC)- The Paul Rabil Lacrosse Experience, was held at HealthEast Sports Center Sunday, Aug. 27. Rabil is referred to as the “Wayne Gretzky” of lacrosse, and this was his only stop in the Twin Cities out of only 13 stops nationwide. For a list of cities on the tour, visit www.live.paulrabil.com. HSC will host a series of three Navratri cultural celebrations using the field house Sept.29, 30 and Oct. 7, from 7 p.m.-1 a.m. each day. Additional activities being held at HSC during the month of October include Pro Camps Football 101 for Women featuring Kyle Rudolph from the Minnesota Vikings on Oct.2; a Home Improvement show on Oct. 21; and Special Olympics Football Oct. 28-29. Recreation- The Woodbury Thrives Wellness Challenge, which is being endorsed by the City of Woodbury, began Aug. 25 and runs through Oct. 26. Wellness cards are available at a number of Woodbury locations, including the information counters at Central Park and HealthEast Sports Center. The Woodbury Heritage Society’s History in your Backyard tour event is scheduled for Sunday, Sept. 24, from 1-4 p.m., with a number of Woodbury sites available for self-guided tours. Passports and itineraries will be available at the Woodbury Heritage House (corner of Radio Drive and Lake Road) on Sept. 24, beginning at 1 p.m. Big Truck Day takes place Saturday, Sept. 30, from 9 a.m.-noon, at Central Park.

City Administrator's Report Sept. 27, 2017 Page 4 Parks and Recreation has been offering the East Metro Miracle League (EMML) since 2012. Due to the high interest level from our participants and families we have decided to expand the adaptive league and program offerings beyond baseball. The city’s recreation program intern, Ethan Mattson, has been instrumental in spearheading new partnerships with the Family Achievement Center and Pinz Blowing to offer two new exciting youth adaptive recreation programs this fall:

Based on the popularity of the kickball session was in the Spring Sports Sampler, the program is expanding to include an EMML Fall Kickball League (Sept. 9-30). This league offers a great atmosphere and experience for youth with cognitive and/or physical challenges. It will be set up similar to the summer baseball league which allows the youth to have a smooth transition while they get to experience a new sport. There are 25 participants in the inaugural season and games are played at the Miracle Field located at HealthEast Sports Center.

Bowling was also a popular session in the Spring Sports Sampler, prompting staff to add EMML Fall Bowling (Oct. 28-Nov. 18). This program will offer a four-week bowling experience for children with cognitive and/or physical challenges. It is in partnership with the Family Achievement Center and Pinz. This league will be held at Pinz in Oakdale as they have been kind enough to donate the bowling lanes and shoes for all of our participants. We just opened registration a week ago and have 10 out of 20 spots filled with five weeks left.

Neighborhood Meetings:

1. 2018 Roadway Rehabilitation Project – Wedgewood Neighborhood, Oct. 4, 5:30 p.m., Eagle Valley Golf Course Banquet Room

2. 2018 Roadway Rehabilitation Project – Eagle Valley Neighborhood, Oct. 4, 7 p.m., Eagle Valley Golf Course Banquet Room

Preliminary Items Scheduled for the Planning Commission Meeting of Oct. 2:

1. Antenna Ordinance 2. Uptown Suites at CityPlace, Site and Building Plan, Project No. 04-2017-00266

Preliminary Items Scheduled for the Council Workshop Meeting of Oct. 18:

1. Special Event Policy 2. Ojibway Park Design Development 3. HERO Center Update 4. Fee Ordinance

Preliminary Public Hearings Scheduled for Oct. 11:

1. HealthEast Care System dba HealthEast Ways to Wellness, On Sale Culinary Class Liquor License

2. Certifying Delinquent Unpaid Special Charges – Property Cleanup to the Washington County Auditor

City Administrator's Report Sept. 27, 2017 Page 5 Other Meetings:

1. Economic Development Commission, Sept. 28, 7:30 a.m., Ash and Birch Conference Rooms 2. Park and Natural Resources Commission, Oct. 3, 7 p.m., HealthEast Sports Center, Upper

Level Conference Room Respectfully submitted, Clinton P. Gridley City Administrator

city of woodbury, minnesota september … agendas...one-quarter mile south of dale road and dale...

Documents