The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About01/21/03 CCM21� JAMES S. LANE, III 2605 Hamel Road Medina, Minnesota. 55340-9785 Residence: 763/473-3302 Office: 612/343-7488 Facsimile: 612/874-9793 E-mail: jameslane@qwest.net January 21, 2003 Philip K. Zietlow, Mayor CITY OF MEDINA 2052 County Road 24 Medina, Minnesota 55340 Re: City of Medina Agricultural Task Force Dear Phil: I am herewith delivering to you the following — • Draft report of City of Medina Agricultural Task Force dated January 21, 2003. • My resignation as chairman and member of the Task Force, effective immediately. I request that the enclosed draft report and my resignation be recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the city council on January 21, 2003. 2C 2 DRAFT REPORT OF CITY OF MEDINA AGRICULTURAL TASK FORCE January 21, 2003 2; Summary In December 2001 the Medina City Council appointed a 9-member Agricultural Task Force to review agricultural land issues (structures and practices) in the city, project fixture trends, and recommend possible ordinance changes to the Planning Commission and City Council. A list of members and alternates of the Task Force, a 1-page statement of their objectives, and minutes of their meetings are inchided in this report. The Task Force met nine times between January and August in 2002 and received useful information concerning agricultural practices, management techniques, and water duality issues associated with agriculture from many vahiable sources, including the USDA Soil Conservation Service/Natural Resources Conservation Group; University ofMmnesota Extension Service; Hennepin Conservation District; Three Rivers Park (formerly Hennepin Park); elected representatives of the City of Independence; Medina City Attorney Ronald H. Batty, Jr. and Planning and Zoning Administrator Loren Kohnen. Former City Clerk/Treasurer Paul Robinson and Planning and Zoning Assistant Sandie Larson provided staff support to the Task Force. The core elements of this draftreport are the following. Statement of Objectives. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations. Draft dated 6/20/02. Legal memoranda from City Attorney Ronald H. Batty, Jr. • Legal Overview dated January 1 I, 2002. • Potential Ordinance Modifications dated February 20, 2002. • Legisltition regarding phosphorous fertilizer dated March 7, 2002 (City Council subsequently enacted a new ordinance to regulate use of phosphorous fertilizers in City). • Operative Wetlands Definitions dated March 8, 2002. • Proposed ordinance amendments dated March 8, 2002. Recommended follow up. Memorandum from Task Force Vice Chairman Thomas M. Crosby, Jr. to Chairman James S. Lane dated August 21, 2002. In addition to its core elements, this draft report contains various appendices, including a tabular summary of land uses in Medina in 1998 and projected in.2020 (2000 2020 Comprehensive Plan, Table 3- I); a map of Agricultural Uses in 2002 (DRAFT - January 8, 2002); minutes of meetings of the Task Force; and various anecdotal items of information gathered by the Task Force, including the City's existing nuisance ordinance, newspaper articles, and references to best management practices advocated by the Hennepin Conservation District and others whose expertise was valuable to the Task Force. J.S.L. 01/21/03 2: Agricultural Task Force Membership List Agriculture Task Force Members Address H- Phone W - Phone E-Mail City Council _ Jim Lane - Chair 2605 Hamel Rd - 55340 763-473-3302 612-343-7488 iameslane@gwest.net Carolyn Smith 2752 Hamel Rd - 55340 763-475-1003 763-323-5735 carolynsmith@co.anoka.mn.us Alternates Bruce Workman 2212 Chippewa Rd-55340 763-478-8806 763-541-1364 Bruce@workmanfinancial.com Phil Zietlow 875 Co. Rd. 24 - 55391 763-473-5263 763-764-3435 ziet1001 @mail.genmills.com Planning _Commission Lenny Leuer 3625 Chippewa Rd-55357 763-479-1422 763-514-2817 lenny.leuer@medtronic.com Mary Verbick 855 Foxberry Farms Rd 763.478.6552 612.810.5228 dverbick@scc.net Alternates Jerry Brost 3385 Co. Rd. 24 -55356 612-237-7810 bhrsjb@aol.com Tom Supel 2782 Tamarack Dr-55356 763-475-3264 supe10010tc.umn_edu At Large Tom Crosby 1612 Willow Dr-55356 763-473-1141 612-766-8605 tcrosby@faeare.com Louise Leatherdale 2075 Cottonwood Tr- 55356 763-473-3803 (c)-612-803- 5055 Lleatherda@aol.com Steve Leuer 3312 Red Fox Dr - 55340 763-478-9583 612-282-4311 Dick Picard 2765 Co Rd. 19 - 55359 763-479-3865 Richardpicard@earthlink.net Ann Thies 1922 Willow Dr - 55356 763-476-2877 651-647-9590 acthies@citilink.com Alternates Bill Nunn 2825 Willow Dr-55340 763-475-3350 skyrock@worldnet.att.net Louise Otten Tom Gregor 2592 Holy Name D55391 763-478-3071 763-478-9832 tom@greaorfarm.com Mike McLaughlin 2887 Lakeshore Ave. - 55359 763-479-3632 None Staff Ron Batty 612-337-9262 Rbatty@kennedy-graven.com Paul Robinson 763-473-4643 Paul@ci.medina.mn.us Loren Kohnen 763-473-4643 Mtrowst76@aol.com Sandie Larson 763-473-4643 Sandie ci.medina.mn.us 24 Agricultural Task Force Statement of Objectives • Survey current agricultural uses, practices, and structures in Medina. • Project trends and estimate future agricultural uses and how they might affect the City in the future • Determine whether and where there are problems or opportunities with cu t agricultural uses of land that might be addressed by additional zoning or other land use regulation? • Determine what reasonable regulations or incentives might be considered to address existing problems or opportunities. • Identify potential or existing incentives for protecting agricultural uses and the City's natural resources. • Identify examples of actual or potential water degradation such as: feed lots, pasture run-off, polluted streams, ponds, or wetlands. • Report findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the City Council and Planning Commission in April. 2E Draft: 6/20/02 CITY OF MEDINA AGRICULTURAL TASK FORCE Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations 2E 6/20/02 INTRODUCTION On December 18, 2001 the Medina City Council appointed an Agricultural Task Force to consider various issues raised by agricultural activities within the City. of Objectives: After discussion, the Agricultural Task Force adopted the following Statement • Survey current agricultural uses, practices, and structures in Medina. • Project trends and estimate future agricultural uses and how they might affect the City in the future. • Determine whether and where there are problems or opportunities with current agricultural uses of land that might be addressed by additional zoning or other land use regulation? • Determine what reasonable regulations or incentives might be considered to address existing problems or opportunities. • Identify potential or existing incentives for protecting agricultural uses and the City's natural resources. • Identify examples of actual or potential water degradation such as: feed lots, pasture run-off, polluted streams, ponds, or wetlands. • Report findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the City Council and Planning Commission in April. A questionnaire was circulated among the Task Force members to identify issues to be considered. A summary of the results of the questionnaire process is attached as Appendix A. During the several meetings of the Committee reports were presented by individuals working in agricultural fields. Set forth in this report are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Agricultural Task Force. M I:864510.04 2� CITY OF MEDINA AGRICULTURAL TASK FORCE FINDINGS: Draft: 6/20/02 1. City land use policies. The City's Comprehensive Plan, 2000-2020, has as main components keeping a large portion of Medina rural and protecting the City's natural resources. (Section 3, page 16) 2. Rural Residential Areas. A large portion of Medina is designated Rural Residential in the 2000 — 2020 Guide Plan (Map 3-2). The Comprehensive Plan states that the City's most important goal is to maintain the rural character of this [Rural Residential] area. (Section 3, page 17) 3. Surface Water Management. The Comprehensive Plan contains surface water management policies to, among other things, ensure that the City's waterways and wetlands are being adequately protected. (Section 3, page 30) 4. Cropland. Most cropland in Medina is farmed by contract farmers under leases or contracts with individual property owners. A few livestock producers still raise their oven grain and hay for on -farm feeding. 5. Livestock -cattle. "Windshield surveys" by City and Hennepin Conservation District (HCD) staff indicated that there are 10-12 small dairy or beef feedlots in the City, accounting for fewer than 200 head. 6. Livestock -other. There is only one known swine -producing farm in the City, a confined facility north of Loretto. There no longer are any poultry operations in the City. There also is one small buffalo herd on a well fenced 20A. parcel in a rural residential zoning district on Hamel Road. 7. Livestock -horses. Horses and horse farms, including commercial boarding and riding stables, are the most prevalent form of livestock agriculture in the City. Approximately 436 horses are kept in Medina of which number approximately are maintained in agricultural or commercial operations. 8. Complaints. Few, if any, formal complaints have been received by the City with respect to improper or unsanitary agricultural practices. 9. Agricultural preserve (AG) zoning. The State enabling statute (Minn. Stats. 