HomeMy Public PortalAbout01.02.2018 Complete Meeting Packet Posted 12/28/2017 Page 1 of 1
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, January 2, 2018
7:00 P.M.
Medina City Hall
2052 County Road 24
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of the December 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Resolution Accepting Donation from Doboszenski and Sons, Inc.
B. Resolution Accepting Donation from Robert Thomssen
C. Approve Amended 64.00 Friends of the Park Program
D. Approve Park Dedication Funds towards Field Safety Improvement Project at Hamel Legion Park
E. Approve 2018 Meeting Calendar
F. Resolution Establishing 2018 Appointments and Designations to Various City Services,
Authorities, Commissions, and Agencies
VI. COMMENTS
A. From Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda
B. Park Commission
C. Planning Commission
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Ordinance Regarding Keeping Chickens and Bees; Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code
1. Resolution Authorizing Publication of the Ordinance by Title and Summary
VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
IX. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
X. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS
XI. ADJOURN
Meeting Rules of Conduct:
Fill out and turn in white
comment card
Give name and address
Indicate if representing a group
Limit remarks to 3-5 minutes
MEMORANDUM
TO: Medina City Council
FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator
DATE OF REPORT: December 28, 2017
DATE OF MEETING: January 2, 2018
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Report
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Resolution Accepting Donation from Doboszenski and Sons, Inc. – Staff recommends
accepting the $250 donation from Doboszenski and Sons, Inc. and dedicating it to the
Police Department’s crime prevention programs.
See attached memo and resolution.
B. Resolution Accepting Donation from Robert Thomssen – Staff recommends accepting
the $100 donation from Robert Thomssen and dedicating it to the Police Department’s
crime prevention programs.
See attached memo and resolution.
C. Approve Amended 64.00 Friends of the Park Program – The Park Commission has
reviewed the Friends of the Park program at their last few meetings and recommends the
attached edits to make the program feel more welcoming and less daunting for residents
to volunteer. Staff recommends approval.
See attached program.
D. Approve Park Dedication Funds towards Field Safety Improvement Project at Hamel
Legion Park – The City applied for a $100,000 grant to complete a $200,000 field safety
improvement project in Hamel Legion Park. The City was awarded $45,000 from the
Twins Community Fund towards the project. The Park Commission discussed the
funding gap and recommended that the City contribute an additional $20,000 from the
Park Dedication Fund to complete the dugout covers. This money is already budgeted to
go towards this project in the Capital Improvement Plan. Staff recommends approval.
See attached memo.
E. Approve 2018 Meeting Calendar – The annual City Council goal setting session has been
scheduled for January 16th at 4 p.m. The Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting has
been scheduled for April 4th at 6:30 p.m. Other meeting date changes are noted under the
calendar. Staff recommends adoption of the 2018 meeting calendar.
See attached calendar.
2
F. Resolution Establishing 2018 Appointments and Designations to Various City
Services, Authorities, Commissions, and Agencies – Mayor Bob Mitchell has
reviewed this document and made the City Council liaison recommendations. Two
seats remain vacant on the Park Commission due to lack of applicants. Staff
recommends the appointments on the attached list.
See attached resolution.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Ordinance Regarding Keeping Chickens and Bees; Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code
– Medina is addressing chicken coop setbacks on smaller rural lots in the attached
amended ordinance. Staff thought it would be a good opportunity to have a broader
discussion related to “urban agriculture” in general and the keeping of chickens and bees
more specifically. The attached ordinance addresses the setback for small chicken coops
on smaller rural lots and provides language to allow the keeping of chickens and bees on
urban/suburban lots. Staff is requesting City Council discussion and direction relating to
keeping chickens and bees.
See attached memo, ordinance, resolution.
Recommended Motion # 1: Adopt Ordinance Regarding Keeping Chickens and
Bees; Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code
Recommended Motion #2: Adopt Resolution Authorizing Publication of the
Ordinance by Title and Summary
X. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS
Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the bills, EFT 004436E-004450E for $54,739.22
and order check numbers 046749-046789 for $147,120.60 and payroll EFT 0508365-0508391
for $49,876.53.
• Planning Department Update
• Police Department Update
• Public Works Department Update
• Claims List
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 1
December 19, 2017
DRAFT 1
2
MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2017 3
4
The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on December 19, 2017 at 5
7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Mitchell presided. 6
7
I. ROLL CALL 8
9
Members present: Anderson, Cousineau, Pederson, Martin, and Mitchell. 10
11
Members absent: None. 12
13
Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, City Attorney Ron Batty, City Engineer 14
Jim Stremel, City Planner Dusty Finke, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, and Chief 15
of Police Ed Belland. 16
17
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (7:00 p.m.) 18
19
III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (7:01 p.m.) 20
The agenda was approved as presented. 21
22
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:01 p.m.) 23
24
A. Approval of the December 5, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 25
It was noted on page four, line one, it should state, “Anderson stated that another part 26
would be consideration is to acknowledge the will and desire of constituents, noting that 27
tax payers in the City want to pay for and receive first rate public safety services.” On 28
page three, line 44, it should state, “…34 36 percent…” On page five, line 42, it should 29
state, “…future employees receive in the future…” On page five, line 30, it should state, 30
“…to ensure requesting assurance…” On page six, line 28, it should state, “…that she 31
desired on which she desires clarity, on including the language regarding abandonment, 32
degradation, the definition of certain items terms…” On page six, line 39, it should state, 33
“…they it…” On page six, line nine, it should state, “…the activity permits. On page six, 34
line ten, it should state, “…unregulated and we can’t charge rent.” On page seven, line 35
25, it should state, “…Council City drafted a memorandum the past year and…” 36
37
Moved by Anderson, seconded by Pederson, to approve the December 5, 2017 regular 38
City Council meeting minutes as amended. Motion passed unanimously. 39
40
V. CONSENT AGENDA (7:04 p.m.) 41
42
A. Resolution No. 2017-100 Granting Lot Combination Approval to David and 43
Katherine Crosby for Property at 2402 Hamel Road 44
B. Resolution No. 2017-101 Granting Amended Conditional Use Permit 45
Approval to David and Katherine Crosby for a Second Principal Dwelling at 46
2402 Hamel Road 47
C. Resolution No. 2017-102 Accepting Donation from Hamel Volunteer Fire 48
Department Relief Association 49
D. Ordinance No. 624 Regarding Management of the Public Right-of-Way; 50
Amending Chapter 4 of the City Code 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 2
December 19, 2017
E. Resolution No. 2017-103 Authorizing Publication of the Ordinance 1
Regarding Management of the Public Right-of-Way; Amending Chapter 4 of 2
the City Code by Title and Summary 3
F. Ordinance No. 625 Regarding Small Wireless Facilities within the Public 4
Right-of-Way; Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code 5
G. Resolution No. 2017-104 Authorizing Publication of the Ordinance 6
Regarding Small Wireless Facilities within the Public Right-of-Way; 7
Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code by Title and Summary 8
H. Approve Accountant II Job Description and Title Change for Jennifer 9
Altendorf 10
Moved by Pederson, seconded by Anderson, to approve the consent agenda. Motion 11
passed unanimously. 12
13
VI. COMMENTS (7:06 p.m.) 14
15
A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda 16
There were none. 17
18
B. Park Commission 19
Scherer reported that the Park Commission will meet the following night to consider the 20
Mark of Excellence concept as it relates to park dedication. He stated that Liz Weir will 21
discuss the Friends of the Park program. He stated that they will begin making snow for 22
the Hamel Legion Park Sledding Hill the following day as well. He noted that the City 23
was awarded a grant from the Minnesota Twins to replace little league lights that are in 24
disrepair. 25
26
C. Planning Commission 27
Planning Commissioner Murrin stated that the Planning Commission met the previous 28
week to consider four requests. She stated that the Commission recommended 29
approval of the request for a fabric storage facility for Hennepin County. She stated that 30
the Commission considered ordinances regarding beekeeping, which passed for 31
recommended approval with a motion of 3-2. She stated that two Commissioners were 32
opposed to allowing the activity within suburban areas of the City. She reported that the 33
Commission considered an ordinance amendment regarding the keeping of chickens, 34
which was also recommended for approval with a vote of 3-2 for the same reasons. She 35
stated that the Commission had a lot of tough discussion on the Mark of Excellence 36
concept. She stated that the Commission appreciated that the applicant considered the 37
comments from the last review but Commissioners struggled with the fact that the draft 38
Comprehensive Plan aims to reduce residential development and the proposed guiding 39
change of the southern parcel to business within the draft plan. She stated that there 40
was discussion of the construction of the road extension and watermain connection that 41
the developer would provide. She noted that there was a lot of discussion on whether 42
the road extension is needed and whether that is a desire from the residents. She 43
stated that the Commission discussed whether it would be appropriate to request a 44
moratorium on development and noted that Finke provided additional details on what 45
that would entail. She stated that the Commission believes that the City needs to honor 46
the time and commitment that went into creating the draft Comprehensive Plan and 47
therefore should not consider development requests that would change zoning. She 48
stated that her term is expiring, and she will not reapply. 49
50
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 3
December 19, 2017
Martin stated that Murrin has been a terrific addition to the Commission and the City will 1
miss the perspective of someone raising a family within a prized community that 2
considers all requests with a thoughtful objective. 3
4
Murrin stated that she has really enjoyed her time on the Commission. 5
6
Mitchell stated that the Planning Commission continues to do an excellent and fair job 7
reviewing requests and commended the work the Commission does, which saves time 8
for the staff and Council. 9
10
Murrin stated that it is tough because she does like the applicant and that he has 11
incorporated the suggestions but still struggles with the timing. 12
13
VII. NEW BUSINESS 14
15
A. Ordinance No. 626 Adopting an Amended Fee Schedule – Public Hearing 16
(7:15 p.m.) 17
Johnson stated that the updated 2018 fee schedule is available at the Council dais, with 18
two changes that have been made to the draft, as suggested by the auditor. 19
20
Mitchell opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. 21
22
No comments made. 23
24
Mitchell closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. 25
26
Anderson asked and received clarification on which version of the fee schedule would be 27
correct. 28
29
Johnson provided additional clarity on the number of gallons. 30
31
Martin asked if that change would apply to the upper tier as well and confirmed the 32
consensus of the Council. 33
34
Johnson confirmed that similar changes to the number of gallons could be made 35
administratively. 36
37
Martin stated that the Hamel Fire Department is receiving more requests from insurance 38
companies to verify fire services, which has been additional administrative work that has 39
fallen to the Chief. She stated that perhaps the police department also receives similar 40
requests. 41
42
Belland stated that those requests would typically fall to the fire department regarding 43
the availability of services. 44
45
Martin asked if that is something that could be done in-house and perhaps a fee could 46
be charged for that, rather than placing that burden on the Fire Chief. She stated that 47
the fee could be charged to whomever is making the request. She commented that City 48
staff is probably more able to respond to those requests. 49
50
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 4
December 19, 2017
Mitchell acknowledged that the task is becoming more burdensome. He stated that he 1
has talked previously about the burdens of paperwork that the Hamel Fire Department 2
has. He stated that perhaps the City could contract with the fire department to handle 3
some of that administrative paperwork. 4
5
Martin asked if it would be more efficient to have that in-house, which could be more 6
efficient. She noted that it could be billed back to the City, if the City were to charge, in 7
the form of fire service fees. 8
9
Mitchell suggested that options be explored. 10
11
Anderson referenced the small wireless facility rent and asked if that fee is established 12
by the State. 13
14
Finke stated that the amount is identified in State statute. 15
16
Moved by Anderson, seconded by Cousineau, to adopt Ordinance No. 626 Adopting an 17
Amended Fee Schedule. Motion passed unanimously. 18
19
1. Resolution No. 2017-105 Authorizing Publication of the Ordinance by 20
Title and Summary 21
Moved by Anderson, seconded by Cousineau, to adopt Resolution No. 2017-105 22
Authorizing Publication of the Ordinance by Title and Summary. Motion passed 23
unanimously. 24
25
B. Mark Smith – Mark of Excellence Homes – East of Mohawk Drive, North of 26
Highway 55 and 1952 Chippewa Road – PUD Concept Plans (7:24 p.m.) 27
28
1. Weston Woods 29
2. Hardwood Hills 30
31
Batty stated that the previous review in October, Pederson recused himself based upon 32
a conversation he had with Pederson in which he concluded a conflict of interest. He 33
stated that since that time, he has reevaluated the information and does not believe 34
Pederson to have a conflict of interest and therefore can participate in the discussion. 35
36
Finke stated that this is a PUD Concept Plan review, noting that the previous 37
Comprehensive Plan amendment requested at the prior review has been withdrawn. He 38
stated that the Roy property is proposed to be developed with 74 twinhomes and is 39
currently guided low density residential and within the current staging period. He noted 40
that the site is 80 acres in size but contains much wetland area and therefore has 28 net 41
developable acres. He stated that the Cavanaugh property is proposed to be developed 42
with 36 single-family homes, 25 row townhomes, 5.7 acres of business and a five-acre 43
open space park. He stated that the site is 53.5 total acres, with approximately half of it 44
wetlands which leaves 27 net developable acres. He noted that the parcel is currently 45
guided as mixed-use development within the current staging period. He stated that the 46
City has formally submitted the draft Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council for 47
review and noted that there are proposed changes within the draft for both parcels. He 48
stated that while the Roy parcel would remain low density residential, the staging would 49
be delayed from the current staging period to the 2025 staging period. He stated that 50
the Cavanaugh parcel is proposed to change to business use and would be available for 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 5
December 19, 2017
development upon adoption of the draft Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the 1
requested PUD would allow flexibility to the underlying zoning districts. He stated that 2
the City would need to determine that the flexibility requested would equate to the overall 3
benefit that would be provided. He stated that the applicant has submitted their narrative 4
of how their request would meet those criteria. He stated that the applicant notes that 5
they have attempted to lay a concept plan out on the northern property, consistent with 6
the R-1 zoning district, and has shown that they cannot develop that parcel under the R-7
1 zoning requirements and hit the required density of two units per acre. He stated that 8
for that reason, they are requesting flexibility with the zoning to be consistent with the 9
City’s Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the wetlands and required wetland buffers 10
make it difficult to develop single-family home lots on the property. He identified the 11
adjacent existing property uses and designations under the draft Comprehensive Plan. 12
