7.1. SR 03-16-2015City of
Elk
River
Request for Action
To
Item Number
Mayor and City Council
7.1
Agenda Section
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Public Hearinj
March 16, 2015
Zack Carlton, Planner I
Item Description
Reviewed by
Ordinance Amendment: Modifying Setback
Jeremy Barnhart, Deputy Director CODD
Requirements for Agricultural Animals
Reviewed by
Action Requested
Approve, by motion, the ordinance amendment reducing the setback for the keeping of agricultural
animals.
Background /Discussion
Case No. OA 14 -12
During the work session on January 20, 2015, the City Council discussed proposed changes to setbacks
related to the keeping of agricultural animals in the R -1 zoning districts. The current setbacks are five feet
in the R -1a zoning district and 100 feet in the R -1b, c, and d districts. Council consensus was to remove
the required setback in the R -1a district and reduce or eliminate the setback in the remainder of the R -1
districts to include an additional zero lot line setback when a property is eligible for a boundary fence (20
or more acres.
Further review identified a total of 12 parcels that would meet the additional regulation relating to
boundary fences. Often, creating an additional level of regulation to accommodate a small number of
properties is challenging to communicate, reduces ordinance clarity and consistency, and should generally
be avoided. Additionally, as development continues, the number of eligible properties will be reduced and
the regulation will, at some point, no longer be relevant.
If the Council desires to reduce the setback for agricultural animals in the urban areas of the city, a
setback equally applicable to all properties, regardless of eligibility for a boundary fence, is
administratively preferred. Reviewing the discussion from January 20, 2015, there appeared to be a
consensus to remove the setback entirely. An ordinance amendment adopting this change is included in
the packet. If the Council would like to maintain a setback but reduce it from the current 100 feet, please
provide staff with the desired setback and an amendment will be prepared for the next consent agenda.
Financial Impact
None
Attachments
• Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 25, 2014
• City Council Staff Report dated December 15, 2015
• Ordinance Amendment Document
P a w E A E U a r
NaA f RE]
Request for Action
To
Item Number
Planning Commission
4.2
Agenda Section
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Planning Items
November 25, 2014
Zack Carlton, Planner I
Item Description
Reviewed by
Ordinance Amendment Modifying Setback
Jeremy Barnhart, Deputy Director CODD
Requirements for Agricultural Animals
Public Hearing, Case No. OA 14 -12
Reviewed by
Action Requested
Recommend, by motion, modifications to setback requirements regarding the keeping of agricultural
animals in all zoning districts.
Background /Discussion
The recent ordinance amendment regarding boundary fences raised concerns about the minimum setback
for agricultural animals in the R -1 Single - Family Residential zoning districts, and staff was directed by the
City Council to evaluate the setbacks for the keeping of agricultural animals.
The current ordinance requires the keeping of livestock be setback at least five (5) feet in the R -1a zoning
district, and 100 feet in the R -1b, R -1c, and R -1d zoning districts. The setback is in place to protect
neighboring properties from the impacts (odor, noise, biting) of agricultural animals.
The larger 100 foot setback in the developed /urban areas of the city is in response to the increased
density, smaller lots (approximately' /4 acre) and small setbacks of these neighborhoods. The side yard
setback in these districts is 10 feet, and a reduction in the setback would bring livestock uses closer to the
home.
The R -1a zoning district has minimum lot sizes of 2.5 acres and larger side yard setbacks. Potential
impacts to homes in this district are minimized due to the larger lots and setbacks. The smaller setback
reflects these differences.
Staff compared our livestock /agricultural animal setbacks to those of nearby cites. The result of this
research is outlined in the following table. The peer comparisons may be used as a guide, however each
city is different and any amendment to Elk River's ordinance should be evaluated based on what is
appropriate for our city.
Municipality
Required Livestock Setback
Big Lake
300 foot setback
Ramsey
75 foot setback for stables and barns, 10 foot setback from property line. Additional
setback of 30 feet from inhabited structures.
Blaine
100 foot setback
Buffalo
100 foot setback
Albertville
Match residential building setback
P 0 W I R E 0 R 1
Template Updated 4 /14AUR
Staff's professional recommendation is to leave the ordinance as written. The five and one hundred foot
setbacks are appropriate for the current uses and interactions between agricultural animals and residential
development will increase with development.
Financial Impact
None
Attachments
■ None
N:ADepartments \Community Development \Planning \Case Files \OA \OA 14 -12 Ag Animals \OA 14 -12 PC Livestock and Fencing.docx
City of
River
Request for Action
To
Item Number
Mayor and City Council
7.5
Agenda Section
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Public Hearinj
December 15, 2014
Zack Carlton, Planner I
Item Description
Reviewed by
Ordinance Amendment Modifying Setback
Jeremy Barnhart, Deputy Director CODD
Requirements for Agricultural Animals
Reviewed by
Cal Portner, City Administrator
Action Requested
The Planning Commission recommends no changes to city ordinance as it relates to the setback of
agricultural animals.
