[6:39] Okay, it's 7:30. Good evening. Um, welcome to the city of Woodbury for our housing and redevelopment authority [6:46] meeting. We are here in council chambers. It is October 8th at 7:30 p.m. [6:51] Uh, this meeting is taking place here in person, but we also um host this virtually. Um, and we get the help from [6:59] True Lens Community Media that are broadcasting this live. It's also shown on cable channel 799. You can also um [7:06] follow up recordings of this um for the city's YouTube channel. Um, members of the public um are welcome to if you have [7:14] something to say, you've got green sheets out there and I do have some for the regular meeting. I don't have anything for the HR meeting and we also [7:20] monitor that online as well in case somebody is watching virtually and they want to say something. We watch that as [7:26] well. I'll just like to say that we never get anybody wanting to pipe in virtually, but we always check. Um, so [7:32] with that, it is the H meeting and I turn to Janelle to do the roll call. Member Morris [7:37] here. Member Santini here. Member Stafford here. Member Wilson here. [7:42] Chair Bert here. We are all here tonight. Um, so we're able to conduct tonight's business, which again is only a consent [7:49] agenda. We have two items on the consent agenda. Janelle, are you going to say something more about this? [7:55] Unless there are questions. Well, okay, there it is. We've got here's our two Well, you guys don't see [8:00] it. Oh, you see it over there. Um, it's approval of the H meeting minutes and the issuance of an additional taxes and [8:06] bond from the Meadows at Prairie Ridge Park. This is pretty uh standard stuff that we do. Um, [8:12] I'll move to approve consent agenda items 3A and 3B. Second. Motion a second. Any further discussion? [8:19] Hearing none, the roll call, please. Member Morris. I. Member Santini. I member Stafford [8:25] I member Wilson. Chair Bert I those two consent agenda items uh [8:31] pass. We have no other items under the agenda. So I make a motion that we adjourn this meeting. Second [8:38] motion second. Any discussion hearing? None. All in favor? I I we are adjourned. I'll give us uh [8:45] give the people of magic people behind the door a few minutes or a minute or so to transition over and then we will [8:51] begin our regular meeting. [9:00] Good evening. Welcome to the city of Woodbury city council meeting for tonight, October 8th, 2025. It is uh [9:07] 7:32 p.m. We are here in council chambers. This meeting is taking place live. We also uh share this virtually uh [9:14] with our partner Two Lens Community Media that broadcast this live and it is replayed on cable channel 799. Uh [9:21] meetings are also available on the city of Woodberry's YouTube channel. Members of the public um are here. We've got [9:27] actually some people here attending tonight. Again, good to see you all here in person. Uh those wanting to speak have green sheets on their chairs. Um [9:34] and if you want to speak, I've got three already. Um please do a green sheet and [9:39] we also monitor this virtually as well. If anyone is watching online and wants to say something, you can pose a [9:45] question or comment there and we will be monitoring that. Um, so, um, we do have [9:50] a lot of scouts in the in the room tonight. And I'd just like to point out this is, uh, Paul Paul Young. Which one [9:56] are you, Paul? There you are. Paul Young. He's the scout master of troop 9072 in Woodbury. One of the [10:02] requirements is to get a, uh, for citizenship uh, to get the community merit badge, they need to attend an [10:08] in-person meeting. So, here you are. Thank you all for showing up. Um, I always love to invite all the scouts up when we do our pledge of allegiance. [10:14] Would you please join us up here on the DAS? come on up and you can lead us in the pledge of allegiance and then you [10:19] can go home at some point in time and watch yourself on TV. [10:31] So yeah, come on up and gather all the way over here. Of course, face our flag. [10:36] Get everyone together. Okay, who which is our which is do we [10:42] have a lead person in this on the scout team tonight? you with all the badges. Why don't you begin? You ready? [10:49] Yeah. We're gonna start and just kick us off. I pledge algiance to the flag of the [10:56] United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation [11:02] under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [11:07] Very good. Well, we always like to give a little goodies away so all of you scouts can take one of our really cute [11:13] Nerf Wonderful. What do you call those things? [11:19] Yeah. What is that? Have a Nerf dabble. Oh, look how cool. That is awesome. Wow. Thank you. Love [11:26] it. Any little brothers or sisters need to bring one, too? Okay. Can I have one of those? [11:31] Yeah. Yeah. In case you need to pound Steve on your head. [11:38] It is a nerf for that reason. Um, okay. Roll call, please. Ashley. [11:46] Council member Morris here. Council member Santini here. Council member Stafford here. Council member Wilson [11:52] here. Mayor Bert here. We are all here tonight so we can conduct tonight's business. Our first [11:58] order of business is um Kevin Magneson who is the Washington County Attorney is here to give us an overview of the [12:05] county attorney's office and maybe some information on crime perhaps. And um welcome Kevin. We're looking [12:11] forward to hearing from you. Well, thank you very much. My name is Kevin Magnuson. I'm the county attorney in Washington County. And I don't really [12:17] have an agenda other than just come here and talk with you all for a little bit. Uh introduce myself to those of you who [12:24] I haven't met and say hello to those again that I have. Um can I just add that just for people that [12:30] maybe don't know is that you are actually an elected position. That is correct. Right. So yeah. Okay. Yeah. [12:35] Not coming up for a little while yet, but uh Yeah. Yeah. But it is but it is inevitable. [12:40] Yes. Yes, it is. Um, so, um, so I'm now I'm living in Lake [12:48] Elmo. I'm living in the house that I grew up in in Lake Elmo. So, it's roots from Washington County. Um, the house [12:56] actually is from 1898. So, um, for those history buffs from Lake Elmo, it's the Stevens Hospital that was on the lake [13:02] there. And, uh, yeah, 1898. So, it's pretty much held together by spackle and [13:07] wallpaper, you know. Um, and I still got my dad's stuff in it, you know. [13:12] Oh, that's cool. But he's in dancing waters now and enjoying it. Um, so I'm I'm married. I have a [13:19] 5-year-old and a soon to be 14y old. So, uh, keeps me limber. Um, and uh I'm [13:27] watching the damage a 5-year-old boy can do. Um, can't quite believe it, but [13:33] I'm sure I was much more uh better behaved than of course he is. But um in [13:39] any case, so I went to Lake Elementary and you know went on to high school [13:45] Minhaha and uh academy in Minneapolis and then off to college in Chicago where [13:51] I was an ROC and then I was in the military for a while during the first Gulf War. I was an army officer. Now I [13:56] wasn't actually stationed there. I was going through airborne training when the ground war began and my unit was in [14:03] Saudi. So they rushed me to Germany and then I was supposed to go to the unit in Saudi Arabia and then the ground war [14:09] ended and um it's like a 68 hour ground war or something. I wasn't too upset about that. Um though I did get [14:16] ridiculed because I was the only one without a combat patch when when they all came back. So but so after the [14:21] military I stayed in Europe and was in graduate school at a German university and then in a Belgian university in the [14:27] Flemish speaking part of Belgium studying philosophy of all things. So [14:33] decided to go to law school um because I didn't really want to invest in a Santa [14:38] suit or something to make a living. So what do you do? You go to law school. So [14:43] I went to law school at the University of Minnesota. Then end up going back to Europe in Brussels to some more European [14:50] law. And my first job was at the European Commission in their antitrust enforcement division. So similar to DOJ [14:56] antitrust here. But eventually I took the umbilical express back home like [15:02] like most of us at some point or another back to the same house actually that I grew up in. And I was in private [15:08] practice for 20 years in Minneapolis um doing complex business litigation [15:14] and uh some might call a crime and then um Pete Orput. How many of you know Pete or knew Pete? Yeah. I mean miss him [15:21] every day. For those of you who know him, you know what a singular human [15:27] being he was. For those of you who didn't have the chance to know him, I I feel actually bad for you because to not [15:34] have known Pete is to have missed out on something. Um but in any case, he convinced me to come to the county [15:41] attorney's office. Um and uh and I did. And then when it was time for him to [15:46] retire, he convinced me and he convinced my wife that being, you know, widowed with an infant [15:53] for seven months was a good idea while I ran for election. And um so there he [16:00] was. Uh he, you know, he we endorsed me and we we had a lot of fun and then uh [16:06] unfortunately he found out he had cancer and died 10 days later. Yeah. and just a tragic tragic [16:12] situation. But you know those are big shoes. I'm not even trying to fill them. Um there's only one Pete and that's [16:18] probably a good thing. But um but the office that I inherited was a great office and wonderful people and I think [16:25] I've kept that tradition going. I think the people and we've had a lot of new people uh in the office and I think that [16:32] same set of values that motivated Pete motivates me I think permeates that office and I think that's one of the [16:38] reasons why um why we've been successful um you know both in things like [16:44] retention and uh I think the office culture is is good and I think it's motivated by people who who are in this [16:51] business to do the right thing you know I don't see a lot of posturing I mean I think people really sit down and figure [16:58] out what the just thing to do is and that to me is very exciting um and kind [17:04] of just reassuring in society. Um so we have uh [17:11] 61 and a half employees so one part-time not short but one half time person [17:19] and it's split pretty evenly between um civil and between lawyers and and um and [17:24] staff. Um, so we charge about 1,200 cases a year. [17:31] Um, get about 1,400 referrals. So that's what 85% or so. And that's I think [17:38] that's a pretty good number. Um, you know, there are reasons that um that [17:44] will decline a case, but frankly, our um you know, our charging rate is high [17:49] because the quality of law enforcement in Washington County, particularly in Woodbury. I have to say that Chief Posel and I have gotten to know each other and [17:55] it's been a a pleasure working with him. You have a fantastic as I'm sure you know, but you have a fantastic police force. I mean really is the gold [18:01] standard around here and um um and I've had the pleasure of working with a [18:07] number of investigators and and officers and you should be proud of the police [18:12] force that you have and I you know I think our sheriff's department is good too and and what's one of the things I [18:17] didn't realize it's unique but the sheriff and I get along. Apparently in some counties they don't. [18:23] And I don't know if it has something to do with, you know, two people thinking they're the boss of everything maybe in [18:28] some of those situations, but Dan Jar and I, you know, we see eye to eye and that makes life a lot easier. Um when uh [18:37] when you're not fighting over who's prosecuting or not prosecuting what and who's doing bad investigations or good [18:43] investigations, that sort of thing. So we're we're a team. Um and there's you know the reasons that so I have what's [18:50] called prosecutorial discretion and you know and there are times when somebody [18:55] can't charge a case you know for example um you know domestic violence or criminal sexual assault kind of case [19:01] sometimes the victims have been so traumatized they don't want to be retraumatized sometimes