473H) protects "normal farm practices" from local units' unreasonably restricting or regulating normal farm structures or practices in land zoned Agricultural Preserve. Medina has four parcels of land in this zoning classification comprising approximately 200 acres. (Guide Plan, Map 3-2) 2E 10. Nuisance ordinance. Medina's existing nuisance ordinance (City Code Section 330, also Sec. 828.15) is available to use to enforce certain agriculture management practices. Minnesota Statutes impose certain restrictions on the use of nuisance statutes in regulating a facility for the production of crops and livestock (MS § 561.19) 11. Agricultural exceptions or exemptions. Various provisions of the Medina City Code except or exempt agriculture or agricultural operations from application of the Code. The exemptions were intended to exempt traditional, "family farm" operations and may not address current horse ownership and hobby farm practices. 12. Education and "best management practices." The Task Force has been exposed to several informative and educational sources of information related to local agricultural practices, especially land and water conservation and protection of water quality of wetlands from agricultural runoff, indicating that a substantial body of knowledge exists on these topics. 13. Definitions. Many terms that pertain to the work of the Task Force, such as agriculture, agricultural operations „feedlots, etc. are defined differently in state statutes, regulations, and City Code. 14. Hennepin Conservation District. Terry Zapzalka, a Conservation Technician with the Hennepin Conservation District, reviewed Medina's current situation and had the following recommendations: • Require that new facilities follow all MPCA set -back requirements that pertain to the site. • Require that animals to be fenced out of streams, lakes, and l Nl Protected Wet/ands for new stables. • Encourage landowners to fence livestock from all surface waters. • Reduce allowable animal units to one per one spreadable_acre for new stables. • Encourage new landowners to work with Hennepin Conservation District to develop manure management plans. 15. Zoning Administrator's Findings. Loren Kohnen, Zoning Administrator for the City, reports that, in his opinion, the major problem is run-off from commercial horse stables with a small percent of problems from hobby farms. The three commercial stables that are regulated and have CUPs display no major problems. Existing commercial stables with no CUP appear to be a big part of the problem including paddocks in or near wetlands and streams and manure storage in wetland areas. 16. Comparable ordinances. The Task Force was unable to find an existing ordinance in use in another municipality which would fit Medina's needs. 2: CONCLUSIONS: A. Protection of farms and open space, including hobby farms and horse stables, is a means of implementing desired long-range land use policies in Medina in the 2000 — 2002 Comprehensive Plan. B. Water quality and animal waste issues are important to the City of Medina. C. Decline of family farms and commercial farming operations not involving horses is expected to continue, especially in dairy. D. Contractors, including professional farmers, who participate in Federal farm programs are aware of Federal requirements, including management practices, for maintaining program eligibility and benefits. Those standards are generally consistent with the City's interests in land and water conservation and environmental protection and, for such participants, accomplish many of the goals desired by the Task Force. E. Remaining cattle feedlots in City are likely to decline in number and size as their owners/operators retire from farming or choose other new uses for their land. There appears to be no substantial need to enact regulations to deal specifically with dairy or beef cattle feedlots in the City. F. Except for dairy and beef cattle feedlots, there are not "other," non -horse livestock - related issues in the City. G. The -essential nature of horse boardingand riding stables is more commercial than agricultural in nature. Such stables should be regulated by appropriate accessory use, animal unit and density standards, set back standards, structure requirements, and other traditional land use control devices, such as conditional use permits. H. More potential exists for improper farm and horse operations or careless management , p attices than appears to exi2.002,-- TlfeTasl Force was unable to find a Minnesota metropolitan municipality w-iic t imposed reasonable regulations on Agricultural Preserve (AG) zoning to serve as a model for land use regulations in agricultural zoning in Medina. 3C RECOMMENDATIONS: The City Council should consider policies and procedures to: 1. Develop guidelines for best practices for: -- manure management - pasture management - - wetland protection 2. Define agriculture and, for animals, distinguish between personal, commercial and agricultural categories to reflect current conditions in Medina. 3. Adopt reasonable animal density limitations. 4. Formulate standards for a conditional use permit for commercial horse operations. 5. Adopt a schedule to bring commercial horse operations not currently subject to CIPs into compliance with the best practice guidelines and general conditional use permit requirements. 6. Require that applications for land use modification or subdivision involving horses meet the best practice guidelines, including limitations related to use of the property, not the size of the buildings. 7. Adopt _regulations for agricultural land uses, including reasonable regulations for Agricultural F'reserve (AG) property, involving: - - feedlots -- fencing - - limitation of animal units -- building regulations (height, size, setback, etc.) -- relationship with wetlands -- land alteration 8. Review and revise, as appropriate, the existing nuisance ordinance and, subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes § 561.19, use it to police existing objectionable management practices to the extent not affected by the other recommendations. 9. Adapt procedures for compliance with regulations of other units of government. 10. Consider restricting/prohibiting agriculture in some zoning districts. M1:864510.04 3 APPENDIX A Agricultural Issues List Category Regulation Water Quality Conservation Land Use Quality of Life M1:864510.04 Animal Density • Feed lots • Animal Waste • Erosion • Grazing/Pasture Agricultural Building Issues • Location Buildings • Land Alteration • Erosion • Size • Number • Exterior Lighting • Exterior Storage • Use/Storage of Herbicides • Height • Appearance Land Planning Issues • Compatibility of Agricultural/Residential • Preservation of Agricultural Land/ Open Space • Protection of Significant Natural Features 3� MEMORANDUM TO: Agriculture Task Force FROM: Ron Batty, City Attorney DATE: January 11, 2002 RE: Legal Overview The Medina city council has established a task force to review and recommend amendments to the city's official controls regarding agricultural uses. On January 15, 2002 the city council will consider adoption of an interim ordinance establishing a moratorium on agricultural land uses and buildings throughout the city. In order to facilitate the task force's work, I have prepared a list and brief summary of statutory and other materials which may have an effect on the city's ability to regulate agricultural uses. I have also included a list of references to agriculture contained in Medina's comprehensive plan, subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance. The ordinance materials vary in relevance. Before embarking on this work, the following broad principals should be kept in mind: 1. Regulate: land use. Cities have broad authority to enact and enforce zoning ordinances. Zoning and other official controls relate to land use: The focus of any new or amended ordinances should be in applying traditional land use concepts (density, setbacks, etc.) in an agricultural context. 2. State preemption of environmental f pollution regulation. As a general matter, cities have little if any authority to regulate pollution or environmental matters directly. State law generally preempts city regulation of such matters. If there is an environmental goal the city wishes to achieve, it should be approached through the application of a land use regulation rather than a direct imposition of an environmental control. 3. Ag Preserve requires special consideration. The statute under which the Ag Preserve district is established is intended to permit the devotion of certain land for long term, exclusive agricultural purposes. This does not mean the city cannot regulate agriculture in the AG zone. The statute, however, prevents the city from establishing regulations which unreasonably restrict or regulate normal farming structures or farm practices. The implication is that any change in agriculture which we wish to effect in the AG zone most likes w1I1 have to app yT�grictrlt` ii throughout the city so as to be consistent with normal farming practices in the community. Agriculture is afforded its highest protection in the Ag Preserve district. RHB-208606v l ME230-5 1 3: STATUTES, REGULATIONSAND ORDINANCES REGARDING AGRICULTURE Federal U.S. Const., Amd. 5 State Statutes Minn. Const., Art. 1, sec. 13 Minn. Stat. Chapter 84C — conservation easements Minn. Stat., section 116.07 — generally, state preemption of environmental and pollution matters Minn. Stat., Chapter 462 — municipal land planning ordinance. Sections 462.351, 462.357 and 462.3595 provide authority to regulate use of land, including agriculture. 