HomeMy Public PortalAbout09-12-2023 Planning Commission Packet POSTED AT CITY HALL: September 8, 2023
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2023
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
1. Call to Order
2. Changes to Agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Representative at next City Council meeting
5. Planning Department Report
6. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 6 of the City Code
prohibiting the sale of edible cannabinoid products
7. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code
related to Tree Preservation
8. Approval August 8, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes
9. Adjourn
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 September 5, 2023
City Council Meeting
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: August 31, 2023
MEETING: September 5, 2023 City Council
SUBJECT: Planning Department Updates
Land Use Application Review
A) School Lake Nature Preserve 3rd Addition and PUD Amendment – School Lake Nature
Preserve LLC has requested to separate the area of the formal garden from one of the lots within
the development. The garden area is proposed as a stand alone outlot. The Planning
Commission reviewed at their June 13 meeting and unanimously recommended approval. The
Council reviewed on July 5 and directed staff to prepare approval documents, after the applicant
has provided updates to the plat. Staff will present the approval docs after the plat is updated.
B) 1225 Maplewood Concept Plan – John and Lisa James have requested review of a concept plan
for a three-lot subdivision. Staff is conducting preliminary review and will schedule for a public
hearing when complete, potentially at the August Planning Commission meeting.
C) 500 Hamel Road Apartment Concept Plan – Medina Apartments LLC has requested review of
a concept plan review for development of a 97-unit apartment building at 500 Hamel Rd. The
Planning Commission and Council provided comments in the fall of 2022. The developer held a
series of neighborhood workshops with neighboring property owners, and intends to meet again
on September 21, 2023.
D) Preserve of Medina (fka Blooming Meadows) – east of Holy Name Dr, north of CR24 – Tim
Boser has requested PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat approval for a 5-lot rural
subdivision. The applicant proposes to restore a large area of wetlands and create a wetland
bank in addition to the lots. The City Council granted general plan of development and
preliminary plat approval on August 2. Staff will await final plat application.
E) Cates Industrial Park – Comprehensive Plan Amendment– Oppidan has requested final plat
approval for a 310,000 square foot warehouse/office development east of Willow Drive, north of
Chippewa Road. Staff has been informed that the acquisition may not be proceeding. Staff is
investigating to determine what action, if any, is necessary with pending applications.
F) Meander Park and Boardwalk – Meander Rd, east of Arrowhead Dr – Medina Ventures had
requested PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat approval for a development to include four
residential units north of Meander Rd, and commercial uses south of Meander Rd including a
venue, restaurant, daycare, and speculative retail space. The City Council granted amended
PUD and Final Plat approval at the April 18 meeting. The applicant has indicated that they now
do not plan to start construction until the spring of 2024.
G) Grossman Septic Variance – 3082 Highway 55 – Jaymes Grossman has requested a variance
for the setback for a septic system from wetlands to replace an existing system. The Council
approved the variance at the August 15 meeting and the project will now be closed.
H) BAPS Site Plan Review – 1400 Hamel Road – BAPS Minneapolis Medina has requested an
amendment to their approved site plan review. The Council approved the amended Site Plan
Review at the December 6, 2022 meeting. The applicant has indicated that they may potentially
begin construction during the spring of 2024.
MEMORANDUM
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 September 5, 2023
City Council Meeting
I) Hamel Townhomes Final Plat – 342 Hamel Rd – Hamel Townhomes, LLC has requested final
plat approval for a 30-unit townhome development. The Council granted final plat approval on
August 16. Staff will work with the applicant to finalize documents prior to beginning of
construction.
J) Ditter Heating and Cooling Site Plan Review – 820 Tower Drive – Ditter Heating and Cooling
has requested a Site Plan Review for an approximately 5,000 square foot addition to its building.
The application is incomplete for review and will be scheduled for a hearing when complete.
K) Pioneer Trail Preserve – This project has been preliminarily approved and the City is awaiting
final plat application.
Other Projects
A) Wetland Enforcement – staff will present a proposed after-the-fact replacement plan and
restoration plan related to wetland violations at 1755 Tamarack Drive at the September 5
meeting.
B) Morningside/Maplewood ravine and pond – staff has been coordinating with Minnehaha Creek
Watershed staff related to grant funds for the project. Staff will present a Memorandum of
Understanding related to the project at the September 5 meeting. WSB staff is also proceeding
with modeling and feasibility report.
C) Hillview Lane South – The City of Loretto has notified Medina that they are considering a
street reconstruction for Hillview Lane South and Meadow Drive in Loretto. Two parcels in
Medina abut and access Hillview Lane. Staff responded that we would present to Council, but
that Loretto would need to be responsible for costs and risk of assessment challenges. Loretto
staff thanked Medina for consideration, but decided to proceed without asking Medina to assess
Medina owners.
D) Tree Preservation Ordinance – staff presented the Tree Preservation Ordinance to the Planning
Commission for preliminary discussion. The Council engaged with some feedback during the
Planning Commission report on August 15. Staff intends to present back to the Planning
Commission at the September 12 meeting.
E) City Hall cell phone/back up internet improvement – staff met with our new cell phone service
provider (FirstNet/AT&T) related to poor cell phone service at City Hall. Back-up internet at
City Hall will also be provided via cellular service. FirstNet is providing options for an
antennae booster at City Hall which will help with AT&T service at City Hall, including our
backup cellular service. Public Works is looking at options for attaching antennae to the
building.
F) Edible Cannabinoid Products Ordinance – City Attorney Anderson prepared a draft ordinance
which would prohibit the sale of the hemp derived edible cannabinoid products (ECPs) prior to
the time sale is licensed by the State of Minnesota under the new cannabis legislation approved
during 2023. Staff intends to present for a hearing at the Planning Commission on September
12.
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety
DATE: August 31, 2023
RE: Police Department Updates
Police officer applicant interviews were conducted the past two weeks. No applicants proceeded past
the second interview. We have reopened the recruitment process with our updated 2024 projected
wages after the union contract was settled. We are hoping that this will be more attractive to those
looking for jobs. As of today, there are 202 agencies throughout the state that are currently hiring and
many of those are looking to hire more than one officer.
Sergeant Boecker is hoping to finish up the background on Community Service Officer Wiese by
September 1st. CSO Wiese has completed everything in his conditional offer for the position of police
officer. There are a few administrative things to complete and then you will see him move from a
light blue uniform to a dark blue uniform in the upcoming weeks. This will fill our vacancy that was
created when Officer Scharf left. We still have an opening that will backfill for Sergeant Hall’s
promotion. As you remember, he was promoted on July 1st this year to Sergeant but is still filling in
the patrol schedule until a replacement can be hired. Looking forward to the upcoming months. We
also have an anticipated retirement in February 2024. In a perfect world we would like to have a
replacement hired as well before that retirement.
We currently are looking for Community Service Officers as well. We have one immediate vacant
opening and a second to follow in the next two weeks. If you know of anyone who is looking for a
cool, part-time job after retirement or a person just going to college, we would welcome them to
contact our office.
Our records management consortium (LMAC) has decided to move forward with a secure plan for
data migration from our current cloud hosted environment through our current vender LETG to an
onsite server at the South Lake Police Department. LMAC feels the need to have control over our data
at a local level after issues have occurred over the past year where there were concerns that data had
been lost. This gives us some security as we move into the next phases of looking for a new records
management solution in the next few years. I feel confident that we are moving in the right direction.
There will be a data migration agreement on the consent agenda. The city attorney’s office has been
involved on this agreement as well.
Our Lake Minnetonka Emergency Management group met last week, and we are currently working on
updating our local plans. We have decided to start the process of doing tabletop exercises with a
weather-related incident (tornado) being the focus. The goal is to get the first tabletop completed in
November this year with a second in the spring of 2024. The goal for these tabletops is to eventually
morph into a fully functional exercise in a year or two. This allows us to look at our entire lakes area
emergency plan that covers many disciplines: police, fire, EMS, public works, communications, Red
Cross, civic groups, etc. It has been many years since we have built up to a fully functional exercise.
Patrol:
The following are updates of Patrol Officers between August 9th, 2023, and August 29th, 2023:
Citations – 36 Warnings – 112 PD Accidents – 8
PI Accidents – 1 Medicals – 16 Falls – 9
Suspicious Calls – 13 Traffic Complaints – 7 Other Agency Assists – 14
Business/Residential Alarm- 18 Welfare Checks - 4 Disturbance Calls - 14
On 08/10/2023 at 0804 hours officer responded to take a fraud report at the Medina Inn. Victim
reported receiving solicited request to become a secret shopper for Krogers. Victim was asked to
purchase $1850 in gift cards after company sent a cashier’s check for $2250. Victim provided card
numbers and codes to suspect and later learned the cashier’s check sent was no good. Victim is
working with their bank to get any money refunded.
On 08/11/2023 at 1731 hours officers were dispatched to a reported domestic in the 400 block of
Hamel Road. Officers had responded to this residence earlier in the day and the male and female were
advised to keep separate in the home as neither was willing to leave to diffuse things. Male stated
female scratched him, and officers did locate suspected injuries consistent with his story. Female was
arrested for domestic assault and was transported to Hennepin County Jail.
On 08/11/2023 in the evening hours officers received multiple loud music complaints from various
residents in the city on the northern half of the city. Music was found to be coming from the Corcoran
Country Daze celebration at Lions Park in Corcoran.
On 08/13/2023 at 0053 hours officers were dispatched to a domestic/mental health issue in the 4100
block of Prairie View Trail. It was reported a 15-year-old male was being threatening towards his
parents. Upon arrival the officer spoke with all involved and then had everyone sit down together to
discuss the situation. It was determined that nothing criminal took place. Follow up to be completed
by the embedded social worker.
On 08/14/2023 at 1702 hours officer was dispatched to Hunter Park on a vandalism call. Caller
reported people sitting on chairs on the pickleball courts. Officer advised the players of the posted
rules regarding chairs on the court.
On 08/15/2023 at 1642 hours officer was called to a possible burglary in progress at a CenturyLink
building along Pinto Drive. A CenturyLink employee reported arriving to drop off a work truck and
finding unknown males going in and out of the building removing some wiring. Upon arrival the
officer made contact with the males who advised they were doing subcontract work for CenturyLink.
The employee contacted a supervisor and verified they were supposed to be there.
On 08/15/2023 officer responded to the 1100 block of Medina Road on a burglary report. Homeowner
reported someone entered the vacant residence and stole several collectible toys and memorabilia that
was being stored at the residence.
On 08/16/2023 officer again responded to 1100 block of Medina Road for another burglary report.
Someone entered the residence again and stole additional items. Surveillance equipment was activated
and placed at the residence. Within an hour of activating the equipment, officers received notification
that a vehicle had entered the property. Upon arrival in the area officers found the vehicle parked near
the garage of the home. Officers set up a perimeter and eventually moved in and found a male and
female on site with the front door to the home standing open and additional property from the home
sitting next to the car in the driveway and also inside the vehicle. Both the male and female were
arrested for burglary. While the investigation was still active, officer received a phone call from the
mother of the female suspect who reported both suspects had been living with her and recently brought
over numerous items consistent with what was reported missing from the Medina Road residence.
Our Investigator was called in and a search warrant was executed at a residence in Crystal. Numerous
articles were recovered that were believed to have been stolen from the residence from the previous
burglaries. The case has been forwarded to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office for charging.
