06-06-96 CC11f -JUN-17-1996 16:54 NAC 612 595 9837 P.02i08
N Northwest Associated Consultants Inc,
C C O M M U N I T Y PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Otsego Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Bob Kirmis/Andy MacArthur
DATE:
17 June 1996
RE:
Otsego - Zoning Ordinance: Feedlot Regulations
FILE NO:
176.08 - 95.28
Attached please find a summary outline which highlights the primary provisions of the draft
feedlot regulations dated 28 May 1996. The draft regulations include changes proposed
by the Planning Commission in their review of the previous draft prepared by the Feedlot
Committee. At the City Council's directive, staff offers the following comments and/or
recommendations on the draft ordinance:
USE ALLOWANCE POLICY
The initial question to which the City Council should respond is whether or not new
feedlots should be allowed within the City (existing feedlots allowed through grandfather
rights). It could be argued that such a prohibition would be inconsistent with the
permitted uses within the City's A-1 Zoning District. The City has the authority to restrict
establishment of new feedlots. It should be noted that many County ordinances prohibit
new feedlots within a prescribed distance from municipal boundaries. To be noted is that
the City's definition of farm includes a reference to the raising of livestock. A prohibition
could also merely prohibit new feedlots of a certain size within the City.
Should the City wish to accommodate animal feedlots, the next logical determination to be
made relates to where and to what degree such feedlots should be allowed.
`" '9 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
JUN -17-1996 16:54 NAC 612 595 9837 P.03/08
PROHIBITED FEEDLOTS
Section 20-313-4 of the draft feedlot regulations establish a maximum number of animal
units which may be allowed In the immediate urban, long range urban, and rural service
areas of the City.
It should be noted that the term "animal units" does not limit the use to a particular type of
animal_ If a proper factual basis was established, an ordinance could legitimately
distinguish between types of animals allowed.
Immediate Urban Service Area: Staff agrees with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of prohibiting the establishment of new feedlots in the immediate urban
service area. It is, however, believed the allowance of existing feedlot expansions (to 300
animal units) is contrary to the land use planning objectives of the immediate urban service
district. Specifically, it is believed further financial investment in such use would make
ultimate elimination more difficult.
To be noted is that an agricultural use contained within the immediate urban service area
is afforded rights not provided for similar uses in the rural service district (via opportunities
to develop to "higher' uses). Thus, it would be the recommendation of staff that no new
feedlots or feedlot expansions be allowed within the immediate urban service area.
Long Range Urban Service Area: The draft feedlot regulations allow existing feedlots
within the long range urban service area to expand to 600 animal units. Further, the
regulations allow new feedlots up to 300 animal units to be established. Considering that
the largest feedlot currently within the City has + 500 animal units, it is believed the
allowance of a 600 animal unit feedlot in an area where urban development is ultimately
planned is questionable. Recognizing the feedlot operations/owners investment and
expansion needs, however, it is believed an expansion limit of 300 animal units would be
more appropriate. As in the case of the immediate urban service area, the allowance of
new feedlots within an area of the City ultimately planned for urban development is
considered questionable.
Rural Service Area: The draft ordinance establishes a maximum 750 animal unit
threshold for new feedlots and does not impose a maximum animal unit count for existing
feedlots within the rural service area.
While staff does not have a particular problem with a maximum 750 animal units being
proposed, equitable treatment for new and existing feedlots in areas designated for long
term agricultural use may be worthy of consideration.
E
JUN -17-1996 16:55 NAC 612 595 9e37 P.e4/ee
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES
As the City Council is aware, the City's existing urban and rural service area boundaries
are likely to be changed in conjunction with the pending sewer study. As such, areas of
the City where the Comprehensive Plan currently suggests agricultural use (including
southern portion of Highway 101 corridor), but where urban development is anticipated,
could potentially accommodate a large scale feedlot operation.
To avoid such potential land use conflicts, it is recommended that the City's service area
boundaries be revised to accurately reflect areas of the City where urban and rural uses
are preferred (prior to lifting of moratorium and adoption of ordinance), or that the rural
service area be divided into sections with differing regulations for purposes of the feedlot
ordinance.
SETBACKS - NEW FEEDLOTS
Shorelands: Section 20-38-7. B.1 of the draft ordinance states that feedlots may not be
located within a Shoreland District unless permitted by the MPCA. As such, if no pollution
related problems are found to exist by the MPCA, new feedlots would be permitted to
locate within a Shoreland District_ This point is raised as it represents a significant change
from the City's existing feedlot regulations, which prohibit such uses within shoreland
areas.
Wells: Section 20-38-7.13.3 allows a reduction in well setbacks upon written permission
of a private well operator. This provision raises concern in regard to potential property
owner transfers, monitoring responsibility, and subjective evaluation of property impact.
Consideration should be given to deleting such prevision.
Public Parks: The draft ordinance establishes a 1,000 foot setback from public parks.