462.358, subd. 4 b contains limited exemption from subdivision regulations for large ag property Minn. Stat., section 473.858 — metropolitan planning act. Requires comprehensive plan, including allowance for agriculture Minn. Stat., Chapter 473H — metropolitan agricultural preserves. Authorizes establishment of areas devoted to long term and exclusive agricultural use. Protects against regulation: of normal farm buildings and normal farm practices Minn. Stat., section 561.19 - freedom to farm statute. Exempts farming operations in existence for at least 2 years from being declared a nuisance, subject to limitations. State Rules Minn. R., chapter 4410 — EAW and EIS Minn. R., chapter 7020 — feed lots Other Regulators of Agriculture Minnesota pollution control agency Minnesota department of natural resources Minnesota department of agriculture State board of health Watershed and soil conservation districts Federal EPA R H B-203606v I ME230-5 3I Medina Ordinances lee . Section 825.07, subd. 3 - subd. 33 - subd. 34 - subd. 43 - subd. 69 - subd. 89 - subd. 90 - subd. 91 - definition of agriculture use definition of farm definition of feed lot definition of forestry definition of landscape nursery definition of commercial riding stable definition of private riding stable definition of public riding stable Section 825.15 — Non -confirming uses Section 825.19 — Regulation of accessory structures Section 825.39 and .43 — CUP standards (general) and procedures Section 825.48, subd. 1 — Building permits required for ag buildings Sections 826.07 — 826.15 — Ag Preserve district Sections 826.17 — 826.25 — Rural Residential district Sections 826.251 — 826.25.5 — Urban Residential district Section 826.26 — Rural Residential 1 district Section: 826.26.1 Rural. Residential 2 district Sections 826.26.2 — 826.26.7 — Suburban Residential district (excludes keeping livestock) Sections 826.69 — 826.75 — Public / Semi-public district Sections 826.75 — 826.97 Flood plain regulations Section 826.98 — Specific CUP standards for uses in Ag Preserve and Residential districts Sections 827.01 — 827.07 — Shoreland district - Section 828.13 — Bulk storage of liquid Section 828.43 — Wetland regulations Section 828.49 — Agricultural operations Section 828.61 — Certain structures prohibited, except for farm use Section 828.63 — Land alteration permit Section 828.73 — Land spreading of yard waste Section 830 — PUD 1 and PUD2 districts RHB-208606v I ME230-5 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Agriculture Task Force FROM: Ron Batty, City Attorney DATE: February 20, 2002 RE: Potential Ordinance Modifications With only three meetings of the ATF remaining, it is time to begin to focus on potential modifications of the city's ordinances. The following is a list in no particular order of ordinance amendments which we may wish to consider. These are not intended to be detailed. My purpose is to generate discussion and, if possible, reach consensus on whether to pursue the matter. If endorsed by the ATF, these items will be incorporated into formal amendments which will be discussed at a succeeding meeting. Some of these will be non -controversial while I suspect others will prompt much discussion. The list is not intended to be all-inclusive. 1. Add definition of animal unit. This seems like an obvious oversight in our current ordinance. The concept is likely to have many applications. I suggest we adopt the definition from state law. 2. Add definitions of feedlot and pasture: Again, useful concepts which are missing. from our ordinance and are likely to: have numerous applications. 3. Narrow the definition of agriculture. Upon reflection, I have concluded that much of what we have discussed is not really related to agriculture. The "problem" seems to center on animals, particularly horses. By more clearly emphasizing the significance of sales in agriculture (which is already in ours and most statutory definitions), we can eliminate personal and commercial animal operations. The merits of doing so will be to free us from the serious limitations imposed by state law on the local regulation of agriculture. We may not be able to diminish the application of state protection of agriculture but we need not expand it. 4. Consider animal (horse) operations to fit into one of three categories: personal, commercial or agricultural. a) Personal use includes everyone who just likes to be around horses and makes no attempt to make a profit from them. Regulation of these might be by license or other administrative approval (not requiring formal review by planning commission or city council). The license might be granted, subject to compliance with zoning regulations (e.g., 150' setback for animal structures) and a manure management and erosion control plan. b) Commercial use includes stables at which horses are boarded or riding lessons offered. These are not really agricultural uses. We may have fallen into treating them as if they were agriculture because horses are involved. We need to determine in which district(s) to allow the use and regulate it by conditional use permit. Maybe they RH13-2104870 ME230-337 1 3E should even be allowed in the RR zone. The key will be to develop standards — and then apply them. The city's experience with regulating home occupations may be an example of how we can craft conditions designed to meet the limitations of each site. c) Agricultural uses include those which meet our (new, narrower) definition in which there is something being grown, raised or bred for sale. This will probably apply to only a small percentage of the horse operations. Since we are restricted in our ability to regulate "agriculture", we will be limiting the constraints by narrowing the definition. 5. Restrict/prohibit agriculture in some districts. The number of zoning districts in which agriculture is permitted is surprisingly large. We are not required to permit agriculture in most of the city. Suburban residential and PUD may be good candidates for elimination. We may also wish to prohibit agriculture involving animals (not just horses) from some districts or establish other requirements such as a larger lot size. 6. Reconsider Ag Preserve. This is the pure agricultural district in the city but it may . be the one least susceptible to effective regulation. The city is not required to have Ag Preserves. It may decide not to authorize additional land for this designation or may even take steps to rezone the parcels currently in the Ag Preserve district. (There is an eight year lag in time). This is a major policy decision and one which would ultimately have to be made by the city council: 7. Enhance nuisance ordinance. The city's nuisance ordinance is old and probably needs some updating. The major change, however, might be in stricter enforcement. . S_ Consider- unitnal , -density _ limitations: Limit the numberof ani nal units per acre. This could easily be applied to personal and commercial applications, maybe less easily so in the true agricultural context. 9. Consider setback requirements. Consider imposing additional setback requirements for animal related matters. 10. Land alteration. Consider removing (or limiting) the exception in the city's land alteration ordinance enjoyed by agriculture. Again, a narrow definition of agriculture would help. 11. Require compliance with regulations of other units of government. Manure management, erosion control and water quality are issues which have been mentioned repeatedly in our meetings. They are all matters which are regulated to some degree by other jurisdictions but may also be matters we choose to regulate. To the extent the city is precluded from regulating or chooses to let the regulations of another local government apply, requiring compliance with specific regulations would enhance the city's efforts. 