He presented the Concept Plan, as submitted by the applicant. He highlighted the 13
locations of the different types of development as proposed. 14
15
He stated that the City’s natural resource specialist walked the property and identified 16
the proposed conservation area as the highest quality on the sites. He stated that the 17
proposed density and timing of development would appear to be generally in line with 18
the existing Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the changes would come under the 19
draft Comprehensive Plan with the change in staging to the Roy property and the 20
change in guiding to the Cavanaugh property. He stated that the City does have the 21
ability to approve of a development if the proposal is consistent with the existing 22
Comprehensive Plan as the City will continue to operate under the existing 23
Comprehensive Plan until the draft plan is adopted. He noted that State statute allows 24
cities to adopt a moratorium to protect the planning process when the city is going 25
through the process of updating their Comprehensive Plan. He provided additional 26
details on the timeline for the review process of the draft Comprehensive Plan by the 27
Metropolitan Council. He estimated that the draft Comprehensive Plan could be adopted 28
in the spring of 2018 and therefore believes that it would be appropriate to consider both 29
the existing and draft versions of the Comprehensive Plan when reviewing development 30
applications. He provided details on the proposed tree preservation, noting that the 31
highest quality portion of the woods would be preserved. He provided additional details 32
on transportation and access. He noted that the applicant is proposing to fund the 33
construction costs for the extension of Chippewa. He advised that the City would be 34
responsible for mitigation and wetland credits that would be needed but noted that the 35
applicant is willing to provide on-site mitigation opportunity as well. He noted that the 36
link has been identified as important to support developing property to the west. He 37
stated that the City has identified the need for an additional watermain in this area of the 38
City, which is the highest infrastructure need of the City. He stated that the applicant 39
has proposed to provide that connection. He stated that the applicant has proposed the 40
open space park and noted that the Park Commission will review the request to 41
determine if they would like more active use of the park. He noted that the northern and 42
southern parcels are located in different school districts. He asked that the Council 43
provide good feedback to the applicant, as this will help the applicant to determine if he 44
should make the investment to move the proposal forward. 45
46
Martin stated that if the City decided, independent of this project, whether the Chippewa 47
Road extension would be necessary, the assessment for that project would be very 48
difficult, as the neighboring property owners could be only partially assessed and 49
therefore the majority of the cost would fall to the City. She asked for details on how the 50
watermain construction would be funded, independent of this project. 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 6
December 19, 2017
1
Scherer replied that water connection fees could be used to fund the watermain 2
improvement. 3
4
Martin stated that she struggled with the benefits that would be provided to residents in 5
surrounding neighborhoods. She stated that there could be bike and running paths, 6
pretty views with access to some gorgeous properties and the trees that would be 7
preserved. She provided background information on the reasoning for the guiding and 8
staging proposed for the properties. She explained that the 2025 staging was selected 9
because that would allow for additional time for the Chippewa Road extension. She 10
noted that she dislikes traffic and acknowledged that this proposal would bring in 11
additional traffic on already busy routes. She believed that MnDOT has no appetite to 12
fund a right-in/right-out turn at Mohawk and therefore they are stuck with the intersection 13
as it is. She stated that she would want additional information on the connections that 14
would be made through trails and to the open space area. 15
16
Finke stated that the plan does identify trails through the open space and staff has 17
suggested additional connections and placement. He stated that they would include a 18
trail along Chippewa as well and that would be an expectation of any development of 19
these properties. He stated that because this is a coordination of the development of 20
two parcels, there would be a larger conservation area. He noted that the coordination 21
of the development also provides the necessary rights of way for the road rather than 22
acquisition that may be needed if the road was done through a 429 process. 23
24
Mark Smith, Mark of Excellence Homes, stated that the new proposal takes into account 25
the concerns expressed by staff, the Planning Commission, Park Commission, and City 26
Council. He stated that this proposal reduces the number of units on the northern parcel 27
from 94 units to 74 units. He stated that they removed the homes along the northern 28
rural border and around the thumb. He stated that heavy trees and shrubs were added 29
along the northern rural and neighboring development to provide a larger buffer. He 30
stated that the homes along the thumb were also removed to preserve the views of that 31
area for everyone in the City. He noted that also creates a 500-foot buffer between the 32
Bridgewater development and nearest townhome. He stated that they reduced the 33
bituminous area by 25 percent, which helps the groundwater quality and provides 34
additional greenspace. He stated that they have a proposed density of 2.94 unit per 35
acre on the northern parcel. He stated that they have hired someone to look at the 36
design of the homes to find additional improvements that could be made. He noted that 37
an additional ten to 40 feet spacing, above what is required by the City code, would 38
occur between the units. He also provides photos of the inside of some of the existing 39
homes of this model that he has built to show that they are not just plain, typical homes 40
and are of a high-quality, ranging in value from $500,000 to $700,000. He stated that 41
they attempted to determine if they could meet the requirements of the R-1 district on the 42
northern parcel and explained that when you remove the wetlands, wetland buffers, and 43
setbacks, they could not meet the two units per acre density requirement and would only 44
be able to reach 1.6 units per acre. He stated that they are still willing to provide park 45
dedication for the area they are not able to utilize for development. He stated that on the 46
southern parcel they would be protecting a quarter mile of shoreline on the property and 47
would provide the five acres of park land along with another acre of trees. He stated that 48
they would provide a bridge across the creek to connect the single-family homes to the 49
park and provide another walkway to the other acre of trees that would be preserved. 50
He stated that if they build Chippewa they would also provide sufficient right-of-way to 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 7
December 19, 2017
support a trail along the roadway. He stated that both parcels meet the density 1
requirements of the current zoning and meet the requirement for mixed-use. He noted 2
that they attempted to keep the density to the low end because they know of the City’s 3
desire to slow growth. He stated that 13 acres of upland would be preserved when only 4
seven acres would be required. He stated that this would be an excellent project and if 5
the City were to wait, a project could come in that meets the minimum requirements. He 6
stated that he also has experience in commercial development and typically a 7
commercial developer would remove additional trees to provide additional views of the 8
water, rather than conserving the trees he is proposing to conserve. He stated that in 9
his mind, Bridgewater would have been much more controversial than this proposed 10
development. He noted that there is development all around this parcel, which creates a 11
doughnut hole; noting that this development would complete the area and provide a 12
connection between the west and east. He stated that the different products would 13
provide a housing variety to Medina residents of all ages. He stated that he went out at 14
6:00 a.m. the previous day and sat in the OSI parking lot. He provided a summary of his 15
results. He stated that he did similar investigation in the afternoon from the Polaris 16
parking lot and provided a summary of those results. He did not foresee that this 17
proposed development would add a significant increase in traffic. 18
19
Mitchell stated that the Council received a number of emails, largely from people 20
opposed to the project. 21
22
Ms. Nohre stated that the developer has stated that he is creating a development that 23
would meet the goals and desires of the community but did not believe that to be true. 24
She believed that most residents are opposed to this project. She stated that in the 25
past, this project has not been supported by the Council and this new version is still not 26
supported by the Planning Commission. She stated that the developer stated that he 27
has spent time and money developing this plan but argued that the City has spent more 28
time and money developing the draft Comprehensive Plan. She asked the Council to 29
strongly consider a moratorium, or at the least, to require studies to investigate the areas 30
of impact surrounding traffic, the environment, and future development. She believed 31
that there would be an implication on traffic. She stated that she moved to Medina for 32
greenspace and urged the Council to focus on the City’s desire to slow growth. 33
34
Mr. Vivanco stated that he drives the route the developer spoke of everyday and 35
disagrees with the traffic information provided on Arrowhead. He stated that the light 36
turns red once three or four vehicles go through. He stated that there are so many 37
workers at OSI that employees park along Arrowhead and Meander and therefore 38
adding additional vehicles would increase the traffic problems. He stated that he does 39
not like sitting in traffic. He asked that the Council not rush into any decisions and not 40
approve the project without obtaining full study information on traffic, the environment, 41
and the City budget. He stated that the City is in the process of having the draft 42
Comprehensive Plan reviewed and one reason the City was ahead of other 43
municipalities is because of the desire to slow growth. He asked that the Council 44
consider placing a moratorium on development until the draft Comprehensive Plan is 45
adopted. 46
47
Martin asked for information on the length of time the resident sits at the light onto 48
Highway 55 from Arrowhead. 49
50
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 8
December 19, 2017
Mr. Vivanco stated that he does not have a length of time but stated that it seems like a 1
long time. He stated that he sometimes misses the first light but then makes the second 2
green light. He estimated that three vehicles are able to turn during a green light. 3
4
Martin stated that the City has identified the need for a watermain and for the extension 5
of Chippewa Road. She stated that there are positives that would be provided through 6
this development, along with what may be considered negatives. She asked for the 7
input of the resident as to whether the benefits would outweigh the negatives. She 8
stated that it seems to be a question of what is better, to have the development now with 9
these benefits or waiting for the development and knowing that the City will not have the 10
same controls in developing the property. 11
12
Mr. Vivanco stated that is a good question. He stated that while he can appreciate the 13
developer is willing to pay for the road, there would still be additional costs the City 14
would have to bear, and those costs are not known. He stated that while the cost to 15
build the road is known, the environmental costs that the City would have to finance is 16
still not known. He believed that the City should go into this with its eyes open as to the 17
implications on the finances, traffic and environment. He believed that the process 18
should not be rushed. 19
20
Mr. Cavanaugh stated that this property has been in his family for 50 years and there 21
have been other development proposals. He stated that the City is proud of that 22
property, because he is paying the taxes on that property. He stated that he has paid for 23
that road a few times over the years with the amount of assessments that he has had to 24
pay. He stated that everyone wants that property to be open space, but it is taxed at the 25
highest value. He stated that this would be a phenomenal use of a topographically 26
challenged property. He stated that the property is not contiguous and therefore would 27
not be suitable for only business use. He stated that business brings in more traffic than 28
a mixed home site. He referenced the traffic that is brought in from OSI. He stated that 29
a fair number of retirees would purchase these homes and would not impact peak traffic 30
times. He stated that this is a proposal for less units than has come forward in the past. 31
He asked the Council to consider the big picture, noting that he cannot picture a better 32
and more thoughtful use of the property. 33
34
Martin asked for details on the last proposal for the property. 35
36
Cavanaugh stated that the last proposal was from D.R. Horton and included a large 37
apartment building in order to reach the required density because of the site challenges. 38
39
Martin asked for details on the use of a moratorium and whether that should be 40
considered. 41
42
Mitchell stated that it is an available tool. He stated that if the Council is generally 43
negative and the applicant were still to move forward, the Council can enact a 44
moratorium at that time. He stated that if the Council is generally positive, there would 45
be no need for a moratorium. 46
47
Batty stated that the City is presented with a project that is consistent with the current 48
Comprehensive Plan but is not consistent with the draft Comprehensive Plan. He stated 49
that the City is pretty far down the road with the effort that has been put in to create the 50
draft Comprehensive Plan and has submitted that plan for review by the Metropolitan 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 9
December 19, 2017
Council. He stated that if, or when, the plan is considered complete, there could be a 1
relatively quick review because the City is one of the first to submit their plan. He stated 2
that the issue would be whether the City likes the project enough to hold the door open, 3
or whether they do not like the plan and simply reply that the draft comprehensive plan is 4
too far down the road and it would not make sense to allow this to move forward. He did 5
not think it would make sense to promote some sort of footrace to get something in the 6
door as that would risk the developer spending a lot of time and money on a project that 7
does not make it. He stated that it would make sense to review this in the scale of the 8
big picture and provide the necessary opinion. He stated that if the Council decides that 9
they will let the approval of the draft plan play out and not delay the adoption, it would 10
make sense to indicate that to the developer so that he can make an informed decision. 11
He stated that a moratorium is designed to protect the planning process. 12
13
Anderson asked if a moratorium would be a blanket that would apply to all developers 14
coming in that might alter the draft Comprehensive Plan. 15
16
Batty noted that a moratorium could apply to all, or part of the community, as desired. 17
He stated that the City has enacted a number of moratoria over the years. He stated 18
that a moratorium tends to be a blunt tool. 19
20
Martin asked if the Council should then be reviewing the concept plan under the PUD 21
ordinance. 22
23
Batty asked if the Council is willing to let the door close or take action to leave it open. 24
25
Cousineau stated that the Council should look at the concept plan not only under the 26
PUD objectives but also under the Comprehensive Plan process. She stated that the 27
Council should decide if they are willing to forego the planning process they have taken 28
the past few years or decide that they are willing to allow this to move forward. She 29
stated that this is such a better plan and appreciates the changes that they have made, 30
but still struggles with some of the PUD criteria. She stated that she also struggles with 31
fairness as the Council has stated that they are not ready for the development because 32
of the draft Comprehensive Plan process. She felt that this would undermine the efforts 33
of the Steering Committee and the desire of Medina residents to slow growth. She 34
stated that one thing people will disagree on is the importance of the road and who will 35
pay for that. She stated that she tends to think the City has spent a lot of time and 36
money on the draft Comprehensive Plan process and the Steering Committee has even 37
reconsidered the Cavanaugh property. She stated that in her opinion, she would say the 38
timing is too late with how far the City is into the review process of the draft 39
Comprehensive Plan. She stated that whatever developer comes in the future will be of 40