On 08/18/2023 at 0205 hours officer responded to a vehicle theft that had just occurred in the 2400
block of Holy Name Drive. Owner reported keys and purse were left in the vehicle in the driveway
and someone took the vehicle. Theft is believed to be part of a string of recent vehicle thefts around
the suburbs involving a group of car theft suspects. The vehicle was later recovered in north
Minneapolis.
On 08/18/2023 at 2203 hours Officer was dispatched to an assault report in the 200 block of
Sunnyridge Lane. Victim reported being at Detour 19 earlier in the evening and a known female
acquaintance threw a glass at him which hit him in his head causing a small cut. The female suspect
was then escorted out of the bar and the victim was tended to by employees before going home.
Victim wanted to pursue charges against the female for assault. The case was forwarded to
investigations for follow up and then the city attorney for charging.
On 08/20/2023 officer assisted Plymouth PD on car prowlers in the 18000 block of 60th Avenue North.
Plymouth PD located a suspect vehicle which fled eventually turning east on Highway 55. Suspect
vehicle was a fresh stolen from Chanhassen. Believed to be related to the group targeting the suburbs
and our Holy Name vehicle theft.
On 08/22/2023 at 1957 hours officer was dispatched to a head injury at Woodridge Church. A
bicyclist had been riding along County Road 24 when he drifted off the roadway and crashed into the
ditch. Unknown if the patient was transported by ambulance to the hospital as paramedics cleared
officers from the scene.
On 08/23/2023 officer took an extra patrol request at Automotorplex. Construction workers reported
sometime overnight 35 sheets of plywood was stolen from the site. Construction workers requesting
extra patrol at the site during the overnight hours.
On 08/25/2023 at 1459 hours officers responded to a personal injury accident at Highway 55 and
Clydesdale Circle. Upon arrival officers found a two-car accident with minor injuries. One driver
reported he had been eastbound on Highway 55 and looked down at his vehicle screen and did not see
the light change to red. He ran the red light and struck a vehicle that was northbound turning west on
Highway 55 from the frontage road. Driver was cited for running the red light causing the accident.
On 08/26/2023 at 2158 hours officer received a vandalism report. Resident in the 3200 block of
Butternut Drive reported their residence being egged approximately 30-40 minutes prior. No suspect
information was provided. Homeowner was advised to clean the egg off and report any permanent
damage.
On 08/29/2023 at 2344 hours officers assisted Corcoran PD with a pursuit which began in the area of
County Road 10/County Road 50. Suspect vehicle fled west on County Road 10. Officer was able to
get ahead of the pursuit and deployed newly purchased Stop Sticks which were successful in deflating
both front tires on the suspect vehicle. Shortly after, Corcoran officers performed a couple PIT
maneuvers and the vehicle ended up driving off the road a short distance becoming stuck in some
brush near the railroad tracks. The suspect refused to comply with commands. HCSO deployed less
than lethal rounds which broke out the rear window on the vehicle and then deployed pepper balls into
the vehicle which caused the driver to surrender. He was transported to the hospital for evaluation and
then booked by Corcoran PD on fleeing an officer in a motor vehicle and DWI.
Investigations:
Called in for a burglary on Medina Road. Search warrants were obtained. Two suspects arrested at
the scene.
A stolen vehicle from our city was recovered. Crime Lab processed the vehicle. A search warrant
was obtained for a phone.
Received an assault case which was sent to the city prosecutor for charging.
Received multiple fraud cases. Subpoenas were obtained.
Investigations currently as 10 open/active cases.
1
TO: Medina Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE: August 31, 2023
MEETING: September 5, 2023
SUBJECT: Public Works Update
Streets
• The road reclaim was done on August 14th on Townline Road1. Public Works spent a
good part of two weeks removing the material starting at Juniper Curve heading south
1,400 feet through the Medina portion of the street. I am tracking the hours and
equipment Medina has contributed to this project.
• Striping has been completed on Hunter Drive north, Hamel Road, Meander Road,
Evergreen East and Westfalen.
• Public Works has begun mowing the roadsides for the second time this season.
• A memo is in your packet for trail sealcoating services. We have utilized Gopher
State in the past, they are competitive, and I’ve been happy with their work.
Water/Sewer/Stormwater
• The water system has been running smooth over the past couple of weeks. We are
pumping at 1 to 1.2 million gallons per day to the system on an average summer day.
We are pumping another 0.5 million, on some days, to the Enclave storm ponds for
irrigation.
• The Willow Drive Lift Station Project1 is well on its way. The force main has been
installed, the pipe across Willow to the Adams Pest Control project is installed, and
they are now installing the wet well. We are on schedule for a late September or early
October startup date.
Parks/Trails
• After a long wait, our contractor was finally able to resurface the tennis and
basketball courts at Hamel Legion Park. One of the courts was once again striped for
multi-use (tennis or pickleball), and they look great.
• The grandstand project is well on its way; the soil corrections have been made and the
concrete is ready to be installed.
• The contractor removed the pickle ball sound study equipment and is calculating the
data. The plan is to present the results at the September Park Commission meeting.
• The seating areas2 at Lakeshore Park are complete, staff has received several positive
comments about the new viewing areas. Benches are on order and will be installed as
MEMORANDUM
2
soon as they arrive. We will be getting the kayak racks installed in the next couple of
weeks.
• Public Works will again reseed the baseball field at Hunter Park soon and will use
temporary irrigation to get the grass started.
• Public Works will help with setup at Celebration Day. We also plan to have a couple
of pieces of equipment on hand for the event.
Other
• The compost has been fully removed from the compost site and the wood waste is
approximately half of the way removed. We are hoping by next week the contractor
will be back to take the rest.
• A proposal is in your packet to investigate emerald ash borer grant opportunities and
options that might be applicable for Medina. A quote has been included from WSB.
• I will be out of the office from September 9th to the 24th.
Photos
1.
2.
Ordinance Prohibiting Sale Page 1 of 2 September 12, 2023
of Edible Cannabinoid Products Planning Commission Meeting
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: September 8, 2023
MEETING: September 12, 2023 Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Edible Cannabinoid Products Sale Prohibition – Public Hearing
Background
During its 2023 session, the Minnesota Legislature enacted legislation to legalize adult use of
cannabis and hemp products. The law also establishes that the state of Minnesota will ultimately
regulate and license the sale of such products, which is not anticipated until the necessary state
agency is set up and rules are established. It is anticipated that the State licensing will not be in
place for over a year (early 2025).
The City of Medina has enacted a moratorium on the sale of cannabis products subject to the
legalization statute until the state begins to regulate. State law permits said moratorium to extend
through early 2025.
State law handles hemp-derived edibles and beverages which contain THC (referred to in this
report as “THC Edibles”) separately, through early 2025, because these products were authorized
under separate legislation a year earlier in 2022. Ultimately, sale of these lower potency hemp
products will also be regulated by the State. In the meantime, the City can determine how to
regulate the sale of THC Edibles separately.
The City of Medina enacted a one-year moratorium prohibiting sale of THC Edibles on
November 1, 2022. With the pending expiration of the moratorium, the City will need to
determine how to regulate sale of THC Edibles during this transition period.
The City Attorney presented information on options for regulating sales of THC Edibles to the
City Council at a work session on August 15. Staff encourages Commissioners to review this
information. The attached memo describes the following options:
• Licensing and/or Zoning
• Prohibition of Sales of THC Edibles
• Take No Action
Following discussion, the City Council expressed a clear preference to prohibit sale of THC
Edibles.
Ordinance Prohibiting Sale of Edible Cannabinoid Products
The City Attorney has drafted the attached ordinance which would prohibit the sale of “edible
cannabinoid products to the extent authorized under Minnesota Statutes, section 151.72.”
Section 151.72 includes the 2022 law that legalized lower potency hemp-derived THC Edibles
(and beverages).
MEMORANDUM
Ordinance Prohibiting Sale Page 2 of 2 September 12, 2023
of Edible Cannabinoid Products Planning Commission Meeting
The ordinance, as drafted, is not a zoning regulation and does not rely on the City’s ability to
regulate land use. Instead, the ordinance would prohibit the sale via business
regulations/licensing and would be adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 412.221,
subdivision 32 “to provide for the government and good order of the city, the suppression of vice
and immorality, the prevention of crime, the protection of public and private property, the benefit
of residence, trade, and commerce, and the promotion of health, safety, order, convenience, and
the general welfare.”
Generally, the Planning Commission would not hold a public hearing on ordinances relating to
licensing and general public health/safety/welfare. However, the City Attorney has
recommended a public hearing to defend against a procedural claim against the ordinance if it is
argued as having land use implications.
Potential Action
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the attached ordinance
before considering the ordinance.
If the Planning Commission recommends prohibiting the sale of hemp-derived THC Edibles
until such time as the State of Minnesota licenses such products, the following action could be
taken:
Motion to recommend adoption of the ordinance prohibiting the sale of edible
cannabinoid products under Minnesota Statutes, Section 151.72.
Attachments
1. Summary from City Attorney
2. Draft ordinance prohibiting the sale of edible cannabinoid products under Section 151.72
1
ME230-1A-894671.v1
David T. Anderson
Fifth Street Towers
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9274 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
danderson@kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable mayor and council members
FROM: David Anderson, city attorney
DATE: August 10, 2023
RE: Options for temporarily regulating the sale of THC edibles under Minnesota
Statutes, section 151.72
______________________________________________________________________________
I. Introduction
On November 1, 2022, the city council adopted a one-year moratorium on the sale of edible
cannabinoid products, including both edibles and beverages (collectively herein, “THC Edibles”)1,
which were legalized in 2022 under Minnesota Statutes, section 151.72. The interim ordinance
incorporating that moratorium, which took effect on November 17, 2022, is enclosed for reference.
While the moratorium is in effect, no business, person, or entity is allowed to begin selling THC
Edibles in Medina. The moratorium cannot be extended beyond its one-year term, meaning that it
will expire on November 17, 2023 unless the city council repeals it earlier. This memorandum is
intended to provide an overview of the city council’s options for regulating the sale of THC Edibles
under section 151.72 following the term of the moratorium.
Keep in mind that due to the eventual statewide regulation of recreational cannabis and hemp
products, which includes THC Edibles (defined in the new law as lower-potency hemp edibles),
section 151.72 is scheduled to automatically repeal on March 1, 2025. Therefore, any action taken
by the city council with regard to regulating the sale of THC Edibles under section 151.72 will be
temporary. Eventually, retailers of THC Edibles will need to obtain a license from the State to sell
these products, and so it should be anticipated that any local regulation on THC Edibles established
during this transition period might later become unenforceable. However, additional guidance and
rulemaking from the State needs to be provided and reviewed before confirming that.
Attached is a copy of my memorandum, dated May 31, 2023, which summarizes various changes
to section 151.72 that took effect immediately following the recent adoption of Minnesota’s
1 By definition, these products have low levels of THC when compared to other products that will now eventually
become available to consumers. Specifically, edible products cannot contain more than 5 mg delta-8 or delta-9 THC
per serving with no more than 50 mg per package, and beverages cannot contain more than 5 mg delta-9 THC per
serving and the container cannot contain more than 2 servings.
2
ME230-1A-894671.v1
comprehensive cannabis legalization bill. As was the case in 2022, these recent updates neither
expressly allow nor prohibit local regulation of the sale of THC Edibles as authorized under section
151.72. Accordingly, I take the position that cities may rely on their general police and general
welfare powers to regulate such sales, at least to the extent they are conducted under section
151.72. As a reminder, local regulation of cannabis and hemp products is significantly curtailed
under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 342, meaning that once sales of THC Edibles are conducted
under that chapter, the city’s authority to impose regulations on the sale of such products will be
significantly scaled back.