12. Address the use, not the building. The city requires a conditional use permit for accessory structures over 3000 sq. ft. (or for more than two accessory buildings) on lots of more than three acres. This is the way we generally regulate horse operations but it is an indirect way of doing so. Perhaps all large buildings should still require some review but if the real focus is animals, let's be more direct about regulating them with conditions specifically aimed at animals. RHB-210487v 1 ME210-337 2 3- MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Agriculture Task Force FROM: Ron Batty, City Attorney DATE: March 7, 2002 RE: Legislation regarding Phosphorus Fertilizer Enclosed are copies of Senate File No. 1555 and House File No. 1524, which are the Senate and House versions, respectively, of a bill banning the use of phosphorus in fertilizer used on turf. Turf is defined broadly but explicitly excludes agriculture. As of Thursday afternoon, March 7, the Senate bill has passed the committee of the whole and had been passed to the Senate floor where quick action is expected. The House version has passed the local government committee but has not progressed quite as rapidly as the Senate version. Although different in some respects, the bills are essentially similar. They ban the use of fertilizer containing phosphorus on non-agricultural grounds except in specified circumstances. Both bills make it quite clear that agriculture is exempt. The bills preempt local regulation but the House version grandfathers local ordinances in effect on August 1, 2002. Both versions would become effective on January 1, 2004. The versions of the bills included with this memo are likely to be ancient history by the time of the meeting on the evening of March 11, 2002. I will bring the new versions, if available, and give the committee an update at that time. RNB-211239v I iVi E230-337 3E MEMORANDUM TO: Agriculture Task Force FROM: Ron Batty, City Attorney DATE: March 8, 2002 RE: Operative Wetlands Definitions The issue of wetlands has been raised in several of our meetings. The following is a discussion — probably in more detail than wanted — regarding the types of wetlands. I. TECHNICAL DEFINITIONS OF "WETLANDS" A. Minnesota Statutes Minnesota Statutes § 103G.005, subd. 17b defines wetlands by type: "Wetland type" means a wetland type classified according to Wetlands of the United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39 (1971 edition), as summarized in this subdivision. TYPE 1 WETLANDS are seasonally flooded basins or flats in which soil is covered with water or is waterlogged during variable seasonalperiods but usually is well drained during much of the growing season. Type 1 wetlands are located in depressions and in overflow bottomlands along watercourses, and in which vegetation varies greatly according to season and duration of flooding and includes bottomland hardwoods as well as herbaceous growths. TYPE 2 WETLANDS are inland fresh meadows in which soil is usually without standing water during most of the growing season but is waterlogged within at least a few inches of surface. Vegetation includes grasses, sedges, rushes, and various broad -leafed plants. Meadows may fill shallow basins, sloughs, or farmland sags, or these meadows may border shallow marshes on the landward side. TYPE 3 WETLANDS are inland shallow fresh marshes in which soil is usually waterlogged early during a growing season and often covered with as much as six inches or more of water. Vegetation includes grasses, bulrushes, spikerushes, and various other marsh plants such as cattails, arrowheads, pickerelweed, and smartweeds. These marshes may nearly fill shallow lake basins or sloughs, or may border deep marshes on the landward side and are also common as seep areas on irrigated lands. KVZ-211160v l ME2 30-5 1 3� TYPE 4 WETLANDS are inland deep fresh marshes in which soil is usually covered with six inches to three feet or more of water during the growing season. Vegetation includes cattails, reeds, bulrushes, spikerushes, and wild rice. In open areas, pondweeds, naiads, coontail, water milfoils, waterweeds, duckweeds, waterlilies, or spatterdocks may occur. These deepp marshes may completely fill shallow lake basins, potholes, limestone sinks, and sloughs, or they may border open water in such depressions. TYPE 5 WETLANDS are inland open fresh water, shallow ponds, and reservoirs in which water is usually less than ten feet deep and is fringed by a border of emergent vegetation similar to open areas of type 4 wetland. TYPE 6 WETLANDS are shrub swamps in which soil is usually waterlogged during growing season and is often covered with as much as six inches of water. Vegetation includes alders, willows, buttonbush, dogwoods, and swamp -privet. This type occurs mostly along sluggish streams and occasionally on floodplains. TYPE 7 WETLANDS are wooded swamps in which soil is waterlogged at least to within a few inches of the surface during growing season and is often covered with as much as one foot of water. This type occurs mostly along sluggish streams, on floodplains, on flat uplands, and in shallow basins. Trees include tamarack, arborvitae, black spruce, balsam, red maple, and black ash. Northern evergreen swamps usually have a thick ground cover of mosses. Deciduous swamps frequently support. beds of duckweeds and smartweeds. TYPE S WETLANDS are bogs in which soil is usually waterlogged and supports a spongy covering of mosses: This type occurs mostly in shallow basins, on flat uplands, and along sluggish streams. Vegetation is woody or herbaceous or both. Typical plants are heath shrubs, sphagnum moss, and sedges. In the north, leatherleaf, Labrador -tea, cranberries, carex, and cottongrass are often present. Scattered, often stunted, black spruce and tamarack may occur. (2001) These statutory definitions are mirrored in the regulations found in Minn. R. 8420.0110, subp. 54(a). Additionally, Minnesota Statutes § 103G.005, subd. 19 (2001) provides a more general definition of Minnesota's wetlands: (a) `Wetlands' means lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this definition, wetlands must have the following three attributes: (1) have a predominance of hydric soils; (2) are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions; and (3) under normal circumstances support a prevalence of such vegetation. KVZ-211 l 60v l M E2 30-5 2 4C B. The United States Army Corps of Engineers The United States Arrny Corps of Engineers (the Corps) published its definition of wetlands and treatment thereof in its 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual. The Corps adopts the general definition of wetlands as outlined in 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(b): `[W]etlands' means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. (2001). Further, in its Wetlands Delineation Manual, the Corps points out the differences in the FWS' treatment of wetlands and the Corps' treatment of wetlands. Wetlands Delineation Manual at 3. For example, the FWS classification system requires that a positive indicator of wetlands be present for any one of the three parameters, while the technical guideline for wetlands requires that a positive wetland indicator be present for each parameter, except in limited circumstances. Id. The three parameters are that wetlands include: (a) inundated or saturated soil conditions resulting from permanent or periodic inundation by ground or surface water; (b) prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (hydrophyec vegetation); and (c) the presence of "normal circumstances." Id.. at 6. II. LAYMAN'S TERMS The U.S.G.S. Northern Prairie' wildlife Research Center has adopted a-general'defiEt iti€ i i of wetlands intended to encompass the various types of wetlands: wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface. The single feature that most wetlands share is soil or substrate that is at least periodically saturated with or covered by water. The water creates severe physiological problems for all plants and animals except those that are adapted for life in water or in saturated soil. Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats, U.S.G.S. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (1998), http://www.npwre.usgs.goviresource/1998/classwet/wetlands.htm. Further, wetlands " are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this class cation wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes, (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil, and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year." Id. (emphasis in original) Note this working definition is the same as that for the FWS. However, this is slightly different than that definition adopted by the Corps and that adopted by the State of Minnesota where the wetlands definitions require an area to meet all three of the following attributes to be classified a wetland: (1) KVZ-211160v1 ME230-5 3 4 have a predominance of hydric soils; (2) are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions; and (3) under normal circumstances support a prevalence of such vegetation. The Corps justifies its more stringent requirements in that, the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology indicators in addition to vegetation indicators will provide a logical, easily defensible, and technical basis for the presence of wetlands. The combined use of indicators for all three parameters will enhance the technical accuracy, consistency, and credibility of wetland determinations. Therefore, all three parameters were used in developing the technical guideline for wetlands and all approaches for applying the technical guideline embody the multiparameter concept. Wetlands Delineation Manual at 6. Finally, the NPWRC differentiates among five categories of wetlands for its classification purposes: (1) areas with hydrophytes and hydric soils, such as those commonly known as marshes, swamps, and bogs; (2) areas without hydrophytes but with hydric soils --for example, flats where drastic fluctuation in water level, wave action, turbidity, or high concentration of salts may prevent the growth of hydrophytes; (3) areas with hydrophytes but nonhydric soils, such as margins of impoundments or excavations where hydrophytes have become established but hydric soils have not yet developed; (4) areas without soils but with hydrophytes such as the seaweed -covered portion of rocky shores; and (5) wetlands without soil and without hydrophytes, such as gravel beaches or rocky shores without vegetation. III. CONCLUSION There are several federal and state regulatory authorities that deal with wetlands issues, including the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and others. The definitions adopted by these authorities in the promotion