the quality the City wants. 41
42
Pederson stated that with the Oakdale situation, he is concerned with the water service 43
and pressure that would be needed for the fire department. He stated that the 44
watermain is needed infrastructure. He stated that in his opinion the cost for the road is 45
between $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 and did not want to be put in the place where they try 46
to make the road work with only City financing. He stated that the developer is willing to 47
pay for the road rather than the City using a 429 project. He stated that this would also 48
provide a park, rather than the City paying for the creation of that as well. He stated that 49
the developer has listened to the requested changes and incorporated all the notes that 50
have been given to him. He stated that he has no interest in going into a moratorium. 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 10
December 19, 2017
He stated that road acquisition would also be needed if the City were to construct the 1
road extension, which would only add costs to the project. He stated that this project 2
would include property on both sides of the road and would also pay for construction of 3
the road. He stated that past developers have walked away from the costs of the road 4
and is unsure how the City could pass on this offer. 5
6
Anderson stated that this is probably the most difficult review the Council has made. He 7
stated that this is a very unique set of properties and would provide the opportunity to 8
manage both. He noted that the watermain will be paid for by the future planning of the 9
City as it has been identified in the City’s plan for public safety and management of 10
growth. He stated that he attended the Planning Commission the previous week and 11
agreed with their consensus that the planning process must be honored. He stated that 12
the City has spent the past two years gaining input from the public and the overriding 13
comment was a desire for slowed growth. He believed that should be honored and 14
noted that adding growth above what has been mandated will not be supported by the 15
residents. He stated that this is a terrific plan and agreed with the comments that the 16
applicant has been great in listening and incorporating comments but did not believe that 17
this is the right time. 18
19
Mitchell stated that OSI purchased property to construct a larger parking lot to solve their 20
parking issue. He stated that when Wealshire was approved, the City knew that was a 21
bit unusual and had to know that there would be some fallout from that decision. He 22
stated that under this proposal, with both sides being developed, that would cost the City 23
less money than if the road is constructed in the future. He stated that a 429 project is 24
not a magic wand and there could be problems with that process. He stated that there 25
was a letter from MnDOT included in the packet stating that the City has to improve 26
Chippewa and noted that extension has been identified in the City’s planning process. 27
He stated that when he ran for office, D.R. Horton had just said no to developing in 28
Medina. He stated that the developer is building in other communities and there was a 29
reason they decided not to pursue the project in Medina. He stated that cities 30
sometimes pass up good projects and regret that they did; providing examples of poor 31
decisions in Plymouth and Wayzata. He stated that in terms of the planning process 32
with the draft Comprehensive Plan, the City and Council know that D.R. Horton pulled 33
out of the site. He noted that at that time the Roy property was not interested in 34
developing and noted that if that property owner were part of the discussion two years 35
ago, he believed the City would have been thrilled. He stated that there is no doubt 36
there is a matter of timing. He stated that when the 2040 Comprehensive Plan started 37
there was nothing before the City and things have changed. He agreed that it is terrible 38
that time has been spent on the new Comprehensive Plan but would like to set that 39
aside. He stated that he would like to consider the merits of the project on its own and 40
not in terms of the timing of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that in terms of the plan 41
itself there are opinions that the property on east across from OSI would be a difficult 42
business site. He stated that perhaps the City has done the best it can do on that piece 43
of land. He stated that on the Roy property there would be a large buffer provided to the 44
neighboring Bridgewater residents. He stated that votes should not depend on the 45
people that call just before the meeting from Bridgewater residents. He noted that there 46
are many more residents in the City than just the Bridgewater Neighborhood. He stated 47
that there has been such little public involvement and therefore the decision falls to the 48
Council and their independent judgement of whether this would be good for the City as a 49
whole. He noted that frequently the people that do not want a project are the people that 50
live next to it. He stated that this proposal had come a long way and if this were 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 11
December 19, 2017
proposed two years ago it would not be a big deal. He stated that the Bridgewater 1
residents would still be opposed to it. He stated that the watermain still needs to go in 2
and the Chippewa extension still needs to get done. He believed that this is the best of 3
a difficult situation. He stated that this is the second iteration from this developer and he 4
would still need to make a formal plan. He stated that if the application turns out to be 5
not what they expected, they can always deny the PUD or impose a moratorium. He 6
stated that he is more positive than negative about the proposal. 7
8
Martin stated that she believes the plan is much improved and thanked the developer for 9
listening and incorporating the comments that were made. She appreciated the 10
comparison to the hole in the doughnut, noting that it truly is. She stated that like 11
Mitchell, she wished that this project had come a few years earlier. She stated that in 12
her mind, it is a matter of a tradeoff of what they will get by accepting the project now, 13
with the added benefit of having the road and watermain costs removed from the City 14
budget and being able to have an enhanced development, rather than waiting a few 15
more years for that development to occur. She reviewed some of the impacts that would 16
occur if this development were delayed and the benefits that the City would not receive. 17
She stated that if she lived in that area, she would be concerned with the additional 18
traffic but would also recognize that this would be better because of the elements that 19
would be conserved and the trail connections that would be provided. She recognized 20
that the City has spent two years working on the draft Comprehensive Plan and were 21
given the ability by the Metropolitan Council to slow their rate of growth. She stated that 22
there were public hearings and the common denominator was the desire for greenspace 23
and rural character. She stated that additional homes, homes clustered together, and 24
additional traffic do not lend to the desire of the community. She stated that she would 25
have liked to hear a few voices in support of the project. She stated that it seems that 26
the initial response was to stop development, and perhaps people have not considered 27
the benefits of the PUD coupled with the cost savings of the City to have this 28
development versus waiting to see what may happen in the future. She stated that she 29
would have to base her decision on the lack of additional support and the planning 30
process the City has undertaken. She stated that the hope in the draft Comprehensive 31
Plan is to have the southern parcel for business to provide continuity of corporate 32
campuses along Highway 55 which would offset traffic and business traffic would go in 33
the opposite direction from residential traffic during peak times. She stated that she is 34
not willing to deviate from the last few years of planning without more public support. 35
36
Pederson stated that there are comments of the additional traffic on Arrowhead. He 37
noted that Wealshire and Lunski are being developed and there is worse traffic on 38
Willow, therefore the same comments could have been said for those. He stated that if 39
they are using that justification, he would have voted against those projects as Willow is 40
a worse access than Arrowhead has ever been. 41
42
Cousineau stated that Lunski was approved 4-1 and the talk of Chippewa was discussed 43
in that application. She stated that project was approved even without knowing 44
Chippewa would be done. 45
46
Pederson asked if funds were collected from Lunski for Chippewa. 47
48
Finke noted that funds were not collected from Lunski but both Lunski and Wealshire 49
would be subject to a 429 project. 50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 12
December 19, 2017
Pederson stated that whichever way this shakes out, everyone has done a great job. He 1
noted that there are people closer than Bridgewater that would be affected by this that 2
are looking at this as a good thing for the City, and that is why they are not here opposed 3
to the project. He recognized the time the Steering Committee has spent. 4
5
Anderson stated that the entire community provided a voice during that process and 6
believed that the Council needs to listen to that input. 7
8
Mitchell thanked the developer for coming and hoped that was the guidance they were 9
looking for. He noted the different emailed letters that were received. 10
11
Johnson confirmed those would become part of the public record. 12
13
Moved by Anderson, seconded by Cousineau, to briefly recess the meeting at 8:47 p.m. 14
Motion passed unanimously. 15
16
Mitchell reconvened the meeting at 8:52 p.m. 17
18
C. Hennepin County Public Works Facility – 1600 Prairie Drive – PUD 19
Amendment for Installation of a Fabric Storage Structure (8:53 p.m.) 20
Finke presented a request from Hennepin County to amend the existing PUD for the 21
public works facility for a relatively small fabric storage structure. He stated that the 22
original PUD contemplated the storage structures but did not contemplate the use of 23
fabric. He stated that fabric structures are allowed in limited cases for the storage of 24
street materials, noting that there are two fabric structures on City properties. He noted 25
that there is a very large outdoor storage area, larger than the City would typically 26
permit, but noted that the site is significantly larger than most sites and is setback 600 27
feet from any adjoining property. He stated that the Planning Commission held a public 28
hearing and noted that this would be located in the outdoor storage area and would 29
cover some of those materials currently outdoor. He stated that because of the large 30
setback, buffers and screening they supported this use. He stated that the Planning 31
Commission seemed onboard with discussing the allowance of fabric structures as an 32
allowed material. He stated that the Commission recommended approval of the request. 33
34
Pederson stated that the perimeter is substantial and confirmed location details of 35
certain elements, such as the landscaped berm. 36
37
Anderson stated that it does not appear that you would see this structure from any 38
adjacent properties. 39
40
Cousineau asked if this would be a fixed location or whether the structure could be 41
moved. 42
43
Finke stated that it is his understanding that they are solid structures. 44
45
Jerome Ryan, project architect, stated that the structure has pilings, which could be 46
taken down and moved. He stated that this would be a storage area, concealed on all 47
sides and surrounding by other outdoor storage items. 48
49
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 13
December 19, 2017
Moved by Martin, seconded by Anderson, to direct staff to draft documents approving 1
the PUD Amendment based upon the findings noted in the staff report and subject to the 2
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion passed unanimously. 3
4
D. Hennepin County Road Transfer Policy Discussion (8:59 p.m.) 5
Johnson stated that the City received a draft of the proposed Hennepin County road 6
transfer policy. He noted that Finke composed a draft letter in response, which 7
addressed the key issues that staff had. He noted that one of the main concerns was 8
the proposed turnover of CR 101 in Medina, as it would not make sense for the City to 9
takeover that stretch of road. He stated that the other area of concern was Hackamore 10
Road. County Road 47 turns into Hackamore Road at the Medina/Corcoran border. The 11
road should be fully possessed by Hennepin County. He stated that the next concern 12
was the area south of CR 116, noting that the County would like to see a north/south 13
connection. He stated that the City had that discussion in the early 1990’s and was 14
unsure the City wanted to revisit that discussion. 15
16
Mitchell stated that the discussion would be whether the City wants to cut itself in the 17
middle with a north/south road. He stated that he would not support that and confirmed 18
the consensus of the Council. 19
20
Anderson stated that there have been concerns with the speed limit on Hackamore and 21
asked if there is any possibility to impact the speed issue on that street. 22
23
Johnson stated that there is a possibility to consider a speed study. 24
25
Belland stated that he did not believe it would be changed one way or the other and his 26
fear with the speed study would be that the speed limit would be increased. 27
28
Johnson confirmed that has been the result of speed studies on two other roadways in 29
the past, but the speed limits ultimately were not increased. 30
31
Cousineau noted that perhaps it would be helpful to gain support from Corcoran on 32
Hackamore. 33
34
Mitchell suggested dropping the second paragraph. 35
36
Cousineau noted that is a fair question. 37
38
Martin suggested comparing the comments with the plans included in the 39
Comprehensive Plan. 40
41
Johnson noted having the County take over Hackamore was never part of the discussion 42
in the Comprehensive Plan, but it makes sense to continue County Road 47 west from 43
Plymouth. He stated that he did not include comments regarding the north/south 44
connection. He confirmed that should be removed as the City does not desire that 45
connection. 46
47
Martin suggested eliminating a sentence. She asked for clarity on the quoted language. 48
49
Finke stated that the quoted language is the policy language from Hennepin County. 50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 14
December 19, 2017
Cousineau suggested citing that reference. 1
2
Martin provided additional grammatical changes. 3
4
Johnson noted that he could work with Martin and Mitchell to update the letter. 5
6
VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT (9:11 p.m.) 7
Johnson referenced an article that was sent out regarding the finalization of the 2018 8
Wayzata levy and budget for comparison purposes. He noted that the municipal liquor 9
operations and license and permit fees help to offset their increases. 10
11
Mitchell noted that there was a similar article regarding the city of Independence. He 12
ref erenced a recent article on Hennepin County that provided the market rate increases 13
for Medina. He noted that it is easy to keep the tax rate low when the market value is 14
increasing by 6.1 percent. He asked staff to look at those elements carefully. 15
16
Johnson agreed that it is important for Medina to continue to review budget information 17
from cities they compare themselves to yearly. 18
19
Anderson noted that the City cannot continue to rely on market value increases to offset 20
budget increases. 21
22
IX. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (9:15 p.m.) 23
Mitchell provided comments on the per capita comparisons and the elements that should 24
be considered. 25
26
Martin commended Mitchell for comparable analysis that he uses when reviewing items, 27
noting that he often examines issues from multiple aspects and that is a strength that he 28
brings to the table. 29
30
Mitchell commended Martin for her analysis that was done for police and fire in terms of 31
salary increases and stated that he would like to see a similar comparison and review 32
done for health insurance benefit costs. He stated that there was a great article in the 33
paper regarding changes to consumers food consumption and the impact that has on 34
farmland. 35
36
X. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS (9:20 p.m.) 37
Moved by Martin, seconded by Pederson, to approve the bills, EFT 004419E-004435E 38
for $52,596.62 and order check numbers 046675-046748 for $329,013.88 and payroll 39
EFT 0508333-0508364 for $48,560.07. Motion passed unanimously. 40
41
XI. ADJOURN 42
Moved by Martin, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Motion 43
passed unanimously. 44
45
46
__________________________________ 47
Bob Mitchell, Mayor 48
Attest: 49
50
____________________________________ 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 15
December 19, 2017
Scott Johnson, City Administrator 1
TO: City Administrator Scott Johnson and City Council
FROM: Director Edgar J. Belland
DATE: December 28, 2017
RE: Doboszenski and Sons, Inc. Donation
On December 27th the police department received a check from Doboszenski and Sons, Inc.
for $250.00 in a Christmas card thanking us for our service.
