Visitor chairs were full at the September 8 Peterson Council meeting as the city took amendments to its A-1 Agricultural District and Floodplain Ordinance under review. The discussion has been ruminating since March of this year when area residents and Peterson business owners Matt and Jenny Helgemoe proposed a campground on agricultural land north of the city.
City Attorney Greg Schieber, of Nethercut Schieber Attorneys, discussed with the council the possible actions first beginning with conditional use permits. He stressed that changes must meet the goal of control over expansion in the agricultural district. There are permitted uses already allowed for the property. When labeled as a conditional use, the city is able to place certain restrictions on usage, giving the city more control.
A summary of general conditions outlined in section 503 of the city’s ordinances includes: finding that the use will not create an excess burden on existing facilities; that the use is compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent properties; site will not have an adverse effect on adjacent properties; use is related to overall needs of the city; use is consistent with the city’s zoning plan; use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion; existing businesses will not be adversely affected by nuisances; that there are adequate utilities, access roads, and drainage; that there are no negative effects on the environment, promotion of orderly development, and compatibility with different land uses; use applies elsewhere in the ordinance; and must meet rules about development in the floodplain.
The proposed amendment deals with additional standards including site plan layout for development, including internal roads and access points, emergency and evacuation access, availability of infrastructure, storm water management, drainage, and impacts on adjacent properties including noise, traffic, and lighting. Additional subsections include more details of capacity of public utilities, surrounding land uses, and consideration of the max number of sites, consideration of phased construction, and hours of operation.
“This reads like a good list of considerations that a council might take into account when looking at an application and saying, ‘Is it suitable for our town, based on what our ordinance says, and what special conditions do we need to put on it,’” said Schieber. “All the conditions need to be related to protecting the public health, welfare, safety … Conditions have to be anchored in the reality of what’s being proposed,” he continued. “That’s what your enforcement mechanism then is. If they don’t meet the criteria you lay out, then you can revoke permit and they can’t operate.”
Should this happen, the city is responsible for providing notice of non-compliance to permitting before revoking the permit. Should a property continue to operate after the permit is revoked, it would need to file in court for a conjunction.
“This makes tight parameters on what you’re approving,” continued Schieber. “If something changes, you can amend the permit or they can seek a new one. It’s one way to open the door, but not swing it wide open.”
If a conditional use permit is granted, it will ultimately go with the property longterm unless it is revoked. Once an application is submitted, the city has 60 days, or up to 120 days if an extension is filed, to make a decision.
A public hearing on the proposed changes was already held by the Zoning Board. However, it was noted that little to no public attended the hearing. A survey was sent out to property owners and 46% of surveys were sent back, with 44% opposed, although few have actually seen the full plans.
Two notable points of discussion were the setback for proposed development in the district and screening for adjacent properties. The state requires setback of any structure to 10 feet from the property line or 25 feet from a roadway. The campground proposal calls for 30 feet from the adjacent property lines, as well as live vegetation screening.
Mayor Chris Stenzel questioned the viability of setting the setback at 50 feet, with the ability to shorten that amount via a variance. However, Schieber cautioned against this and suggested setting as much in place now to strengthen the city’s standing. Granting a variance would require another public hearing and stretch the granting of the potential project an additional 30 days beyond the time allowed to approve or deny the permitting.
“I think 50 feet would appease a lot of people. We want our citizens to be happy, we want you to be happy, but I think the most important thing is to think of the people who buffer this, who’ve looked at that field there,” said Councilor Gail Boyum. “We don’t want people upset with the outcome, but only a few heard your plans, which were extraordinary, and I believe you’re going to follow through on it.”
“We have a local person who wants to invest in Peterson. It’s in the flood plain. There’s only so many things you can do with that land and a campground is one of them,” said Grindland. “We have to ask the big question – do you want a campground or not?”
“It won’t be done in a negligible way. What you’re trying to do is control acres of land that isn’t yours,” said Helgemoe.
“Two things can be true at once. They can want you to invest in town, but they can want us who are elected to keep them happy,” responded Councilor Kristina Grindland.
A roll call vote was taken on approving the ordinance amendments. Boyum, Councilor Tracy Seelbinder, and Stenzel were in favor. Councilors Grindland and Justin Simon were opposed.
The council also approved a bid from Limited Underground for the replacement of lead and copper water service lines, contingent of Public Facilities Authority grant funding. The bid was the low bid of four received.
The city received a $15,000 grant from the Minnesota Department of Health for the purpose of a feasibility study for a second well for the city.
The council approved a resolution stating the city is setting levy certification as a priority and will actively seek funding for evaluation and improvement efforts.
The council considered a request from owners of the former Rushford-Peterson Middle School, being redeveloped as the new Peterson Community Hub, to utilize the former football field as overflow parking for private events. City concerns included damage to the field and costs for upkeep including plowing in the winter. The council denied the request, noting parking areas around the building and on city streets.
A public meeting was recently held on the redevelopment of the hub and upwards of 100 people attended. The site is scheduled to open after the new year.
Leave a Reply