of their work are fairly parallel. All of these regulatory authorities appear to operate under the same parameters for identifying wetlands, with the Corps and the State appearing to adopt a higher threshold for determining where a wetland exists. KVZ-2I 1160v l ME230-5 4 42 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of Agriculture Task Force FROM: Ron Batty, City Attorney DATE: March 8, 2002 RE: Proposed Ordinance Amendments In an attempt to maintain our momentum, the following is language for proposed ordinance amendments. I have not put it in technical ordinance form but the language is what I would propose so it should be reviewed with care. A. We agreed at the last meeting to add several definitions to the zoning ordinance, including the following: Pastures — Areas where grass or other growing plants are used for grazing and where the concentration of animals is such that a vegetative cover is maintained during the growing season, except in the immediate vicinity of temporary supplemental feeding or watering systems. Animal Unit -- A- unit of measure used to compare differences-in-the°produetiott of animal manure that-employsas a standard the amount of manure°groductd on -a regular bails 6y a slaughter steer or heifer. It is: calculated by multiplying the number of animals attach type by its respective multiplication factor, and summing the resulting values for the total number of animal units. The following are the multiplication factors for the described animals: RH13-211243v I Iv16230-337 a ) Dairy Cattle 1. Mature cow over 1,000 pounds 2. Mature cow under 1,000 pounds 3. Heifer 4. Calf b ) Beef Cattle 1. Slaughter steer or stock cow 2. Feeder cattle or heifer 3. Cow and calf pair 4. Calf c ) Swine 1. Over 300 pounds 2. Between 55 and 300 pounds 3. Under 55 pounds 1 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.2 1.0 0.7 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.05 4: d) Horse 1.0 e ) Sheep and lambs 0.1 f ) Chickens 1. Laying hen or broiler (liquid manure system) 2. Chicken over 5 pounds (dry manure system) 3. Chicken under 5 pounds (dry manure system) g ) Turkeys 1. Over 5 pounds 2. Under 5 pounds 0.033 0.005 0.003 0.018 0.005 h) Ducks 0.01 i ) Animals not listed above Average weight of the animal in pounds divided by 1,000 pounds B. We also considered amending the definitions of Feedlot and Agricultural Use. I suggest deleting the current definition of agricultural use and substituting the new language. The new definition is4nomcompact anduses-the word "sale" rather t ` eon ' 'fhere yor r iaytatitt be a difference between theses but using the new definition will put the city-%n sync -with the story definition in the Ag Preserve law.. Current definition: Agricultural Use - The use of land for the growing and/or production of field crops, livestock, and livestock products for the production of income including but not limited to the following: (a) Field crops, including: barley, soy beans, corn, hay, oats, potatoes, rye, sorghum, and sunflowers. (b) Livestock, including: dairy and beef cattle, goats, horses, sheep, hogs, poultry, game birds and other domestic animals including ponies, deer, rabbits, and mink, except dogs. honey. RHB-211243v1 ME23Q-337 (c) Livestock products, including: milk, butter, cheese, eggs, meat, fur and 2 42 (d) Horticulture - The use of land for the growing or production of faits, vegetables, flowers, cultured sod and nursery stock, including ornamental plants and trees, for the production of income. (e) Aquaculture - The raising and production of fish and other water related products. (f) Drainage Systems, Tiling, and Irrigation. New definition: Agricultural use. "Agricultural use" means the production for sale of livestock, dairy animals, dairy products, poultry or poultry products, fur -bearing animals, horticultural or nursery stock, fruit, vegetables, forage, grains, or bees and apiary products. Wetlands, pasture and woodlands accompanying land in agricultural use shall be deemed to be in agricultural use. Feedlot — A lot or building or combination of lots or buildings intended for the confined feeding, breeding, raising, or holding of animals specifically designed as a confinement area in which the concentration of animals is such that a vegetative cover cannot be maintained within the enclosure. Open lots used for feeding and rearing poultry are considered feedlots. Pastures are not considered animal feedlots. G. If the sorxunittee adopts the concept outlinaip mytmmorof Febr ary; 2C1 20 2- of flividi n i$e_ regulation_ of a _ into three componefft, we_-.nee*to require a -conditional upper iritfo» commercial animal operations (and a definition; wWch. would _probably combineelements of our current definitions for commercial riding stable and public riding stable). We should add commercial animal operation as a conditional use in whatever district(s) we wish to allow it and amend section 826.98 of the zoning ordinance (conditional use permit standards for agricultural preservation and residential districts) by listing the standards which will apply. The following is a list of standards for discussion: Commercial animal operations: a ) minimum lot size of 10 acres; b ) the number of animal units may not exceed the following: 1) one animal unit for the first three (grazable/dry?) acres; 2) no more than one animal unit for every additional two acres after the first three; c ) hard surface coverage may not exceed 30 percent of the area of the lot; d ) all animal feed and bedding must be stored within an enclosed building; RHB-211243v1 ME230-337 3 4: e ) manure must be stored in a location and disposed of by a method approved by the Minnesota pollution control agency, if applicable, or by the city; f ) no more than five percent of the lot may fit the definition of a feedlot; g) all structures used to house animals or for equipment, feed or bedding for the animals must be set back a minimum of 150 feet from all property lines; h) no outside speakers or bells shall be allowed on site; i ) adequate indoor sanitary facilities with primary and alternate septic sites must be provided for all employees and visitors; j) exterior lighting must be designed and installed so that the light source is recessed and enclosed on all sides except the bottom so that no light is cast directly on any other property or right of way; k ) the level of light at the property lines must be 0 foot candles; 1) all trash containers must be kept inside a building or screen with an opaque material; m) the number of outside employees shall not exceed one per five acres; adequate off-street:pig must be vW for= a employees and visito ii-a location screened fromview of adiagelit properties or locatetat- least _ 100 feet from all property lines; and o ) space intended for human habitation must be designed and constructed in compliance with all zoning, building and health codes. RHB-211243v 1 ME230-337 4 4E To: Jim Lane FRom: Thomas M. Crosby, Jr. DATE: August 21, 2002 SuBaEcT: Agricultural Task Force Reflecting on Monday's meeting, I believe the Agricultural Task Force (ATF) actually accomplished much more than many members (including myself) realized. Considering the various issues and reports, I have grouped the recommendations into three categories: areas where there is general consensus and where the City Council could authorize action without further committee work; issues where there is general agreement and where committee input would be important but would be relatively easy to accomplish; and difficult issues around which much of the controversy accumulated and where further work is needed. Those areas are as follows: A. Recommendations that crnild be acted upon immediately by the City Council reflecting a consensus of the ATF. ATF Recommendation 2: define agriculture and animat operations (Batty #3 and #4). ATF Recommendation4: formulate standards for conditional use permit�o€ • commercial horse operations. ATF Recommendation 8: review and revise nuisance ordinances (Batty #7). ATF Recommendation 9: compliance with other units of government (Batty #11, Zapzalka). ATF Recommendation 10: restrict/prohibit agricultural in some zoning districts (Batty # 12). B. Areas where there is general agreement but numbers need to be worked out and citizen input would be helpful: ATF Recommendation 3: adoption of animal units (Batty #1 and #8, Zapzalka, Kohnen). ATF Recommendation 7: review of agricultural setback requirements, building standards and other present zoning and building regulations (Batty #9,10, and 12; Kohnen). 4� C. The final category is the one which may be more difficult in view of the differences of opinion of the committee members and the vast amount of data which is available: 1. Water treatment issues including manure and pasture management. On this issue it appears to me that the discussion should not be limited to agricultural practices but should look into septic system review and dicing, policing of commercial operations and the like. My guess is that problems resulting from failed or failing septic systems do more damage to water quality than do agricultural uses. To the best of my knowledge, Medina has not yet adopted a septic system review program comparable to some adjacent communities (at least my system has never been reviewed in the 33 years I have lived in Medina). (ATF Recommendation # 1). Treatment of agricultural preserve property including reasonable regulations (ATF Recommendation #7). 