you can't find [19:06] them. Um you know sometimes uh the uh the evidence looks good but we have to [19:14] have an ethical we have to for our ethical responsibility is have the belief that there a reasonable [19:21] likelihood that we will be able to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that [19:27] the defendant committed the charges that we've charged. and uh and that sometimes [19:33] leads us to say not quite yet or not on this charge. Um we do our best to do the [19:40] right thing at the right time, the right way, but there's sometimes we can't charge um a case. And um and there's [19:47] times too when I exercise my discretion because I think the the the right outcome may not be the most severe [19:53] charge. Sometimes there's a more appropriate charge um to reflect the conduct. You know, we had a case just [20:00] recently that I made a decision on where you know, somebody tore up a local road and um you know, you could actually [20:07] under some circumstances charge that as a as a felony or even as a misdemeanor, [20:12] but I decided that was really a civil matter and that would be the best way for the situation to be redressed. So, [20:20] there's a number of considerations that go into that. [20:25] So, I'll just talk just real briefly about the um some crime trends that I think are indicative of sort of where we [20:31] are now. Auto theft, something that everyone's heard a lot about. We um in uh 2019, we [20:41] charged 55 cases. In 2020, we charged 79. [20:48] 2021, we charged 93. And then when you get to 2004, last [20:54] year, we're back down to 47. Still too high, but going in the right direction. But one of the things that's interesting [21:00] about that particular statistic is the CO effect, the COVID bump or whatever [21:06] was very real. And there were things that happened during that period of time that affected public safety in a unique [21:14] way. And you know, I'm not one to reitigate [21:20] the debate between Yes, sir. you know, whatever size. I can just say that in hindsight, we realize [21:25] that, you know, when you don't have school and you've got teenagers running [21:30] around on the streets with a $700 iPhone and nothing to do, it's a recipe for disaster. [21:36] And I think some of the crime can be attributed to that. Um, some of it can be that just there are a lot more opportunities. Um [21:44] so um but you know one of the reasons that our number is dropping I think is [21:50] um is I think that the automatic license plate readers that you all have installed the flock cameras have been [21:56] fantastic and I'll just kind of go off topic just a bit if I if I may there I think there [22:02] have been some who've been concerned that there's a you know civil rights component to that maybe some some [22:09] concern about invasion of privity privacy or that constitutional rights or something may not be respected. You [22:14] know, when I look at it, when that license plate is hit by the reader, it doesn't know who's in the car. It just [22:20] knows that it's matching something in a B database that says you should stop this car, you know, check it out. And if [22:27] if that isn't a, you know, a neutral um variable, I don't you don't know what [22:33] is. Um, and you know, and there are certain ways you have to do things to comply and respect somebody's rights. [22:39] But that's like everything else, every search warrant, everything you do. And I think there are pretty good safeguards [22:44] in place with the flock camera system. And I can tell you that we've seen I I haven't I don't have the numbers for [22:50] 2025 yet, but I suspect they'll be lower and I think a lot of those will be [22:55] Woodbury Flock, you know, camera identifications. Forest Lake is getting it. Cottage Grove is getting it. So, I [23:01] think we'll start to see the benefit of that in in just in in our ability to [23:06] solve crime. Um, I'm going to skip some of the other um [23:13] numbers that I had. Um, I'll just say that there was a time when we had one or two murders a year. You know, it's about [23:19] five or six, you know. Um, and that is probably about in keeping with the population, [23:27] you know, development. But but I just also think our society's changed in in some ways and and I think the vi the [23:34] level of violent crime as a percentage is edging up a little bit. Um I I was [23:40] talking to a um a jail um superintendent uh not too long ago and she was saying [23:46] that she just sees this the boiling temperature is so much lower now that you'll have people throw down over some [23:54] minor minor thing and not thinking that okay I'm going to spend time in segregation because of this. It's like [24:00] that process isn't working. And it's partly because of, you know, executive [24:05] function isn't really some of these folks strong suit. Um, but also I think that there's just this, [24:13] you know, the the the opportunity to be angry and the expectation that you're [24:18] going to be angry just seems to be an increasing part of our public discourse. [24:24] Um, and I think that's unfortunate. H um so I I want to talk about one other [24:31] crime statistic to to me is um very very concerning um and the and I take extremely [24:38] seriously and that is the number of adults fleeing from law enforcement in a motor vehicle is crazy high and it's [24:48] super dangerous. In 2018 we charged 35 of them. In 2022, we charged 111. [24:56] And a lot of that was COVID and some of the other policies in in some of the other cities around that time. You know, [25:04] 2024, we're at 75. It's still too high. And I think that gets back to that boiling point, you know, maybe lack of [25:11] executive functioning of for foresight. Um, but it's something my office takes [25:17] extremely seriously. And when it happens, we're looking to charge that um to the fullest extent of the law because [25:24] of the danger of you know, it puts law enforcement in and and just the public. [25:30] Um you know, our human trafficking, our East Metro human trafficking task force [25:36] has been successful and um and it's an important local component here. You [25:42] know, and unfortunately, you know, sexual crimes are a lot like weeds in a lawn. The moment you stop [25:49] spraying, the dandelions come up, they come out and you see all the stuff that's under, you know, out of sight. [25:55] And and and I think the moment that the the task force stops, you know, being as [26:01] active as it is, I think we're going to see pretty significant um negative consequences there. [26:08] But, you know, we had we don't have the funding that we used to have. Um, and and we're we're still doing stings. [26:14] We're still doing recovery operations. But the thing I've really been focused on is, you know, trying to identify [26:21] individuals who are out looking, you know, real predators for underageed, you [26:27] know, kids. Um, and I mean, that's just a whole level of evil that that, uh, you [26:33] know, I just, you want to zoom in on that. One of the things we have been able to do, I think very effectively, is focus on runaways. you know, we have the [26:42] technical abilities and the experience and the relationships that we can get the right warrants, we can get into [26:47] phones, we can find get the location data for someone relatively quickly. And [26:52] there's been a number of instances where, you know, law enforcement will [26:58] get a report about someone who's missing. they'll talk to someone in their department or whatever and that [27:04] gets connected to the the sex trafficking task force, human trafficking task force and they'll be able to identify, you know, and find um [27:12] the kid before, you know, there's I mean, it's just a terrible life. You know, it's so hard to get out to do [27:19] anything you can to try to limit that. And I I I'll skip the story, but there was a 14-year-old girl um in from [27:26] Cottage Grove who was gone and uh her grandmother was able to, you know, get [27:32] the report, I guess, reported to an officer who contacted the trafficking task force, but they were able to find [27:38] the the app that she was using, get location data, find where she was at Boyd's Motel in Newport, and they were [27:44] there, and she was there, and it was a a terrible situation, but they were at least there. the uh trafficker was not [27:52] there and they were able to use her phone to lure him back and then arrest [27:57] him and he was charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct, received 100 months uh in prison and will register as [28:04] a sex offender for the rest of his life. And I think that that is an important, you know, example of what we can do in [28:11] cooperation. Let me just before I end, let me just [28:16] talk real quickly about juvenile um trends. You know, we've heard a lot [28:22] about the seriousness of juvenile crime and it's definitely there, but I just want to say that the vast majority of [28:27] kids that come to our office have done something stupid [28:32] and it happens to to violate a law and we charge them and we usually put them [28:39] through diversion and then we usually never hear from them again. The vast [28:44] majority of kids coming through like over 70%. And you know, for that kind of recidivism rate to be that low, I think [28:51] is is is a good sign. There are there are a few people that keep us busy for [28:57] the rest of the time. I'd say there's about 10 people with really serious crimes that count for a majority of the [29:04] work that we do. And when we have to, when it's the right thing to do, we will certify them and try them as adult. Um, [29:10] but you know, as Pete used to say, I believe in using the right size hammer for the right size nail. And um, you [29:16] know, finding that right that sweet spot in juvenile justice is difficult. I do when there is a kid that gets um, picked [29:23] up or charged with something, I want to put as much on that kid for a little [29:28] while as I can. I mean, I want that person to feel accountable. And at the very least, I think parents [29:34] should be inconvenienced when this happens. if they have to go pick up their kid at at midnight or something, [29:40] it's it's not the worst thing, you know. And in some of these cases where we're able to hold someone for 24 hours, so [29:48] someone is 13 to 14, that's enough to get a taste of what going down this [29:54] road, you know, can lead, but also not long enough they can figure out that they can do the stand on their head if [30:00] they if they're willing to make those sacrifices. So, um, I came out of the civil division [30:06] and I that's probably the area that touches people the most. They get the least glory. They're kind of like the [30:11] junk drawer of the county attorney's office. They do everything else, but they are the ones who are advising the county, approving the contracts, working [30:18] on all the legal questions that counties face and that the same type of thing [30:23] that you all face. Um, you know, it's a great job. I love it. I have to say that, you know, your city attorney, [30:29] Kevin, is a a fine lawyer and you're fortunate to have him. Um, and uh, you [30:35] know, I think, uh, the, um, the, uh, the public service part of law that I've [30:42] started in the last couple years, I've really, really enjoyed. So, thank you for for having me. Let me just chat for [30:48] a few minutes. I don't know if you have time for questions or if you need to move on, but I'll be here. Yeah, thank you. I think we do need to [30:53] move on, but I'll just add a little color commentary. My family was a victim of juvenile crime. Um, and we went [31:00] through that whole process of bringing the the juveniles in with their parents [31:05] and their younger siblings and sitting around and communicating the effect that it had. And um, I know that I know many [31:12] of those kids um, and they went on to be great young men in life and have done well. But circle [31:18] that that just really worked, right? Yeah. Thank you. So, thank you very much. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you. Appreciate you being here. [31:25] Um, speaking of attorneys, I'm going to turn this over to our city attorney, uh, Kevin Sandstrom, because we just had a [31:30] closed session. If you could report on that for us. Sure. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, just to summarize, at the city's uh, city [31:37] council's workshop meeting tonight, we had a closed session pursuant to statute 13D.05, [31:43] subdivision 3D. That's in relation to security or emergency response procedures. And so the nature of [31:49] tonight's meeting was uh what we called a tabletop exercise. Essentially the [31:55] council was put through a hypothetical disaster scenario by uh your emergency [32:00] services coordinator, Miss Steedman, your public safety director, Posal, uh police chief, fire chief, and other [32:07] members of staff and kind of how the city would respond to those sort of issues um uh from the council [32:13] perspective, from public safety perspective, and all departments of the city. Um, and uh, there was no action [32:20] taken. It was all just hypothetical, but it was meant to kind of brief the council on how these sort of da disaster [32:26] scenarios might pan out to give us some more preparedness for the future. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Kevin. Um, [32:32] okay. We'll now move on to the open forum portion of the meeting. And I do have um, three green sheets for that [32:38] open forum portion. So, as a result of that, I got to read something, give you kind of the rules and guidelines of how [32:44] this works. This is the portion of the meeting where a maximum of three persons will be allowed to address council on [32:50] subjects which are not part of the meeting agenda. And I do have three here and it looks as though um the topic at [32:56] least for two of them is chickens. Um so that's not on the regular agenda. So that's why it's here on the open forum. [33:03] Um let's see. You've got to complete a signup sheet which you did. Um please [33:09] provide I'll have you I'll have you step forward. Please provide your name and just your city of residence. We have [33:14] changed that process in the last few years or last few months. We just don't need your full address, just your city [33:19] of residence and the question or comment for the official record. We do limit you to three minutes. Ashley has got a clock [33:25] sitting over there. You'll watch it um three minutes each. We listen attentively to comments, but in most [33:31] instances, we do not respond at the meeting mostly because we don't know what you're coming to step step forward to say. So, we're happy to listen to you [33:37] with all respect and then uh there is a follow-up uh provided to you with via letter or phone call or an email or [33:43] something um within a week or so. So, with that, I'm just going to go in the order that I have here. Samantha Wolf um [33:50] and I have you for open form, but I don't have the topic, but certainly come forward. And hello, it's chickens also. [33:57] It's I'm sorry. It's what? Chickens. Oh, it is. Okay, got it. Okay, got it. Yep. We're all here for chickens. [34:02] Okay. Um yes, my name is Samantha Wolf. I live in Woodbury. Um you might remember that [34:08] I spoke to council lack back in May um when we had a small group of people come together with the goal of changing the [34:14] Woodbury city code to allow the keeping of up to six chickens within the R4 [34:19] zoning district. Um over the summer that small group has grown as you can see. Um [34:26] and I'm uh the spokesperson for that larger movement, one of them. So, we're presenting to the council today a [34:32] petition that has over 500 signatures from Woodbury residents, all who agree that people living in Woodbury should be [34:39] allowed to keep backyard hens. Just for the record, you've all got the petition on your um on your space there, but for [34:46] the record, the petition language states the following. We, the undersigned residents of the city of Woodbury, [34:51] respectfully request that the city council consider an amendment to the city's zoning ordinance to allow for the keeping of six backyard hens, no [34:58] roosters in our four residential zones. By signing this petition, we express our support for a thoughtful [35:03] community-friendly change that aligns with Woodbury's values of sustainability, education, and [35:09] innovation. So when I spoke at the open forum in May, um the reason given for not passing [35:15] a chicken ordinance at that time was that it was unpopular in the community. So we wanted to see for ourselves how [35:21] our community felt about owning chickens. Um so that's why when we went out to uh talk to people, we prioritized [35:27] persontoperson conversations and listening and answering questions. So, subsequently, over 400 of these [35:34] signatures have been gathered in person at events like Starlight Cinema and Woodbury Days, the Farmers Market. I [35:41] wasn't sure of the response we would get when we started the project, but I'm happy to report it was overwhelmingly [35:46] positive. Um, I would guess that 85 to 90% of the people we asked signed the [35:52] petition. Um, many of whom were surprised that Woodbury didn't already allow the keeping of chickens. So, a lot [35:58] of information shared there. Some people wanted to raise chickens. Most people didn't. Um, they signed just [36:04] because they supported our freedom to do so. So, uh, as we discussed at the May [36:10] meeting briefly, the 2024 community survey didn't provide parameters about the proposed ordinance specifically [36:16] regarding roosters or number of birds allowed, which were by far the top two questions um, people had when we were in [36:22] the community. When we actually spoke to people and explained the proposed ordinance, almost everyone agreed that [36:28] allowing hens in the way we suggested just made sense. Um, I'd also like to [36:33] note that if this resolution is passed in Woodbury, it wouldn't necessarily affect HOAs, which are active in many [36:39] Woodbury neighborhoods. So, um, we're proposing to let HOAs make their own decisions on the matter and not curtail [36:46] those rights on a citywide level. So, we've provided a packet to uh all [36:51] council members and it includes petition signatures, a report on neighboring city [36:57] neighboring cities chicken ordinances including Hastings, Cottage Grove, and Stillwater. We've got letters of support [37:03] from experts including a Ramsey County Master Gardener and author and the U of M extension alternative livestock [37:10] systems team that we reached out to. So, we look forward to hearing the [37:15] council's response to what we're providing and uh we'll follow up to ensure any questions or concerns are [37:21] answered and addressed. Uh we request to be involved in the process. We're really committed to working with the council to [37:28] craft an equitable, sustainable head ordinance that supports all residents of [37:33] Woodbury. Thank you. Thank you. Uh I'd like now to invite up [37:38] Michelle Kek. I said that right. [37:46] Hi. Hi. Thanks for letting us talk tonight about the letting chickens into Woodbury [37:52] and if you just announce your name in your resident city, city resident. So, Michelle Kuyak, uh, Woodbury, [37:57] Minnesota. So, I just wanted to address a couple things. Um, mainly I'm going to talk about it from the point of Woodbury [38:04] and 4. I, um, my daughter has been a member of the Woodbury 4 club for [38:09] several years. They meet here on Mondays once a month actually in this building. [38:14] And I just want to talk about some of the challenges that we do have when we happen to be people that love 4 and love [38:21] to embody those uh traits of 4 into our families and to [38:28] carry that forward in the world. But it's hard when you live in the city, right? And because you can't always have [38:34] animals, you have to do uh projects and so forth that are not related to animals. For the most part, you're [38:40] allowed to have dogs or you could have horses, but if you don't live on a farm in Woodbury, you have a lot of [38:46] challenges to have an animal. So, uh, my dog, my daughter has actually had her [38:51] dog in the dog project, which has been wonderful. But, um, it also involves traveling quite a bit in order to go for [38:59] training and all those types of things. So, I just want to point out that I think that allowing this to residents of [39:05] Woodbury would be another way that kids could get involved. The Woodbury 4 club [39:10] is actually busting with a lot of young kids like third third graders, second graders that are actively joining 4 that [39:18] are excited about it. This is a great opportunity. The experience that I had as a child in 4 was wonderful. It um [39:26] allows a lot of community engagement, responsibility, and accountability and lessons that kids learn for life. And I [39:34] think allowing chickens as pets allows these kids another opportunity to [39:39] partake in uh their community, but also responsibility. It's a good opportunity [39:45] for kids that um they can actually give back to their family financially through the value of eggs and just sharing that. [39:51] And then the second component I just want to bring up that would be beneficial for people in Woodbury that [39:57] would have chickens is also people with disabilities. One of my um colleagues [40:03] here is going to talk about disabilities and mental health and how helpful having chickens can be for that. And I want to [40:10] just comment I personally have a son with disabilities. He has a hard time doing lots of physical things and he's [40:18] 20 now. And when you get to an age where you're not in high school, you're not in elementary school, you move into all [40:23] kinds of challenges. And I think we need to address fullon any opportunity that [40:28] we can to allow people with mental disabilities and physical disabilities opportunities to help their families to [40:35] feel involved and engaged in their homes. And I think this is an opportunity to do that. [40:41] Great. Thank you. And then uh Jenny Jennings. [40:50] Hello, I'm Jenny Jennings. I live in Woodbury, been here for 30 years. I'm here in support of adopting an ordinance [40:56] to allow residents to responsibly keep up to six hens in our four urban residential areas. Beyond fresh eggs and [41:04] natural pest control, raising hens provides proven health and community benefits. Research shared by the Center [41:11] for Disability Income Awareness shows that backyard chickens can also support [41:16] mental and emotional well-being in six key ways. First, they in they reduce anxiety and [41:23] depression. The daily care of hens provides calm and routine and studies [41:28] show chickens are empathetic animals that respond to human emotions like grief. [41:34] They can be wonderful companion for people who are prone to stress or anxiety. [41:39] In fact, the U of M uses therapy chickens during exam weeks through its [41:44] pause program, pet away worry, and stress to help students reduce stress. [41:52] Second, hens encourage communication. They spark conversations between families, neighbors, and visitors. [41:59] Third, they build routine and responsibility, especially valuable for children who are [42:04] learning accountability. Fourth, they bring joy and laughter. Anyone who's watched hens knows their [42:11] curious and sometimes silly behaviors can brighten your day. [42:17] Uh fifth, they foster mindfulness and connection with nature which is restorative for mental health. And six, [42:24] they provide the quality of life for vulnerable groups. For seniors, people [42:29] living alone or those facing isolation. Hens can provide companionship and a [42:35] renewed sense of purpose. I think I'm out of time. [42:45] I urge you to consider these benefits not just for individual families, but for broader health and vitality of our [42:51] city. Approving this ordinance would help Woodbury grow as a community that values sustainability, wellness, and [42:57] strong neighborhood connections. Thank you for your time. Great. Thank you. Well, thank you all for coming and [43:04] sharing your thoughts. Um, and like I said, we will take this up at another time and go from there. Thank you. Um, [43:12] okay. We'll now move on to the consent agenda. All items listed under the consent agenda considered to be routine [43:18] by the city council will be enacted by one motion and an affirmative vote by roll call of the majority of the members [43:23] present. No separate discussion