Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.c. Zoning Text Amendment to Increase Lot Dimensions and Setbacks Along Arterial Highways and Railroads City of Rosemount Executive Summary for Action City Council Meeting Date: March 6. 1996 Agenda Item: Zoning Text Amendment to increase lot Agenda Section: dimensions and setbacks along arterial New Business highways and railroads — Prepared By: Richard Pearson, Assistant Planner Agenda 1'{g iiEM .# 7 V Attachments: Draft ordinance, Draft Planning Approved By: Commission minutes for public hearing 2- 27-96, previous PC memo The Planning Commission has made recommendations in the past to the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance regarding lot dimensions and building setbacks along collector streets, highways, pipeline and high voltage transmission easements and railroad rights-of-way. Previously, the proposed amendments failed to be adopted because of insufficient votes. The attached amendment revision eliminates the controversial setback proposal that involves pipeline easements as well as simplify the structure of the ordinance as a result of comments received at previous public hearings. In some cases, the proposed increases have been reduced after internal debate and discussion amongst Staff members. The revision represents concensis on the part of the Development Review Committee. Planning Staff believes that increased standards are necessary as a result of demonstrated examples of the current standards as well as the anticipation of future development proposals that will be impacted to a higher degree by highways and railroads than previous experience when the original standards were created. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 27, 1996 as required by the zoning ordinance. Notices of this latest amendment proposal were sent to developers as had been done previously. One person attended the public hearing and expressed his opinion that the amendment was preferrable to the previous effort and provided a recommendation for a minor change. The Planning Commission discussion subsequent to the public hearing focused on comparisons with the previous proposal and questioned the need to relax the standards from previous initiatives. Generally, the Commission agreed that the new amendment was easier to interpret. The Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding possible changes to the amendment triggering a need for another public hearing, especially if the adopted amendment created a higher standard. A suggestion was made that the City Council refer the amendment back to the Planning Commission if indeed, the amendment bacame more restrictive. Subsequently, the Commission passed a motion to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment. Recommended Action: MOTION to adopt Ordinance B-57 amending the City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance. City Council Action: City of Rosemount DRAFT Ordinance No. B- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING SUPPLEMENTARY YARD REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 7.2 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS: C. Supplementary Yard Regulations of Ordinance B - City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is amended to include as follows: 6. Scope: The following supplementary yard regulations shall only apply to lots platted or developments granted preliminary plat approval after adoption of this ordinance. a. Residential principal structures shall be set back a minimum of thirty feet from any easement boundary on a lot or a parcel of land that abuts or is traversed by an easement intended for or containing high voltage transmission lines. b. Residential lot dimensional standards and principal structure setbacks shall be increased on the side adjacent to freeways, arterial and collector streets, and railroad rights-of-way or easements. Driveways, surface parking and accessory structures shall have increased setbacks adjacent to freeways and arterial highways. The following standards shall be in addition to existing setback criteria to provide space for earthen berms, buffer yards or planting strips: Side adjacent to Principal Accessory Structures Structures, Driveways and Surface Parking Collector Street 10 feet N/A Minor Arterial Highway 20 feet 10 feet Principal Arterial (freeways) 30 feet 20 feet Railroad ROW or Easement 30 feet N/A c. No accessory or principal structure shall be constructed within any easement. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT Cathy Busho, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of , 1996. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings February 27,1996 Page 5 DRAFT Pursuant to a request from the Commission, Assistant Planner Pearson explained the reason for this proposed change to the ordinance and also listed some of the previous concerns of the City Council in regards to the failure to adopt the previous proposed amendment. Reid J. Hansen, 14450 South Robert Trail, stated that his client, a developer, finds this proposed amendment a marked improvement over the previous proposed amendment, especially in clarity. He also requested that a change be made to the wording of the proposed ordinance. Assistant Planner Pearson replied to Mr. Hansen that the City Attorney had reviewed the proposed ordinance and did not recommend any changes. As there was no further comment from the audience, MOTION by Droste to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, Shoe-Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger. Nays: 0. The Planning Commissioners ensued in a lengthy discussion regarding the enhancement of the proposed setback standards. Some Commissioners felt that there was no need to compromise previous recommendations and even suggested further enhancements. The Commissioners also requested that this item come back before them for their input if the City Council made any changes to the proposed ordinance. MOTION by Tentinger to recommend that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amendment draft to increase lot dimensional and building setback standards along highways and railroads. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Shoe-Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste. Nays: 0. MOTION by Droste to adjourn. Seconded by DeBettignies. There being no further business to come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kelli A. Grund Recording Secretary Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings oR��� February 27,1996 Page 4 • e north of CSAH 42. Mr. Pearson stated that both are renewals for on-going operations th e in a final phase. Staff is recommending, and Solberg Aggregate has agreed, that additio land ping on the Solberg site is needed. It is recommended that 12 Amur Maple tre a planted along th northwest entrance ramp to STH 52. Mr. Pearson stated that draft cond. ns for both permits ha been provided to the Planning Commissioners. Carl Solberg of So erg Aggregate was present to answer any question . A discussion occurred betIren the Planning Commissioners and .+' . Solberg regarding the additional landscaping requested, whether there enough tops•'1 to reclaim the area, any possible runoff problems on either site, and additional berming on e Solberg site. Mr. Solberg stated that there is no shortage of topsoil, no runoff, and after the 'ring is completed Solberg Aggregate will be constructing additional berming around\he site. As there was no further public comment, M ON by DeBettignies to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: McDermo , DeB tti vies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe-Corrigan. Nays: 0. Assistant Planner Pearson state. at Solberg Aggregate has been meeting all previous conditions imposed upon them and ther- as been no traffic complaints in re ds to these sites. A discussion ensued regarding enforce -nt of the mining extraction permits. MOTION by Tent'•:er to recommend approval of the renewal requested or the Solberg/Koch mineral extractio• permit to the City Council subject to the attached draft conditions of operation for 1996. Second i by McDermott. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger,Droste, Shoe-Corrig n, McDermot . ays: 0. MO I N by Tentinger to recommend approval of the renewal request for the Solberg site mineral ext .ction permit to the City Council subject to the attached draft conditions of operations for 1996. S conded by McDermott. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe-Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies. ays: 0. ' ilic e, rin • main. .xtAmendmen fir u. .1• en , otDime' imnanI Set Back Requirements Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding the proposed zoning text amendment for supplementary lot dimension and setback requirements. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavits for Mailing& Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Assistant Planner Pearson gave a brief history of this proposed zoning text amendment. He stated that the proposed amendment has simplified the structure of the ordinance and commented that Staff feels that the proposed amendment is an improvement to the current ordinance and supports this amendment. Mr. Pearson mentioned that basically the setbacks have been decreased by 10 feet from the previous proposed amendment. • it of Rosemount PHONE (812)423 4411 2875-145th Street West,Rosemount,Minnesota MAYOR FAX (612)4235203 Mailing Address: Edward 8.MC Mentxny P.O.Box 510.Rosemount.Minnesota 55068-0510 COUNCII.MEMBERS • Sheila Klassen TO: Planning Commission James(Red)Staats FROM: Richard Pearson, Assistant Planner Willcox s Dennis O Wippennann DATE: June 18, 1993 ADMINISTRATOR SUBJ: June 22, 1993 Regular Meeting Reviews: Agenda Item 5 Stephan Jiik Proposed Zoning Text Amendments - Discussion • PROPOSAL