I would ask the Medina City Council to accept the donation for our crime prevention
programs and direct staff to respond with a thank you letter to Doboszenski and Sons, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
Agenda Item # 5A
Resolution No. 2018-
January 2, 2018
Member _________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATION FROM
DOBOSZENSKI AND SONS, INC.
WHEREAS, Doboszenski and Sons, Inc. has generously offered to donate $250.00 (the
“Donation”) to the city of Medina (the “City”); and
WHEREAS, the Donation will be dedicated towards the Police Department’s crime
prevention programs; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to accept the Donation and express its gratitude to
Doboszenski and Sons, Inc. for their generosity.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina,
Minnesota that the City accepts the Donation and thanks Doboszenski and Sons, Inc.
Dated: January 2, 2018.
_______________________________
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _______
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
TO: City Administrator Scott Johnson and City Council
FROM: Director Edgar J. Belland
DATE: December 28, 2017
RE: Robert Thomssen Donation
On December 13th Robert Thomssen stopped by our department and dropped off a check for
$100.00 for a donation to the Medina Police Department. Mr. Thomssen’s wife passed away
a week earlier and he wanted to thank us for all the assistance our officers provided to him
during this difficult time.
I would ask the Medina City Council to accept the donation for our crime prevention
programs and direct staff to respond with a thank you letter to Mr. Thomssen.
MEMORANDUM
Agenda Item # 5B
Resolution No. 2018-
January 2, 2018
Member _________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATION FROM
ROBERT THOMSSEN
WHEREAS, Robert Thomssen has generously offered to donate $100.00 (the
“Donation”) to the city of Medina (the “City”); and
WHEREAS, the Donation will be dedicated towards the Police Department’s crime
prevention programs; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to accept the Donation and express its gratitude to Robert
Thomssen for his generosity.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina,
Minnesota that the City accepts the Donation and thanks Robert Thomssen.
Dated: January 2, 2018.
_______________________________
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _______
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
City of Medina Policy, Procedure and Program Manual
64.00 Friends of the Park Program
Amended 1/18/2011
64.00 Friends of the Park Program
Purpose:
The City of Medina’s welcomes participation in a Friends of the Park Program. It is a
community effort organized to provide an ongoing opportunity to beautify, clean and
maintain ourthe City’s parks and open spaces and the German Liberal Cemetery for the
benefit and enjoyment of present and future residentsgenerations. It is also the conduit for
Citizen Generated Project Requestsresidents to suggest projects.
Policy Statement:
From time to time the City is approached by citizens residents or residentcitizen groups
with well intentioned proposals for improvements to City propertyparks and trails, often
at no expense to the City. The City must first ensures that proposedsuch projects fit into
long term plans for the City properties for which the projects are proposed and that the
ongoing cost of project maintenance will be manageable.they do not add unreasonably to
City grounds and facilities maintenance responsibilities.
Process:
Community groups or individuals are invited to summarize their suggestions on a Parks
Volunteer Form, provided by the City.interested in improving local parks and open space
or the German Liberal Cemetery will be asked to submit an application for an Approved
Ongoing Program Activity or a Citizen Generated Project Request to the City for review.
Once the project has been approved by the City, the Public Works Superintendent
Director and a Park Commissioner will meet with the participants to provide further
direction.advise and guide them in completing the project.
Approved Ongoing Program Activities
• Work with a Park Commissioner to clearClean up area a park, trail or the German
Liberal Cemetery of garbage and litter
• Plant flowers, shrubs and trees in locations approved by the City of Medina
• Remove noxious weeds by hand or cutting as designated
• Garden, Wwater and maintain plantings around park entrance signs
• Inspect and clean bird houses throughout parks system in late winter and fall,
assisted by an experienced volunteer.
Citizen Generated Project Requests
Individuals or community groups that who are interested in volunteering are requested to:
for Approved Citizen Generated Projects must adhere to the following:
Agenda Item # 5C
City of Medina Policy, Procedure and Program Manual
64.00 Friends of the Park Program
Amended 1/18/2011
1. Submit projects that are generally listed based on those already on the Approved
Project List, developed annually by the Park Commission and approved by the
City Council, or to propose an alternative project for consideration.
2. Propose projects that are generally non-structural and based on preservation and
ecology.
3.2. Create a detailed budget and iIdentify funding sources, if appropriate, for
the project.
4.3. Complete a City of Medina Project WorksheetParks Volunteer form and
submit to City Staff for Park Commission review and approval by the City
Council.
5.4. Be available to attend a Park Commission meeting and City Council
meeting to present your project idea, if requested.
6. Recognize that preference will be given to Medina residents.
City Responsibilities:
• Review and approve project
• Help participants establish a work plan and create goalsAdvise and guide
participants in developing a work plan
• Furnish materials as agreed
Participant Responsibilities:
• Commitment to completing Ongoing Program Activities and the goals createdthe
project:
o Furnish Use plants approved by the City of Medina
o Keep plants properly watered, maintained and weeded
o Furnish transportation for workers
o Provide adult supervision for workers under 15 years of age
o Observe every safety precautions to protect workers
o Protect allTake good care of monuments, signs and equipment
o Return unused materials and supplies furnished by the City within one
week
o
Commitment to completing Approved Citizen Generated Projects and the goals created:
o Furnish appropriate volunteer workers with adequate supervision for
workers under 15 years of age
o Adhere to appropriate safety standards
o Seek input and advice from Park Commission and Public Works
Department during the project, ifwhen necessary
o Secure all necessary funding prior to commencement of the Project and
demonstrate the funding sourceprovide proof of such to the Park
Commission
o Return unused materials and supplies furnished by the City at completion
of the project.
City of Medina Policy, Procedure and Program Manual
64.00 Friends of the Park Program
Amended 1/18/2011
Thank you for your interest in our City Parks and Trails.
Program Approval: City Council approved on 5/4/2010; City Council amended on
1/18/2011
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Through City Administrator Scott Johnson
FROM: Jodi Gallup, Assistant City Administrator
DATE: December 28, 2017
SUBJECT: Little League Field Safety Improvements
The City of Medina applied for a grant in the amount of $100,000 from the Twins Community
Fund for a $200,000 project to complete field safety improvements at the Hamel Lighted Field.
On November 8, 2017, the City Council passed a resolution committing $50,000 to the project
and the Hamel Athletic Club committed $50,000. The City received notice on December 15th
that we were awarded $45,000 from the Twins Community Fund for our project. The Park
Commission discussed the $55,000 funding gap at their meeting on December 20th.
Everyone agreed that the existing $145,000 funds that are dedicated to the project should be used
to install new ballfield lights, because the current lights are 30+ years old and a huge safety
hazard.
The second largest safety concern is installing new dugouts with covers. This item will cost
roughly $30,000. The Park Commission recommended dedicating an additional $20,000 from the
Park Dedication Fund, which are currently budgeted in the 2018 CIP towards this project. The
Hamel Athletic Club (HAC) has committed an additional $10,000 towards the dugouts and HAC
will fund the remaining $25,000 of safety improvements as funds become available.
Action Steps
Approve $20,000 from the Park Dedication Fund to go towards new dugouts at the little league
field in Hamel Legion Park.
Attachments
1. Excerpt of Draft Park Commission Minutes from December 20, 2017
2. Copy of City Council Resolution Approved on November 8, 2017
3. Map of Field Safety Improvement Project
Agenda Item # 5D
Excerpt from Draft Park Commission Minutes from December 20, 2017 1
1) Twins Community Fund Grant for Hamel Little League Field Safety Improvements
The City of Medina applied for a grant in the amount of $100,000 from the Twins
Community Fund for a $200,000 project to complete field safety improvements at the
Hamel Lighted Field. The City Council committed $50,000 to the project and the Hamel
Athletic Club committed $50,000. The City recently received notice that we were
awarded $45,000 from the Twins Community Fund for our project. This agenda item has
been added to discuss the funding gap.
Andy Wahlquist with the Hamel Athletic Club (HAC) introduced himself to the Park
Commission stating he has been with HAC since 2007. He was excited to share that HAC
will have a 15U team for the first time in 2018. He stated that HAC recently invested in
their pitchers by donating 100% of the funds to build pitching mounds at the quad field in
2017.
Wahlquist stated that HAC has been members of Little League International since 2010,
which has strict safety requirements. He stated that the existing lights are 30+ years old
with burnt out bulbs, which do not meet the insurance requirements through Little League
International. He stated that the $45,000 from the Twins Grant, $50,000 from the City of
Medina, and $50,000 from HAC is enough money to install new lights per the bid
received from Musco Lighting.
Wahlquist stated that the other main safety concern from Little League International is
the existing aging dugouts without covers. He stated that he worked with HAC’s
President Mike Mohs and Medina staff Gallup and Scherer to put together a quote to
remove the existing fencing, dugouts, pour new concrete slabs, and install new dugouts
for approximately $30,000 total.
Wahlquist stated that these improvements could make Hamel ballfields a showcase park.
He stated that HAC also intends to host a tournament in 2019 after these improvements
are completed. The revenue from the tournament and increased sponsorship from the
community can go towards the remaining ballfield improvements. He also explained the
larger economic impact a tournament will generate for the community from the increased
visitors and teams staying in local hotels and eating at local restaurants.
Scherer reiterated to the Park Commission the importance of updating the aging lights
and dugouts at the same time, but noted that the City has already committed $50,000 to
the project, which is 25% of the total $200,000 project cost, but closer to 33% of just the
cost of the lights. He stated that if the City commits more money, it is making an
exception to our existing funding policy of 25%. He confirmed with Wahlquist that HAC
could commit another $10,000 towards the dugouts today if the City would be willing to
Excerpt from Draft Park Commission Minutes from December 20, 2017 2
contribute the remaining $20,000. He suggested that the City contribute the $20,000 as
long as HAC agrees to cover the remaining safety improvements that were outlined on
the grant application as funds become available. Wahlquist agreed that HAC would take
responsibility for the remaining $25,000 of field safety improvements such as the outfield
fences and additional bullpen areas as funds become available.
There was a consensus of the Park Commission to make an exception to the 25% funding
policy for the needed safety upgrades to the dugouts. The Park Commission agreed to
further review the funding policy at a future meeting.
There was discussion if there were any additional improvements needed to this field that
were not outlined on the grant such as bleachers. Wahlquist stated that the existing
bleachers are adequate and many families use folding chairs along the third baseline.
A motion was made by Weir and seconded by Beddor to recommend using an additional
$20,000 from the Park Dedication Fund to install new dugouts at the little league field in
Hamel Legion Park. Motion passed unanimously.
Member Martin introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-89
A RESOLUTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT AUTHORIZING
FILING OF APPLICATION AND EXECUTION OF GRANT
AGREEMENT TO COMPLETE BALL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY YOUTH
BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL FACILITY GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Twins Community Fund, via the Hennepin County Youth Baseball and
Softball Facility Grant Program, provides financial support to youth baseball and softball programs
located in Hennepin County, and
WHEREAS, the City of Medina as a local government unit (hereinafter LGU) in partnership
with the Hamel Athletic Club (hereinafter HAC), a 5016 youth baseball association, desires to
complete ball field improvements to address an aging field and safety hazards in Hamel Legion Park.
These ball field improvements will include installing new ball field lights, installing a new outfield
fence at 200 feet, creating a warning track along the outfield fence, creating a 2 -system bullpen area,
removing and replacing existing dugout areas with covered dugouts, and installing a six-foot fence
along the baseball field to the north to create a walkway between fields (hereinafter PROJECT) with
the intended outcome to increase the recreational activities at Hamel Legion Park by allowing ball
programs to run later into the evening and to meet Little League field regulation standards to host
tournaments at this field.
LGU):
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Medina
I. The estimated total cost of developing PROJECT shall be around $200,000
and LGU is requesting $100,000 from the Hennepin County Youth Baseball
and Softball Facility Grant Program; and the LGU and HAC will jointly
assume responsibility for a match requirement of $100,000.
II. LGU agrees to own, assume one hundred (100) percent of operation costs for
PROJECT, and will operate PROJECT for its intended purpose for the
functional life of the facility, which is estimated to be 30 years.
III. LGU agrees to enter into necessary and required agreements with the Twins
Community Fund for the specific purpose of constructing ball field
improvements.