Councilmember Burandt requests this item be continued pending further discussion at a future Council
worksession. The Council should then open and continue the public hearing, by motion, until their
January 20, 2015, regular meeting.
Background /Discussion
Case No. OA 14 -12
The recent ordinance amendment regarding boundary fences raised concerns about the minimum setback
for agricultural animals in the R -1 Single - Family Residential zoning districts, and staff was directed by the
City Council to evaluate the setbacks relating to the keeping of agricultural animals.
Staff compared our livestock/ agricultural animal setbacks to those of nearby cites. The result of this
research is outlined in the following table. The peer comparisons may be used as a guide, however each
city is different and any amendment to Elk River's ordinance should be evaluated based on what is
appropriate for our city.
Municipality
Required Livestock Setback
Big Lake
300 foot setback
Ramsey
75 foot setback for stables and barns, 10 foot setback from property line. Additional
setback of 30 feet from inhabited structures.
Blaine
100 foot setback
Buffalo
100 foot setback
Albertville
Match residential building setback
Staff's recommendation is to leave the ordinance as written. The five and 100 foot setbacks are
appropriate for existing uses and interactions between agricultural animals and residential development
will increase with development.
P0WIAI1 0
Template Updated 4/14 IN"Af UR
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission did not have any questions or comments and recommend no changes to the
ordinance by a 7 -0 vote.
After the meeting, Councilmember Burandt expressed concern about compliance with state statute. Ms.
Burandt requests this item be tabled, to be discussed at a future workshop.
The city regulates fencing and agricultural uses separately. A fence is permitted on the property line
(boundary fence) in all districts. Additionally, barbed wire, barbless wire, and electric fences are permitted
in the R -1a and A -1 (Agricultural Conservation) zoning districts as a boundary fence. Boundary fences are
not a requirement in any zoning district and fences six feet tall or less may be constructed without a
permit.
Separately, ordinance regulates the keeping of agricultural animals with a setback in all R -1 (Single Family)
zoning districts. The current ordinance prohibits the keeping of agricultural animals within five feet of the
property line in the R -1a zoning district, and within 100 feet in the R -1b, R -1c, and R -1d districts. How
the setback is established is not specified.
Public Hearing
No one spoke during the public hearing
Financial Impact
None
Attachments
■ Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 25, 2014
N: \Public Bodies \Agenda Packets \12 -15- 2014 \Fina1\x7.5 sr Ag. Animals Amendment.docx
iver
Ordinance IS -
to be removed
Underlines to be added
An Ordinance Amending Section, 30 -1007, entitled "Accessory structures" of the
City of Elk River, Minnesota, City Code.
The City Council of the City of Elk River does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. That § 30 -1007 of the City of Elk River Code of Ordinances shall be amended to read
as follows:
Accessory structures shall comply with the following dimensional regulations:
District
Front
Setback
(feet)
Side
Setback
(feet)
Rear
Setback
(feet)
Maximum
Height
(feet)
Fences
(feet)
Agricultural
Buildings
(feet)
IR-1a F
R -1b:
FINonsewered 35 10 20 151 F 100
FISewered 35 FF5 151 F 100
IR-lc 30 FF5 151 F 100
IR-ld 35 151 0� 100
R -2a:
FIDuplex 30 151 C
IR-2b:
FITownhouse 30 10 10 151 C —
R -3:
FI Single- family 30 10 ��
FIDuplexes I
R -4:
Townhouse and other multifamily 30 10 10 151 —
Swimming peels�pools3
F
F
1 A maximum of one story is permitted.
' 4-he keeping of livestock is prohibited withiti 100 feet of afty propefty litie iti the R 1b, R-
1 fi a v 1d distr4ets.
Last Updated March 2014
Pyy \9��WIRID 0
.A►URE
to be removed
Underlines to be added
' Ihe keepitig of livestock is prohibited withiti five feet of any propewy line in the R !a-
distriet.
4 -2 Agricultural building shall be set back 30 feet from any property line and 50 feet from any
road right -of -way.
5 -3 Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall be setback a minimum of eight feet from the side
yard and rear yard lot lines and must comply with the required front yard setback as this
subdivision II. Swimming pools must comply with the fencing requirements found in section
30 -796.
SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall take effect upon adoption and be published as provided by
law.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Elk River this 16th day of March, 2015.
John J. Dietz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Tina Allard, City Clerk
Last Updated March 2014
p 0 w I R E 0 0 Y
UREI