Last October and November, Planning Staff suggested that the Planning Cnrimission discuss several changes to the Zoning Ordinance that will be the first of a series of text amendments intended to bring the ordinance into conformance with policies in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Additionally, the amendments are intended to provide clarification and substance to existing ordinances that are perceived to be vague. Amendments included with this proposal include: 1) increased setbacks to major and minor thoroughfares, and railroads; 2) creating setbacks for pipelines; 3) enhancing landscape standards; and 4) lowering the maximum density allowed in multi-family residential districts to 12 dwelling units per acre from 18 du/acre (but allowing density bonuses). Other amendments such as the tree preservation ordinance amendment will not be included at this time as additional time is needed for a recommendation. 1) SETBACK INCREASES The Zoning Ordinances of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville and Woodbury have been compared for examples of increased setbacks to busy streets and railroads. With the exception of Lakeville, all cities had expanded setbacks for residential and commercial buildings to collector and arterial streets. The following setbacks are for principal buildings to right-of-way and typically replace a thirty foot standard. CITY COLLECTOR STREET ARTERIAL STREET Apple Valley 30 to 40 feet 40 to 50 feet (minor), 50 feet (principal) Burnsville 45 ft. (incl. minor art.) 50 ft. (principal) 50 ft. (high density) 80 ft. (high density principal) Eagan 40 ft. 50 ft. Inver Grove Heights 30 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. (high density) Woodbury 50 ft. 80 ft. 6veryihtng s amt.ng Qu[ (Rosemount!! n June.22, 1993 Regular Meeting Reviews ' Z.O: Text Amendment Proposals Page Three The Subdivision Ordinance requires "Planting Strips" to be placed along highways and railroad lines to screen the view and reduce noise levels in residential areas. Planning Staff recommends that performance standards should be applied to the planting strips so that minimum expectations are set in-place, and enhanced performance can qualify for density bonuses or platting variances. A planting strip should have a minimum of a hedge or a combination of understory and overstory plantings. Experience has shown that shrubs are often neglected, and mortality or overgrowth (or theft) result. Overstory trees (boulevard trees) are capable of vertical screening, but without additional shrub plantings, gaps limit opacity. Large evergreens often provide the best screening if enough space is provided, but like a boulevard tree, it takes many years to reach maturity. Local conditions may favor one variety of planting over another so that mandating an average of opacity in a planting strip may be a valid approach to the performance standard. Staff review providing direction to a developer to increase plantings or make substitutions would probably be the most effective way to achieve a standard of opacity in any given situation. Planning Staff recommends that the reference to planting strips in the subdivision ordinance be expanded to require that planting strips must be fifty percent opaque to a height of six feet at the time of installation. 4) REDUCE MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWANCE FOR SINGLE AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, DISTRICTS The maximum density proposed for R-1 Single Family in the housing element of the Comprehensive Guide Plan - Update 2000, is 2.5 dwelling units per acre. The past policy has allowed 3 dwelling units per acre, as the midpoint for Medium Density Residential (Urban Residential including Single Family and Attached Housing). The maximum density proposed for R-3 multi-family residential districts in the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan - Update 2000, is 12 dwelling units per acre. Allowance for up to 18 dwelling units per acre as a density bonus is possible if above standard amenities are provided. Those amenities could include but are not limited to: intensive landscaping, outdoor group open space, indoor and outdoor recreational amenities, high quality design standards, energy conservation or a proposal that satisfies unique and special market niches and needs for affordable housing. The current ordinance allows for up to six dwelling units per acre in the R-2 Single Family Attached Residence District, and there is no reference to density limitations in the R-3 and R-4 Multiple Family Residential Districts. RECOMMENDED ACTION - No action is requested at this time. Planning Staff is assembling additional text amendment proposals that include refinements to design standards in the Subdivision Ordinance and a Storm Water Management ordinance. June 22, 1993 Regular Meeting Reviews June 22, 1993 Regular Meeting Reviews Z.O. Text Amendment Proposals