of these items unless a council member or a citizen so requests in which event the [43:29] items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered a separate subject of discussion by the council. Um I [43:36] always share that and then I always point to our residents first. Does anybody want anything removed from the [43:41] consent agenda? Seeing none, Ashley, anybody online? And if not, then council members. And if nobody wants anything [43:48] removed, a motion, please. I'll move to approve consent agenda item [43:54] 6A through 6E. Second. Motion a second. Any further discussion? [44:00] Hearing none. The roll call, please. Ashley. Council member Santini. I. Council member Stafford. [44:07] I. Council member Wilson. I. Council member Morris. Hi. Mayor Bert. I. Those uh consent agenda items pass. [44:15] Uh we'll now move on to the public hearing portion of the meeting. We do have two uh public hearings. I don't [44:22] have any green sheets for these, so I'm not going to read off the entire story behind it, but if you were inclined to [44:29] come up and speak once we start discussing, I will need to see a green sheet and then I'll give you some of the rules around it. Um, but the first item [44:37] is the consider the approval of the Valley Creek Retail Mo Southwest Grill. Uh, Janelle is here to share more about [44:44] this particular project and the hearing is now officially open. Thank you, Mayor Bert, members of the [44:49] city council. Lisa McCormack on behalf of Delta V-WB LLC has submitted an [44:56] application to amend an existing conditional use permit to allow a class 2 restaurant within an existing [45:03] building. The property is located at 6671 Valley Creek Road, which is in the [45:10] southwest intersection um of or corner of the intersection of I94 and Valley Creek Road. The property [45:17] is zoned B2, general business district, and is guided as places to shop on the land use plan. So, the background on [45:25] this uh particular building, it was um approved by the city council back in 2019 [45:31] and um the city council approved this Valley Creek redevelopment which appro included approvals for variance, [45:38] conditional use permit, and sight and building plan. The approval included things uh such as architecture, [45:43] landscaping, lighting, storm water, parking, types of uses, and the like. The original CUP had a provision that [45:51] prohibited uh class 2 restaurants, fast food, uh with counter service, uh due to [45:57] a deed restriction that was in place on the private access that's between this site and the property to the south. The [46:03] parties have since then agreed um to reach an alternative um to that private [46:08] access agreement that would allow a class 2 restaurant within this building. However, since the CUP prohibits it, we [46:15] do need to amend the CUP to allow this particular use which is called Mo Southwest Grill to occupy the remaining [46:22] tenants space. Uh this is a copy of the site plan. Again, nothing is changing for the [46:29] particular building. Um, it does have uh two other uses in it right now, a Dunkin [46:34] Donuts and a tobacco uh retail shop. So, the Moe's Wheat Mo Southwest Grill would [46:41] be taking this uh far eastern part of the property. So, the the red indicates [46:47] where they would have the required parking or where they intend it wouldn't be signed, I don't believe, but showing [46:54] that they can meet all of the parking needs. So in terms of parking which probably the biggest um consideration [47:00] here uh within the shop or within this building we have three retail uses. Coffee shop which is um you can see on [47:07] the screen the the ratio that is required and the number of spaces they would require 11. The retail space would [47:14] require nine and this proposed class 2 restaurant would be 26 for a total of 46 [47:21] um spaces which is what they have on site. They actually when we approved the original building, we just did a across [47:28] the board retail parking ratio because we didn't know what the makeup of the uses were and it was required to have 35 [47:34] stalls. They did install 46. So they had a little flexibility to account for these types of uses. So again, they have [47:41] um just enough sites or parking stalls to meet this um or should I say the [47:46] seating was arranged to meet the the number of stalls that are there. So the [47:51] planning commission did review this. We do have commissioner Saurin Shaw in the audience to give their recommendation. [47:57] Okay. Would you like to step forward? Saurin if you have a little report. [48:08] Thank you. Hi Mayor and council members. Uh I'm here uh representing the planning [48:14] commission as a leazison. Um as Janelle already said uh the planning commission [48:20] actually discussed this um you know using the same information that the staff had actually provided. Um the key [48:28] discussion points first uh just to kind of bring it forward uh to your benefit u [48:34] uh one that she's already highlighted is the confirmation of the seating places [48:40] and terms of uh parking and corresponding parking spaces. uh and that seems to be covered well. Um there [48:47] is the one of the other discussion was the parking and the traffic flow on the site. Um because specifically there is [48:56] actually you know a drive-thru that Dunkin Donuts the coffee shop has and so [49:02] if you can put up the map I can point to the so so as you can see that the [49:08] proposed striping of the crosswalk that she's pointing to right now uh was the [49:13] way you know it was explained to the planning commission that you know that's how it would kind of prevent any kind of [49:21] safety issues uh for people walking into the new restaurant um from the parking [49:26] spaces uh as well as the fact that you know the traffic flow would be such that [49:32] there'd be visibility you know to people who are coming in cars if someone is crossing across. Um and then um there [49:40] was a clarification also that was discussed which is that in case the existing coffee shop vacates the [49:47] property in future, would the new class 2 restaurant be able to use the [49:52] drive-thru because that is not currently part of what what was actually considered? And [49:59] so the answer from the city staff at that point was not without uh an additional conditional use permit. So, [50:07] so that was discussed and last but not the least is uh there was a question [50:12] around clarification of the maintenance uh um and access maintenance of access [50:19] and landscaping from the city staff and city staff explained that it's actually responsibility of the property owner. [50:25] So, so planning commission after the discussion kind of unanimously voted to [50:30] actually approve um the uh the class 2 restaurant Mos Southwestern Griddle. [50:38] Terrific. Any questions for the buying commission? Commissioner, any questions? Okay. All right. Thank you. [50:43] Thank you. I still have no green sheets. So, uh because and and nobody online, Ashley, I'm assuming you usually alert [50:49] me if we do. Um I make a motion that we close the hearing. Second. Motion is what? [50:55] Oh, yeah. So, I saw Oh, there is Oh, I there is a green sheet. No, for the next Okay. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. [51:01] All right. I'm glad you guys are watching. Um, okay. So, motion in a second. Any discussion around closing [51:06] the hearing? Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any opposed? No. Okay, the hearing's [51:12] closed. Now, we'll open it up to council members for comments or questions. I have a just a couple if I can. Um, [51:19] when when are we looking at opening this [51:25] We are looking to open it uh sorry hi I'm Satnam Delan from Woodbury [51:31] we are planning to open next year around uh Feb time Feb is the you know tentable [51:39] date and um so the parking issue um across [51:47] the well it's a private road but across that way is you some other businesses [51:53] over there in the past when new places have opened. There's been um extensive [51:58] parking issues. Is are there going to is there an agreement that across the lot there will be parking there or have we [52:05] worked that out or what's what's happening there? I don't want another situation that was happened before. [52:11] certainly understand. Uh, mayor and council, there is not a parking agreement on the retail building to the [52:16] south, but the retail operator who, uh, authorized the modification of the [52:23] private agreement is the owner of that building to the south. So, they're well aware of the new uses that's coming in. [52:29] Um, I it would not be surprising to staff if there was some some extra [52:35] parking at opening, but what we've seen in the past is that does normalize over time. Right. Thank you. That's it. [52:42] I haven't been able to do this for a while. Uh oh. Snow. Yes. Snow removal. [52:48] Because we are at capacity from we're at the required minimum for parking. Um I didn't see a condition of approval [52:54] for snow removal. There is in the original approval in the original. So that that's not [52:59] required. The original re well the original would have required at 35 spots [53:05] not the 46 spots though. It it requires an overall overall snow removal plan for [53:12] all all maintain 40, but the snow removal was to be able to maintain 35 spots amended to [53:18] maintain 46. It would not it would be updated to reflect any operational changes. Um I [53:26] don't believe that's going to be necessary due to Dunkin Donuts being a priority site in the morning. Uh this [53:32] use will uh they they have been addressing removal of of snow throughout [53:38] the entire parking area. They're not adding additional spaces. There's already 46. It's existing now, but now they're required to have all 46 available. So if [53:45] they were storing it in three or four spots, it still would have met the require minimum requirements. Now it won't. [53:50] Right. They are removing all of the snow. Okay. [53:56] I really don't know. I'll I'll make a motion to approve [54:02] the Valley Creek Retail Mo Southwest Grill amending conditional use permit and authorizing the removal of the deed [54:08] restriction for a class 2 restaurant in favor of the city of Woodbury project number 07-2025-00588 [54:16] subject to the following conditions as outlined in council letter 25-235. [54:22] Second motion is second. Any further discussion hearing? None. The roll call, please. [54:27] Council member Stafford. Hi, Council Member Wilson. I council member Morris. [54:33] Hi, Council Member Santini. Hi, Mayor Bert. Hi. That is approved. [54:39] Good luck with your project. Looking forward to People always just love more food options and would I did just look at the Is this the first [54:45] one in Minnesota? Yes, it is. This is the first one and we have it in the airport. [54:50] Perfect. Got Thank you. Welcome to Woodbury. [54:56] Yeah. Welcome. Welcome to Woodberry. Um, okay. Okay, next item up is the consider the approval of 7086 military [55:03] road variants. Uh the hearing is now open. Eric, this is yours to highlight, give us the update on. [55:10] Thank you, mayor and members of council. Nick and Cali Johnson have submitted an application for a variance for their [55:15] property located off of Military Road. The property is zoned R2 single family [55:20] estate district and is guided as a rural estate on the land use plan. In order to [55:26] grant a variance, the city council by code shall rely on the review of the [55:31] planning commission and community development staff to review the findings of fact regarding the merits of a [55:37] variance application. Those findings are established within the city code and [55:42] also are established within state statutes and are intended to assist the policymakers in determining whether [55:48] situations and circumstances are unique and outside of the control of an [55:54] applicant. By clearly identifying that there are unique circumstances, a city can understand and reduce the [56:00] possibility that a variance becomes precedent setting within a community. It's important to note that if a [56:06] variance request is determined to be reasonable within the findings of fact but not unique, then it might be a more [56:12] appropriate tool to address