That said, the city does have authority to regulate the sale of THC Edibles under section 151.72
during this transition period. Generally speaking, the city council has the following three options
for regulating such sales upon the expiration of the existing moratorium:
1) regulate through a licensing and/or zoning ordinance;
2) prohibit such sales altogether; and
3) let the moratorium expire and do nothing.
II. Options for Temporary Regulations
a. Licensing and/or Zoning
A city may license a business or activity either (i) when expressly allowed to do so by state statute;
or (ii) when implied by statute, such as when a license is necessary for a city to perform its general
statutory powers (like preventing public nuisance or protecting the general welfare). Since there
is no express authority for a city to license a business selling THC Edibles under section 151.72,
the city must look to implied authority. The authority granted under the “general welfare” clause
in Minnesota Statutes, section 412.221, subd. 32, which allows a city “to provide for the
government and good order of the city, the suppression of vice and immorality, the prevention of
crime, the protection of public and private property, the benefit of residence, trade, and commerce,
and the promotion of health, safety, order, convenience, and the general welfare…”. While
amendments to section 151.72 in 2023 provide additional regulatory requirements, consumer
protection, and general control of the sale of THC Edibles, the city clearly has an interest in
ensuring that these products are being sold in a safe and responsible manner. To that end, there is
authority to establish a local licensing program.
A city licensing ordinance must be reasonable in its terms and conditions and cannot place
unnecessary, unreasonable, or oppressive restrictions that conflict with the state or federal
constitutions. Zoning controls generally relate to uses of property and not the sale of individual
products, and so using the city’s zoning authority alone may not be an effective way to regulate
the sale of THC Edibles. However, the city may incorporate zoning restrictions into a licensing
ordinance. For example, the city could limit license eligibility to businesses that are not within
300 feet of school (similar to city liquor licenses). Should the city desire to establish a licensing
program, it may include various requirements, such as:
• terms;
• insurance requirements;
3
ME230-1A-894671.v1
• hours of operation limitations;
• restrictions on locations, e.g. not within 300 feet of school (similar to city liquor licenses)
• eligibility requirements, including age, no criminal convictions or license revocations
related to controlled substances;
• revocation and suspension of license processes;
• transferability limitations;
• license fees;
• limitations on the number of licenses; and
• establish a system for compliance checks.
Again, it is worth noting that any local licensing program for the retail of THC Edibles under
section 151.72 would be temporary due to section 151.72’s automatic repeal on March 1, 2025
and the fact that the Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management will soon take over all licensing
of cannabis and hemp retail activities throughout the state. That said, whether the city council
deems it worthwhile for staff to administer a local licensing program for a short period of time is
a question of public policy.
b. Prohibition of Sales Authorized Under Section 151.72
Another option is to expressly prohibit the sale of THC Edibles under section 151.72 altogether.
Because section 151.72 is silent with respect to local regulation, cities appear to have authority to
prohibit the sale of these products if they deem such a prohibition to be in the best interest of the
city and its residents. Again, cities may not outright prohibit the sale of THC Edibles if conducted
in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, chapter 342 (the new chapter allowing such sales with a
state-issued license). Therefore, any prohibition would only apply to the sale of THC Edibles
under section 151.72, which is allowed through March 1, 2025.
c. Take No Action
Finally, one other option is to do nothing and allow the moratorium to expire without any
additional action. The result of this would be that certain businesses could begin selling THC
Edibles to the extent allowed under section 151.72. For example, a retail business operating in
accordance with existing zoning regulations could sell THC Edibles. Additionally, on-sale liquor
establishments are expressly allowed under section 151.72 to sell THC Edibles for on-site
consumption.
It is worth noting that if the city chooses to do nothing, businesses that begin lawfully selling THC
Edibles would likely be able to continue selling similar products notwithstanding any future zoning
restrictions that might otherwise prohibit such sales. That is especially relevant because the city
will likely adopt a more comprehensive set of zoning regulations pertaining to cannabis and hemp
businesses in the coming months, most of which are subject to a separate moratorium that remains
in effect through January 1, 2025. As a reminder, state law did not allow for that separate
moratorium to include restrictions on the sale of THC Edibles under section 151.72 or similar
products under chapter 342.
III. Conclusion
4
ME230-1A-894671.v1
The city council should discuss and decide if and how it wishes to regulate the sale of THC Edibles
under section 151.72 through March 1, 2025 when the law is repealed. Please know that should
the council desire to adopt local licensing or zoning restrictions or prohibit the sale of THC
Products under section 151.72 altogether (the first two options above), a duly noticed public
hearing before the planning commission will be required. Therefore, staff is seeking direction from
the council in the next couple of weeks so that we can prepare accordingly due to the lead time
that may be necessary to get something in place before November 17.
1
ME230-1A-879338.v1
David T. Anderson
Fifth Street Towers
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9274 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
danderson@kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable mayor and council members
FROM: David Anderson, city attorney
Jason Hill, attorney
DATE: May 31, 2023
RE: Summary of immediately effective changes to Minnesota Statutes, section 151.72
(2022 legalized edible cannabinoid products)
______________________________________________________________________________
I. Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance on the impact of the recently enacted
cannabis legalization bill (the “Act”) to Minnesota Statutes, section 151.72, which you might recall
was amended in 2022 and resulted in the expanded sales of hemp-derived THC products in
Minnesota. The Governor signed the Act yesterday, May 30, 2023. Unlike the majority of the
provisions in the Act, which take effect on July 1, 2023, the provisions amending section 151.72
are effective immediately. In addition to amending section 151.72, the Act also amends Minnesota
Statues, section 340A.412 to allow edible cannabinoid products to be sold at exclusive liquor
stores.
However, on November 1, 2022, the city council adopted a one-year moratorium on the sale of
edible cannabinoid products, meaning that no business, person, or entity may sell these products
in Medina while the moratorium is in effect. The purpose of the moratorium was to provide time
to study the issues related to regulating edible cannabinoid products.
II. Regulation for Sales
The Act clarifies what types of products are considered under the two categories of products
created in 2022: 1) nonintoxicating cannabinoids; 2) edible cannabinoid products.
A. Nonintoxicating Cannabinoids
Previous guidance from the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy provided that nonintoxicating
cannabinoids could include a wide range of products that could be ingested by humans and animals
in many ways. The Act limits nonintoxicating cannabinoid products to products that are meant for
2
ME230-1A-879338.v1
external application only, but which do not produce an intoxicating effect when consumed by any
route of administration. The new language explicitly prohibits the sale of nonintoxicating
nonedible products meant for vaping or inhaling of smoke, chewing, drinking, swallowing,
injection, or by application to the mucus membrane.
B. Edible Cannabinoid Products
The definition of edible cannabinoid products remains the same – a product that is intended to be
eaten or consumed as a beverage by humans, contains a cannabinoids in combination with food
ingredients, and is not a drug – but a number of minor changes contained in the Act impact the
sale edible cannabinoid products.
1. Likeness
In addition to the previous requirements specific to edible cannabinoid products, such as the
requirement that they not bear resemblance to a real or fictional person, animal, or fruit that appeals
to children, be modeled after a brand of products primarily consumed or marketed to children, or
be made by applying an extracted or concentrated hemp-derived cannabinoid to a commercially
available candy or food snack item, they now also must not be substantially similar to a meat food
product; poultry food product, or dairy product (the latter two have statutory definitions elsewhere
in law).
2. Beverage Serving Size
Edible cannabinoid products that are meant to be consumed as a beverage may contain no more
than two servings (5 mg per serving means a beverage may contain no more than 10 mg per
package). The limits for edible cannabinoid products that are not intended to be consumed as a
beverage remain the same – 50 mg of any THC total per package and each serving must be
differentiated by wrapping, scoring or other indicator, and must not contain more than 5 mg of any
THC.
3. Type of THC Allowed
The Act adds new definitions for “artificially derived cannabinoid” and “synthetically derived
cannabinoids.” Artificially derived cannabinoids are cannabinoids derived from hemp that are
changed after extraction and synthetically derived cannabinoids are substances with a similar
chemical structure and have a similar impact to a cannabinoid, but which are not extracted or
derived from hemp plants or parts. The Act clarifies that an edible cannabinoid product may
contain delta-8 or delta-9 cannabinoids that is extracted or derived from the hemp plant or is an
artificially derived cannabinoid but edible cannabinoid products cannot contain a synthetically
derived cannabinoid (not derived or extracted from hemp).
4. Display and Storage
The Act requires that all edible cannabinoid products available for retail sale must be displayed
behind the checkout counter where the public is not permitted or in a locked case. This display
3
ME230-1A-879338.v1
and storage requirement does not apply to edible cannabinoid products meant to be consumed as
beverages.
The Act adds additional and specific age verification requirements. Retailers must verify that a
client is over the age of 21 before completing a sale. Proof of age can be established only via
passport, driver’s license, Tribal ID, state ID, or instructional permit. Retailers may seize IDs if
they believe them to be falsified or used in violation of the law but must then deliver the same to
law enforcement within 24 hours of seizure.
5. Exclusive Liquor Store Sales Authorized
In addition to amending Minnesota Statutes, section 151.72, the Act amends Minnesota Statutes,
section 340A.412 to specifically allow exclusive liquor stores to sell edible cannabinoid products.
C. On-Site Consumption – Edible Cannabinoid Products and Nonintoxicating
Cannabinoids
Products may be sold for on-site consumption if the retailer has an on-sale liquor license under
Minnesota Statutes, section 340A. Additionally, products must be served in their original
packaging and cannot be sold to patrons who a retailer knows or should reasonably know is
intoxicated. Retailers cannot permit the products to be mixed with alcohol, and products that are
removed from packaging must be consumed on-site. This change allows the on-site consumption
of both nonintoxicating cannabinoid products and edible cannabinoid products, including both
traditional edibles and products meant to be consumed as beverages.
D. Regulations for Testing
The Act adds a definition for “batch.” A batch is a specified amount of product that must meet
certain manufacturing requirements, a portion of which is then submitted to the testing facility.
Each batch must be tested and each label must identify the batch. The Act also requires additional
testing and disclosure requirements.
Manufacturers must submit a sample of each batch of products for testing to an accredited,
independent laboratory before July 2, 2023. The manufacturer must further disclose to the lab all
known information regarding pesticides, fertilizers, solvents, and other foreign materials applied
or added to the hemp during manufacturing. The commissioner of health is entitled to review test
results at any time.
E. Regulations for Registration
The Act also transitions the state level enforcement of aspects of Minnesota Statutes, section
151.72 to the Minnesota Department of Health. All individuals selling edible cannabinoid products
must register with the Minnesota Department of Health on or before October 1, 2023. Selling
without registration after that date is prohibited.
F. Penalties for Violations
4
ME230-1A-879338.v1
The new legislation makes violating or falsifying records to comply with Minnesota Statutes,
section 151.72 a gross misdemeanor punishable by a $3,000 fine, up to one year imprisonment, or
both.
III. Termination of Minnesota Statues, section 151.72
Under the Act, Minnesota Statues, section 151.72 will be automatically repealed on March 1, 2025.
The Act also contains regulations for products defined as “lower-potency hemp edibles” which are
defined similarly (but not the same) as edible cannabinoid products, although it is still unclear how
the transition between Minnesota Statues, section 151.72, i.e. edible cannabinoid products, to
lower-potency hemp edibles will occur between now and March 1, 2025.
