Laserfiche WebLink
City of <br />Elk <br />River <br />Request for Action <br />To <br />Item Number <br />Mayor and City Council <br />7.1 <br />Agenda Section <br />Meeting Date <br />Prepared by <br />Public Hearinj <br />March 16, 2015 <br />Zack Carlton, Planner I <br />Item Description <br />Reviewed by <br />Ordinance Amendment: Modifying Setback <br />Jeremy Barnhart, Deputy Director CODD <br />Requirements for Agricultural Animals <br />Reviewed by <br />Action Requested <br />Approve, by motion, the ordinance amendment reducing the setback for the keeping of agricultural <br />animals. <br />Background /Discussion <br />Case No. OA 14 -12 <br />During the work session on January 20, 2015, the City Council discussed proposed changes to setbacks <br />related to the keeping of agricultural animals in the R -1 zoning districts. The current setbacks are five feet <br />in the R -1a zoning district and 100 feet in the R -1b, c, and d districts. Council consensus was to remove <br />the required setback in the R -1a district and reduce or eliminate the setback in the remainder of the R -1 <br />districts to include an additional zero lot line setback when a property is eligible for a boundary fence (20 <br />or more acres. <br />Further review identified a total of 12 parcels that would meet the additional regulation relating to <br />boundary fences. Often, creating an additional level of regulation to accommodate a small number of <br />properties is challenging to communicate, reduces ordinance clarity and consistency, and should generally <br />be avoided. Additionally, as development continues, the number of eligible properties will be reduced and <br />the regulation will, at some point, no longer be relevant. <br />If the Council desires to reduce the setback for agricultural animals in the urban areas of the city, a <br />setback equally applicable to all properties, regardless of eligibility for a boundary fence, is <br />administratively preferred. Reviewing the discussion from January 20, 2015, there appeared to be a <br />consensus to remove the setback entirely. An ordinance amendment adopting this change is included in <br />the packet. If the Council would like to maintain a setback but reduce it from the current 100 feet, please <br />provide staff with the desired setback and an amendment will be prepared for the next consent agenda. <br />Financial Impact <br />None <br />Attachments <br />• Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 25, 2014 <br />• City Council Staff Report dated December 15, 2015 <br />• Ordinance Amendment Document <br />P a w E A E U a r <br />NaA f RE] <br />