that reasonable request through a zoning ordinance amendment process versus a [56:19] variance. The graphic on the screen does identify the findings of fact that uh [56:25] are fully addressed within the planning commission staff report and within the resolution for denial that's within the [56:32] council packet in order to grant a variance. All of the findings must be met. Uh all of those four items and the [56:40] subcategories must be met. And the resolution in front of you this evening identifies that none [56:46] of the findings are met on this application. Again, this property is zoned R2, which [56:53] has a minimum lot size of 3 acres exclusive of wetlands. The variance [56:58] requests to subdivide the property to create two lots on 4.9 acres of land [57:03] exclusive of the wetlands on site. Surveyed lot sizes have not been provided by the applicant, but generally [57:10] the request is to allow two approximately 2.5 acre lots exclusive of [57:16] wetlands, which is about a half an acre less than the minimum size allowed by [57:22] city code. The image on the screen shows the property at 7086 Military Road in the [57:28] approximately 1.1 acre wetland. Uh that's located in the middle and on the [57:34] eastern portion of the site. The total property measures 6.1 acres. Military [57:40] rev road provides access to the existing home that's found on site and the proposed new lot would be requested to [57:47] be accessed from Woodlane Drive which would not meet the city's access management goals for major roadways as [57:53] I'll touch on a little later in the findings of fact discussion. I will not go through each individual [57:59] finding of fact in detailed as those have been provided within the packet, but I will highlight a couple of the uh [58:07] the more uh critical items for council and public evaluation. Um, the planning commission and city [58:14] staff have identified that the request is not consistent with the zoning ordinance, nor is it consistent with the [58:20] comprehensive plan, including but not limited to the goals shown on the screen related to natural resource preservation [58:28] and access management. The applicant has also not shown that [58:33] the prohibited prohibited nature and reasonable use of the property uh is uh [58:40] is not uh met. And in this case, the property owner does have reasonable [58:46] ability to remove the existing home, rebuild the existing home. they could acquire additional land from the [58:51] property owner to the north and then subdivide and meet all of the standards of the 3acre minimum lot size. [59:00] Additionally, there's a finding that requires that the variance is unique. Uh [59:06] the presence of wetlands in the city of Woodbury is not a unique characteristic. We have many properties within the R2. [59:14] We have over 50 properties that are impacted by wetlands and the request to subdivide the property is wholly caused [59:21] by the applicant. Again, the finding does require that the issue is not created by the land owner. [59:30] Additional findings relate to ensuring the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality. [59:35] Staff has identified a number of properties that would be eligible to be subdivided if this precedent were set. [59:42] If council wishes to add additional density in the R2 area, staff would recommend this be done through the [59:48] comprehensive plan process or and or through the zoning amendment process [59:53] versus a variance. A neighborhood meeting was held on September 15th, 2025. There were six [59:59] adjacent residents in attendance. questions related to the process of a variance, the driveway access locations, [1:00:07] and also uh we did receive comments from adjacent property owner that they have 5 acres and they would be interested if [1:00:14] this were allowed to pursue splitting their lot as well. The planning commission also reviewed [1:00:20] this application at their September 22nd meeting and again, Commissioner Saurin Shaw is on hand for the liaison report. [1:00:28] Great. Welcome back, Commissioner [1:00:36] So thank you. This is very different than the previous one. Um so I'll first go through just the discussion points uh [1:00:43] because some or most of them Eric's already kind of covered. Um uh but I [1:00:48] think the the planning commission you know kind of focused on a few things. One is just understanding the lot layout [1:00:55] and specifically the wetland areas within the lot which you saw you know is quite extensive um on the lot there. [1:01:02] He's showing it again. Um and then u you know obviously the proposed lot spitting [1:01:09] the applicant applicant doesn't meet the 3acre minimum uh um exclusive of [1:01:14] wetland. Um and you know commission had some [1:01:19] questions about or one question about you know why was there a request for variance versus you know a zoning [1:01:26] amendment and that you know city staff Eric actually explained it well as in [1:01:31] you know the big thing would be uh you know the variance is a narrow thing just for this specific property whereas [1:01:39] zoning would be like global right and so it has different implications obviously for the city Um and then um one of the [1:01:48] questions was you know historically has any variance like this been received by [1:01:53] the city before and the answer was not. There was no variance like this request [1:01:59] that has been received before. Um other historical variances were primarily for [1:02:06] uh allowance for setbacks you know not not for something like this. Um the last [1:02:12] point that was discussed at the council was at the commission was the harmony [1:02:18] with the neighborhood was discussed um you know as in how would it be and and [1:02:23] and the staff you know had actually provided guidance uh when the lot was up [1:02:28] for sale two to three years ago about the possibility of subdivision. So that was actually provided um you know at [1:02:35] that point that's what we learned. Um obviously Eric already covered that you [1:02:40] know it was uni unanimously denied um primarily because it needs to meet all [1:02:47] the requirements uh and it actually did not meet either of those based on the [1:02:52] assessment done by the staff. So any questions? [1:02:59] No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner, can I just ask you to repeat? I'm sorry. You said that there [1:03:04] was what the property to the north of it was for sale a couple years ago or did I [1:03:10] what? I missed something. No, the prop when this particular lot was actually for up for sale two to [1:03:17] three years ago, there was actually inquiries with the city staff about can [1:03:23] this be subdivided? Okay, got it. Thank you. All right, thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you for that. [1:03:29] Um, okay. I now have this green sheet from Nick Johnson. Um, this is the only screenshot I have. Um, Nick, for this [1:03:35] portion of the meeting, we do allow up to 10 minutes. I don't know that you need that much time, but um, you're welcome now to step forward and state [1:03:41] your name and your city of residence for the record. And then just, um, yeah, [1:03:47] state your state your comments. Yeah. Uh, Nick Johnson Woodbury. I am the applicant. Um, do I have an ability [1:03:54] to I put something on a computer. Do I have any ability to show it on screens here? No, I don't think so. [1:04:01] Um, I'm going to pull it up for myself then. [1:04:11] Um, let's see here. So, I just kind of wanted to go back [1:04:17] through what the staff had kind of concluded and [1:04:22] I guess we have some rebuttals. Obviously, we're seeking this variance and think we qualify. Otherwise, we [1:04:29] probably wouldn't have gotten this point. Eric uh has given us numerous outs throughout the process to kind of, [1:04:35] you know, give it uh either give it out or keep going. And I think [1:04:42] we have a bit of a case. Um so, we're going to, you know, see if um seeing if [1:04:47] you guys have any other uh questions regarding our our side of it. [1:04:53] Um, so the zoning side of these things, so there's the four things, right? The zoning, the comprehensive plan, the [1:04:58] criteria for granting, and then the economic considerations. Uh, as far as zoning goes, uh, from my, again, these [1:05:07] are all from my point of view or from what I read from the staff report, the lot size is too small to accommodate a [1:05:15] building, a house, a septic, a well, um, and it would necessitate necessitate the [1:05:21] removal of trees. Um, my side side of it is it's two and a half acres. Yes, it's [1:05:27] not three, but the reason it's not three is because I have a half acre of wetland that [1:05:34] literally divides my current homestead area on the easterly side to [1:05:41] from the land to the west. I have no access to that 2 and a half acres [1:05:46] whatsoever. Whether it be by wetland, I'd have to, you know, cross the wetland and some boots, build a bridge, or I [1:05:54] have to go out onto county property, the roads, and create an access with city [1:05:59] permission to get access to that line. It is landlocked. Uh, and I have no use [1:06:05] of it at this point. And that is the crux of why I'm seeking this is so I can actually realize the potential of [1:06:13] whatever land I do have. um the comp plan uh and and in doing so I don't [1:06:19] intend to change the R2 zoning uh in this city I'm allowed to clear 30% of [1:06:25] trees I can do that whether I build a building on it or not you know if I just want to thin it out that's part of it um [1:06:32] I don't think it really changes the essential character the harmony of the land since there are a number of [1:06:39] um developments actually that are within a mile planned unit developments that have next to no trees. Um have obviously [1:06:48] altered the the slopes and everything to make those lots work. Uh and then, you [1:06:54] know, put some pretty sizable nice homes on those lots uh in the Autumn Ridge and Autumn Bluff developments. [1:07:00] Um across the street from me is a uh solar farm. also another thing that I [1:07:07] don't think necessarily fits with the rural estate idea, but it's something [1:07:14] that I think none of us really have a problem with out there. And I don't [1:07:19] think adding a building to this corner of the lot makes any difference on the [1:07:25] on the aesthetics of that neighborhood. the comp plan. Um the city's stance is [1:07:33] that it doesn't meet the rural or state goal. The lot size is too small and uh [1:07:38] it requires an additional access point. Um our stance is we're not ch we're not [1:07:46] intending to change the zoning. We're going to keep it as a rural estate. The comp plan can remain intact. uh which [1:07:53] would conform with the 2040 plan and as I've been told verbally probably likely [1:07:59] the 2050 plan even though we don't have it. Um as far as um [1:08:06] criteria for granting um [1:08:13] as far as property will be used in a reasonable manner. [1:08:18] There's the the the point I could only see in that section from the city was that it's needs to meet the threeacre [1:08:25] minimum, which is what we're trying to get a variance on in the first place. If there really wasn't a way for us to get [1:08:33] a variance on that, I would have liked to get I guess know that ahead of time to say you're not even allowed to get a [1:08:39] variance for something like this. It would been a little bit easier to kind of go forward with. Um they also want to [1:08:47] establish or threeacre minimum requirement is there to establish um protect the natural resources the [1:08:54] aquifer and the area's uh semi-ural character. Uh they also suggest options [1:09:00] like rebuilding my home or purchasing land to require the addition the the [1:09:06] three acres needed as stated before. Um to which I don't really have a lot of [1:09:11] interest in rebuilding my home. I like our quaint little home. Uh I'm just trying to realize [1:09:18] the the use of my other portion of ground. Um and any use of that portion [1:09:26] of ground would necessitate an access off of Woodlane. There's no way around [1:09:31] that. And I would think that even if I didn't get this variance, I'd still [1:09:37] somewhat be allowed to put an access because I would need some way to get to that ground that I