IV. That the City Administrator (authorized representative) and/or Mayor of the
City of Medina (LGU) are authorized and directed to execute said application
and serve as official liaison or its authorized representative.
Dated: November 8, 2017.
Resolution No. 2017-89
November 8, 2017
Y
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
ATTEST:
odi M. Gallup, City Cler
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Anderson
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Anderson, Cousineau, Martin, Mitchell, Pederson
And the following voted against same:
None
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution No. 2017-89
November 8, 2017
S MTWTF SSMTWTF S
1234561234567
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 8 91011121314
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
28 29 30 31 29 30 31
S MTWTF SSMTWTF S
123 1234
4 5678910 5 67891011
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
25 26 27 28 26 27 28 29 30 31
S MTWTF SSMTWTF S
1231
4 5678910 2 345678
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
S MTWTF SSMTWTF S
1 234567 123456
8 91011121314 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
29 30 28 29 30 31
CITY COUNCIL - 7:00 pm
1st Tuesdays*
S MTWTF SSMTWTF S
12345 123 WORK SESSION - 6:00 pm
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5678910 CITY COUNCIL - 7:00 pm
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 14 15 16 17 3rd Tuesdays*
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
27 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 PLANNING COMMISSION - 7:00 pm
2nd Tuesdays*
S MTWTF SSMTWTF S PARK COMMISSION - 7:00 pm
1 22345678 3rd Wednesdays*
3 456789910 11 12 13 14 15
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 HOLIDAYS
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 31 *unless otherwise noted
January 18th: Planning Commission moved from 9th to 18th due to lack of quorum
January 16th: 4 PM City Council Goal Setting Session
February 6th: Minnesota Precinct Caucus (Council moved to Wednesday)
April 4th: 6:30 PM Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting
August 7th: Night to Unite (Council moved to Wednesday)
August 14th: Primary Election Day (Planning moved to Wednesday; Park moved to following week)
September 4th: 6 PM Budget Open House
November 6th: General Election Day (Council moved to Wednesday)
November 13th: 6 PM City Council Special Meeting: Canvass Election Results (Planning starts at 7 p.m.)
December 24th: Employees will use personal leave accrual to close City Hall
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
JUNE
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
2018
MEETING
CALENDAR
13
Agenda Item # 5E
Resolution No. 2018-
January 2, 2018
Member _______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-
ESTABLISHING 2018 APPOINTMENTS AND DESIGNATIONS TO VARIOUS CITY
SERVICES, AUTHORITIES, COMMISSIONS, AND AGENCIES
WHEREAS, the City contracts with various consultants and businesses to provide
services to the City, and
WHEREAS, the City is required to appoint City representatives to City commissions as
well as area jurisdictions, agencies, authorities and commissions as indicated by governing
documents, State statute, or City codes.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Medina
hereby establishes the 2018 appointments and designations listed on Exhibit A.
Dated: January 2, 2018.
______________________________
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ______
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Agenda Item # 5F
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 2018-XX
January 2, 2018 1
Council Office/Liaisons 2018 Appointment(s)
Acting Mayor Kathleen Martin
Public Safety Liaison Kathleen Martin
Public Works Liaison Jeff Pederson
Planning & Zoning Liaison Lorie Cousineau
Parks Liaison John Anderson
Administration Liaison Bob Mitchell
City Consultants
Auditing Services Abdo Eick and Meyers LLP
Building Inspector Metro West Inspection
City Assessor Southwest Assessing
(Rolf Erickson)
City Attorney Kennedy & Graven
(Ron Batty)
City Engineer WSB (Jim Stremel)
Financial Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Fire Marshal Todd Geske
Metro West Inspection (alternate)
IT Cipher Laboratories
(Mike Brocco)
Planning Consultant Northwest Associated Consultants,
Inc.
Prosecuting Attorney Tallen & Baertschi
(Steve Tallen)
City Staff
City Clerk Jodi Gallup
City Treasurer Erin Barnhart
Human Resource Officers Scott Johnson
Jodi Gallup
Data Compliance Officials Jodi Gallup
Ed Belland - Police
Cec Vieau - Police
Erin Barnhart - Finance
Dusty Finke - Planning
Steve Scherer - Public Works
Responsible Authority for MN Government Data Practices Act Jodi Gallup
Zoning Administrator Dusty Finke
Deb Peterson (alternate)
City Committee, Agency, Commission Representatives
Communities in Collaboration Council Ed Belland
Elm Creek Watershed (2nd Wednesday @ 11:30 a.m., Maple Grove
City Hall)
Elizabeth Weir
Vicki Reid (alternate)
Hamel VFD Relief Association (2nd Monday @ 8:00 p.m.) (need 2
elected officials as ex-officio members)
Kathleen Martin
Bob Mitchell (1st alternate)
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 2018-XX
January 2, 2018 2
Highway 55 Corridor Coalition Joint Powers Jeff Pederson
Scott Johnson (1st alternate)
Lake Independence TMDL through Pioneer-Sarah Creek Watershed Hakanson Anderson
Scott Johnson (alternate)
Lake Sarah TMDL through Pioneer-Sarah Creek Watershed Hakanson Anderson
Scott Johnson (alternate)
Elm Creek TMDL through Elm Creek Watershed Hakanson Anderson
Elizabeth Weir (alternate)
Minnehaha Creek Watershed Elizabeth Weir
Northwest Hennepin League of Municipalities (2nd Wednesday @
6:30 p.m.)
Bob Mitchell
Kathleen Martin (alternate)
I-94 Chamber of Commerce Jodi Gallup
Scott Johnson (alternate)
Pioneer-Sarah Creek Watershed (third Thursday @ 4:00 p.m.,
Independence City Hall)
Mike McLaughlin
Pat Wulff (1st alternate)
Scott Johnson (2nd alternate)
Uptown Hamel Inc. (Business Assn.) (third Tuesday @ Noon,
location changes)
Jeff Pederson
Scott Johnson (alternate)
Weed and Tree Inspector Steve Scherer
Designation of Official Depositories & Investment of Idle Funds
Farmers State Bank of Hamel
21st Century Bank of Loretto
Citigroup/Smith Barney
MBIA Voyageur Asset
Management Inc./(4M) Fund
RBC Dain Rauscher, Inc.
Designation of Official City Legal Newspaper Crow River News
Planning Commission Appointments
Three Year Term Todd Albers
Three Year Term Aaron Amic
Three Year Term Rashmi Williams
Park Commission Appointments
Three Year Term John Jacob
Three Year Term
Three Year Term
Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 4 January 2, 2018
Keeping of Chickens and Bees City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council
FROM: Nick Kieser, Planning Intern and Dusty Finke, City Planner
through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: December 27, 2017
MEETING: January 2, 2018 City Council
SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment – Keeping Chickens and Bees in Residential Districts
Background
Over the past few years, staff’s impression is that Medina has experienced an increased interest
in keeping chickens on smaller rural residential lots. Currently in Medina, chicken and bees are
allowed only in rural residential districts. Livestock or traditional farm animals are permitted
only on properties two acres or greater and are subject to maximum density limitations.
Animal structures are required to be set back a minimum of 150 feet from all property lines. This
setback has made it difficult or impossible for smaller rural lots (generally under 3 acres) to
locate a chicken coop.
Staff has also received a number of inquiries from residents of more suburban neighborhood
properties. Currently, city code does not permit the keeping of chickens except in the rural area.
There is a growing trend for communities throughout the state (in fact, throughout the US) to
allow the keeping of chickens on urban/suburban lots, subject to certain limitations.
Since Medina was going to address chicken coop setbacks on smaller rural lots, staff thought it
would be a good opportunity to have a broader discussion related to “urban agriculture” in
general and the keeping of chickens and bees more specifically.
The attached ordinance addresses the setback for small chicken coops on smaller rural lots, but it
also provides language to allow the keeping of chickens and bees on urban/suburban lots for
discussion purposes.
The proposed bee ordinance came from a model ordinance written by the Minnesota Hobby
Beekeepers Association. Many communities in the metro area utilize an ordinance similar to this
model. Similarly, communities in the metro area have relatively similar ordinances related to the
keeping of chickens on urban lots.
A survey of 32 cities around the Twin Cities metro area was completed by the staff of another
city to determine how cities differ in the keeping of bees and chickens. The results are attached
for reference and a summary of the survey can be found below:
Agenda Item # 7A
Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 4 January 2, 2018
Keeping of Chickens and Bees City Council Meeting
32 cities contacted (27 allow chickens) (5 do not allow chickens)
The following are some of the findings of the 27 cities that allow chickens:
Codes 21 have a chicken code
6 have no code
Hens allowed From 1-10. The average is about 5-7
Complaints Very few
Total Permits Average less than 20 per city
Setback The range in urban residential is 5-20 feet from property lines.
Permit fees 5 have a one-time permit fee only
4 have a large initial permit fee, then smaller fees in following years
8 charge fees semi-annually
10 have no permit fees
32 cities contacted (21 allow bees) (11 do not allow bees)
The following are some of the findings of the 21 cities that allow bees:
Codes 9 have a bee code
12 have no code
Hives allowed From 2 - Any. The average is 3-4
Complaints All report zero to very few complaints
Total Permits Average about 5 per city
Permit fees 4 have a one-time permit fee only
2 have a large initial permit fee, then smaller fees in following years
3 charge fees semi-annually
12 have no permit fees
Summary of Ordinance Related to Keeping Chickens
Sections I-III, address keeping chickens in the Rural Residential District, Rural Residential
Urban Reserve District, and the Rural Residential 1 District. The existing 150-foot setback for
animal structures in these districts would still be in place. A property owner who places a
chicken coop 150 feet or more from property lines would not be subject to specific restrictions.
There are more general existing animal density and nuisance standards which would apply.
The proposed ordinance would add an exception to the 150-foot setback for chicken coops in the
rural residential districts in order to reduce the setback to 50 feet. With the 50-foot setback, only
eight hens (no roosters) would be allowed and the structure shall not exceed 200 square feet in
area. Staff is suggesting that the City require a permit before placing a coop between 50-150 feet
from the property line. This will provide the opportunity to provide relevant requirements and
verify the location of the coop.
Sections IV- VIII, and Section XVII (on page 5) address keeping chickens in the Suburban
Residential, Urban Residential, Single Family Residential and Two Family Residential Districts.
The maximum number of allowed chickens in these districts is six. A 10-foot setback from
property lines is required and may only be allowed in rear yards. The chicken coop is required to
Ordinance Amendment Page 3 of 4 January 2, 2018
Keeping of Chickens and Bees City Council Meeting
be kept in good repair and shall not exceed 120 square feet in area. Food and manure shall be
kept in a way that does not attract rodents or act as a nuisance to neighboring properties. Staff is
suggesting that the City require a permit before placing a coop and keeping chickens.
Section XVI clarifies that accessory structures (including chicken coops) are subject to their own
setback requirements beyond general accessory structure ordinance which allows small sheds to
be located with only a 5-foot setback.
Summary of Proposed Ordinance Related to Keeping Bees
This ordinance proposes to allow bees in residential and commercial districts with certain
restrictions. In rural residential districts bees are allowed with no restrictions.
The standards for keeping bees on non-rural property can be found in Section XVIII (beginning
at the bottom of page 5). In the urban residential and commercial districts a bee structure may be
placed with a setback of 10 feet and shall not be allowed in the front yard. In the requirements, a
maximum of four bee colonies shall be allowed in all non-rural districts.
A flyway barrier is required to be built to deter the bees from entering neighboring properties at
eye-level. The beekeeper shall keep a water source near the hives to keep the hive healthy. All
beekeeping equipment shall be stored in sealed containers or inside a building to deter outside
bees from staying on the property. The current draft ordinance would require a permit before
placing the hives on an urban/suburban property.
Staff discussed the draft ordinance with two local beekeepers (from rural properties). Generally,
these residents believed the limitations made sense for an urban lot. The residents suggested
removing the permitting and inspection requirements because they did not believe there would
be concerns based on the limitations.
Staff recently had to request that a property owner remove their bees from an urban property, and
a commercial property owner has expressed interest in keeping a few hives. Staff does not recall
receiving additional inquiries for bees on urban property.
Policy Discussion
Staff supports a reduction of setback for chicken coops in the rural area. The primary question is
whether the limitations similar to an urban lot are necessary in the rural area, even if the structure
is only 50 feet from the property line. The limitations could be removed and only apply to urban
areas.
The following policy direction is requested with regard to keeping chickens and bees on non-
rural property:
• The primary question is whether the City Council wants to allow chickens and bees on
smaller lots.
Ordinance Amendment Page 4 of 4 January 2, 2018
Keeping of Chickens and Bees City Council Meeting
• The City Council can discuss whether a permit should be required before placing the
coop or hive and keeping chickens or bees. Staff does not advocate an on-going or
annual permit.
• The City Council should review the limitations to determine if they are appropriate. As
noted, the limitations were largely based on other communities.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the ordinance at their December
12 meeting. Two residents spoke at the hearing. One resident spoke in favor of reducing the
setbacks for chicken coops for smaller rural lots, and advocated that the City consider setbacks
even smaller than 50 feet to provide flexibility for narrow lots. Another resident described
various aspects of small-scale beekeeping, and spoke in favor of permitting beekeeping as an
option for residents on urban lots. The resident also recommended that the City not require a
permit for keeping bees.