To be realized is that the Otsego Prairie Park lies within the rural service area. Thus, the
establishment of new feedlots within a significant portion of the rural service district will
result.
Private Residences: The draft ordinance proposes a 500 foot setback from private
residences. To determine the impact and result of such provision, it is believed a graphic
evaluation should be conducted which identifies feedlot opportunity areas. The extent to
which such setback will restrict feedlot establishments should be fully evaluated prior to
any ordinance adoption.
As in the case of well setbacks, this section includes a provision which would allow lesser
setbacks upon written permission from a resident. While well intended, staff has concern
over the inclusion of such provision and recommends its deletion.
0
JUN -17-1996 1656 NAC 612 595 9837 P.05i08
Churches, Schools or Similar Facilities: The draft ordinance proposes a 1,320 foot
setback from churches, schools and similar facilities. Specific concems related to this
provision include possible future school district land acquisitions within the City and
application of the tern "similar facilities". For instance, it is unclear whether the "City Hall"
would qualify under this provision.
Staff will be available at the forthcoming 18 June City Council workshop meeting to discuss
this material in greater detail.
PC: Elaine Beatty
4
JUN -17-1996 16:56 NAC 612 595 9837 P.06i08
CITY OF OTSEGO
DRAFT FEEDLOT REGULATIONS
SUMMARY OUTLINE
I. PURPOSE
A. Establish a procedure for the permitting of feedlots.
B. Regulate the location, development, and expansion of feedlots.
C. Promote best farm management practices.
D. Protect valuable ground water and surface water resources.
E. Protect human and animal health.
F. Implement specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive
Plan.
G. Promote compatibility of uses.
H. Coordinate and assist state agencies in the administration of state-wide
statutes and regulations governing livestock operations.
11. ANIMAL FEEDLOT DEFINITION
A lot or building or combination of lots and buildings intended for the confined
feeding, breeding, raising, or holding of animals and specifically designed as a
confinement area in which manure may accumulate, or where the concentration of
animals is such that a vegetative cover cannot be maintained within the enclosure.
For purposes of these parts, open lots used for feeding and rearing of poultry
(poultry ranges) and barns, dairy farms, swine facilities, beef lots and barns, horse
stalls, mink ranches and zoos, shall be considered to be animal feedlots. Pastures
shall not be considered animal feedlots under these parts.
JUN -17-1996 16:57 NAC
Ill. PROHIBITED FEEDLOTS
Immediate Urban Service Area
612 595 9837 P.07i06
Maximum Animal Units
Existing New
Feedlots Feedlots
300 New Feedlots -
Prohibited
Long Range Urban Service Area 600 300
Rural Service Area None* 750
* A maximum number of animal units may be specified by the City Council
as a condition of conditional use permit issuance.
IV. FEEDLOT SETBACKS
A. Existing Feedlots.
1. Lawfully established feedlots exempt from setback requirements.
2. Expansion allowed in compliance with new animal feedlot setback
requirements.
B. New Feedlots.
1. Shoreland Districts Prohibited unless permitted by MPCA
2. 100 Year Floodplain Prohibited
3. Wells (Private and Public):
Private Wells Public Wells
Immediate Urban Service Area New Feedlots New Feedlots
Prohibited Prohibited
Long Range Urban Service Area 500 feet* 2,500 feet
Rural Service Area 500 feet* 2,500 feet
* Setbacks may be reduced with written permission of the private wells
operator.
2
JUN -17-1996 16:57 NAC
612 595 9837 P.08i08
4,
Steep Slopes
300 feet
5.
Public Parks
1,000 feet
6.
Drainage Ditches
300 feet
7.
Private Residences:
4. Lagoon/earthen storage basins proposed.
B.
Immediate Urban Service Area
New Feedlots Prohibited
1. Wind breaks (tree plantings) as determined necessary by the City
Long Range Urban Service Area
500 feet*
Rural Service Area
500 feet*
3. Compliance with pollution control measures/PCA requirements.
* Setbacks may be reduced with written permission of the residents
4. Financial security required.
or owner.
5. Setback compliance.
8.
Church, School, Similar Facility
1,320 feet
V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
A.
Qualification.
1. Expansion of existing feedlots within Shoreland, Floodplain, Wild and
Scenic Districts.
2. New feedlot exceeding 300 animal units.
3. Expansion of existing feedlot over 300 animal units.
4. Lagoon/earthen storage basins proposed.
B.
Standards.
1. Wind breaks (tree plantings) as determined necessary by the City
Council.
2. Compliance with manure utilization plan.
3. Compliance with pollution control measures/PCA requirements.
4. Financial security required.
5. Setback compliance.
VI. FACILITY CLOSURE
A.
Feedlot landowner, owner, operator responsibility.
B.
Financial security required.
C.
Closure plan requirement,
VII. ABANDONMENT
A.
Clean up, closure responsibility of feedlot owner and operator.
3
TOTAL P.08