Page Two The average increased setback to collector streets is 10 ft. in addition to the standard requirement. The average increase for arterials is 20 ft. for the Dakota County Cities examined. The resulting screening opportunities in ten feet would be vegetative (probably a large hedge), or fencing. A 20 foot wide buffer could accommodate a three foot high berm with vegetation (evergreen trees or a combination of plantings), or fencing. The ability to use berms diminishes with uneven topography. A three foot high berm centered in twenty feet does not seem like much but that is the maximum slope that allows for practical mowing. A thirty foot wide screening yard would allow for a berm almost five feet high and still be mowable. Planning Staff recommends that setbacks adjacent to collector and arterial streets be increased by a minimum of ten feet (collector) and twenty feet (arterial) by ordinance primarily for residential uses. Some of the ordinances indicated that the setbacks were for all principal structures. Consideration for platting exceptions to standards, or density bonuses may be given if larger setbacks are offered with appropriate landscaping. An additional distinction should be given to principal arterials for a thirty foot increase in setback. Railroads received very little attention in the various ordinances. Planning Staff would suggest that railroads be treated similar to principal arterials. 2) SETBACKS FOR PIPELINES Very few cities have setbacks for pipelines established by ordinance. The Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety was charged with the task of writing a model ordinance for cities in the wake of the Mounds View tragedy. It took over a year for a recommendation that specified pipeline easement boundaries should define a setback for any building. Most ordinances have been written consistent with the model ordinance. Pipeline easements normally have extensive restrictions on the use of land within the easement. A homeowner might not be able to plant trees or construct a fence in their back yard if such an easement were in place. Other improvements such as paving and accessory buildings would not be allowed. Planning Staff recommends that an easement for a pipeline (petroleum or natural gas) be treated the same as a public right-of-way and that the setback for any building to a pipeline easement be a minimum of thirty feet. The typical front and rear yard setback for urban residential uses is thirty feet and most neighborhoods have pipelines adjacent to rear yards. 3) ENHANCE LANDSCAPE STANDARDS Generally, Section 8.3 Landscaping Requirements is effective for establishing minimum standards for landscaping. However, some flexibility would be gained in the General Industrial district by substituting the foundation planting minimum of one planting per ten feet of building perimeter for "Per Recommendation of Planning Commission". This substitution would be a appropriate given the typical General Industrial building that has a significant amount of paving around at least one half the perimeter. City of Rosemount F( ' Ordinance No. B-us [Q'( p� AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING SUPPLEMENTARY YARD REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT,MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 7.2 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS: C. Supplementary Yard Regulations of Ordinance B- City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is amended to include as follows: 6. Scope: The following supplementary yard regulations shall only apply to lots platted or developments granted preliminary plat approval after adoption of this ordinance. a. Principal structures shall be set back a minimum of thirty (30) feet from any easement boundary on a lot or a parcel of land that abuts or is traversed by an easement intended for or containing high power electrical transmission. b. Where a yard has been required to provide for a buffer yard, earthen berm or planting strip for the purpose of screening views and reducing noise levels in residential areas, principal and accessory building setbacks will be increased sufficiently or as necessary so that the building area shall be outside the buffer yard, earthen berm, or planting strip. c. The following table defines dimension standards that shall apply when property is adjacent to railroad, collector street, minor arterial, principal arterial rights-of-way; and easements for high voltage transmission lines (HVTL): Minimum Lot Size (feet) Minimum Yards • cipal Bldg Accessory Bldgs Parking/Driveways DISTRICT I WIDTH* AREA* I DEPTH* SIDE&REAR SIDE&REAR* SIDE&REAR AG,AG-P,&RR Collector Street Right-of-Way N/A 2.5 acres N/A 50 50 25 Minor Arterial Right-of-Way/ N/A 2.5 acres N/A 60 60 35 Railroad Right-of-Way/HVTL Principal Arterial Right-of-Way N/A I.2.5 acres N/A 70 70 45 Collector Street Right-of-Way 100 N/A 145 50 35/50 30 Minor Arterial