01-20-1998 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Findings: 1. 2. 3. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan. Horses are allowed as a conditional use in the LR-1A zoning district. The comprehensive plan addresses the issue of keeping horses on pages 4-20, #2 and 4-29 "Rural Agricultural Land Use". According to these two sections, quasi-agricultural uses are permitted, but "will be analyzed and reviewed on an individual basis to assure appropriate safeguards for the environment and the neighbors". That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safely or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. An inspection of the proposed pasture areas was conducted on September 8, 1997 by Jeremy Geske, a University of Minnesota extension educator specializing in animal feedlots. Mr. Geske has indicated that the proposed pasture sites will not negatively affect the neighborhood or waterways. Runoff containing manure should also not be a problem if the pastures are properly maintained. His recommendations are attached as Attachment G. The keeping of a horse on the property would not be out of character with the neighborhood as the horse is currently kept on the property across the road to the west from the subject property. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. According to City Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 3, Definition 1, a confined area allowing more than one acre for each animal unit is not considered a feedlot. Pasture #1 meets this definition, however Pasture #2 is subject to feedlot standards as it provides less than 1 acre per animal unit. The previous proposal was considered a feedlot as two animals were proposed to be kept on less than 2 acres of pasture. Pasture #1 is not subject to the 300' setback requirement from the OHWL, while Pasture #2 is considered a feedlot and is subject to this setback requirement. Pasture #1 has proposed a fence located 75' from the OHWL, meeting the lakeshore setback requirement and Pasture #2 has proposed a fence located approximately 300' from the OHWL, meeting the feedlot setback requirement. H2289^Jon Pendleton 350 Sorth Arm Lane Conditional Use Permit January 20, 1998 Page! i