3. Phase -in of new procedures and regulations (ATF Recommendations #5 and #6; Zapzalka)_ As to process, I believe that Loren Kohnen and Ron Batty could do virtually all of the work in the first category; that a relatively small committee working with Loren could dti thio second _c goiy `and that tvvo corii tit nisi t �ortiiu .tect'fcm th$ �r category: one on water issues in the community and the -other on agricultaral-practiceg not- - covered in other recommendations as well as agricultural preserve zoning issues. The phase -in of the new procedures would be best handled at the Council level. TMC TMC/cfg M1:908018.01 Note: My references in parentheses are to comments during the process: Batty memoranda of February 20, 2002 and March 8, 2002; Zapzalka report to the Task Force, and Kohnen email transmitted by Sandy in response to comments on the first draft of the report. -2- 4F The Land Use Plan Medina's Land Use Plan, Map 3-2, is shaped by the City's General Development and Land Use Policies. The main components of these policies are the desire to keep a large portion of Medina rural and to protect the City's natural resources. Medina's Land Use Plan will serve as a guide for development decisions and will be related to the City's zoning ordinance as required by Minnesota State Statutes. Table 3-1 lists the 1998 and projected 2020 land uses by acreage and percent. TABLE 3-1 1998 and Projected 2020 Land Use* Agrlbultura - Rural Residenfiat (54-acres) _ Rural Residential (under 5 acres) - Single-F_ _ ... Multi -Family Commercial/Industrial _ ._ _..__.._... Mixed -Use Parks & Rec/Public Open Spaces Public/Semi-Public Vacant Right of Way Sanitary Landfill (closed) Wetlands, Wet Soils, & Open Water _._ 4.154.3 .. . 2,531.8 750.1 267.6 10.6 300.5 503.5 1,750.3 - 657.1 . _. _.... 544.0 815.5 _......._ ..._.._.. 111.0 5,003.7 241` 18%_ 14.5% 2,841.0 16.3% _4.3%----_ 784 .6T_4.9-', 1.5% 771.1 4.4% 0.1 % 36.7 0.2% 1.7% 1188.9 6.8°.6 2.9% 394.9 _ 2.-A 10.0% 1754.1 10.14, 3.8% 467.2 2.7% 3.1 % 0 0% 4.7% 808.6 4.6% 0.6% 111.0 0.6% 28.7% 5003.7 28. * "Wetlands were subtracted from all land totals and listed as a separate land use. Regional Park - Baker Park consists of a total of 2.673 acres (2109 in the Ciiy of Medina and 564 in the City of in Orono) Residentlat R D areas are Included in the single-family - urban ca}egry. e 5 Medina City Code 330. Nuisance CHAPTER 3 POLICE REGULATIONS 330. NUISANCE 330.01 Public Nuisance Defined. Whoever, by his act or failure to perform a legal duty, intentionally does any of the following is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, and is punishable as in a misdemeanor: Subd.1. Maintains or permits a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of members of the public; or Subd. 2. Interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage, in public streets, highway or right-of-way, or waters used by the public; or Subd. 3. Is guilty of any other act or omission declared by law or this ordinance to be a public nuisance, whether or not any sentence is specifically provided therefor, or Subd. 4. Permits real property under his control to be used to maintain a public nuisance, or rents the same, knowing it will be so used. 330.03. Definitions. The following words, when used in this ordinance, shall have the means ascribed to them. Subd. I. Garbage. All putrescible animal, vegetable or other matter,, including the cans, containers, or wrappers wasted along with such materials. Subd. 2. Rubbish. All non putrescible wastes such as wood waste, tree trimmings, shavings, paper, rags, clothing, soil, plaster, glass, ashes, tin cans and other metal products, plas- tics and any other debris, whether combustible or non-combustible. 330.05. Additional Public Nuisances Defined. It is hereby declared to be a public nuisance to permit, maintain, cause, deposit, or harbor any of the following: large. Subd. 1. Diseased animals, fish or fowl, wild or domestic, whether confined or running at Subd. 2. Carcasses of animals, fish or fowl, wild or domestic, not buried or destroyed within 24 hours after death. Subd. 3. Garbage not stored in rodent free and fly -tight containers, or; garbage stored so as to emit foul and disagreeable odors, or; garbage stored so as to constitute a hazard to public health. 5� Medina City Code 330. Nuisance Subd. 4. Accumulations of rubbish as defined herein. Subd. 5. The dumping of any effluent, garbage, rubbish, wastewater, or other noxious substance upon public or private property. Subd. 6. Any open well, pit, excavation, structure, barrier or other obstruction which endangers public health, safety or welfare. Subd. 7. The pollution of any public or private well or cistern, any public stream, lake, canal, or body of water by effluent, garbage, rubbish or other noxious substance. Subd. 8. Any noxious weeds, or any other vegetation which endangers public health, safety or welfare, or which is contraband within the meaning of State or Federal laws. Subd. 9. The emitting or production of dense smoke, noxious fumes, gases, soot, cinders or sparks in unreasonable quantities. Subd. 10. The public exposure of persons having a contagious disease or condition which endangers public health, safety or. welfare. Subd. 11. Accumulation of disused furniture, appliances, machinery, automobiles and parts thereof, which may become a harborage for rats, snakes or vermin, or which may be conducive to fire, or which endangers the health, safety or welfare of the public:. Subd.12. The placing, -setting 'or maintaining of any steel jawed, leg hold trap within any area posted under authorization of the City of Medina. Subd.13. Accumulations of animal or fowl waste, litter or manure at locations which are within 200 feet of a neighboring dwelling unit or within 200 feet of adjoining or abutting property. Subd.14. Any motor vehicle which is not currently licensed in Minnesota or any other state, or which is not in operable condition, or which is partially dismantled, or which is used for the sale of parts, or as a source of repair or replacement parts for other vehicles, or which is kept for scrapping or dismantling or salvage of any kind. 300.07. Limitation on Keeping of Animals. It is hereby declared to be a public nuisance to permit, maintain or harbor any of the following: Subd.1. Three or more dogs, four months old, unless a private Kennel license is obtained. Subd. 2. Five or more cats, four months old. Subd. 3. Fowl, other than waterfowl. 5: f Medina City Code 330. Nuisance Subd. 4. Monkeys and other animals not native to Minnesota. Subd. 5. Any poisonous reptile or dangerous animal or any carnivorous animal which is wild by nature. Subd: 6. Six or more rodents. Subd. 7. Any combination of animals and/or fowl of any age kept in such numbers and under such conditions which unreasonably annoy, injure, or endanger the health, safety, comfort, repose or welfare of the public or of said animals or fowl. 330.09. Private Kennel Defined. A private Kennel means a dwelling or parcel of land in or upon which three or more dogs, four months old, are kept as pets and not for selling, boarding, breeding showing, treating, grooming or commercial purposes. A Private Kennel shall consist of an enclosed space in which all dogs on the premises are confined when not under restraint as defined in Section of the Medina. Dog Ordinance, constructed so as to prevent the dogs from running at large and in which provision is made to provide shelter during inclement weather. 330.11. Maintenance. Every Private Kennel shall be kept in good repair and maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. It shall be unlawful to maintain a Private Kennel in a way which constitutes a nuisance under this ordinance. 330.13. Private Kennel, License Required. It shall be unlawful to operate or maintain a Private Fennel without obtaining a license as herein described. 330.15. License Application. Application for a Private Kennel License shall be made to the City Clerk -Treasurer. The Application shall state the name of the applicant, the legal description of the property, a sketch or drawing of the proposed Kennel briefly describing its construction and the approximate number of dogs to be confined therein. Said application shall be accompanied by a written statement or letter from all adjoining property owners stating that they are aware that such Private Kennel is proposed and their viewpoints on it, if any. 330.17. Fees. A license fee set by resolution of the City Council shall accompany the application for a Private Kennel License and shall be paid over to the City Clerk -Treasurer. 330.19. Council Approval. The City Council may approve said license attaching thereto any conditions necessary to protect the immediate neighborhood from the likelihood of a nuisance as defined herein. The City Council may deny said license upon finding that the establishment of the Kennel would constitute a public nuisance. Said License, if approved, shall be in the form of the resolution of approval, a copy of which shall be forwarded to the applicant. 330.21. Records. A copy of such resolution of approval shall be forwarded to the Chief of Police who shall maintain a register of all Private Kennel Licenses issued. No license renewal is required, provided however, that said license may be revoked by the City Council upon a showing that its operation constitutes a public nuisance or upon a showing that the conditions of the license have been violated. 