During discussion, two Commissioners expressed potential neighbor concerns related to
allowing bees and chickens within neighborhoods, and potential safety concerns related to bee
stings. Other Commissioners did not see any concerns beyond those expected for dogs.
Following discussion, the Commission recommended approval of the ordinances on a 3-2 vote.
Since the Planning Commission review, staff has combined the ordinances related to chicken and
bees into a single ordinance. The requirements did not change from those reviewed by the
Commission.
Potential Action
Following review of the ordinance, the City Council can request any additional information they
desire. The following actions would be in order if the Council favored allowing chickens and
bees on urban lots and believe the limitations suggested are appropriate:
1. Motion to adopt the ordinance regarding keeping chickens and bees
2. Motion to adopt the resolution authorizing publication of the ordinance by title and
summary.
Attachments
1. Draft ordinance regarding keeping chickens and bees
2. Resolution authorizing publication by title and summary
3. Excerpt from draft 12/12/2017 Planning Commission minutes
4. Results from survey of cities
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE REGARDING KEEPING
CHICKENS AND BEES;
AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Rural Residential District, Section 826.25, Subd. 5 of the code of ordinances of the
City of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
Subd. 5. Animal structure setbacks:
(a) Structures or buildings used to house, exercise or accommodate animals, including
paddocks, shall not be erected within 150 feet of any lot line.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, a structure or building to house chickens
(“chicken coop”) may be erected within 150 feet of any lot line, but may not be
erected within 50 feet of any lot line, provided the following standards are met:
(i) No person shall keep a rooster or crowing hen unless the chicken
coop is located 150 feet or more from lot lines.
(ii) No person shall keep more than eight chickens unless the chicken
coop is located 150 feet or more from lot lines.
(iii) Chicken coops and/or runs shall be kept clean and in good
repair so as to not constitute a nuisance.
(iv) A chicken coop located less than 150 feet from a lot line shall
not exceed 200 square feet in area.
(v) Permit required. No chicken coop of any size may be erected
less than 150 feet from a lot line until the owner has received a
chicken coop permit.
SECTION II. Rural Residential Urban Reserve District, Section 826.25.5. Subd. 5 of the code of
ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
Subd. 5. Animal structure setbacks:
(a) Structures or buildings used to house, exercise or accommodate animals, including
paddocks, shall not be erected within 150 feet of any lot line.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, a structure or building to house chickens
(“chicken coop”) may be erected within 150 feet of any lot line, but may not be
erected within 50 feet of any lot line, provided the following standards are met:
(i) No person shall keep a rooster or crowing hen unless the chicken
coop is located 150 feet or more from lot lines.
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
(ii) No person shall keep more than eight chickens unless the chicken
coop is located 150 feet or more from lot lines.
(iii) Chicken coops and/or runs shall be kept clean and in good
repair so as to not constitute a nuisance.
(iv) A chicken coop located less than 150 feet from a lot line shall
not exceed 200 square feet in area.
(v) Permit required. No chicken coop of any size may be erected
less than 150 feet from a lot line until the owner has received a
chicken coop permit.
SECTION III. Rural Residential 1, Section 826.26, Subd. 3 of the code of ordinances of the City
of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
Subd. 3. Structures or buildings used to house, exercise or accommodate animals in the RR 1
district shall be subject to the following:
(a) All structures shall be set back at least 75 feet from all property lines and at least 150 feet
from any street or right-of-way;
(b) No structure shall exceed 1,000 square feet of gross floor area;
(c) All structures shall be of a design which is compatible with the principal structure;
(d) No structure shall be erected prior to construction of a principal building;
(e) No structure shall be used to house any type of livestock except horses;
(f) No structure shall be used to house more than two horses, except that a third horse which
is the foal of one of said two horses may be kept on the premises for a period not to
exceed six months during any 12 month period; and
(g) The owners of structures or buildings used to house, exercise or accommodate animals
approved pursuant to this section shall comply with the requirements of section 330
of the city code regarding removal of manure.
(h) Notwithstanding the foregoing, a structure or building to house chickens (“chicken coop”)
may be erected within 75 feet of any lot line, but may not be erected within 50 feet of
any lot line, provided the following standards are met:
(i) No person shall keep a rooster or crowing hen unless the chicken coop is
located 150 feet or more from lot lines.
(ii) No person shall keep more than eight chickens unless the chicken coop is
located 150 feet or more from lot lines.
(iii) Chicken coops and/or runs shall be kept clean and in good repair so as to
not constitute a nuisance.
(iv) A chicken coop located less than 150 feet from a lot line shall not exceed
200 square feet in area.
(i)(v) Permit required. No chicken coop of any size may be erected less than 150
feet from a lot line until the owner has received a chicken coop permit.
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
SECTION IV. Suburban Residential District, Section, 826.26.3, Subd. 2 of the code of ordinances
of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined
language as follows:
Subd. 2. Agricultural land uses, except keeping livestock RESERVED
SECTION V. Suburban Residential District, Section, 826.26.5 of the code of ordinances of the City
of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
Subd. 8. Keeping of chickens in compliance with standards of Section 828.21 of this
ordinance.
Subd. 9. Keeping of bees in compliance with standards of Section 828.22 of this ordinance.
SECTION VI. Urban Residential District, Section, 826.33 of the code of ordinances of the City of
Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
Subd. 8. Keeping of chickens in compliance with standards of Section 828.21 of this
ordinance.
Subd. 9. Keeping of bees in compliance with standards of Section 828.22 of this ordinance.
SECTION VII. Single Family Residential District, Section 840.1.04 of the code of ordinances of
the City of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
(7) Keeping of chickens in compliance with standards of Section 828.21 of this ordinance.
(8) Keeping of bees in compliance with standards of Section 828.22 of this ordinance.
SECTION VIII. Two Family Residential District, Section 840.2.04 of the code of ordinances of
the City of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
(7) Keeping of chickens in compliance with standards of Section 828.21 of this
ordinance.
(8) Keeping of bees in compliance with standards of Section 828.22 of this ordinance.
SECTION IX. Urban Commercial District, Section 831.04 of the code of ordinances of the City of
Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
(7) Keeping of bees in compliance with standards of Section 828.22 of this ordinance.
Ordinance No. ### 4
DATE
SECTION X. Commercial-Highway District, Section 838.1.04 of the code of ordinances of the
City of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
(11) Keeping of bees in compliance with standards of Section 828.22 of this ordinance.
SECTION XI. Commercial-Highway/Railroad District, Section 838.2.04 of the code of ordinances
of the City of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
(11) Keeping of bees in compliance with standards of Section 828.22 of this ordinance.
Section XII. Commercial-General District, Section 838.3.04 of the code of ordinances of the City
of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
(10) Keeping of bees in compliance with standards of Section 828.22 of this ordinance.
SECTION XIII. Business Park District, Section 832.1.04 of the code of ordinances of the City of
Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
(18) Keeping of bees in compliance with standards of Section 828.22 of this ordinance.
SECTION XIV. Business District, Section 832.2.04 of the code of ordinances of the City of
Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
(22) Keeping of bees in compliance with standards of Section 828.22 of this ordinance.
SECTION XV. Industrial Park District, Section 833.04 of the code of ordinances of the City of
Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
(13) Keeping of bees in compliance with standards of Section 828.22 of this ordinance.
SECTION XVI. Accessory Structures, Section 825.19 Subd. 5 of the code of ordinances of the
City of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
Subd. 5. One additional accessory building that has a footprint of 120 square feet or less,
such as a shed, chicken coop, or similar type of building, is permitted. The footprint of this
type of accessory building shall not count towards the maximum accessory building size
allowance for the property as required above. In residential and agricultural districts, any
detached accessory building of less than 120 square feet may be located within five feet of
the rear or side lot line, with the exception of animal structures and chicken coops, which
Ordinance No. ### 5
DATE
shall abide by the specific setback requirements in respective district. All detached
accessory building exceeding 120 square feet or larger must meet the setbacks required for
principal buildings in the district.
SECTION XVII. New Section 828.21 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is added
as follows:
Section 828.21 Keeping of Chickens on residential property.
Subd. 1. Keeping of Chickens on non-rural property. The keeping of chickens on non-
rural property shall be subject to the following standards:
(a) No person may keep a rooster or crowing hen.
(b) No person shall keep more than 6 chickens.
(c) No person may allow chickens to range freely without fencing or without a mobile
pen.
(d) Chickens shall be provided a secure and well ventilated roofed structure (“chicken
coop”)
(e) Coops and the subject property shall be maintained in good repair and in a clean and
sanitary manner and may be subject to City inspection as may be deemed necessary.
(f) Coop structures shall be set back at least 10 feet from property lines and shall only be
located in rear yards
(f)(g) The chicken coop shall not exceed 120 square feet in area.
(g)(h) Food shall be stored in watertight, rodent-proof container.
(i) Manure, bedding compost and other waste materials removed from the coop or runs
shall not be piled or accumulated for more than seven days.
(h)(j) Permit required. No chicken coop of any size may be erected and no chickens may
be kept on non-rural property until the owner has received a chicken coop permit.
Subd. 2. Keeping of Chickens on rural property. Keeping of Chickens on property zoned
Agricultural Preservation, Rural Residential, Rural Residential-Urban Reserve, Rural Residential-
1, and Rural Residential-2 shall be regulated within the standards of each district.
SECTION XVIII. New Section 828.22 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is added
as follows:
Section 828.22. Keeping of Bees on Non-Rural Property. The following standards shall apply
to the keeping of bees on non-rural property within the City. These standards shall not apply to
the keeping of bees on property within the Agricultural Preservation, Rural Residential, Rural
Residential-Urban Reserve, Rural Residential-1, or Rural Residential-2 zoning districts.
Ordinance No. ### 6
DATE
Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish certain requirements for
beekeeping on non-rural property within the City, to avoid issues which might otherwise
be associated with beekeeping in populated areas.
Subd. 2. Definitions. The following words and terms, wherever they appear within this
section, are defined as follows:
(1) Apiary- the assembly of one or more colonies of bees at a single location.
(2) Beekeeper- a person who owns or has charge of one or more colonies of bees.
(3) Beekeeping equipment- anything used in the operation of an apiary, such as hive
bodies, supers, frames, top and bottom boards and extractors.
(4) Colony- an aggregate of bees consisting principally of workers, but having, when
perfect, one queen and at times drones, brood, combs, and honey.
(5) Hive- the receptacle inhabited by a colony that is manufactured for that purpose.
(6) Honey bee- all life stages of the common domestic honey bee, apis mellifera species.
(7) Nucleus Colony- a small quantity of bees with a queen housed in a smaller than usual
hive box designed for a particular purpose.
Subd. 3. Beekeeping Standards. The following shall apply to all beekeeping:
(a) Beekeeping shall be allowed in zoning districts in which the use is listed as a
permitted or accessory use.
(b) Honey bee colonies shall be kept in hives with removable frames, which shall be kept
in sound and usable condition.
(c) Hives must be located at least 10 feet from all property lines.
(d) Hives may not be located in a front yard.
(e) No person is permitted to keep more than 4 colonies.
(f) For each colony permitted to be maintained under this ordinance, there may also be
maintained upon the same apiary lot, one nucleus colony in a hive structure not to
exceed one standard 9-5/8 inch depth 10-frame hive with no supers.
(g) Each beekeeper shall ensure that a convenient source of water is available to the
colony so long as colonies remain active outside the hive.
(h) Each beekeeper shall ensure that no wax comb or other material that might encourage
robbing by other bees are left upon the grounds of the apiary lot. Such materials once
removed from the site shall be handled and stored in sealed containers, or placed
within a building or other insect-proof container.
(i) Each beekeeper shall maintain their beekeeping equipment in good condition. It shall
not be a defense to this ordinance that a beekeeper’s unused equipment attracted a
swarm and that the beekeeper is not intentionally keeping bees.
(j) Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, in each instance where a colony is
kept less than 25 feet from a property line of the lot upon which the apiary is located,
as measured from the nearest point on the hive to the property line, the beekeeper
shall establish and maintain a flyway barrier at least 6 feet in height. The flyway
barrier may consist of a wall, fence, dense vegetation or a combination there of, such
that bees will fly over rather than through the material to reach the colony. The
Ordinance No. ### 7
DATE
flyway barrier must continue parallel to the apiary lot line for 10 feet in either
direction from the hive, or contain the hive or hives in an enclosure at least 6 feet in
height. A flyway barrier is not required if the property adjoining the apiary lot line (1)
is zoned rural or agricultural, or (2) is a wildlife management area or naturalistic park
land with no horse or foot trails located within 25 feet of the apiary lot line.
(k) If the beekeeper serves the community by removing a swarm or swarms of honey
bees from locations where they are not desired, the beekeeper shall not be considered
in violation the portion of the ordinance limiting the number of colonies if he
temporarily houses the swarm on the apiary lot in compliance with the standards of
practice set out in this ordinance for no more than 30 days from the date acquired.
(l) A designated City official shall have the right to inspect any apiary for the purpose of
ensuring the compliance with this ordinance at any reasonable time.
(m) Each beekeeper on non-rural property shall obtain a beekeeping permit prior to
installing hives or keeping bees.
SECTION XIX. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this __ day of ________, 2018.
______________________________
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on the ___ day of ______, 2018.