do own. Um any [1:09:45] proposed alterations to the lot. Um, we could more and happy work with the [1:09:53] city on if they wanted a certain amount of trees or certain trees not cleared [1:09:58] areas, you know, placement of the house on the lot, things like that can be worked out with the city. I have no [1:10:03] problem doing stuff like that. Um, I'm I like our little lot. It's got a lot of [1:10:09] wildlife to it. I'm not here to upset the ecological nature of of this land. [1:10:16] Um, and you know, the purchase of any additional acreage doesn't really change [1:10:23] how that land would be used due to the slopes. There's quite a bit of steep grade there. And so even if I were to [1:10:31] buy land north of me, whatever building I put on, whatever access point I need would be in the same spot regardless. So [1:10:38] really, the adding of land is just to meet the city guidelines. [1:10:44] Um, and it would have to obviously redraw the lot lines. [1:10:50] Um, and then as far as uniqueness, um, [1:10:57] I don't I mean, yes, we have wetlands. Yes, other people have wetlands. Our wetland, like I said, literally divides [1:11:06] my land in half and renders the other half inaccessible. [1:11:13] And that's what we think is unique about this property compared to other wetlands. Say other wetlands do have a [1:11:19] half acre or up to an acre or whatever of land that is separated by a wetland [1:11:25] in the corner or off to the side somewhere. It's not half their land. It's a portion of um and so it it [1:11:33] literally takes away half of my value. Um, [1:11:40] and without uh without a variance, the property is still within full compliance. I [1:11:46] understand. But with a variance, I think the property other than the acreage size [1:11:51] is still within full compliance. Um, [1:11:57] and and again, I mean, I I I don't want to set a precedent. That's not the goal [1:12:02] here. That's why I went for a variance and not a zoning amendment because I'm not trying to make a global change to [1:12:08] the city. I'm just trying to um you know help along the use of my [1:12:16] land and uh you know any precedent that could be set. I mean you could go down a [1:12:23] half a mile and see all those really nice developed lots. Um, and that could, [1:12:28] you know, to me seems to be the new precedent in the area because I would only imagine long-term, very long term, [1:12:36] that's probably the way the area would go as as more residents come in. [1:12:43] Um, criteria for granting variance uh will alter essential character of the [1:12:48] local. Um, other again other than lot size, we're not trying to do anything [1:12:54] different. we're maybe putting a building on it with a means of access. And uh and it doesn't seem like any of [1:13:02] the land owners around me are overly concerned about the change uh in land if [1:13:08] I were to do something like this. Obviously, some have brought up the idea of turning their smaller lots than mine [1:13:15] into two. And I'm not really trying to start anything like that. But I do [1:13:20] believe that variances should be or at least I would think be, [1:13:26] you know, tried or argument argued on a case-by case basis, not on a global basis. [1:13:33] And then as far as economic considerations, it's not really what this is about. I understand that that is [1:13:42] obviously in the back of everybody's mind. We all buy homes and real estate [1:13:47] not just to have a home but to create some value for yourselves, for your [1:13:52] family, for your future. And you know, it's hard to say that there isn't an [1:13:58] economic benefit here. There probably is or there will be, but that's part of [1:14:03] real estate. Real estate is a game that many people play. I don't play it. I [1:14:10] just own land and obviously an economic benefit is a byproduct of what I'm [1:14:16] trying to do. So, your 10 minutes is up. I appreciate you did really well. Like, [1:14:24] take care. Thank you. Yeah. We're having an issue with our indicator [1:14:29] light. So, but that was right at 10 minutes. So, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Welcome. Yeah. Something right. Okay. Um I don't [1:14:37] have any of the green sheets. Ashley, is there any nobody anybody else online at this point? Okay, then I make a motion [1:14:43] that we close the hearing. Second. Motion to second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? [1:14:50] I hearing is closed. Open this up to council for comments and questions. [1:14:56] Okay. I'm glad you have this up here. So, I just need to really understand. So, 4553 is the property. So on the the [1:15:05] like Google Earth one that you showed, right? That's property to the north, [1:15:11] right? And we're just talking about 7 70 7086. That is correct. And then would the thought process be [1:15:18] that the subdivision is north south. So you're creating east west par parcels, [1:15:25] right? Yeah. Within the planning commission staff report, I can bring up the drawing. Generally speaking, this is [1:15:30] what the applicant has provided from a subdivision perspective. Okay. And so then if this went forward, I'm assuming [1:15:38] the John the thought is they're going to want to they're going to possibly sell this other parcel. [1:15:44] That would be the assumption. But I don't it probably couldn't be built on, [1:15:50] right? Because then it's too close like from setbacks and the wetlands and so you're almost creating a non-marketable [1:15:57] parcel depending on the size of the home. We have done some initial analysis and this [1:16:05] graphic does show some of the wetland buffers that are required around because of the size. It will be tight. It will [1:16:13] have to be carefully planned but we do think that there is a certain product that likely could meet the setback to [1:16:20] the major roadway which is 50 ft from both military and wood lane. You need to have a setback from the [1:16:26] wetland buffer um and set back from the north property line as well. It's a [1:16:31] small window, but it based on our analysis, it's it could be done. [1:16:39] But this property would have some value and likely a larger home would be placed [1:16:45] on it, which could put pressure on the applicant wanting to push those boundaries and encroach on some of those [1:16:53] setbacks, which they would have to receive a variance for the new owner. Like, that's also not in front of us tonight. [1:16:59] Correct. It's not. I'm just trying to understand what that's been my whole thing is. I just don't [1:17:04] um what if somebody wanted to have access off of is it wood lane [1:17:11] the north south on the from the woodlane side we would investigate any opportunity for shared [1:17:17] access first. That is our normal practice. If there was legal lots of record that could be created and I think [1:17:23] that's an important distinction here. When there is the ability to subdivide property, there can be the ability for a [1:17:31] lot to be created and access management be more flexible. But in this case, the [1:17:37] there is not a lot of record that can be created. I would encourage the applicant [1:17:43] to have conversation with city staff about alternate access though and that's something that has not been overly [1:17:49] discussed within our discussions. And what I mean by that is he's uh there's [1:17:54] been discussion by the applicant about reasonable use of the property and being able to access the land. Right? That's [1:18:00] clearly there's a difference between an access used for maintenance purposes [1:18:06] versus the volume of traffic generated by a new single family home. And so I I [1:18:13] think there would be a willingness from city staff to look at the ability to add an alternate access to the area that is [1:18:21] separated to allow what is a reasonable request to be able to maintain or access [1:18:26] a portion of their property. But that doesn't necessarily qualify for [1:18:32] the ability to access the property and build a the highest a higher intensity use [1:18:39] in staff's opinion. Okay, those are my questions for right now. Other questions? [1:18:46] I have questions. Um, first of all, I I was thinking this. So, this is actually [1:18:53] if we were to look at it east west, the north is to the right of the screen. The north is up. All right. So, [1:18:59] I'm looking. So, this box is this box. And this is [1:19:06] just this. Oh, I see. I was thinking this was a dividing. That's what I originally too. That's [1:19:11] what I was like just trying to make sure. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um so I just want to make sure as [1:19:18] I'm looking at the um whatever this is compat 2040 comp plan. [1:19:24] I just all of the rural estate lots that are there currently are three acres. [1:19:30] No, not all of the lots are not currently 3 acres. However, all of the lots that are subdivided under well and [1:19:38] septic would be three acres new moving forward. But there are lots that are below. [1:19:43] But they're on well and septic. Correct. There are lots that are substandard currently. [1:19:50] And when were those created or what was the I mean this is I mean there yeah historic. It's they're historic. I [1:19:56] will give council a little bit of information on kind of local areas within 500 ft of this property. The [1:20:04] median acreage is 4.25. The average is 7.42. [1:20:09] Within a/4 mile, there are 10 properties that are below 3 acres, but the median [1:20:16] is three and the average is 6.64. So that's from a locality perspective. [1:20:21] That's one of the ways we look at it from an analytic standpoint. And that's gross, not that's gross. [1:20:28] So I'm looking at like Woodlane El Cove. That's a fairly that's a kind of a newer development to the south, [1:20:35] right? that there are some cluster developments that have been created uh through the planned unit development [1:20:40] process and those are under three acres per [1:20:50] and so just and just so I just I I'm going to ask another question then I'm [1:20:56] just going to throw out um some stuff if nobody else has questions. So, um, the [1:21:03] reason this is, um, because it's it makes the 7086 under 3 acres with the [1:21:11] wetlands. Is that what it is? Or is it the 4553 or both? 7086 is currently 6.1 acres. So, the [1:21:20] gross gross. And so, by going to the I think you're supposed to ignore 45. [1:21:27] Yeah. Yeah. I think that's just showing you on the top like that's a so we're dividing this [1:21:32] property and nobody at home can see what I'm doing but I am dry drawing a line this property [1:21:38] yes from the left side of that property AC how are we dividing it that way got [1:21:45] it perfect I see thank you okay anybody have any other questions go [1:21:51] ahead before I state things yeah what would be the process for a reszone to the Can you reszone individual [1:21:57] properties ask for a zoning change to an individual property. [1:22:03] But this is not serviceable by MUSA. So this is not going to be and that's that's what I'm trying to get get [1:22:09] through is try to understand why this is not going to be eligible for a reasonzoning and that's because it's outside the MUSA. So it's not eligible [1:22:15] for a reasonzoning. So a variance is the only solution to this, right? desire to subdivide [1:22:21] or a modification to the entire district standard to the entire R2. Yeah. Got it. Yeah. [1:22:30] Okay. So, that helps me understand why they didn't go down a path of of reszoning. Say it wasn't a choice. It [1:22:35] just is not going to be an option. And as submitted within the staff report, their other option is to acquire land from the property, which is not [1:22:42] unusual. But we have that happen at a fairly regular basis to meet setback or [1:22:47] to meet other standards for a property to acquire adjacent. I think we've done three in the last uh in the last 12 [1:22:55] months. Yeah. It doesn't have to be the entire property. You're going to purchase 30 ft and move on. What did we do? [1:23:00] Oh, sorry. Well, I was just going to go back to the fact that it'd be different too if from a development perspective [1:23:07] again we continued to and now all of a sudden became ripe to extend you know [1:23:12] municipal services and maybe have more of that conversation which is sort of what we just did