5� Medina City Code 330. Nuisance 330.23. Inspection. By application for the issuance of Private Kenmel License the applicant consents to an inspection of the licensed premise by City Inspector at any reasonable time. 330.25. Abatement of Nuisance and Assessment of Cost. When any nuisance is found to exist, except under 330.05, Subd: 14 of the Medina City Code, the City Clerk -Treasurer or a designated representative shall order the owner or occupant, within a period not to exceed 10 days, the exact time to be specified in the notice. Upon failure of the owner or occupant to abate the nuisance, the City Council shall order the Chief of Police to cause said nuisance to be abated, to certify the cost thereof to. the City Clerk -Treasurer, and the City Clerk -Treasurer shall certify said costs to the County Auditor to be extended on the tax roll of the County against the real estate from which the nuisance has been abated, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 145.22 and 145.23 and Section 412.221. When a nuisance is found to exist under City Ordinance 330.05, Subd. 14, inoperable or unlicensed motor vehicles, the Chief of Police or his designee shalll place written notice on the inoperable or unlicensed motor vehicle of the violation. If the violation is not corrected within seven (7) days, the Police Department is authorized to remove the motor vehicle to a storage facility designated by the City.The costs of removal and storage shall be borne by the owner of the motor vehicle removed. Motor vehicles not claimed within thirty (30) days of removal shall be disposed as unclaimed in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 168B01 through 168B 101. Program name Green acres (Farmland protection) Agricultural Preserve (Farmland protection) Incentives to Maintain Open Land Requirements 10 acres, renew every year. Min yearly income $300 + $10ftillable acre. (Agriculture primary income of landowner for new applicants.) 40 acres, one house 8 year commitment Agency County Local government Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) (Land retirement program) Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) (Conservation easement) Minnesota Land Trust (Conservation easement) Permanent Wetland Preserves Program (Conservation easement) Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) (Conservation easement) Establish grass and tress on certain cropland or pasture land. Applicant bids must describe the type of conservation practice to be done and the land rental rate to be paid. 5 acres containing highly erodible cropland. All rights to develop are restricted or eliminated. 2.5 acres or more of Type 1, 2, 3, or 6 wetland. Restorable wetlands Farm Service Agency Soil and water Conservation District Minnesota Land Trust Soil and water Conservation District Natural Resources Conservation Service Incentive Taxed at agricultural value. Landowner pays taxes comparable to landowners in greater Minnesota. Taxed at agricultural value. Landowner pays taxes comparable to landowners in greater Minnesota. Annual rent payment to landowner over 10-15 year period. Cost sharing to establish grass and trees. Perpetual easement; one time payment of 90% of market value. 20 year easement; one time payment of 75% of market value. Reduced land valuation for purposes of estate valuation and property taxes. Permanent easement; one time payment of 20-90% of market value over wetland and 60-90% of market value for adjacent inland. Landowner is paid the agricultural value of the land in exchange for permanent or 30 year easement. 100% of restoration cost is paid by U.S.D.A. L Leuer 2 Apr 02 Page 1 of 2 5E Apppo.Ft Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Program vs Green Acres Year Created Area Applicable Filing Date Fling Fee Where to Apply Requirements Minimum Parcel Size Long Term Agricultural Zoning Length of Coverage Homestead Renewal Transfer of land ownership Metropolitan Agricultural Green acres Preservers 1980 1967 Seven County Metro Statewide March l o May 1 $20 - $30 Varies Medina City Offices County Assessor 40 acres: other exceptions 10 acres Local authority must zone at a density of 1 house per 40 acres 8 Year Minimum No Provision No Provision 1 Year Minimum Primary ag use & generate ag income of $300 + $10/per tillable acre per year Extended annually for eight year term Owner must file qualifying unless owner files expiration notice affidavit Program status rernairwwith (arid " . New:OWner must file within 30 days of transfer for continued participation Soil Management Practices In accordance with local soil & water conservation district guidelines Withdrawal Program status expires 8 years from date owner or local authority initiates withdrawal No Provision Upon expiration of annual filing Benefits Differential assessment at ag Ag use assessment for entire period use enrolled Ad use assessment only for year enrolled; deferred or rollback taxes due for current year and pervious two years upon withdrawal (at market value assessment No Special Assessments Lower tax rate Minimum tax credit Assessment prohibited for public improvements such as: public storm water, roads, water, sanitary sewer; other public improvements built on, adjacent to, or in the vicinity of ag preserves Lower of local or 105% of statewide average outside metro area $1.50/acre minimum credit Assessments deferred for all public; deferred assessments plus interest for entire period enrolled due upon withdrawal No Provision No Provision Annexation & eminent domain Limited Protection No Provision Section 7 - Appendixes j Final Draft - Appendix G 6' • ktW0:4-4 M5P1c,,: *Key.:04(i'40:#0e4-0-1 T-4i4ilitiii.ftifq4p-i-s: 476.6* iblic6 .04 tio V444:,.-ep.iik6tit4tive*.of the City of inderienderi...• • :•' •• • • ". 44***1;6440,0i0i, *'" Witers. 6ai ati 1444*., -1.!* ' 1144,W41. Zssucs that the _ '71 . • • . . e 1.0 0 in01:400 cgtiiPat busty to re felOgi,41..,.aiti agnc : ral Land tises, preservattori of agricultural and:06er Open land, -water: -- ipial:tqtaridpi-Otection irifsigni ficant.natural :features; inchidiriwthe' dant viretlaridg;: buildings - and ptliqf. strdctutes, manure ritariaietnent"OflivdstOk. oPeratiOns,itieltiding hOrSe fa.this; psi,4sible livestock derislty standards; and re- stricticin of phogpliOrotts sources, including fertilizer, animal Waste.; and riinoff roi-n feedlots and pastures. The taskforce plans tO report its findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions to a joint ineeting of the City Council and Planning Commission -at 6:30 P.m. on Monday, April 8, at city I%all. Interested members of the public are -welcome to attend, 5E - THE PIONEER - Saturday, Nov. 30, 2002 Conservation group establishes manure hauling service for livestock owners in Hennepin Co. The Hennepin Conservation District (HCD) has been work- ing to help arrange for a manure hauling service for livestock owners in Hennepin County. HCD staff has contacted several area haulers before finding one that showed interest. The estimated 3,000 ham. and numerous other livestock in Hennepin County: on small acreage have made this a neces- sary service, a spokesperson said. Horses produce about 50 pounds of waste a day, which can lead to a mountain of trou- ble, so to speak. The potential hauler is Mountain Environmental. Based in Lino • bakes, Mountain Environmental has been han- dling waste materials for several years. Besides liquid and solid animal manure, they have also hauled municipal waste like water treatment lime. The com- pany has a list of tandowWrs that ate utterestad using the .products as soil amendment; and - the materials are spread at envi- ronmentally safe levels. In order to establish the ser- vice, the company needs to know where pick-up is needed, then possible routes can be developed. At that point, Mountain Environmental will be able to give an idea of what the charge would be for a collection service. Fees will be based in part on location, ease of collec- tion and amount of manure to collect. The more people who get manure collected, the less expensive it will: be. If your are interested in a _ Manure hauling Se1Yice for your.: livestock = horses, cattle, lla- mas, goats, etc. — contact Betsy at Hennepin Conservation District at 763-420-M57, ext. 23, or betsy@hcd.hennepin.mn.us There is no obligation to use the service. 5`. Now. 1994 MINNES0rAUrovescrvon1rXTLN.