Resolution No. 2018-##
DATE
Member ______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-##
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE NO. ### BY TITLE AND SUMMARY
WHEREAS, the city council of the city of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ###, an
ordinance regarding keeping chickens and bees, amending Chapter 8 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes § 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publication by title and
summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance is seven pages in length; and
WHEREAS, the city council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the
public of the intent and effect of the ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina that
the city clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. ### to be published in the official
newspaper in lieu of the ordinance in its entirety:
Public Notice
The city council of the city of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ###, an ordinance
regarding keeping chickens and bees, amending Chapter 8 of the City Code. The ordinance
adds the keeping of chickens and bees as a permitted accessory use in single-family
residential districts (SR, UR, R1, R2) and establishes standards for doing so. The ordinance
adds keeping of bees as a permitted accessory use in commercial, business, and industrial
districts (CH, CH-RR, CG, B, BP, IP). The ordinance also reduces setback requirements for
chicken coops in the rural residential zoning districts to 50 feet.
The full text of Ordinance No. ### is available from the city clerk at Medina city hall during
regular business hours.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina that the city clerk
keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at city hall for public inspection and that she post a full
copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city.
Resolution No. 2018-##
DATE
2
Dated:
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _________
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 12/12/2017 Meeting Minutes
1
Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 Related to Keeping of Chickens and Keeping
of Bees
Finke presented a potential ordinance amendment to the ordinances related to the keeping of chickens and
bees and reviewed the staff report. He reviewed the required setbacks and the requests the City has
received for smaller lots. He provided a summary of what is allowed for chickens and bees in other metro
communities. He noted that the proposed ordinance change would reduce the setback specifically for
chickens and reviewed the other restrictions that would apply. He reviewed the proposed amendments
related to the keeping of bees.
Reid asked if the permit would be a one-time requirement.
Finke stated that a permit would be required for location of a chicken coup.
Reid asked the recourse the neighbors would have if a problem arises.
Finke stated that the issue could be addressed through enforcement regarding the specific problem that
may arise.
Reid stated that she would want to ensure that problems could be addressed if they arise, as she lives in a
neighborhood where people live fairly close together and therefore there could be unintended
consequences.
Nester asked if there is concern with fertilizer and runoff, and whether that would be a concern for the
health of the animals.
Albers believed that would be a low risk.
Albers opened the public hearing at 8:55
Ryan Lindell, 565 Hackamore Road, stated that he is within rural residential. He asked for information
on the setback for a rural residential yard and yard configuration.
Finke stated that if the setback requirement was met, a variance would not be needed. He noted that there
would be a small permit fee if a permit was required. He stated that perhaps what Mr. Lindell is asking
for is a lesser setback in the rural residential zoning. He stated that perhaps the structural setback of 20
feet would be used in the rural residential setback.
Nester noted that a lot of neighborhoods do not allow outbuildings.
Finke stated that there are covenants in place that would most likely prohibit the keeping of livestock and
poultry within certain developments.
George Bernhardt, 3451 Elm Creek Drive, stated that a mistake that he made was hobby beekeeping. He
stated that he has learned a lot recently about beekeeping and regulations. He stated that there is a lot
more beekeeping that occurs than people realize. He stated that he did not understand the beekeeping
regulations fully, which was his mistake. He stated that he never would have had the bees on his yard if
he knew it was not allowed. He stated that it is important to understand the difference between hornets,
wasps, wild bees, and honeybees. He provided additional input on the habits of bees and the range that
they cover. He stated that he had a problem, because he had a hive that died and since that time has
gained a lot of knowledge on bees and splitting hives. He stated that a resident will most likely never be
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 12/12/2017 Meeting Minutes
2
able to gain the support of all their neighbors. He thanked the Commission for having this conversation
on a topic that is very important to him.
Reid asked if the resident had the chance to read the draft ordinance.
Mr. Bernhardt stated that he is against the concept of having to ask for a permit, as he views that as a
slippery slope. He stated that he agrees with a distance and limit on quantity.
Albers closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m.
Murrin asked and received confirmation that bees are allowed in the rural residential zoning district. She
asked if beekeeping is allowed in the other non-rural residential zoning districts.
Finke stated that beekeeping is not allowed in other residential zoning districts at this time.
Murrin stated that she does not believe that chickens or bees should be allowed in non-rural areas. She
stated that she would also be in favor of keeping the setbacks at 150 feet for chickens. She stated that she
would like to keep the chicken ordinance as it currently exists. She stated that she would be fine with the
beekeeping ordinance, so that there are regulations, but would like that to remain in rural residential as
well.
DesLauriers stated that he does not have any issues with smaller lots. He stated that whether someone has
four dogs, cats or chickens, the nuisance ordinance would apply for control. He stated that he would
favor a one-time permit to ensure that the lot complies.
Nester stated that the scope is so limited, as this would not be allowed in her neighborhood because of the
covenants that exist. She stated that this could create contention, as this would be allowed in some
neighborhoods without HOA’s and not allowed in neighborhoods with HOA’s.
Reid stated that this would regulate no more than four colonies, but the input provided from the resident
appears to state this would not be workable.
Finke stated that there is an allowance for nucleus colonies, which could then be given to another
beekeeper to continue on.
Mr. Bernhardt provided additional input on how the transition and the different phases that occur. He
provided information on what occurs during the winter months as well, noting that 30,000 bees will be
reduced to 5,000 bees during the winter months.
Finke stated that effectively you could have eight hives to allow for the transitioning.
Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Reid, to recommend approval of the ordinance regarding keeping
chickens. Motion carries 3-2 (Nester and Murrin opposed). (Absent: Amic and White)
Murrin stated that she is opposed as she believes the 150 feet setback should be kept and that the keeping
of chickens should be limited to rural residential lots.
Nester echoed the comments of Murrin.
Motion by DesLauriers to recommend approval of the ordinance regarding keeping of bees. Motion
died for lack of a second.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 12/12/2017 Meeting Minutes
3
Reid suggested tabling the ordinance regarding keeping of bees.
Murrin asked the additional information that would be needed.
Reid stated that she would like information on what other communities allow.
Albers stated that his neighbor has an active hive and they are not a nuisance whatsoever. He stated that
the bees are active when the temperature hits 40 degrees. He stated that he also receives honey from his
neighbor.
Reid stated that there is a need for bees in the environment.
Murrin stated that she would support an ordinance if it was limited to rural residential.
Finke stated that activity is already allowed without restriction and therefore would not recommend that
action.
Murrin stated that she would be comfortable with bees in the rural area and would be fine leaving the
language as is, without the rules. She stated that she would be opposed to bees in the suburban area. She
asked if there should be an ordinance with rules for the rural residential area.
Finke stated that there is not a recommendation to add additional requirements in the rural residential
area.
Motion by Murrin, seconded by Nester, to recommend denial of the ordinance regarding keeping of
bees. Motion failed 2-3 (Albers, DesLauriers, and Reid opposed). (Absent: Amic and White)
Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the ordinance regarding
keeping of bees. Motion carries 3-2 (Nester and Murrin opposed). (Absent: Amic and White)
Murrin and Nester noted that they are opposed, as they do not believe beekeeping should be allowed in
suburban areas.
Initial Initial
Bee's Bee Permit Permit Chickens Chicken Permit Permit
City allowed code fee fee allowed code fee fee Comments
1 Maplewood No ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes $50/1yr $75
2 Oakdale Yes No $0 ‐ Yes No $0 ‐
3 White Bear Lake Yes Yes ‐ $30 Yes Yes ‐ $50
4 Stillwater Yes Yes $50/2yr ‐ Yes Yes $50/2yr ‐
5 Mahtomedi Yes Yes $30/5yr ‐ Yes Yes $30/5yr ‐
6 Roseville Yes No $0 ‐ Yes No ‐ $75 Storage shed permit for coop
7 Lake Elmo Yes Yes $25/2yr ‐ Yes Yes $25/2yr ‐
8 Arden Hills Yes ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes ‐ ‐ ‐ If 200' setback is met
9 Blaine No ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes ‐ $45
10 Brooklyn Park Yes Yes ‐ $75 No ‐
‐‐
11 Brooklyn Center Yes No $0 ‐ No ‐
‐‐
12 St Paul Yes Yes $28/1yr $76 Yes Yes $16/1yr $26
13 Anoka Agricultural zones only ‐ ‐ Yes Yes $0 ‐
14 Savage Yes No $0 ‐ Yes No $0 ‐
15 Shakopee Yes No $0 ‐ Yes No $0 ‐
16 Shoreview Yes No $0 ‐ Yes Yes $30/2yr ‐
17 Forest Lake
18 South St Paul No ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes $75/2yr ‐
19 Falcon Heights No ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes $50/1yr ‐
20 Burnsville No ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes $52/2yr ‐
21 Sunfish Lake Yes Yes ‐ $200 Yes Yes ‐ $200
22 Eagan Yes Yes $25/1yr $50 Yes Yes $25/1yr $50
23 St Michael Yes No $0 ‐ Yes No $0 ‐
Rural Res only. Residential requests
at least one per year.
24 Medina Yes No $0 ‐ Yes Yes $0 ‐
Rural Res only, 150ft setback,
Considering Res in future.
25 Ham Lake Yes No ‐ ‐ Yes Yes ‐ ‐ Bees allowed, no code
26 Champlin No ‐ ‐ ‐ No They get requests but tell them sorry.
27 Coon Rapids No ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes ‐ $100
28 Plymouth No ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes No $0 ‐
Allowed on 2 1/2 Acres and up. Res
requests at least one per year
29 Lexington No ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes $75/1yr ‐ 2 coops allowed in city
30 Mounds View Yes Yes ‐ $50 Yes Yes $30/1yr $100
31 Little Canada No ‐ ‐ ‐ No ‐ ‐ ‐ They get very few requests
32 Apple Valley No ‐ ‐ ‐ No ‐ ‐ ‐ They get very few requests
ChickensBees
Yes ‐ Agricultural zones above 5 acres only Yes ‐ Agricultural zones above 5 acres only
Permits Permits Neighbor Permits Permits Neighbor
City Bee issued issued Total Inspection Training consent Colonies Chicken issued issued Total Inspection Training consent Hens Comments My
code 2016 2017 Permits Complaints Required Required Required allowed code 2016 2017 Permits Complaints Required Required Required allowed contact
Maplewood No Yes 10 7 29
Almost
monthly
Yes
annually No
Yes, all
within
150'
10
One request for bees in last four years.
Chickens are a headache because of 150ft
neighbor notification. Many appeals to
council because of it. Looking at eliminating
the 150ft notification clause because of
appeals, disagreements, time, and cost for
mailings. Chicken interest has exploded in last
couple years. 3 permits denied because lack
of 100% neighbor approval. They get
complaints at nearly all Council meetings.
Michelle
Larson 651‐
249‐2001
Oakdale No * 0 1 1 0
As
necessary No
Yes, all
within
150'
No
quantity
in code
No * 0 5 5 1
No, as
necessary No
Yes, all
within
150'
1
Oakdale does not have a code specific to
Bee's or Chickens. * Residents submit a permit
for the animal they intend to keep and then
Oakdale decides the terms and limits they will
allow for the property. Complaints are
handled under the animal and nuisance code.
Michelle
Stark & Ryan
Stuart 651‐
702‐5204
White Bear
Lake Yes
2014 ‐ 1
2015 ‐ 2
2016 ‐ 1
0 4 1 No Yes
Yes, all
within
100'
4 Yes 6 3 9 2 per year
Yes
initial
only
No
Yes, if less
than 50'
from
neighbor
house
4
WBL has a have a combined Chicken and
Pigeon code. They also have two active
pigeon keepers and one in progress. They get
about 2 Chicken complaints each year. They
have had one bee complaint since inception.
Samantha
Crosby
651‐429‐8534
Stillwater Yes 3 3 11 0 No Yes
Yes, all
within
150'
2 Yes
2013 ‐ 9
2014 ‐ 5
2015 ‐ 14
2016 ‐ 7
338 3 No
Read
Brochure
Yes, all
within
150'
5
The only complaints he believes are from
neighbors that don't like each other within
the 150' notification area. The council then
always approves the permit with a 1 year
renewal rather than 2 years.
Eric 651‐430‐
8818
Mahtomedi Yes
No, as
necessary Yes
Yes, all
within
350'
4 Yes
No, as
necessary Yes No 6
White Bear Lake takes care of code
enforcement for the City of Mahtomedi.
Mahtomedi just approved allowing chickens
or bees within the past month. They have had
no complaints for chickens or bees at this
time.
Samantha
Crosby
651‐429‐8534
Roseville No * 0 No No No
any
amount No * Very few No No No
any
amount
Roseville does not regulate chickens or bees.
For chickens they require a shed permit for
the coop. They don't make any inspections.
They make recommendations only, ie:
Roosters cannot make noise, suggest training,
cleanup waste, notify neighbors, etc. The
code enforcement officer says they had about
20 calls mostly for chickens. Permits are not
needed. *Complaints handled under the
animal and nuisance code.
Brian
Coughlin
651‐792‐7082
Eagan Yes 4 0
Yes
annually Yes No 2* Yes 26
0
maybe 1
Yes
annually Yes No 5 *Numorous bee hives allowed if large acreage
Carol Tumini
651‐675‐5031
ChickensBees
All since 2016 All since 2015
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 January 2, 2018
City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: December 26, 2017
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – January 2, 2018 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) Hennepin County Storage Building PUD Amendment – 1600 Prairie Drive – Hennepin County
Emergency Management has requested an amendment to the Hennepin County Public Works PUD
to allow a 2500 square foot fabric storage building within the storage yard at the Hennepin County
Public Works Facility. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request at the
December 12 meeting and unanimously recommend approval. The City Council reviewed on
December 19 and directed staff to prepare approval docs, which are scheduled to be presented to the
Council on January 16.