IV. Conclusions; Next Steps
The amendments to Minnesota Statues, section 151.72 make clarifications to the types of products
that may be sold as edible cannabinoid products, increase testing and labeling requirements, and
provide for additional criteria and requirements related to sales. In addition, changes to Minnesota
Statutes, section 340A.412 allows edible cannabinoid products to be sold in exclusive liquor stores.
Because the city’s moratorium is still in place, the city council will need to decide between now
and November how it wishes to regulate edible cannabinoid products through March 1, 2025 when
section 151.72 is repealed. Given the expansion of cannabis legalization in the Act that goes well
beyond product allowed via section 151.72, there is still some confusion and uncertainty about
what the city’s options might be. That said, my office will continue to work with staff as it relates
to the ongoing study regarding edible cannabinoid products and provide the city council with a
summary of options at a future work session.
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
ME230-1A-898698.v1
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE SALE OF EDIBLE CANNABINOID
PRODUCTS UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 151.72
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 151.72 (“Section 151.72”) authorizes the retail
sale of edible cannabinoid products, as that term is defined therein; and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2022, the City of Medina (the “City”) adopted Ordinance
No. 696, which established a one-year moratorium on the sale of edible cannabinoid products in
the City and further authorized a study to determine how the City should regulate such products;
and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 696 became effective on November 17, 2022 following its
passage and publication in the City’s official newspaper; and
WHEREAS, in May of 2023, the Minnesota Legislature enacted, and the Governor
thereafter signed, 2023 Minnesota Session Laws, Chapter 63 – H.F. No. 100 (the “Act”), which
is comprehensive legislation relating to cannabis including, but not limited to, the establishment
of the Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management (the “OCM”), legalizing and limiting the sale,
possession and use of cannabis and certain hemp products, providing for statewide licensing and
regulation of cannabis and hemp businesses by OCM, taxing the sale of cannabis flower, cannabis
products, and certain hemp products, establishing grant and loan programs, amending criminal
penalties, providing for expungement of certain convictions, and, by way of an amendment to
Section 151.72, providing certain temporary regulations relating to the unlicensed retail sale of
edible cannabinoid products; and
WHEREAS, the Act provides that the OCM, upon formation and eventual operation and
rulemaking, will regulate and license cannabis and hemp retail establishments that sell the various
products regulated under the Act via Minnesota Statutes, chapter 342, including, but certainly not
limited to, products that presently may be sold under Section 151.72 without OCM licensure; and
WHEREAS, the retail sale of edible cannabinoid products in the City under Section
151.72, prior to the commencement of a comprehensive statewide regulatory scheme and uniform
licensing program administered by the OCM, will have drastic effects on the community due to
the limited regulatory oversight, including on those who use the products as well as those who
are affected by the actions of such users; and
WHEREAS, such retail sales and the availability of edible cannabinoid products in the
community, especially absent more comprehensive regulation and licensure under chapter 342,
will impose an unnecessary burden on City resources, including its already limited law
enforcement resources; and
WHEREAS, Section 151.72 does not expressly prohibit or limit local regulation of edible
cannabinoid products that are authorized for retail therein, and furthermore, the temporary
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
ME230-1A-898698.v1
regulations established in Section 151.72, which are scheduled to automatically repeal on March
1, 2025, clearly do not constitute the Legislature having occupied the field of regulation regarding
the sale of edible cannabinoid products; and
WHEREAS, additionally, the Medina City Council is authorized, under Minnesota
Statutes, section 412.221, subdivision 32 “to provide for the government and good order of the
city, the suppression of vice and immorality, the prevention of crime, the protection of public and
private property, the benefit of residence, trade, and commerce, and the promotion of health,
safety, order, convenience, and the general welfare”; and
WHEREAS, based on the recitals contained herein, which are hereby adopted as factual
findings of the Medina City Council, it is determined to be in the best interests of the City and its
residents that a prohibition on the sale of edible cannabinoid products in the City under Section
151.72 be implemented to ensure that such products are not sold in the City unless and until they
are regulated via OCM licensure and otherwise operate in accordance with all applicable state
and local regulations, as contemplated under the Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Chapter 6 of the Medina City Code is hereby amended by adding a new section 650
as follows:
CHAPTER 6
BUSINESS REGULATIONS AND LICENSES
650. EDIBLE CANNABINOID PRODUCTS
Section 650.01. Retail Sale Prohibited. The retail sale of edible cannabinoid products, to the
extent authorized under Minnesota Statutes, section 151.72, is hereby prohibited in the city.
Nothing contained in this Section 650 shall be interpreted or construed to prohibit the sale of any
product pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 342, including, but certainly not limited to, lower-
potency hemp edibles, provided that such sales are made in strict compliance with said chapter
342 and all other applicable state and local laws.
Section 650.03. Violations. Any violation of this Section 650 shall be considered a misdemeanor,
and the city may also enforce this section by mandamus, injunction, or other appropriate civil
remedy, in law or equity, in any court of competent jurisdiction. A violation of this Section 650
is also subject to the city’s general penalties prescribed in the city code and may further result in
the city reporting such violation to the Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management (“OCM”), if
deemed relevant to OCM licensing. Additionally, a violation of this Section 650 by an
establishment licensed by the city to conduct any bona fide business endeavor shall subject said
establishment to suspension or revocation of any city-issued business license, including, but
certainly not limited to, any city-issued liquor license. Any such license suspension or revocation
shall be implemented in accordance with applicable city procedures.
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
ME230-1A-898698.v1
Section 650.05. Repealer. This Section 650 shall automatically repeal upon the repeal of
Minnesota Statutes, section 151.72, which is currently scheduled for March 1, 2025. Upon such
repeal, this entire Section 650 shall no longer be effective and, accordingly, shall be removed from
the Medina City Code.
SECTION II. Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, Ordinance No. 696, An Interim
Ordinance Authorizing a Study and Imposing a Moratorium on the Sale of Edible Cannabinoid
Products, shall be repealed in its entirety.
SECTION III. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this _____day of ___________, 2023.
______________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on the ____day of _____, 2023.
Tree Preservation Page 1 of 3 September 12, 2023
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: September 7, 2023
MEETING: September 12, 2023, Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Regulations – Continued Public Hearing
Background
At the August 8 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the City’s Tree Preservation
regulations. Staff presented information on the current regulations, information related to
regulations in other communities, and a list of suggested changes and discussion items.
The staff report from the August meeting is attached as a reminder of this background
information. The draft minutes from the August meeting are included in the packet for approval,
and Commissioners can review notes from the discussion.
Recommended Changes Discussed by Planning Commission at August Meeting
The Planning Commission discussed the following changes which were recommended by staff.
These changes were described in the staff report for the August 8 meeting, which is attached for
reference. Staff’s impression from the discussion is that the Planning Commission generally
supported these changes, and they continue to be included in the attached ordinance.
• Add language related to off-site planting or contribution to forest management fund
• Add Exemption for Trees within public right-of-way or easement by public agency
• Add Exemption for Removal for improvements to existing public streets
• Update language related to exemption for Planted Trees
• Reduce 2:1 Replacement for Old Growth Forest
• Remove Ash Trees from Allowed Species for Planting
Discussion Items
Staff has identified several topics for additional discussion but wanted to allow Planning
Commission and Council to discuss prior to suggesting any specific language.
Standards by Land Use
At the August hearing, the Planning Commission discussed whether it was appropriate to
consider differing removal allowances for different land uses. The consensus of the Commission
was that it seemed reasonable to regulate tree removal in Uptown Hamel differently because the
objectives for this area in the Comprehensive Plan were unique amongst land uses in the City.
Staff has recommended language which would require replacement on a ratio of 2 trees per
removed tree in Uptown Hamel. Rather than establishing a different replacement calculation for
Uptown Hamel, the ordinance could establish a different removal allowance. For example, since
hardcover is permitted over 90% of a lot in Uptown Hamel, perhaps a higher removal allowance
MEMORANDUM
Tree Preservation Page 2 of 3 September 12, 2023
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
could be established. Alternatively, generally language similar to “Site Plans shall preserve
existing trees to the extent practicable.”
Staff believed a replacement per tree alternative may be the best alternative in Uptown Hamel to
support replanting of some shade trees while still accounting for the more intensive development
pattern in Uptown Hamel. This language can be found in Subd. 9 (c)(vii) on bottom of page 8.
Ash/Elm/Box Elder removal/replacement
As discussed at the August meeting, several communities required a lower replacement amount
for trees such as box elder, cottonwood, and ash. The City’s current regulations include a
provision that can exempt “removal of invasive species of Trees (as defined by the Minnesota
Department of Nature Resources) and the control of pioneering Tree species such as box elder
when needed to manage other ecosystems and where the removal will not cause erosion or
damage to riparian areas.”
Staff believes the original intent of this provision was for cases of tree/forest management, not as
an exemption for removal of such trees during development. Nonetheless, relying on this
language and the allowance of the waiver provision of the code, the City has reduced
replacement requirements in several cases for lower quality trees such as cottonwood and box
elder. If that is to be the practice, staff would recommend formalizing either the exemption or
reduction in replacement for such trees.
The Planning Commission discussed at the August meeting and generally agreed that a different
standard was appropriate.
Several other communities address this issue by requiring half as much replacement for certain
trees. Staff has suggested language which would lower the replacement requirement for trees
such as Box Elder, Cottonwood, Willow, Aspen, and Poplar to ½. Staff has also added language
for discussion which would lower the replacement for disease/insect susceptible trees (Ash and
Elm) to tree:per:tree rather than inch:inch.
There was some discussion during the Council update at the 8/15 meeting whether it was
appropriate to encourage removal and replacement of Ash trees because of Emerald Ash Borer.
Staff believes a low replacement requirement may provide such an encouragement.
Draft language is included in Subd. 9(c)(i) on page 7.
The Planning Commission may wish to discuss the following options on this subject:
• Replacement ratio – the ½ ratio was suggested partially because it is a standard found in
other communities. This amount could be adjusted or the “categories” be adjusted.
• # of Tree:Tree – staff suggested a tree:tree replacement for Ash/Elm trees partly as a way
to generate discussion. These trees could be assigned a replacement ratio instead of
tree:tree as well. Similarly, trees such as Box Elder could be dealt with irrespective of
size (for example, require 2-4 replacement trees per Box Elder).
• Maximum Replacement per Tree – a “hybrid” approach could also be considered whereas
replacement of certain trees could be calculated on an inch:inch basis, but, the
Tree Preservation Page 3 of 3 September 12, 2023
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
replacement for each tree capped at a certain amount. For example, a 32” cottonwood
tree could be limited to replacement of 4 trees.
While there are many ways to approach different types of trees and situations, it should be noted
that each different standard adds a level of complexity for both the applicant’s team and the City
review.
Potential Action
Planning Commissioners are encouraged to suggest any other aspects of the regulations that they
may wish to discuss.
Before concluding discussions, the Planning Commission should invite any public comment as
part of the continued public hearing.
As noted last month, there is not a specific timeframe necessary to conclude discussion of these
regulations. If the Planning Commission desires more information or discussion, it can be
continued to a future meeting.
Once the Commission has completed its discussion and review, the following action could be
considered:
Move to recommended adoption of the ordinance related to Tree Preservation as
presented [with the following recommended changes, if any].