�iQ�,; M CLUSTER Farmland Protection Options for Landowners in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Thomas D. Wegner, Extension Educator Vends in Metropolitan Agricultural Land Despite the ongoing expansion of the Twirt Cities Metropolitan Area, farming still represents the domi- nant land use. The 1992 agricultural census reported that just over 42% of the region's land remains in farms. Nevertheless, from 1987 to 1992 metropolitan farmland decreased by 36,000 awes, an area the size of Minneapolis. Since 1980, metre area aaoricidltural landowners have had two farmland protection program optimum Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves and Green Ames. These programs were created because of the unique impact that the expanding metre area was having on agricultural /andain, the region. .As of 1994, metro -area landowners have enrolled over b0 d awes iari� tl se program. A prokimately one in three acres are enrolled in Metropolitan AgriculturalPreserves while two out of three acmes are enrolled in Green Acre Common Program Features Both programs intend to equalize the taxation and treatment of agricultural property to more closely track property values and taxes outside the region Landowners receive these program benefits by simply continuing to use their land in agricultural production for the duration of the program enroll - meant period. To equalize taxes, the difference be- tween taxes based on market value and taxes based on agricultural use value is used. Qualifying acreages get assessed at their agricultural use value rather than at their market value. In this way, agricultural land- owners in the metro area pay property taxes that are e somwhat comparable to taxes paid by agricultural landowners in greater Minnesota. Landowners enrolled in Green Acres and Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves can be deferred or exempted from special assessments for public impmvements such as water; sewer and roads common in urban areas. Program Differences The major differences between the programs center on dig:Wily, length of agreement, and bed Eligib ily: To be eligible fer Grrer_ Aaw, I e pfir use of.the land and buildings must be agricultural Landowners can enroll without having their land zoned as Tang -teem agricultural_ The Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves program requires local govee ments to designate land for long -tens agricultural before a landowner can apply. The enabling lays, d Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act, requires that parcels designated as long term agriculture carry a density of one residential unitper 46 acres_ leogihr of Agreement* .Green lieresParlf _ mar +t up,icneed-to reneWieai minimum enrollment period of eight y longer term farmland protection Benefits: The major duce behveen the program is that the Green Acres program defers taxes and spe- cial assessments while the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves program opts participating land from taxes and special assessments. From this point of view, the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves program offers everything that Gruen Acres does and more. Fc example, the property tax differential and any speda' assessments are merely deferred under Green Ames. Upon withdrawal from the program, the rollback taxes (current and previous two years) and any special assessments plus interest become due. Under Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves landowners are completely exempt from rollback taxes or special assessments. In addition, those participants receive a tax credit of at least $1.50 per acre. A summary of enrollment requirements and benefits of these programs is provided on page ten This publication was produced with a grant from the Educational Development System_ The University of Minnesota, including the Minnesota Extension Service, is an equal opportunity educator and employer. 6C Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Green Acres i Year created 1980 Oa Area applialde Sevin metro COMMIS Statewide — Filing date March .l May 1 filing fee 520 to SSO Varies Where to apply Racal government County or cuy asstmtsoc Requirements minimum past! size 40 awes: other exceptions 10 aces longterm al zoning Local a dterity mammy at a density of I house per 40 acres No provision lei eicarerq e 8 year mom 1 year minimum income atdtype of land the No provision homestead No provision renewal a Extended aamualiy for 3 year term unless owner files expiration notice Primary ag use aid gamines ag income of S300 pins S10/tinable acre per year use as an agricultural operation Noe far seven years t]awtsex must atmmlly file gmliFjring aiiidavi[ omufer of hodownership Program stairs rem with land New owner most fife within 30 days of transfer far owed participation rani!inanagm�praa%'s his accordance with Wal: son and water conservation diguidefines Program stems expires 3 years from dace owner or local authority iiarates withdrawal Upon expiratictr oral Ming - Benefits differential assessment at ag use value Ag use value assessment for cadre period enrolled Ag use value assessment only for year enrolled; deferred or rollback taxes due %r current and previous two years upon withdrawal (at maiket value assessment) no special anima= Ads prohibited for public: improvements such as: •public storm water sewer public roads *public water *public sanitary sewer . epublm improvements built on. adjacent to or in the vicinity of ag preserves Assessments dcfermd :or an public iatprosements: deferred assmsmems plus interest for entire period enrolled due upon withdrawal lower tar rare Lower of local or 105 % of statewide average outside metro area No provision minimum tar credit S130/acre minimum credit No provision annexation and eminent domain pretedium Limited protection No provision Resources Greden. L and S. Taff. Financing Farms Preservations: The Min Chia Metropolitan Area Experience, Staff Paper Series, SP 94.9, May 1994. Metropolitan Council.1993 Metropolitan Agricultural Preserver Starers Report, December 1993. ass The Seuaepin Conservation Distedd aleD) has heehWorktk fermiorethan.4Qap soR aat iii Ceti* • Cneofttsf44tff teas aa*ailxS:tt�e ors, is working .vcrnh mated 2,bgd hbioss: 6YaiettiT11074 R 4. i!atx aad L$erA h' wi few acresa* fe ••tact nnnttstt of wa* 60,9q, South'CrowRiver News f Rockford Argo News Leader/ North Crow River •News or ether lirestock that wan/to • county, there is a potential' for Best f 4 `t .44 shaimg has provided.firsuch =natenals easing, water impr'ovethenuanageaieataf � gement Practices smlandwat�i• t}r i �° t the l trcpohtan tomaac�.rrojthe hfe+ffthetYland asalats + add:. Vte.in.4patt �e7aphr, oP+�S94@ tTe? .ttt .391•andcomposthug,.. �H11fPe &sap lry �A � � '�' �An Potentially co§tsaliure r reabii otgck th 0.44 fe �4109. ng is ox.114-1 pinh g 1�?" mNg�dttadi4.4.4sha:,..ap- 2000,,11CDhas asslA*1167land the" water '�� htx `�rma8h' areld`sixicesusedbylandownars • concerpsforjtvestb�. of Best coo mops). ' • ne:agisse edumtwn and. then edland Since the giant began in`. +IIdoni,eOFtitPinstelit0Onpf ownerdthat collectively. owa :ATe date F t ratite than boo acres Oland. - 'Whose `who are interested in . thida$ing ithIPs on eigir }aod or haveiNeati9ns Can n11783-420- . .!167, est. 23. or. visit wvOs) id,heonopin mn.vg:..:. 63 ORDER CHECKS - JANUARY 21, 2003 24672 A.T.& T $47.87 24673 ADAMS, CHAD $730.58 24674 AMERICAN SUPPLY GROUP $24.95 24675 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SVC $54.42 24676 BATTERIES PLUS $90.99 24677 BUDGET PRINTING $52.72 24678 CIPHER LABORATORIES $687.45 24679 COLLISION CORNER $255.67 24680 CULLIGAN $49.20 24681 CY'S UNIFORMS $209.85 24682 DELANO SPORTSMANS CLUB $210.00 24683 DENNESON, RICK $160.00 24684 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY $270.00 24685 E-Z-RECYCLING $3,030.20 24686 EXXONMOBIL $5.69 24687 FORTIN HARDWARE $156.17 24688 FRONTIER $57.04 24689 GENUINE PARTS $68.93 24690 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD $70.00 24691 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL $27.90 24692 HAMEL BUILDING CENTER $41.30 24693 HAMEL FIRE DEPT $15,000.00 24694 HAWKINS INC $35.00 24695 HENN. CO. DEPT. OF PROP.TAX $722.49 24696 HENNEPIN CO.TREAS.,ACCTG.SVCS $376.00 24697 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF $557.40 24698 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER $329.25 24699 HYDE ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. $198.00 24700 IMS MINNESOTA $24.86 24701 INT'L ASSN.OF CHIEFS OF POLICE $100.00 24702 KUSTOM SIGNALS, INC. $180.51 24703 LAKE BUSINESS SUPPLY $351.66 24704 LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS $126.00 24705 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC $163.09 24706 MASYS CORPORATION $2,263.13 24707 MEDICA $345.80 24708 METRO WEST INSPECTION $8,928.70 24709 METRO.COUNCIL ENVIRO. SERVICES $16,241.33 24710 MINN COMM $55.76 24711 MINN.CITY/CO.MANAGEMENT ASN.. $80.00 24712 MINNEAPOLIS DEPT.HEALTH&FAMILY $52.00 24713 MINNESOTA CONWAY $55.23 24714 MINNESOTA CRIME PREVEN. ASSN $40.00 24715 MINNESOTA RURAL WATER $200.00 24716 MN CHIEFS OF POLICE ED.FOUND. $290.00 24717 MN-GFOA $40.00 24718 MOTHERS MOTORS/LORETTO TOWING $20.00 24719 NEXTEL WEST CORP $551.25 64 ORDER CHECKS - JANUARY 21, 2003 (CONT'D) 24720 NORTH AMERICAN FOODS $4.26 24721 QWEST $110.76 24722 RETROFIT RECYCLING, INC $76.40 24723 REYNOLDS WELDING $28.72 24724 SCHERER FARMS $80.00 24725 SCHMIT, STEVEN $72.00 24726 SHIRTS PLUS $192.00 24727 STREICHER'S $417.71 24728 TALLEN & BAERTSCHI $3,307.91 24729 TRI STATE PUMP $232.97 24730 VERIZON WIRELESS $15.07 24731 XCEL ENERGY $3,932.35 24732 XEROX CORPORATION $314.82 $62,413.36 PAYROLL CHECKS - JANUARY 13, 2003 17929 SMITH, CAROLYN A. $138.52 17930 ZIETLOW, PHILIP K. $207.79 17931 SCHERER, STEVEN T $1,336.57 17932 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. $1,585.12 17933 DILLMAN, JAMES D $1,711.59 17934 DRESSEL, ROBERT P. $1,253.25 17935 BELLAND, EDGAR J $2,094.83 17936 VIEAU, CECILIA M $1,068.84 17937 SULANDER, LAURA L. $1,338.91 17938 LARSON, SANDRA L $1,044.86 17939 BOECKER, KEVIN D $1,174.61 17940 PRISM, JON D. $1,812.37 17941 NYSTROM, JAMES $1,567.37 17942 LANE, JAMES S. $138.52 17943 WORKMAN, BRUCE $138.52 17944 BRINKMAN, RANDY $138.52 17945 CHAFFINS, GARY S $774.47 17946 ADAMS, CHAD M. $1,641.07 17947 NELSON, JASON $1,642.42 17948 THUL, JEFFREY P. $1,147.17 17949 FRY, BEVERLY $73.50 $22,028.82