off of Ranch Road, [1:23:18] right? Because now we had those services in that one parcel. Yeah. And so we just went through this and we did it as a resoning because Yes. [1:23:26] the the part Yeah. Um I I'll make one thing and then I have one question. What [1:23:31] did we do with the solar property to the west? Did was that a reszoning or was that a cup or a a conditional use within [1:23:39] the allow? Help me understand what we did with that. That is an interim condition conditional [1:23:44] use permit that is reviewed annually by the city council, but it is an allowable use under the code. So it wasn't a zone change. It was an [1:23:51] interim conditional use. So we did we didn't change classifications. So, it's part of the comp plan. It's [1:23:58] still within the comp plan from a zoning standpoint. There is guidance for supporting [1:24:03] sustainable initiatives such as solar gardens within the comp plan. Well, otherwise we wouldn't have issued the interm. Yeah. Okay. That's all I [1:24:11] have for questions other than just comment. Yeah. We just um approved something right south of Bailey where there was [1:24:18] one piece of property that had access onto Woodlane and they were going to [1:24:23] subdivide much larger development and because they are now [1:24:29] being connected to city services. Yeah. Uh they were I thought they were doing [1:24:35] well. Nope. That property was proposed to have city utilities extended to it. The [1:24:40] rationale for that from a flexibility standpoint was that property is located in close proximity to a municipal [1:24:47] drinking water supply well and adding additional protrusion into the aquafer is a riskmanagement issue. [1:24:54] Thank you. I would just think about other properties that had wetland [1:25:00] encumbrances. And so we just we didn't just approve, we approved last year on the in the northeast side as a property [1:25:07] that was significantly encumbered and staff had to work with the developer to finagle a a building onto that. [1:25:14] Oh, the apartment the apartment complex, right? And that I mean significant encumbrance because it was such a large portion of that. So I [1:25:21] can appreciate this the circumference of the wetland but um those conversations [1:25:26] um occurred and how do we make it work within there without ask without the need for variance in order to make from [1:25:32] a planning standpoint. Some properties can make work some properties can't. So that you know my general comment is [1:25:38] going to be this is an unfortunate parcel um that without some of those other things um it's just not not [1:25:44] feasible within its current boundaries. There are other opportunities certainly not maybe with the applicant what they [1:25:52] want to do but if I'm ready to go to comments unless there are other questions. [1:25:58] I have no questions. I just have comments too. So you may lead it off. So I'll just throw in there. I not a fan [1:26:03] of variances because it does set the it does set a new standard. Um if there was a desire for the council to [1:26:11] do this, I think that there are a number of things both at the state level that have been been offered that we have as a [1:26:19] council opposed those um those changes because of infrastructure uh hurdles. Uh [1:26:27] some of the hurdles that we're seeing here with access management, a number of those things. and our reasoning for [1:26:32] opposing that state legislation um is is really within this request for [1:26:38] variance is right here. And so I I think I still stand by my position on the on [1:26:44] the state u legislation and I from this standpoint I would also say this is just [1:26:49] not ripe for variance u based on this findings of facts within staff's report. I just I just don't think it's there and [1:26:54] I think it does set a very dangerous precedent for us. So that's all I have to say. So, well, I [1:27:00] totally agree that the state I I have always felt overstepped their bounds on [1:27:05] that one and um was trying to take over and not uh keep control of this kind of [1:27:13] stuff at the city level. I do have concerns um because although all the [1:27:19] lots down there are supposed to be three acres, they are not. So at somewhere along the way we the council I don't [1:27:25] think it was us um were giving variances for um no is it really [1:27:31] what was it prior to like zoning cool? Yeah I think there's a couple of [1:27:37] different scenarios that occurred um there were some plan unit development [1:27:42] approvals for what's called a cluster development which requires a public benefit. So there are some lots that are [1:27:49] um smaller in nature because of that. There are some R2 lots that have um [1:27:55] municipal water from adjacent communities. So that's a little bit different as well. And there's also some lots within the R2 area that are served [1:28:02] by um by uh municipal sewer from adjacent. So that that's also a little [1:28:09] bit of the ones down off of Century. Those new ones that went in. That's right. Okay. I'm talking specifically the ones [1:28:14] right south of this um that the last portion is historic. This this is an area of the city where there's a [1:28:21] lot of lots of record that have been created 30 40 50 years ago um that do [1:28:28] exist and they are less than the standard but at least in the two plus [1:28:33] decades that Janelle and I have been here there's been a there has not been variances for lot sizes granted. [1:28:39] Okay. And that will always exist in the comp plan process to have exceptions within the the news if if a zone is [1:28:45] changed. We've always done that within the comp plan that hey listen this is an exception. We've changed the plan or we've changed the designation. This is [1:28:52] an exception parcel. Those are noted within the comp within the uh not comp plan [1:28:57] and I'm not sure I see it on the comp plan there. But regardless that like the Woodlane El Cove that was the one I [1:29:03] brought up that is that has not been there 20 or 30 years. That was done through the PUD process. Okay. [1:29:09] So, um I have to say that I I uh was a [1:29:15] little confused. So, I appreciate your um presentation on this and why why we came [1:29:23] to this conclusion or why the staff is recommending this cuz um I I find myself [1:29:28] torn uh between this knowing that there are other lots in the area that is [1:29:34] marked rural estate that is supposed to be 3 acre minimum that are not whether [1:29:40] it's a um PUD or I'm not sure what the public benefit would be of a neighbor [1:29:45] neighborhood going in but um that's um [1:29:50] some people benefit maybe not everybody um but I do know that in the past when we have had these types of not not this [1:29:58] specifically but for instance uh the master planning see I'm going to use the correct term this week master plans for [1:30:04] communities not a PUD you know we do take the entire property whether it has [1:30:10] wetland or not and we say it's x amount of acres and then we say because it's x [1:30:15] amount of acres, you get to have x amount of housing on it. And um I have [1:30:21] always argued that that is not the way we should be doing it because we are we [1:30:26] know we have to have streets and sidewalks and parks and wetland. we know [1:30:32] this, but that and so I've been asking for that to be reviewed on this and because it it does uh present a problem [1:30:40] and now we're we're I feel like we're smack dab right here where we have done master plans where we've taken the [1:30:47] entire thing um and included the wetland in that acreage and and I've always felt [1:30:54] it wasn't fair but yet we do it. So, um [1:31:00] I hope somebody else is going to make comments because I at this point I'm [1:31:06] a little No, I I always I mean these are really hard. I think on my time of seven years in council, this might be our third. I [1:31:12] mean, we have not had very many and so they're really tough. Um I mean, I always think back to the gentleman that [1:31:18] basically build a garage and we had to tell him he had to take it down because he was over his boundaries. I do [1:31:24] remember that like 18 in if I remember right. So I know that that's I mean that's why these are hard but and that's why [1:31:29] they're so um rare I think you know. Yeah. And I'll just add you know one of [1:31:35] the things that we do is establish guidelines and boundaries and and [1:31:42] policies and all that. We we establish guidelines that staff has to follow so [1:31:48] that we have consistency. And um and I give staff credit. I give the planning commission credit for following these [1:31:54] are the guidelines that are provided. This does become a variance. We don't historically do variances for all kinds [1:32:00] of reasons and for that this is another reason I I personally can't accept this. It just it opens up a precedent that we [1:32:06] can't do. I agree that there might be other some options whether it's purchasing a 30-foot strip of land or [1:32:12] whatever to make it work, you know, and if that doesn't work with your neighbor, I can fully understand that as well. But [1:32:17] um I'm just not willing to uh to permit another a variance for something that [1:32:23] we have strict guidelines and we follow those. There's got to be a line of black and white somewhere and this is where the line is drawn. [1:32:28] I would agree with council member Wilson which you know how drive that drives me crazy. Um I'm just kidding, Kim. [1:32:34] That's okay. I'm just kidding. If I we're in agreement, we got I got to go home and check this out. We are in agreement because I would agree with you [1:32:40] that this as we ramp up to the 2050 comp plan that that that that council member [1:32:46] Wilson's point of developable land is that is that a word? Yeah, it is now. Thank you. But but the developable land [1:32:54] just to reiterate that versus total acreage in order to because I know we had that problem in Copper Ridge and I [1:33:02] think that's worthy of discussion because I certainly think that this is this is anam perfect example of a property encumbered by by something [1:33:08] that's just not developable and so how do we maximize that for them while still maintaining our goals of of the comp [1:33:15] plan. I think that's absolutely something that I would absolutely support a conversation as part of the of [1:33:21] looking at the entire zone and the entirety of of our building of saying [1:33:26] what can be built what how do we define buildable land I guess is my point [1:33:31] I guess yeah go ahead oh sorry to interrupt I guess I want to just clarify when we talk about that in some of those [1:33:38] areas it's a different zone right so when we're factoring acres and zoning [1:33:45] It's based on how much you can build in this. And also from a zoning [1:33:50] perspective, that's where the same thing if we were to start to talk about that [1:33:55] like we're not going to allow uh quad, you know, five multi-person [1:34:02] home on the you know because from a density side. So I guess I'm just also trying to clarify from a zoning [1:34:08] perspective the different ways yes we measure and just I guess as that conversation comes up it's just seeing [1:34:14] is it because of the zoning that we talk about it a little bit differently versus yeah [1:34:20] a lot of things to consider with them I appreciate those those comments though they're for another time so let's not [1:34:26] let's be careful about complicating this too much I think there yes I hope we do have this conversation at a future point but I [1:34:33] just I also think that is relevant to exactly what we're discussing and why we're uh and why some of us are going to [1:34:40] vote the way we are because this has been a topic of conversation in the past. I will I will like to go back to [1:34:47] the um I think did I read something about the access onto wood lane as [1:34:52] opposed to military and although I think that that's an interesting [1:34:59] I'm not denying that that's a thing but we did approve I would like to point out that apartment complex on Manning that [1:35:07] is um that was a huge concern of mine with all that traffic heading out onto [1:35:12] Manning uh which is much different than the than the wood lane access of one driveway. So, um I do I