Attachments
1. Ordinance
2. August 8 Staff Report
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
PERTAINING TO TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Section 828.41 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by adding
the underlined language and deleting the struck through language as follows:
Section 828.41. Tree Preservation and Replacement.
Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to promote, within the city,
development that retains Medina’s rural character, in which the natural environment is
the dominant feature. Trees and landscaping are a major component of the natural
environment, and the city recognizes that preservation and replanting of trees is important
in order to maintain a healthy and desirable community. The city further recognizes that
a certain amount of tree loss is an inevitable consequence of the development process, but
that the reforestation of this valuable renewable resource will ultimately provide a long-
term environmental and economic benefit.
Subd. 2. Function. The function of this ordinance includes but is not limited to:
(a) improving air quality;
(b) reducing noise pollution;
(c) improving water quality;
(d) preventing of soil erosion;
(e) conserving energy by providing natural insulation and shading;
(f) reducing the urban heat island effect;
(g) increasing property values by establishing tree buffers that provide privacy
protection between conflicting land uses;
(h) providing habitat for wildlife, including birds that help control insects;
(i) enhancing the city’s physical and aesthetic environment; and
(j) enhancing the quality of life and the general welfare of residents.
Subd. 3. Definitions. The following words and terms, wherever they occur in this
ordinance, are defined as follows:
(a) “Best Management Practices” (“BMP”) are the Erosion and sediment control
practices as well as conservation or Low Impact Development principles related
to Tree preservation and removal, that are the most effective and practicable for
controlling, preventing and minimizing negative impacts on existing Trees,
minimizing soil exposure and protecting tracts of Woodland and Old Growth
Forest Remnants.
(b) “Crown Cover” is the protective canopy created by the overlapping leafy heads of
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
Trees that shelters the habitat beneath it.
(c) “Development Site” is the surveyed parcel, or site, including those improvements
that occur on-site or adjacent to the Development Site or spoil site locations. A
Development Site includes both the Primary and Secondary Construction Zones.
(d) “Diameter” is the width of a Tree’s trunk, measured at four (4) feet above the
ground.
(e) “Dripline” is the farthest distance away from the trunk of a Tree that rain, or dew,
will fall directly to the ground from the leaves or branches of the Tree to the roots.
(f) “Forestry Specialist” is a person certified in urban forestry functions and
management, who has been retained by the city, or an applicant.
(g) “Initial Site Development” is the grading and construction of streets, trails, and
sidewalks; the installation of utilities, including water, sanitary sewer, storm
sewer, natural gas, electric, and cable television; or the grading and construction
of drainage ways and storm detention areas.
(h) “Lost Trees” are Significant Trees in areas to be preserved but that die as a result of
construction or Development Site improvement activities and must be replaced at
the same ratio as Significant Trees. Such Trees shall be considered Lost Trees
when they die as a result of:
(i) grade change or land alteration, whether temporary or permanent, of greater
than one (1) foot, measured vertically and affecting forty (40) percent, or
more, of the Tree’s root zone (the area under a Tree that is at and within
the Dripline of the Tree);
(ii) secondary construction activities that result cutting forty (40) percent, or
more, of the Tree’s root zone (the area under a Tree that is at and within
the Dripline of the Tree);
(iii) mechanical injury to the trunk of a Significant Tree, causing the loss of thirty
(30) percent, or more, of the bark at a specific part of the Tree; or
(iv) compaction to ninety (90) percent of a depth of six (6) inches, or more, of
forty (40) percent, or more, of the Tree’s root zone (the area under a Tree
that is at and within the Dripline of the Tree).
(i) “Low Impact Development” or “LID” means multi-functional site design,
streetscapes and architecture that maintains and restores vital terrestrial ecological
processes necessary to protect the ecological integrity of the land.
(j) “Natural Resources Inventory” is a document developed by the city that denotes
where regionally significant natural resources are located within the city.
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
(k) “Principal Structure” means any building or structure on the property in which the
main use of the property takes place.
(l) “Private Road” means a privately owned (or controlled) and maintained drive, street,
road, lane, or any improved or unimproved surface, not dedicated to a
governmental entity as a public road, which provides the primary means of
vehicular ingress and egress from a public road to two or more dwelling units,
lots, parcels or principal buildings, whether created by a private right-of way,
easement, or other device.
(m) “Old Growth Forest Remnant” is a natural forest remnant that is one acre or greater,
that has developed over a long period of time, generally around 100 years, with
young, middle-aged and old Trees present. It is dominated by shade tolerant
species, such as sugar maple and basswood. All Old Growth Forest Remnants are
identified in the city’s current Natural Resource Inventory or in the current
Natural Areas and Community ID Numbers map which are available at city hall.
(n) “Replacement Trees” are Trees that replace removed Significant Trees.
(o) “Significant Tree” is a healthy, deciduous Tree, measuring eight (8) inches in
Diameter or greater, or a healthy coniferous Tree, measuring four (4) inches or
greater in Diameter.
(p) “Subdivision” means the separation of an area, parcel, or tract of land under single
ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, lots, or long-term leasehold interests
where the creation of the leasehold interest necessitates the creation of streets,
roads, or alleys, for residential, commercial, industrial, or other use or any
combination thereof, except those separations: (1) where all the resulting parcels,
tracts, lots, or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size and 500 feet in width for
residential uses and five acres or larger in size for commercial and industrial uses;
(2) creating cemetery lots; (3) resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a
lot line by the relocation of a common boundary.
(q) “Tree” is a woody plant, which at maturity, is thirteen (13) feet or greater in height
and that has a more or less defined crown.
(r) “Tree Preservation and Replacement Plan” is a certified survey, which shows the
location and species of all Trees to be preserved, removed, or disturbed, and the
location of Replacement Trees within the site.
(s) “WCA” means the “Wetland Conservation Act,” Minnesota Statutes Sections
103G.222-.2373.
(t) “Woodland” is a group of Significant Trees and understory plants that are one (1)
acre or greater in size and non-species specific, with a Crown Cover of fifty (50)
percent or greater. Old Growth Forest Remnants are a species-specific type of
Woodland.
Ordinance No. ### 4
DATE
Subd. 4. Applicability. This ordinance shall apply to any of the following circumstances:
(a) removal of more than two (2) Significant Trees on any property, developed or
undeveloped, within a given calendar year, except as exempted by subdivision 5
of this section.
(b) any formal land use application to the city that is to be zoned residential, including,
but not limited to, Subdivisions, minor Subdivisions, site plans, rezoning and
conditional use permits;
(c) site improvements requiring a building, grading, driveway, sign or WCA permit; or
(d) redevelopment of a legal non-conforming Principal Structure.
Subd. 5. Exemptions. The following activities are exempt from the requirements of this
ordinance:
(a) removal of invasive species of Trees (as defined by the Minnesota Department of
Nature Natural Resources), noxious trees such as buckthorn, and the control of
pioneering Tree species such as box elder when needed to manage other
ecosystems and where the removal will not cause erosion or damage to riparian
areas;
(b) commercially-zoned properties which follow the zoning-specific requirements;
(c) removal of a Tree that has been determined by a Forestry Specialist to be diseased;
(d) removal of Trees in connection with an emergency that poses an immediate danger
to life or property;
(e) removal of Trees that are located in areas in the Three Rivers Park District-managed
Morris T. Baker Park and the Department of Natural Resources-managed
Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Areas;
(f) removal of Trees that are significantly damaged by storms or natural disasters; or
(g) removal of Trees within an existing Conservation Easement which is consistent with
an existing private management plan.
(h) Removal of Trees by a public agency upon public land, right-of-way, or easement for
the installation of public improvements.
(g)(i) Removal of Trees related to improvements to existing public roadways adjacent
to a development site or extension of utilities to a development site which are
required by the City as a condition of land use application approval.
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering,Widow/Orphan control
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering,Widow/Orphan control
Ordinance No. ### 5
DATE
Subd. 6. Allowed Tree Removal.
(a) The following amount of Significant Trees may be removed from a site and
replacement shall not be required.
Initial Site Development Activities other than Initial Site
Development
Total property area included in the
land use application or served by
improvements
Allowed percent
of Significant
Trees that may be
removed
Lot Size
Allowed percent
of Significant
Trees that may be
removed
0.1-1.0 acre 15% 0.1-1.0 acre 20%
1.1-5.0 acres 15% 1.1-5.0 acres 15%
5.1-10.0 acres 10% 5.1-10.0 acres 15%
10.1-20.0 acres 10% 10.1-20.0 acres 10%
20+ acres 10% 20+ acres 5%
(b) For activities that include the Subdivision of property or dedication of public or private
right-of-way, the allowed number of Significant Trees that may be removed for Initial
Site Development shall be based on the lot size prior to Subdivision. After the
property is subdivided, the allowed number of Significant Trees that may be removed
shall be based on the individual lot sizes within the Subdivision.
Subd. 7. Waiver. A waiver, of the number of Trees required to be replaced, may be
granted by the city council, in its full and absolute discretion, on a case-by-case basis for
circumstances where the applicant has exhausted all reasonable design options for the
Development Site. An applicant shall be eligible for a waiver only if he or she
implements all Best Management Practices listed in Subdivision 8 of this ordinance.
Waivers associated with a land use application shall be considered by the city council at
time of the review of the application and shall not be considered after this review is
approved.
Subd. 8. Standards Governing Tree Preservation, Protection and Planting. The
following Best Management Practices shall be used for those Development Sites that
utilize conservation easements that protect Old Growth Forest Remnants or Development
Sites that are requesting waivers from certain requirements of this section:
(a) Realignment of proposed streets and utilities in order to avoid Tree removal;
(b) Reduction of required street width and increase of street grade up to an eight (8)
percent slope by the city when the applicant can demonstrate that these changes
result in Tree preservation;
Ordinance No. ### 6
DATE
(c) The use of Private Roads in lieu of public streets;
(d) Variation in street radius and speed design;
(e) Modified grading plans;
(f) Flexible lot lines;
(g) Alternative utility configurations, such as the use of ejector pumps, force mains, or
revised home elevations to minimize grading;
(h) The use of flexible development standards, such as clustering of homes, in order to
preserve Old Growth Forest Remnants, Significant Trees and open space;
(i) The preservation of unique and rare Tree species or communities identified in the
Natural Resource Inventory; and
(j) The use of Low Impact Development principles.
Subd. 9. Tree Preservation and Replacement Requirements. For all activities that are
subject to this section, a Tree Preservation Plan must be submitted by the applicant for
review and approval by the city. To the extend extent possible, Significant Trees and
Trees located within Old Growth Forest Remnants, Woodlands and natural habitat areas
shall be preserved. The Tree Preservation Plan shall include the following information:
(a) Tree Inventory. The Tree inventory shall identify Significant Trees on the property.
It shall include:
(i) The location of and a list of all Significant Trees by species. In cases involving
large stands of Trees, an applicant may, with city staff review and consent,
show the area on the site plan and use a representative sample in order to
calculate the number and species of Significant Trees. The list shall be
provided in table and electronic spreadsheet format and shall quantify
Significant Trees by the following categories:
A. Disease/Insect Susceptible Trees (Ash and Elm).
B. Common Trees (Aspen, Box Elder, Cottonwood, Poplar, and Willow).
C. Coniferous Trees.
D. Hardwood Trees (Basswood, Birch, Catalpa, Cherry, Hackberry, Hickory,
Ironwood, Locust, Maple, Oak, and Walnut).
(ii) Significant Trees that are proposed to be removed. They shall be marked
with an “X” on the site plan. The Diameter of each removed Significant
Tree, in inches, shall also be noted.