B) School Lake Nature Preserve CD-PUD – Wally and Bridget Marx have requested final plat
approval for their conservation design subdivision of 6 lots and conservation of 70 acres (11.76
buildable). Staff is reviewing the submitted material and will present when complete, potentially at
the January 16 meeting.
C) Maxxon Text Amendment (Fiber Cement) – Maxxon has requested that the City consider allowing
fiber cement panels as an allowed exterior building material to re-side existing masonry structures to
prevent moisture intrusion. Fiber cement panels are not currently permitted as an exterior material.
The Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to review at the January 18 meeting.
D) Maxxon Site Plan Review – 900-920 Hamel Road – Maxxon has requested a site plan review for a
4,854 square foot addition between the two existing buildings on their property. The applicant
proposes to convert existing bituminous to pervious surfacing because no more hardcover can be
added as a result of the Elm Creek Shoreland Overlay District. The Planning Commission is
tentatively scheduled to review at the January 18 meeting.
E) Crosby Lot Combination and CUP Amendment – David and Kitty Crosby have requested a lot
combination of their property at 2402 Hamel Road and the adjacent 33 acres. The applicants have
also requested an amendment to the recently adopted CUP for a 2nd home on the 2402 Hamel Road
property so that the CUP will apply to the entirety of the combined parcel. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing at the November 14 meeting and unanimously recommended
approval of the amendment to the CUP. The Council adopted resolutions of approval on December
19. The project will now be closed.
F) Weston Woods of Medina PUD Concept Plan – 1952 Chippewa Road – Mark of Excellence
Homes has requested review of a PUD concept plan for the development of 74 twinhomes on 80
acres (~28 buildable) east of Mohawk Drive, and north of Chippewa Road. The applicant has
revised the plan and reduced from 94 twinhomes as previously shown. The Planning Commission
held a public hearing on December 12 in connection with the Hardwood Hills concept (below). The
City Council provided comments at the December 19 meeting. The project will now be closed.
G) Hardwood Hills (Mark Smith) PUD Concept Plan – NE corner of Highway 55 and Mohawk Drive
– Mark Smith of Mark of Excellence Homes has also requested a PUD Concept Plan related to a 60-
lot subdivision immediately south of the Weston Woods project. The project proposes 36 single-
family and 24 townhomes, 5 acres commercial, and a 5 acre preserved wooded area. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on December 12 in connection with the Weston Woods concept
(above). The City Council provided comments at the December 19 meeting. The project will now
be closed
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 January 2, 2018
City Council Meeting
H) Lunski Final Plat – Lunski, Inc. has applied for final approval of the subdivision related to
the development of 80 units of mixed senior housing and 24,000 s.f. of office north of
Highway 55 and west of Mohawk Drive. The Council adopted a resolution of approval at
the November 16 meeting. Staff will work with applicant on conditions of approval before
construction begins.
I) Reserve of Medina Second Addition – Toll Brothers has requested approval of the second
phase of the Reserve of Medina project. The City Council adopted approval documents on
September 19. Staff will work with the developer related to the conditions of approval.
J) Johnson ADU CUP, Dykhoff Septic Variance, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery – The
City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants
with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects.
K) Woods of Medina – This preliminary plat has been approved and staff is awaiting a final plat
application
L) Hamel Road Thirty Two, Hamel Haven subdivisions – These subdivisions have received final
approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plats are
recorded
Other Projects
A) Comprehensive Plan – The City Council completed review of the draft Comprehensive Plan update
at the November 16 meeting and directed staff to submit for Met Council review. The Plan has been
submitted for Met Council review and staff awaits notification whether our request is complete.
B) Chicken and Bee ordinances – staff intends to present information related to the keeping of
chickens and bees on smaller lots in the City. Cities have seen an increased interest in “urban
agriculture” and a number have adopted ordinances to permit. The Planning Commission held a
public hearing at the December 12 meeting. Following the hearing, the Commission voted 3-2 to
recommend approval of the ordinances. The City Council is scheduled to review on January 2.
C) Small Cellular Antennae ordinance – Planning staff will be coordinating amendments to the City’s
right-of-way ordinance related to recent changes to state law which mandate the City to permit cell
phone companies to attach small antennas to City street posts. The City Council adopted the
ordinances at the December 19 meeting.
D) County Road 101 Trail Connection – staff initiated a meeting with the City of Plymouth and the
Wayzata School District related to a potential trail connection from the west side of County Road
101 to the new elementary school location which will soon be under construction on the east side of
County Road 101. The project is identified in the City’s CIP for 2019. It appears that staff may have
convinced Wayzata Schools to include civil engineering for the trail within their broader
construction project. Staff intends to push to apply for grants this spring to help fund construction.
E) Planning Commission interviews – Council Member Anderson, Chair White, and I met and
discussed applicants for Planning Commission and interviewed our non-sitting applicant. The panel
is recommending the appointment of Todd Albers, Aaron Amic, and Rashmi Williams to the
Commission.
TO: Mayor Robert Mitchell and City Council
FROM: Edgar J. Belland, Director of Public Safety,
Through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: December 28, 2017
RE: Department Updates
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Hoping you all had a very Merry Christmas and a Safe and Happy New Year.
Donations
We received two donations last week from two different parties. The first was from Robert
Thomssen. His wife had passed away last month and our officers responded to assist with
the scene. The second donation was from the Doboszenski & Sons thanking us for what we
do for the community. There will be acceptance memos on the agenda asking the Council
to put the money aside for our crime prevention fund.
Lake Area Emergency Management Meeting
On December 29th we held our last Lake Area Emergency Management Meeting for the year
at the Long Lake Fire Department. The main topic was the Super Bowl preparation. We
will be working together to ensure we have adequate staff available to cover any major
events in the Lakes Area under our mutual aid agreements.
Patrol by Sergeant Nelson
Patrol Activities
For the dates of December 12 to December 22, 2017, our officers issued 30 citations and
106 warnings for various traffic infractions. There were a total of eight traffic accidents, six
medicals, seven alarms and one DWI.
With the year winding down, I am happy to say that we are finally back to full strength as a
department. We have been running shorthanded since Officer Domino decided to leave 1
1/2 years ago. With the addition of our new officer, Andrew Scharf, it has been a blessing
for all of us. He is a great addition to the team.
With Andrew getting promoted to a police officer position, this left us shorthanded again in
the community service officer position. After a hiring process, we now have that position
filled with Melissa Robbins. She is also a great addition to the team and is learning her new
duties and is doing an excellent job.
In 2016, we all chipped in as a team to cover the schedule when we were running short. I
would like to express my gratitude to all the officers who made
MEMORANDUM
sacrifices to keep the department running smoothly and it did not affect the service that was
provided to the citizens.
I would also like to thank the City Council for being supportive of our police officers and
giving us backing that allows us to do our jobs in protecting and serving the community. It
truly is a blessing to work for such a good City who takes care of its employees.
Merry Christmas to you all and Happy New Year.
Investigations by Investigator Kevin Boecker
Currently investigating theft from checking/savings account. Victim reported a friend
withdrew $30,000 without her consent. I am awaiting bank records from the victim.
Received a vulnerable adult report from the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center
(MAARC). The reported victim was found to live in Corcoran. The report was forwarded
to Corcoran Police Department for investigation.
Conducted a background check for a solicitor permit applicant. Nothing was found to
disqualify the applicant.
Hennepin County Attorney’s Office requested follow up on an identity theft suspect they are
currently prosecuting. Suspect may have committed an additional identity theft.
There are currently 15 open cases assigned to Investigations.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: December 28, 2017
MEETING: January 2, 2018
SUBJECT: Public Works Update
Public Works Director Steve Scherer is out of the office the week of December 25th.
Any updates will be provided verbally by Mr. Scherer at the January 2nd City Council Meeting.
Business as usual at Public Works.
ORDER CHECKS DECEMBER 19, 2017 – JANUARY 2, 2018
046749 COURAGE ENTERPRISES CORP ............................................ $250.00
046750 DR HORTON INC - MN .......................................................... $2,000.00
046751 RON DAHL .................................................................................... $0.00 VOID CK INCORRECT VENDOR
046752 DOMINIUM DEV ACQUISITION ............................................. $7,000.00
046753 HAMEL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT ....................................... $50,000.00
046754 I+S GROUP, INC ....................................................................... $500.00
046755 IP II HAMEL, LLC .................................................................. $13,926.87
046756 LORAM ................................................................................... $5,000.00
046757 OPEN SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL....................................... $3,229.50
046758 PROPERTY RESOURCES ..................................................... $6,000.00
046759 ROUSU, RON ............................................................................ $250.00
046760 SIMMER, ERIC .......................................................................... $426.00
046761 SNOW, KATHERINE .............................................................. $1,000.00
046762 TOLL BROS, INC ....................................................................... $500.00
046763 DAHL, GARFIELD JR. ............................................................... $150.00
046764 BEAUDRY OIL & PROPANE .................................................. $1,767.00
046765 BROCK WHITE.......................................................................... $605.30
046766 CARGILL INC. ........................................................................ $1,514.42
046767 DYKHOFF, JASON ................................................................. $1,260.00
046768 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MILACA ....................................... $200.00
046769 GRAINGER................................................................................ $333.78
046770 HENN COUNTY ELECTIONS ................................................. $1,068.80
046771 HENN COUNTY ELECTIONS .................................................... $295.49
046772 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED .................................. $13,569.17
046773 JOSEPH M KITTOK ................................................................... $200.00
046774 MARCO INC ................................................................................ $32.82
046775 METRO WEST INSPECTION .................................................... $270.00
046776 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC ...................................................... $251.06
046777 OFFICE DEPOT .......................................................................... $59.31
046778 STREICHER'S ........................................................................... $560.88
046779 SUPPLY SOLUTIONS LLC ........................................................ $278.33
046780 TIMESAVER OFFSITE .............................................................. $173.00
046781 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER ................................................. $256.50
046782 WSB & ASSOCIATES ........................................................... $23,914.00
046783 ALL TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS ....................................................... $600.00
046784 CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY................................................. $250.00
046785 I-94 WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ..................................... $50.00
046786 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR .................................................. $392.00
046787 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES INC .................................. $7,422.37
046788 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION ........................................... $250.00
046789 TEGRETE CORP .................................................................... $1,314.00
Total Checks $147,120.60
ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS DECEMBER 19, 2017 – JANUARY 2, 2018
004436E MINNESOTA, STATE OF ........................................................$1,110.00
004437E FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL ........................................... $125.00
004438E SELECT ACCOUNT .................................................................. $688.33
004439E XCEL ENERGY .................................................................... $10,129.63
004440E WRIGHT HENN COOP ELEC ASSN ..........................................$2,295.44
004441E PR PERA ............................................................................ $14,456.52
004442E PR FED/FICA ...................................................................... $16,367.39
004443E PR MN Deferred Comp ..........................................................$2,470.00
004444E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA ....................................................$3,384.41
004445E SELECT ACCOUNT .................................................................. $692.23
004446E CITY OF MEDINA ...................................................................... $20.00
004447E VALVOLINE FLEET SERVICES .................................................... $62.99
004448E DELTA DENTAL ....................................................................$2,548.90
004449E KONICA MINOLTA .................................................................. $168.48
004450E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC ........................................................... $219.90
Total Electronic Checks $54,739.22
PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT DECEMBER 27, 2017
0508365 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. ..................................................... $1,332.97
0508366 BARNHART, ERIN A. ............................................................. $2,099.87
0508367 BELLAND, EDGAR J. .............................................................. $2,570.19
0508368 BOECKER, KEVIN D. ............................................................. $2,566.55
0508369 CONVERSE, KEITH A............................................................. $1,939.07
0508370 DINGMANN, IVAN W. ............................................................ $1,554.36
0508371 ENDE, JOSEPH ..................................................................... $1,757.24
0508372 FINKE, DUSTIN D. ................................................................ $2,178.65
0508373 GALLUP, JODI M. .................................................................. $1,752.08
0508374 GLEASON, JOHN M. .............................................................. $1,701.65
0508375 GREGORY, THOMAS ............................................................. $1,844.43
0508376 HALL, DAVID M. ................................................................... $2,320.91
0508377 JESSEN, JEREMIAH S. ........................................................... $2,230.95
0508378 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. ............................................................ $2,230.22
0508379 KIESER, NICHOLAS ................................................................. $596.24
0508380 KLAERS, ANNE M. ................................................................. $1,154.57
0508381 LANE, LINDA ........................................................................ $1,493.11
0508382 LEUER, GREGORY J. ............................................................. $2,147.15
0508383 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. .................................................... $1,470.33
0508384 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D .......................................................... $1,709.05
0508385 NELSON, JASON ................................................................... $4,096.41
0508386 PETERSON, DEBRA A. ........................................................... $1,684.82
0508387 REINKING, DEREK M ............................................................ $1,636.73
0508388 ROBBINS, MELISSA ................................................................ $690.89
0508389 SCHARF, ANDREW ................................................................ $1,625.56
0508390 SCHERER, STEVEN T. ........................................................... $2,354.13
0508391 VIEAU, CECILIA M. ............................................................... $1,138.40
Total Payroll Direct Deposit $49,876.53