do just want to [1:35:20] point those things out that yes, we do have guidelines, but as has been pointed [1:35:25] out in the past, they are guidelines. Um we just had a discussion a couple weeks [1:35:30] ago uh regarding those properties off a ranch road and how property owners have [1:35:37] rights. Prop owners should be I am I have it right here if you want me to. [1:35:44] But again, it wasn't a variance. And that that's a true statement also. [1:35:51] But and and where do property owner rights end? And and um city ordinances [1:35:58] or um guidelines or whatever we want to talk about start. And so I I understand [1:36:05] that it wasn't a variance. I appreciate that. But um I Yeah. And I would just to [1:36:12] that answer I would say where where do property rights end in city begins? It's [1:36:17] defined in what we have established in an ordinance. So as the newest member of the council as I [1:36:23] was reviewing this I have to agree with the mayor. I looked at the guidelines as they exist today and anything else that [1:36:29] might come up we can change in the future. But for right now we're dealing with this piece of property and the [1:36:36] guidelines the variances and zoning and why things were done. the way they are for today. [1:36:43] Okay. So, in the past, when a builder has come in to try to uh get something approved and they felt like the council [1:36:50] was going to vote no. By voting no on something, that shut them down for [1:36:56] uh future stuff within a certain period of time. They couldn't bring it back to [1:37:01] council within a certain period of time. Is that true or not true? Yeah, that on a preliminary plat a um application [1:37:08] cannot be reheard for one year. One year. Okay. This is not on a variance prospect. [1:37:16] I would have to check the statutes and our local requirements on whether there is a [1:37:21] an opportunity to have that reass. But I think when you look at findings of fact, it's unlikely for them to change over a [1:37:29] year of time. What would change is the ordinance or comp plan that would be the [1:37:35] agent of change and then the variance process would not be necessary or needed. I would like to share with council the a [1:37:43] little bit of history on this property. This property has had discussions of of [1:37:48] the wetlands and the impacts of it because it is a fairly large piece for at 6.1 acres [1:37:54] for well over 15 years. the property owners that have previously owned it [1:38:00] regularly checked in with city staff to see if anything had changed, anything been updated. And in fact, that property [1:38:06] owner was a city staff member. We consistently said, "We don't believe this meets the variance findings. You [1:38:15] certainly have the right, as the applicant does. I think we had that conversation many times. You have the right to go through the variance [1:38:20] process. We'll walk you through what that process is, but we also value people's time from a staff standpoint. [1:38:25] we don't see this as something that we think and that's been frankly our mantra for for over a decade [1:38:31] and that's that's an interesting piece of history. Um all right I think we've had enough [1:38:36] discussion on this. I'd like to adopt a motion denying the variance request at 7086 Military Road based on the finance [1:38:43] effect and resolution 25-169 a resolution for the project number 29-20225-0000580. [1:38:51] Second motion is second. Any further discussion hearing? None. on the roll call, please. [1:38:56] Council member Wilson. [Laughter] [1:39:02] I mean, I I am usually solo, but um [1:39:08] I know why you have to come to me first. You don't give me time to process. They did that to me last time. I know, but I but I'm thinking I know [1:39:15] that I know which way it's going to go, but I'm just trying to think how I'm need to vote on this one. Um [1:39:25] An I vote is denying. Yeah. Um and we don't know when they can [1:39:31] come back under a variance. I don't think the timeline matters. [1:39:36] Okay. I uh council member Morris. Hi. [1:39:42] Council member Santini. I. Council member Stafford. I. Mayor Bert. I. [1:39:48] That denial passes and I apologize to you for that. I know you try very hard. give you a lot of credit for that. I [1:39:54] think one thing though is we've tried to be very consistent in our decisions and follow what the ordinance has [1:40:01] established and that's what we're doing in this case. So our best team but I do think to Eric's point [1:40:07] conversations to be had about access getting creative would probably be yes [1:40:12] if that's but it wasn't the access though that was the issue it was the acorage [1:40:18] but right but he talked about the fact that he can't access that side you know and so [1:40:23] we can solve a smaller problem um okay on to staff reports there is no [1:40:29] transportation report um but we have a city administrator's report Yes. Thank you, Madame Mayor, excuse me. [1:40:36] Uh my quick transportation report on behalf of engineer uh engineering [1:40:42] director Hartzell is that and he'll provide a much more detailed kind of wrap up of the year at the next council [1:40:49] meeting, but Valley Creek Road is going to be completely open by the end of this week. I know a lot of people are looking [1:40:54] forward to that, including myself and many others uh in this room. So, uh really happy to see that. They're just [1:41:01] wrapping everything up. Uh so that's the new that's the transportation report there. Uh a few other things real quick. [1:41:08] Um on Thursday, October 26, we're going to have our first green talk speaker as [1:41:14] a part of uh green talks uh Woodbury Green Talks series. Uh I believe that [1:41:20] came out of the environmental stewardship program, which is exciting. So it'll be at o uh on October 16th from [1:41:27] 4:30 to 6:30 at Eagle Valley. Uh it's a combin or a partnership with South South [1:41:33] Washington Watershed District. This program will feature Kenny Blumenfeld [1:41:38] who is the senior climatologist with the state climate office and Jen Kedar the administrator of the clean water council [1:41:45] at the Minnesota PCA or the MPCA. Uh so good climate science related discussion. [1:41:51] For more details about the discussion and just about the program, go to our website. Uh should be a great event and [1:41:58] all are welcome and it's free. Just real quick, I thought I heard two dates. I heard the 26th and the 16th. [1:42:04] 16th. Sorry if I said the 26th. At what time? 4:30 to 6:30. Okay. Thank you. Yep. [1:42:11] Uh next, uh for those that haven't seen any of social media or just website, [1:42:16] Central Park, the um the first phase, I'll call it uh of uh the opening of or [1:42:23] the reopening of Central Park happened on Monday with the opening of Lookout Ridge. Uh widely successful. We'll just [1:42:31] say that right. We feel confident saying that right now. Uh kids love it. There's it's already been widely uh utilized. So [1:42:37] that's great. Over the next several weeks, we're going to have more of the phases. The the atrium area, the meeting [1:42:43] rooms will be opening up. Uh we'll ultimately be celebrating with the public on November 2nd. So, uh thanks [1:42:51] for your patience, everybody out there. Uh it is happening. They're working hard and fast, and you'll see other forms, [1:42:59] other parts of the um of the facility opening up over the next couple weeks. But November 2nd is when we're going to [1:43:05] be celebrating the entire uh facility. Are we having a uh [1:43:13] I don't want to say sort of soft opening on the 30th. We are. Yep. That's still planned. Yep. [1:43:18] Yep. True. That's more of a an RSVP ref. Yeah. Uh [1:43:24] yeah, sink peak. Yep. Uh next, obviously October is breast cancer awareness month. Uh you saw the [1:43:31] chief chief poll out here earlier. U many if not most of the officers have [1:43:36] pink patches uh to kind of raise breast cancer awareness and and honor all of [1:43:42] the victims and and people that have been impacted of breast cancer. Uh just to add to that, uh the K9 Foundation has [1:43:50] is is kind of got a cool program where they're selling the patches to community members and that money, those proceeds [1:43:56] go to breast cancer uh awareness related uh foundation. So, pretty cool and and [1:44:02] go to our website to find out more information. But a very meaningful way to um to honor people that have been [1:44:09] impacted and also a pretty cool thing that our organization and community are doing to help out. [1:44:15] Um let's see here. Uh two other quick things. One is uh our [1:44:22] emerald ash bore um removal program is well underway. It started earlier this [1:44:28] year. approximately 25% of the $500,000 that were uh allocated for that program [1:44:35] have been utilized. So, uh highly utilized, but we still have more money. Uh ultimately, it's for residents or [1:44:42] property owners that have dead ash trees on their property. Uh it costs a lot. I [1:44:47] think you know, anybody who has done some research knows that. So, this is a way that uh the city, if you apply for [1:44:54] it, will actually uh put the whatever the cost ultimately is for the individual property owner on your taxes [1:45:01] in a term of of three, five or 10 years to make it a little bit easier to to to [1:45:06] raise funds to pay for those unfortunate and unexpected costs. So, um, just, uh, [1:45:12] I just wanted to mention that because, you know, it's we've tried to do a good job of promoting it, but I think there's [1:45:18] still people out there that aren't aware of that. Administrator Doll, just just to be clear then for anybody who's listening, [1:45:25] it is not uh, money that the city is giving you to remove it. It is almost like we're offering you a financing [1:45:32] option. Good clarification, council member. That is exactly right. Yep. We're financing it and ultimately you'll still have to [1:45:39] pay for it. Uh lastly, we've got some uh good news here. Um more good news. We've we [1:45:46] received a bunch of um applications for our commissions. The deadline was [1:45:53] October 5th, and we've had a great turnout, especially from our students. So, um the council in the not too [1:46:00] distant future yet this week, we'll be getting all that information. We'll start the pre-screening process and [1:46:05] ultimately we're going to have a special uh workshop where we we have several interviews on November 8th. Uh so thank [1:46:13] you to the community. Looks like we got some uh good applicants and it's a good problem to have uh to have really [1:46:19] qualified residents that represent so many different perspectives from all over the community. That's it. Thanks. [1:46:26] Thank you. You want to talk about the new residents welcome on the 23rd? Uh I'd be happy to. Um and I'll mention [1:46:34] it again at the next meeting as well on the 22nd, but uh welcome to Woodbury is on the 23rd at M Health Fairview Sports [1:46:43] Center uh from 4:30, I believe, to 7:30. Uh so all 7 o'clock. Thank you, Council [1:46:49] Member Stafford. So, uh we'll you'll see more um media about that over the next [1:46:55] couple of weeks, but a really great event. It'll be obviously my first time attending. Uh that provide resources to [1:47:01] new residents, make them feel welcome. We'll have food. Uh just a a good good uh welcome to all of our new new uh new [1:47:09] residents to the community. Yeah. And just with that, I believe we do special invitations out to people [1:47:14] that have moved here recently, so you get something. But if there are other residents that maybe have been busy in [1:47:20] life and really want to come, it's really open to anybody. We're more than happy. Yeah. We're more than happy to [1:47:25] share information about the things the community has to offer. And if you haven't had a chance to go in the past, you won't get a formal invitation in the [1:47:32] mail, but please feel free to come. And I've been told we have bounce houses and things like that for the kids. So, [1:47:38] bring your kids. Uh they'll have a good time, too. Yeah. Yep. Great. All right. Um that's [1:47:44] all we have for our agenda tonight. I make a motion that we adjourn. Second. Motion to second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I. We are [1:47:51] adjourned.