(iii) Identification of areas within Old Growth Remnant Forests, as defined by
the Natural Resources Inventory. If an applicant wishes to adjust the area
Ordinance No. ### 7
DATE
based on fieldwork, city staff must review and approve of any adjustment.
(iv) A list of any ecologically unique and/or significant areas on the
Development Site that are identified in the Natural Resources Inventory
report.
(b) Identification of the locations of any protective fencing and any other measures that
will be taken to preserve the Trees. Protective fencing must be placed at least one
foot beyond the Dripline of all Trees to be preserved. Any Trees lost as a result of
construction activity will be counted when determining the amount of Trees that
were removed, which may cause additional Replacement Trees to be required.
(c) Tree Replacement Plan. If the proposed removal of Significant Trees exceeds that
allowed by subdivision 6 of this section, Tree Replacement will be required and a
Tree Replacement Plan will need to be submitted to the city for review and
approval by the city council. The Tree Replacement Plan shall be certified by a
Forestry Specialist. It shall contain the following information for each
Replacement Tree.
(i) (i) Number and Size of Trees to be Replaced. For Significant Trees located
within an Old Growth Forest Remnant or other significant area identified by the
Natural Resources Inventory, a Tree Replacement ratio of a Diameter of two (2)
caliper inches per one (1) inch of removed Significant Trees and Lost Trees is
required. For all other areas containing Significant Trees, a Tree Replacement
ratio of a Diameter of one (1) caliper inch per one (1) inch of removed Significant
Trees and Lost Trees is required. Removal
A. Disease/Insect Susceptible Trees (Ash and Elm) shall be replaced at a ratio of at
least one (1) Replacement Tree per one (1) Significant Tree removed.
B. Common Trees (Aspen, Box Elder, Cottonwood, Poplar, and Willow) shall be
replaced at a ratio of one-half (½) inch Replacement Tree per one (1) inch of
removed Significant Tree.
C. Coniferous Trees shall be replaced at a ratio of one (1) inch Replacement Tree per
one (1) inch of Significant Tree removed.
D. Hardwood Trees (Basswood, Birch, Catalpa, Cherry, Hackberry, Hickory,
Ironwood, Locust, Maple, Oak, and Walnut) shall be replaced at a ratio of one (1)
inch Replacement Tree per one (1) inch of Significant Tree removed.
(ii) Type of Replacement Trees. All Replacement Trees shall be native trees as
defined by subdivision 10 of this section. All Replacement Trees shall be
appropriate for the soil conditions found at the planting site. All
Replacement Trees shall be from certified nursery stock and shall not be
bare root stock. If more than twelve (12) Replacement Trees are required
on a Development Site, there shall be no more than twenty-five (25)
percent of the same species.
(iii) Minimum Size of Replacement Trees. All deciduous Replacement Trees
shall be a Diameter of at least two (2) caliper inches in size. All
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt
Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level: 2 +Numbering Style: A, B, C, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment:Left + Aligned at: 0.75" + Indent at: 1"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt
Ordinance No. ### 8
DATE
coniferous Replacement Trees shall be at least four (4) feet in height,
which shall be equivalent to two (2) replacement inches.
(iv) Placement of the Replacement Trees. All Replacement Trees shall be
planted within the Development Site, in a non-patterned arrangement,
duplicating natural conditions whenever possible. Replacement Trees
may be planted in an alternative location if that location is approved by the
city council.
(v) Survival of Replacement Trees. All Replacement Trees must survive for at
least two growing seasons from the date of planting before the city will
refund the financial guarantee required by subdivision 13 of this section. In
the event that a Replacement Tree dies or has severely declined (25% of
crown has died) before the two growing seasons have passed, it shall be
replaced with a Tree of the same caliper inch size. The new Tree must
survive for two growing seasons from the date of its planting before the city
will refund the financial guarantee.
(vi) Credit for Previously Planted Trees. Trees which have been previously planted
by a property owner shall be exempt from the Replacement requirements of
this section. Such Trees shall be excluded from the total number of Trees
when calculating the allowed Removal and Replacement requirements. An
applicant may, if they have previously planted Trees on the property while
the property was under their ownership, receive credit for these Trees as
part of the Replacement Plan. The Trees must meet the requirements of
Replacement Trees stated above. The applicant must produce proof,
acceptable to the city, that the planting of the trees occurred under the
applicant’s ownership of the property. Credit for each previously planted
Tree shall be granted based on the minimum size Replacement Tree allowed
under this ordinance, unless the applicant is able to provide proof as to the
size of the Tree at the time of planting.
(vii) Replacement Trees in Uptown Hamel. Notwithstanding anything herein to
the contrary, if Replacement Trees are required, they shall be provided at a
ratio of two (2) Replacement Trees per Significant Tree removed.
(d) Off-site Replacement; Contribution to City Environmental Fund. If required Tree
Replacement is not practicable on the subject site because, in the City’s
discretion, insufficient space exists to plant the Replacement Trees, an applicant
may propose to plant in other locations in the City. Alternatively, an applicant
may contribute an amount described in the City’s fee schedule to the City’s
Environmental Fund for the purpose of forest management. The contribution
shall be based upon the estimated cost equivalent to planting the required amount
of Replacement Trees.
(e) Amendments. A Tree Preservation or Replacement Plan may need to be amended
after it has been approved by the city council. Requests for amendments shall be
Ordinance No. ### 9
DATE
submitted to the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of the Tree
Replacement permit. The city’s Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to
approve minor amendments. Request for amendments after the Tree Replacement
Permit has been issued shall be considered by the City Council.
Subd. 10. Native Trees. The following is the list of Trees that are native to Minnesota for
purposes of this section as specified by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’
“Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota, the Eastern Broadleaf
Forest Province.”:
(a) Ash, Black (Fraxinus nigra) RESERVED
(b) Ash, Green (Fraxinus Pennsylvanica) RESERVED
(c) Ash, White (Fraxinus Americana) RESERVED
(d) Aspen, bigtooth (also called largetooth aspen, poplar, popple)(Populus
grandidentata);
(e) Aspen, quaking (also called trembling aspen, poplar,
popple)(Populus tremuloides);
(f) Basswood, American (Tilia Americana);
(g) Birch, paper (Betula papyrifera);
(h) Birch, river (Betula nigra);
(i) Birch, yellow (Betula alleghaniensis);
(j) Butternut (Juglans cinerea);
(k) Cedar, northern white (Thuja occidentalis);
(l) Cherry, black (Prunus serotina);
(m) Cherry pin (Prunus pensylvanica);
(n) Elm, American (only Dutch Elm Disease resistant cultivars) (Ulmus
Americana);
(o) Fir, balsam (Abies balsamea);
(p) Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis);
(q) Hophornbeam, eastern (also called ironwood) (Ostrya virginiana);
(r) Hickory, bitternut (Carya cordiformis);
(s) Hickory, shagbark (Carya ovata);
(t) Honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos);
(u) Hornbeam, American (also called blue beech)(Carpinus caroliniana);
(v) Maple, black (Acer nigrum);
(w) Maple, red (Acer rubrum);
(x) Maple, silver (Acer saccharinum);
(y) Maple, sugar (Acer saccharum);
(z) Mulberry, red (Morus rubra);
(aa) Oak, black (Quercus velutina);
(bb) Oak, bur (Quercus macrocarpa);
(cc) Oak, northern red (Quercus rubra);
(dd) Oak, northern pin (also called Hill oak)(Quercus ellipsoidalis);
(ee) Oak, swamp white (Quercus bicolor);
(ff) Oak, white (Quercus alba);
(gg) Pine, eastern white (Pinus strobes);
(hh) Pine, jack (Pinus banksiana);
Ordinance No. ### 10
DATE
(ii) Pine, red (also called Norway pine)(Pinus resinosa);
(jj) Spruce, black (Picea mariana);
(kk) Spruce, white (Picea glauca);
(ll) Tamarack (also called eastern or American larch) (Larix laricina); and
(mm) Walnut, black (Juglans nigra).
(nn) Willow, Black (Salix nigra)
(oo) Willow, Peachleaf (Salix amygdaloides)
(pp) Willow, Heartleaf (Salix eriocephala)
Subd. 11. Permit Required. Any activity regulated by this section shall require the
applicant to obtain a Tree Preservation permit from the city. The application shall
include a Tree Preservation and Replacement Plan (if required) for the Development Site.
The application shall also include payment of a permit fee which shall be set by ordinance
by the city council from time to time.
Subd. 12. Financial Guarantee for Tree Replacement. In the event that Tree
Replacement is required, the applicant shall submit a financial guarantee, in a form
acceptable to the city at the time of obtaining the Tree Replacement Permit. The
financial guarantee must be for at least two growing seasons in order to ensure both the
planting and the survival of the Replacement Trees. If no Replacement Trees are
required, the City may require a financial guarantee that will ensure that in the event that
any existing Significant Trees are damaged or killed at time of development, they will be
replaced by Replacement Trees. No financial guarantee shall be required when there are
no Significant Trees on the property.
Subd. 13. Violations. It shall be a violation of this section for any person, firm or
corporation, to destroy the number of Significant Trees beyond the limits established by this
section. The Zoning Administrator shall determine non-compliance with this section,
subject to review by the city council. The destruction or partial destruction of any
Significant Trees in violation of this section shall be considered a violation and may result in
revocation of the Tree Replacement permit or an action against the financial guarantees.
Subd. 14. Penalties. Any person convicted of violating this section shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine or imprisonment as specified by state statute.
Such penalty may be imposed in addition to an action against the financial securities,
suspension or revocation of the Tree Replacement permit.
Ordinance No. ### 11
DATE
SECTION IV. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this _____ day of _______, 2023.
_____________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
_________________________
Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on the ______ day of _____________, 2023.
Tree Preservation Page 1 of 7 August 8, 2023
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: August 3, 2023
MEETING: August 8, 2023 Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Regulations
Background
The City’s Tree Preservation ordinance regulates removal of trees for construction and
development activities. The ordinance was adopted in 2006 and has during review of recent land
use applications, City Council members and staff discussed reviewing aspects of the tree
preservation regulations.
Summary of Existing Regulations
The current regulations require replacement of trees if more than a certain percentage of the total
trees are removed. The allowed amount is based upon the size of the lot, with more removal
allowed on smaller lots. The ordinance allows a certain percentage to be removed for “initial site
development” (essentially streets and utilities in a development), and a certain amount to be
removed for all other activities:
Initial Site Development Activities other than Initial Site
Development
Total property area included in the
land use application or served by
improvements
Allowed percent
of Significant
Trees that may be
removed
Lot Size
Allowed percent
of Significant
Trees that may be
removed
0.1-1.0 acre 15% 0.1-1.0 acre 20%
1.1-5.0 acres 15% 1.1-5.0 acres 15%
5.1-10.0 acres 10% 5.1-10.0 acres 15%
10.1-20.0 acres 10% 10.1-20.0 acres 10%
20+ acres 10% 20+ acres 5%
The table is a bit difficult to translate without context, but in most common developments, total
removal allowed without replacement is usually 25%-30%.
If removal is in excess of these amounts, replacement is required on an inch:inch basis. A tree
with a diameter of 18”, for example, would need to be replaced with six 3” trees or nine 2” trees.
Medina’s regulations do not differentiate by land use, which is fairly common in other
communities.
