07-15-2002 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The property contains a 0.4 acre pasture area and a bam. The bam was constructed prior to any of the current standards relating to bams. Current standards require the bam to be located 75’ from any property line and 150’ from any adjacent residence. The bam is located appro,ximatcly 20' from the Luce Line right-of-way to the south, and approximately 20 ’ from the west property line. The bam is more than 200 ’ from the north property line and 500’ to the east property line. The applicants own the property to the west. The residential stmcture on that lot is approximately 60’ from the bam. The next nearest residential stmcture is 270’ and south of .he Luce I ine Trail. The Luce Line Trail is also a horse trail. The property being adjacent to the Luce Line provides additional opportunity to exercise the horses beyond exercising them w ithin the .4 acre pasture area. Regardless of the size of the pasture, a proper manure management program is vital to the protection of nearby wetlands and to eliminate odors. In 1997 Smith^Murphy contacted the University of Minnesota Extension Service to conduct a site visit to detemiine if any potential pollution impacts were present on the property. A copy of the letter is attached. It was the opinion of Jeremy Geske, Extension Educator, specializing in Livestock Systems that due to the size of the operation and the way it is managed that any impact to the wetland from runoff from the site is extremely minor. The use of the property for 2 horses has been allowed to continue over the years as a legal non- conforming use and the location of the bam was legally established since it was constructed prior to Standards that required specific setbacks. The bam was allowed to remain on the property when the property was subdivided in 1978. During that subdivision process the status of the bam was not discussed and w as not required to be removed. In 1987, prior to ownership by the applicants, the City received a complaint about manure storage on the site. The inspector did not find manure being stored on the site, but did determine there were 3 horses on the property and ordered the third horse removed. The property owner agreed to remove the horse because it was apparently not owned by the property owTier. In 1997, a coi..piaint was reeeived from an adjacent property owmer regarding the number of horses that were being kept on the property. The complaint was researched by staff and staff concluded the keeping of 2 horses on the property was allowed as a legal non-conforming use. A copy of staffs findings in 1997 is attached. The adjacent property owner had appealed the staff decision that the 2 horses were allowed to remain on the property as a legal non-conforming use. The Council reviewed the appeal on .April 27,1998 and affirmed the staffs conclusions which allowed the keeping of the horses. Issues for Discussion 1.Would the Planning Commission agree to allow temporar)- (or ongoing) use of the property for j horses it 1 of the e.xisting horses no longer was being kept on the property should it be revert to 2 or be allowed to keep 3 permanently? Docs one additional horse change the character of the property? ^02-2797 Sandra Smith and James Murphy 30 Orono Orchard Road Page 2 of 3