Right-of-Way/ 110 N/A 155 60 45/60 40 Railroad Right-of-Way/HVTL Principal Arterial Right-of-Way 120 N/A 165 70 55/70 50 Collector Street Right-of-Way 140 N/A 170 50 30 30 Minor Arterial Right-of-Way/ 150 N/A 180 60 40 40 Railroad Right-of-Way/HVTL Principal Arterial Right-of-Way 160 I N/A 190 I 70 50 50 ;R3&R-4 Collector Street Right-of-Way 170 N/A 170 50 30 30 Minor Arterial Right-of-Way/ 180 N/A 180 60 40 40 Railroad Right-of-Way/HVTL Principal Arterial Right-of-Way 190 N/A 190 70 50 50 C-1,**C-3&C-4 • Collector Street Right-of-Way 140 N/A N/A 30 N/A 30 — Minor Arterial Right-of-Way/ 150 N/A N/A 40 Railroad Right-of-Way/HVTL N/A 40 Principal Arterial Right-of-Way 160 N/A N/A 50 N/A 50 • N/A does not supplant previously specified dimensions in Section 7.1 •* Bufferyards or increases in yard area in C-I District shall be in addition to maximum zone area specified in Section 7.1 Z.O. Text Amendment Proposals Page Four Planning Staff requests that the Planning Commission discuss the proposed text amendments and provide Planning Staff with direction as needed for revisions. The following draft text amendments have been prepared for discussion purposes. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE - Ordinance No. XVIL4 Adopted October 19, 1972. MOTION to recommend to the City Council to adopt an ordinance amending SUBD 5.8 PLANTING STRIPS to include: Where a residential lot abuts a railroad or major thoroughfare `3a fog'' right-of-way, the lot shall have twenty (20) feet of width and/or depth added to the lot's side adjacent to and abutting the right-of-way that is in addition to the minimum standard required by ordinance for the establishment of planting strips. Where a residential lot abuts a minor thoroughfare right-of-way, a buffer strip of at least ten (10) feet in width shall be added to the lot's side adjacent to and abutting said right-of-way. Planting strips must be a minimum of fifty _ (50) percent opaque for a minimum of six (6) feet of height as measured from the adjacent elevation of the residential yard. ORDINANCE B - ZONING ORDINANCE MOTION to recommend to the City Council to adopt an ordinance amending Section 7.2 C. Supplementary Yard Regulations to include: 6. Where a lot or a parcel of land abuts or is traversed by an easement intended for or containing a pipeline conveying natural gas or petroleum, no principal structure shall be setback less than thirty (30) feet from the pipeline easement boundary. MOTION to recommend to the City Council to adopt an ordinance amending Section 6.7 R-3 Multiple-Family Residence District changing B. 2 to read: 2. Multiple Family Dwellings, Apartments and accessory uses at densities no greater than twelve (12) dwelling units per gross acre. Density bonuses of up to eighteen (18) dwelling units per gross acre are available per Planning Commission recommendation and at the discretion of the City Council if the proposal includes amenities not required by ordinance standards. Such amenities may include but are not limited to: intensive landscaping, outdoor group open space, indoor and outdoor recreational amenities, high quality design standards, energy conservation or a proposal that satisfies unique and special market niches and needs for affordable housing. MOTION to recommend to the City Council to adopt an ordinance amending Section 7.1 Dimensional Standards to include the changes in maximum density in R-1 from N/A to 2.5/AC, and R-3 from 18/AC to 12/AC. MOTION to recommend to the City Council to adopt an ordinance amending Section 7.2C Supplementary Yard Regulations to include: 7. Where a lot has been increased in size to include a planting strip or buffer yard, principal and accessory building setbacks will be increased accordingly to protect the buffer yard from building encroachment. MOTION to recommend to the City Council to set a date for a public hearing for 8 pm. on Tuesday, July 6, 1993 to hear testimony regarding the proposed zoning and subdivision text amendments. interoffice MEMORANDU M to: Rick Pearson, Planner cc: File from: David J. McKnight Le re: Setback Survey date: August 30, 1995 The survey results for the setback/lot dimension proposal are listed below. I have tried to get the most accurate information from the other cities even though the same terms are not used universally with cities. The cities I received accurate numbers from are Eagan, Apple Valley, Lakeville, Coon Rapids, and Burnsville. The other cities in Dakota County either had no additional setbacks for residential districts located next to the types of uses you are looking at or I was not confident with the person that gave me the information. The information is listed below. Eagan Major Thoroughfare If ROW is 150' then the setback is 50' or 120' from the centerline, whichever is greater. Major Thoroughfare If ROW is 100' then the setback is 50' or 100' from the centerline, whichever is greater. Minor Thoroughfare If ROW is 80' then the setback is 40' or 80' from the centerline, whichever is greater. Interstate/St. Hwy. The setback is 50'. Apple Valley Principle/Minor Arterial The setback is 50'. Collector Street The setback is 40'. Lakeville I have included the comments sent back to us with your questionnaire. SECTION III This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. I • Formally acted upon by the Council of the City of Rosemount this day of , 1995. This Ordinance is effective from and after its publication date. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT E.B. McMenomy, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of , 1995. Ord08-55 Page 2 = IT'r OF LAKEVILLE TEL : 1-612-985-4499 Aug 30 95 11 :25 No .010 P .03 . S. All buildings must have an exterior water spigot to insure that landscape maintenance can be accomplished. 6. Trees and shrubs shall not be planted in the right-of-way except for designated parkways as determined by City Council. 'e) Landscape Guarantee. All new plants shall be guaranteed for twelve (12) months from the time planting has been completed. All plants shall be alive, of good quality, and disease free at the end of the warranty period or be replaced. Any replacements shall be warranted for twelve (12)months from the time of planting. ** f) Tree Preservation. Prior to the issuance of building permits for all new and/or expanded multiple family residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses, a tree preservation plan shall be submitted The plan and its implementation shall be in accordance with the City's adopted tree preservation guidelines and requirements as outlined in the City's Subdivision Ordinance and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator may exempt an applicant from the submission of a tree preservation plan upon demonstration that such a plan is not considered relevant to the site in question. 4) Mechanical Equipment. The City Council may require all mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units, etc. erected on the roof of any structure, to be screened so as not be visible. ** 5) Buffer Yards. a) Lot Depth Requirements. Double frontage residential Iots shall have an additional depth of at least twenty(20) feet in order to allow space for buffenng/screen planting along the back lot line. Except as may be approved by the City Council, for those lots which abut major collector or arterial streets, the following minimum lot depths shall be required: District Minimum Lot Depth for Buffer Lots R-1, Low Density Single Family 220 feet R-2,Single Family 170 feet b) J..ot Width Requirements. Except as may be approved by the City Council and except for lots of record and preliminary platted lots having legal standing established on January 1, 1994, lots which border major collector or arterial streets on a side yard shall be increased at last ten (10) feet in required minimum lot width for the purpose of establishing buffers along the lot line bordering such streets. *Amended by Ordinance #459, March 16, 1992 **Amended by Ordinance #512, November 1, 1993 62 City of Rosemount Ordinance No. B- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING SUPPLEMENTARY, YARD REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 7.2 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS: C. Supplementary Yard Regulations of Ordinance B - City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is amended to include as follows: 6. Scope: The following supplementary yard regulations shall apply to all subdivisions except lots platted or developments granted preliminary plat approval prior to adoption of this ordinance. a. Residential principal structures shall be set back a minimum of thirty feet from any easement boundary on a lot or a parcel of land that abuts or is traversed by an easement intended for or containing high voltage transmission lines. b. Residential lot dimensional standards and principal structure setbacks shall be increased on the side adjacent to freeways, arterial and collector streets, and railroad rights-of-way or easements. Driveways, surface parking and accessory structures shall have increased setbacks adjacent to freeways and arterial highways. The following standards shall be in addition to existing setback criteria and dimensional standards to provide space for earthen berms, buffer yards or planting strips: Side adjacent to Principal Accessory Structures Structures, and increased Driveways Dimensional and Surface Standards Parking Collector Street* 10 feet N/A Minor Arterial Highway* 20 feet 10 feet Principal Arterial (freeways)* 30 feet 20 feet * As designated by the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Railroad ROW or Easement 30 feet N/A c. No accessory or principal structure shall be constructed within any easement. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT Cathy Busho, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of , 1996. •