MEMORANDUM
Tree Preservation Page 2 of 7 August 8, 2023
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
The ordinance only applies to “Significant Trees” which are defined as: “a healthy, deciduous
Tree, measuring eight (8) inches in Diameter or greater, or a healthy coniferous Tree, measuring
four (4) inches or greater in Diameter.”
The ordinance allows removal of two significant trees from a parcel per year without a permit,
and includes the following exemptions:
(a) removal of invasive species of Trees (as defined by the Minnesota Department of Nature
Resources) and the control of pioneering Tree species such as box elder when needed to
manage other ecosystems and where the removal will not cause erosion or damage to
riparian areas;
(b) commercially-zoned properties which follow the zoning-specific requirements;
(c) removal of a Tree that has been determined by a Forestry Specialist to be diseased;
(d) removal of Trees in connection with an emergency that poses an immediate danger to life
or property;
(e) removal of Trees that are located in areas in the Three Rivers Park District-managed Morris
T. Baker Park and the Department of Natural Resources-managed Wolsfeld Woods
Scientific and Natural Areas;
(f) removal of Trees that are significantly damaged by storms or natural disasters; or
(g) removal of Trees within an existing Conservation Easement which is consistent with an
existing private management plan.
Comparison to other Communities
Staff reviewed tree preservation regulations in other communities as background information.
Following is a table summarizing the requirements:
Two out of thirteen communities do not have specific tree preservation regulations for all
development. Chaska regulates removal only along bluffs/steep slopes. Corcoran does not
regulate tree removal in standard zoning, but encourages during consideration of PUDs.
Allowed Removal
(Residential)
Allowed Removal
(Commercial)Replacement Notes
Medina 25%-30% 25%-30%1 inch: 1 inch
Plymouth 50%75%1.25 inch:inch $125/inch
Maple Grove 50%70-80%2 inch:1inch Only applies in higher value wooded area
Victoria 20%20%1 inch:1 inch
replacement limited to 40 trees per acre;
Replacement credit for saved woodlands
Chanhassen Varies (see below) Varies (see below)Minimum canopy 1 tree = 1089 s.f. canopy (40 trees per acre)
Minnetrista 30%30%1 inch: 1 inch
Dayton 40%60%1 inch: 1 inch
Lake Elmo 30%30%.25-.5 inch : inch .25 for boxelder, cottonwood, ash
Eagan 40%48%.5 inch: 1 inch
4" replacmenet trees are tree:tree;
softwood are 1/2 replacement
Woodbury 30%30%.5 inch: 1 inch
Shorewood None None 2-3 trees/tree Limited to 8 trees/acre
Chaska Not regulated Not regulated Only Bluff/steep slope removal regulated
Corcoran Not regulated Not regulated Preservation encourged through PUD
Tree Preservation Page 3 of 7 August 8, 2023
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
Medina’s removal allowance is on the more stringent side of the comparisons. One community
has a lower allowed removal percentage, but has a limit on the amount of replacement which can
be required (40 trees per acre). Three communities have limitation of 30%, but two of those
communities have a lower replacement amount (0.5” per 1”).
Maple Grove’s regulations only apply to woodlands identified in their natural resource
inventory. Removal of trees scattered through a site or along tree lines would not be regulated.
Chanhassen’s regulations (attached for reference) are unique amongst the communities. The
regulations account for the “baseline canopy” of a site and different land uses. Their regulations
establish a minimum amount of the site which is required to be tree canopy, which is adjusted
based on how wooded the site is to begin with, and what land use is planned. A site with few
trees, for example, may end up having to plant more trees than a development site which is
partially wooded but which preserves trees. Staff believes it may be worth discussing whether
Medina’s ordinance should consider existing tree coverage and land use as factors.
Recommended Changes
Administering the tree preservation ordinance over the past 16 years, staff has identified the
following potential changes to be discussed.
Add language related to off-site planting or contribution to forest management fund
In several developments, the amount of required tree replacement was too high to sustainably
and practically plant on a subject site. The City’s practice has been to either allow planting in
off-site locations within the City, or to accept a contribution to the City’s forest
management/reforestation fund equivalent to the planting.
The ordinance does not describe this allowance, so staff recommends that a provision be added
to describe this practice. Language can be found on the top of page 8 of the ordinance.
Exemption: Trees within public right-of-way or easement by public agency
The primary strategy of the tree preservation ordinance is to encourage design which avoids as
many trees as possible, not necessarily as a penalty for removing trees. In the case of street
expansions and utility projects, the ability for public agencies to avoid trees is limited by the
location of existing improvements and easements. As such, staff believes it is reasonable to
exempt removal by public agencies. Recommended language can be found on the bottom of
page 4 of the ordinance [Subd. 5(h)].
Exemption: Removal for improvements to existing public streets
The City often requires construction of turn lanes on existing public streets adjacent to a
development. Similar to the rationale for exempting removal by public agencies, staff believes it
is reasonable to consider exempting trees which a developer would need to remove along the
outside of a development site to add turn lanes to an existing street. It would not likely be
practical to design improvements to avoid the trees. Recommended language can be found on
the bottom of page 4 of the ordinance [Subd. 5(i)].
Tree Preservation Page 4 of 7 August 8, 2023
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
Planted Trees
The existing regulations references “credit for previously planted trees” [see Subd. 9(c)(vi)].
The current language suggests that previously planted trees can be considered as replacement
trees if replacement is required in a project.
The thought behind this type of provision is so there is not a disincentive for property owners
planting trees in the years and decades prior to development or a construction project.
Staff believes it may be reasonable and more straight-forward to exempt trees planted by the
owner from consideration on the front end, rather than counting as replacement on the back end.
Staff has suggested this language at the bottom of page 7, top of page 8.
Replacement for Old Growth Forest
The current Tree Preservation ordinance states that replacement for trees removed from an Old
Growth Forest Remnant is required to be on a 2 inch:1inch basis. The ordinance notes that Old
Growth Forest Remnants are identified within the City’s natural resource inventory. The City’s
2008 Inventory did not identify any Old Growth Remnants.
One of the communities which was surveyed for comparison (Victoria) requires 2:1 replacement
for “heritage trees,” so there is one example of a community which has a multiplier for
replacement. In their case it is for older, larger trees.
If, in the future, any woodlands in the City evolve to the point where they could be classified as
Old Growth, staff believes other tools would be more effective to preserve these areas rather than
relying on the tree preservation ordinance. Examples include land planning, acquisition, or
requiring dedication of the land as park dedication. Staff has some concern about requiring a
multiplier in terms of replacement. Staff has suggested language to remove this multiplier [See
Subd. 9(c)(i) on page 7]
Remove Ash Trees from Allowed Species
With the emergence of Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) in the area, staff recommends removing ash
trees from the list of allowed replacements. The ordinance does require diversification for
replacement trees (no more than 25% of one species), which is best practice to limit impacts
from future tree diseases and infestations.
Discussion Items
Staff has identified several topics for additional discussion but wanted to allow Planning
Commission and Council to discuss prior to suggesting any specific language.
PUD as incentive for preservation
The Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance identifies the following as one of the purposes
of the City considering a PUD: “The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site
characteristics such as high quality natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural
topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion.” Staff believes this
language is sufficient for the City to provide flexibility for a developer to design a site to
Tree Preservation Page 5 of 7 August 8, 2023
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
preserve wooded areas. Because the City has the discretion in determining whether to approve a
PUD, the Planning Commission and Council will need to balance the tree preservation goals
against other interests which may be raised by residents (minimum lot size, unit count, type of
dwelling, etc.). The PUD can be a good tool, but the developer would need to realize sufficient
value from the flexibility granted to make the project more desirable for them as well.
Density Bonuses/Transfer of Development Rights
Maple Grove’s ordinance includes language which allow a property owner to transfer
development rights from wooded acreage to other sites and allows the City to grant density
bonuses for preserving wooded areas.
The PUD process provides some ability to “transfer” density from one portion of a site to
another, at the discretion of the City. Density would need to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, which does allow +20% density “for developments that protect the natural
features or exceed other standards of the zoning district.” Staff believes it is fair to interpret that
the existing PUD ordinance would allow this +20% density at the discretion of the City for
woodland preservation. If the Planning Commission and City Council wanted to emphasize this
incentive, it may be advisable to add the language more explicitly in either the Tree Preservation
ordinance or the PUD ordinance.
While the PUD ordinance would certainly allow flexibility in lot size and layout to shift the
location of buildings within a development site, the City does not explicitly address transfer of
development rights BETWEEN sites. Such transfers are often suggested conceptually in studies
as a tool to preserve desirable features, but are not widely utilized. Transfers may be challenging
to administer and track over time. Maple Grove has had this option in their regulations for a
number of decades of extensive development, and was utilized only a few times. Density
bonuses were utilized much more often.
The City likely could regulate a transfer of development rights through a PUD process (even for
non-contiguous sites) if the opportunity ever presented itself. However, the likelihood is much
lower if the option is not explicitly described in code.
Staff seeks feedback on whether bonus density language should be emphasized in code, or if
transfer of development rights language should be added.
Standards by Land Use
The City’s current removal allowances are based on lot size, irrespective of planned land use.
Several communities which were reviewed by staff established different regulations for allowed
removal based on land use. Staff believes it may be advisable to consider regulations by land
use. The Uptown Hamel district, for example, is intended to allow a more “urban” or
“downtown” style of development, has a lot of smaller lots and allows 90% coverage by
buildings and parking. It likely is difficult to develop in this style while also preserving trees.
Most sites do not have stands of trees to preserve, but they are instead scattered through the site.
Staff believes it is appropriate to address this in the tree preservation ordinance.
In the past, the City has accounted for land use differences through the “waiver” procedures
which are described within the existing regulations. The waiver procedure is described on the
Tree Preservation Page 6 of 7 August 8, 2023
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
bottom of page 5. The City has granted waivers in the case of land planned for more intensive
uses, provided the applicant made efforts to preserve trees.
The City Attorney recommends that, to the extent possible, the City should try to specify
expectations for removal within the ordinance, rather than commonly relying on waivers to
address such instances.
Park Dedication credit
The City can require 10% of buildable land from any subdivision to be dedicated to the City for
Parks, Trails, and Open Space. This provides a fairly powerful tool to preserve the highest
priority wooded areas. Requiring dedication of wooded areas would compete with requiring
dedication of lands for active recreation (parks/trails) or obtaining cash-in-lieu of dedication.
The City would also then obtain property rights over the wooded area.
Several communities note that the City would provide some credit toward park dedication
requirements of wooded areas are preserved within a development site. Staff believes there may
be an opportunity to provide credit for preserved woodland areas. If such lands were preserved,
but not open to the public, partial park dedication credit could be considered.
Staff seeks feedback on whether Planning Commission, Park Commission, and City Council are
supportive of adding language related to this option.
Softwood removal/replacement
Several communities required a lower replacement amount for softwood trees such as box elder,
cottonwood, and ash. The City’s current regulations include a provision that can exempt
“removal of invasive species of Trees (as defined by the Minnesota Department of Nature
Resources) and the control of pioneering Tree species such as box elder when needed to manage
other ecosystems and where the removal will not cause erosion or damage to riparian areas.”
Staff believe the original intent of this provision was for cases of tree/forest management, not as
an exemption for removal of such trees during development. Nonetheless, relying on this
language and the allowance of the waiver provision of the code, the City has reduced
replacement requirements in several cases for lower quality trees such as cottonwood and box
elder. If that is to be the practice, staff would recommend formalizing either the exemption or
reduction in replacement for such trees.
Allowed Removal
As noted above, Medina is one of the more stringent communities with regard to tree removal
allowances. Medina is also unique in how removal for “initial site development” is accounted
for separately from “other activities.” For commercial or multi-family sites which do not have
public streets, this two-part approach can actually result in a more restrictive allowance because
a project may need to remove more trees for a larger building/parking footprint rather than for
streets.
Tree Preservation Page 7 of 7 August 8, 2023
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
Potential Action
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the proposed changes and the
discussion items above and provide feedback. Amendments to the ordinance are not time-
sensitive, so if Commissioners request additional information or changes, staff can present at a
future meeting. Staff also intends to request feedback from Park Commission and City Council
before finalizing the ordinance.
Attachments
1. Ordinance
2. Chanhassen regulations
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday August 8, 2023 4
5
1. Call to Order: Chairperson Rhem called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6
7
Present: Planning Commissioners Adeel Ahmed, John Jacob, Beth Nielsen, Cindy Piper, 8
Matt Plec, Justin Popp, and Braden Rhem. 9
10
Absent: None. 11
12
Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke 13
14
2. Changes to Agenda 15
16
No comments made. 17
18
3. Update from City Council Proceedings 19
20
Finke provided an overview of Council actions that have occurred since the last meeting of 21
the Planning Commission. 22
23
4. Representative at Next City Council Meeting 24
25
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Popp volunteered 26
to attend in representation of the Commission. 27
28
5. Planning Department Report 29
30
Finke provided an update. Commissioner Popp inquired about noxious weed enforcement. 31
Finke replied that Public Works handles noxious weed complaints while Planning generally 32
handles long grass complaints in neighborhoods. 33
34
6. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code 35
Related to Tree Preservation 36
37
Finke stated that the existing regulations were summarized within the report, noting the two-38
tier removal allowance. He stated that most developments fall within 25 to 30 percent. He 39
stated that staff reviewed the regulations of neighboring communities for comparison and 40
noted that it seems common to have inch per inch replacement required. He commented that 41
Medina is on the lower end of the allowance noting that a number of communities have 42
discounted the lower value trees. He stated that Medina has a waiver provision for portions 43
of replacement and noted that provision has been used in cases where there are a lot of lower 44
value trees. He stated that the City Attorney has suggested that process be more formalized 45
rather than following the waiver provision. He noted that there were some outliers when 46
reviewing other communities, such as Corcoran which does not have a tree preservation 47
ordinance and Chanhassen which established a minimum canopy amount. He provided 48
details on an appeals court case related to tree replacement requirements. 49
50
Jacob asked if there is an inspection of trees to ensure the replacement is followed. 51
2
52
Finke explained the inspection process that is followed to ensure the trees are planted and 53
survive the two-year warranty period. 54
55
Jacob asked if the ordinance only applies to new construction or whether it would apply to a 56
homeowner that chose to clear cut their property they have been living in for a number of 57
years. 58
59
Finke replied that the ordinance does cover all properties. He noted that two trees can be 60
removed without application of the ordinance, but any additional removal would need a 61
permit. He stated that the permitting for the property would then be tracked to ensure a 62
property does not go over the removal threshold. 63
64
Popp referenced some definitions, such as old growth terminology and asked if that is 65
discretion based or an actual definition. 66
67
Finke stated that old growth forest remnant is a defined forestry term from the state/DNR and 68
therefore he would not suggest adjusting that definition. 69
70
Popp commented that he would guess that mature trees are declining and therefore there may 71
not be a lot of trees exceeding 100 years in age. 72
73
Finke stated that it is not just the age but the multi-age diversification. 74
75
Jacob asked about trees that are poorly sited on a property. 76
77
Finke commented that there is an exemption for trees that would be a hazard. 78
79
Nielsen asked if there is a project on the horizon that is leading towards these changes, as 80
sometimes ordinance changes are reactive. 81
82
Finke replied that there is not such a project and explained that there have been previous 83
experiences in development that have suggested that it would make sense for the City to 84
review the ordinance. He commented that the thought behind the policy is not to punish 85
people for removing trees, but that the ordinance should incentivize a design that is least 86
impactful to trees. He stated that the ordinance does not prohibit tree removal, it simply 87
requires replacement and/or payment at a certain threshold. He reviewed the recommended 88
changes that would formalize past practices such as allowing off-site replacement of trees 89
and/or a contribution to the City’s environmental fund for forest management, and the public 90
agency exemption for tree removal within the right-of-way. 91
92
Nielsen asked if other cities require tree replacement for right-of-way removal. 93
94
Finke replied that he could look into that. He noted that while the City would replant trees 95
where appropriate, he would also not want to require tree calculations along a road corridor 96
and payment by the City to the City’s own fund, essentially transferring funds from the road 97
fund to the environmental fund. He reviewed the next proposed change which would exempt 98
tree removal on the boundary of a property that becomes right-of-way to support a road 99
improvement such as a turn lane. He stated that there is language within the existing 100
ordinance that would allow planted trees to be claimed as credit for tree replacement that may 101
be required, and staff would suggest changing that to allow planted trees to be exempt as they 102
do not want to disincentivize people from planting trees on their property. 103
104
3
Rhem commented that he is confused by that concept and asked for additional clarification. 105
106
Finke replied that it is supposed to work in the manner that trees planted would count towards 107
replacement but could also be counted as a denominator in the calculation. He explained that 108
the City has not enforced it in that manner. He reviewed different scenarios with the 109
Commission and how the exemption would apply. 110
111
Nielsen asked how someone would prove the trees that they plant. 112
113
Jacob asked how trees that voluntarily grow would be counted. 114
115
Finke stated that would be part of the discussion process. He used the example of Marsh 116
Point which was a farm field in the 1980s and additional trees were planted for landscaping, 117
which led to volunteer trees that became significant. He stated that in that case they 118
exempted the landscaped trees as part of the PUD process. 119
120
Rhem asked how often the planted tree provision has been used. 121
122
Finke replied that he is aware of three developments that used that provision. 123
124
Rhem commented that this is a very complicated and difficult to enforce provision, no matter 125
how the language is written. 126
127
Finke noted that aerial photos have been used in past scenarios. 128
129
Rhem asked if that exemption should be reviewed in its entirety as they review the Code, 130
asking if there is benefit in having the provision. 131
132
Nielsen stated that she reviewed the provision as it is within the Code and it is fairly clear, 133
therefore she is fine leaving it as is. 134
135
Popp commented that he is also okay with how it reads. He stated that he does have concern 136
with the transfer in ownership and how that would apply. 137
138
Nielsen stated that a developer would seem to have trouble selling a development without any 139
trees. 140
141
Finke stated that staff suggests removing the old growth forest provision as it would seem not 142
to apply to Medina. 143
144
Popp commented that if it is not relevant today, it would most likely not be relevant in the 145
future. 146
147
Jacob commented that he would think there is less deforestation and more forestation, 148
therefore it may become more applicable in 50 years. 149
150
Finke commented that he would think there would be better tools in place should an old 151
growth area come to fruition in order to protect it, rather than requiring two to one 152
replacement of removed areas. 153
154
Popp agreed that would make sense. 155
156
Finke stated that staff suggests removing ash trees from the allowed trees to be planted. 157
4
158
Popp asked the type of process that would allow that species to reenter the list. 159
160
Finke stated that staff would track it and if an EAB resistant ash tree is developed, it could 161
come back similar to elms. He noted that those are the changes as proposed and the 162
remainder are simply items for discussion. He noted that the City is on the lower end of 163
allowed removal compared to other cities and asked for confirmation that is where the City 164
would like to be. He did not think there had been discussion about changing those 165
percentages and simply wanted to point out where the City falls compared to others. 166
167
Rhem commented that he believes the two-tiered system is probably overly complex 168
compared to other cities. He stated that he is fine with where the City is compared to the 169
other cities but thinks the two-tiered system could be simplified to make it easier for 170
applicants and staff. 171
172
Finke confirmed that there is comfort from the Commission with the percentages but perhaps 173
that could be calculated in a simplified manner. He provided density bonus incentives used 174
by other communities, specifically Maple Grove, which actually allows a transfer. He noted 175
that ability to transfer would be almost impossible in Medina because of the land of land 176
available. He stated that staff could use the density bonus under the current PUD process. 177
178
Rhem commented that he would be comfortable leaving the process as is, using the PUD 179
process for density bonus consideration. 180
181
Finke noted that if someone owned two sites, one with a lot of trees and one without trees, he 182
would think the density transfer could still be considered through the PUD process. 183
184
Plec noted that if the language is not specifically within the ordinance, a developer may not 185
propose such a situation. 186
187
Finke confirmed the consensus of the Commission to leave that language as it is. He noted 188
that most cities differentiate between types of development, such as commercial and 189
residential, whereas Medina does not. He provided an example of areas within Uptown 190
Hamel that have large, landscaped trees that would have had significant impact on 191
commercial development. 192
193
Rhem commented that example would be inconsistent with what they are attempting to 194
achieve in Uptown Hamel. 195
196
Popp agreed that would challenge the vision for Uptown Hamel but was uncertain he would 197
want to extend the change beyond that area. 198
199
Jacob commented that there are some large silver maples on adjacent residential properties, 200
and he would not want to see those cut down and replaced with two-inch trees. He noted that 201
perhaps park dedication could be used to assist in preserving those trees. 202
203
Finke confirmed the consensus of the Commission to lessen the replacement requirements in 204
Uptown Hamel. He moved to the topic of park dedication noting that is a tool that could be 205
used for tree preservation and provided suggestions of how that could potentially be used. 206
207
Nielsen commented that would seem to make things more complicated. 208
209
Rhem agreed that would make calculations more complicated. 210
5
211
Finke discussed the concept of reducing the replacement requirement of certain species such 212
as boxelders and other less desirables. He noted that previously adjustments for large 213
quantities of those species has been done through waiver. 214
215
Nielsen confirmed that she would support a lesser replacement for those types of trees. 216
217
Finke asked if inch per inch replacement also makes sense for the trees. 218
219
Jacob noted that they would need to consider future growth for certain trees, over density to 220
ensure long term health and success. 221
222
Finke used the example of another community that requires two trees to be planted for each 223
tree removed. He referenced the scenario where a large tree is removed and using inch per 224
inch replacement, that would result in many small trees being planted. He stated that he 225
understands the concept but perhaps a cap is placed on the number of trees needed to replace 226
a large tree to ensure they do not have that overcrowding. 227
228
Jacob stated that he would support the concept of a cap. 229
230
Popp commented that he would have a hard time commenting on that as he does not 231
necessarily have that forestry expertise. 232
233
Finke commented that ultimately a site cannot be designed to avoid all the trees, therefore 234
this would be designed to recommend the number of replacement trees and/or amount that 235
would need to be paid into the environmental fund. 236
237
Nielsen commented that she would be uncomfortable placing a cap on replacement trees. 238
239
Finke agreed that may not be needed, especially if they are going to reduce the replacement 240
required for boxelders and the other less desirables. 241
242
Rhem opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. 243
244
No comments. 245
246
Rhem noted that the public hearing will be continued at the following meeting. 247
248
7. Approval of the June 13, 2023 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 249
250 Motion by Piper, seconded by Jacob, to approve the June 13, 2023, Planning Commission 251
minutes with the noted changes. Motion carries unanimously. 252
253
8. Adjourn 254
255
Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Popp, to adjourn the meeting at 8:16 p.m. Motion carried 256
unanimously. 257