HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.c. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: Increased Setbacks Along Major Streets, Highways, and Railroads o� °Sem�U�t
Clty R a��oC p,ct�ot�
u�
EXe��tive S ,995 Age�da Se�tio�SS
5
m er j,D BUS
e�e G
� dment'. O •
ate' �a�ot Stteets� .
Council Meet'n D �e Z ext �
�n� o• 1T �
C� Zo��g�t getbacks �aag Age�aa� . �
aa Iten►� �cteaSed a R�° t��
Age° � wa s,a`'n
��k peats 1a�et ' APp�O�ed By• f�r���'"'
B � ist�'t p �Pla�ng /
YreP�'�ed y �S eTe��endme�t' sian•
D��ptd�n�'c dy� �ayot for T,noje d'Scus
�,ach�►ents: Comm'ss'°�'S� of tbe �a,S�dy and
A e�aa at reAuest d
the �of additio re�ous�y axl
la�ea°n the a� bet in a�ticipatio assemb aaopti�on of tihe
ament�as been P ��geptem dy b�bee�ton for cauSe°�
en re�iously guch a S� �o�nenda „ ua�1�1 be terlirie f or a
Z�iis a�' been tabled p kota Coun�1� o f their re a�d orange. A uSe the�en e,,�ont
en ent haa et 'nDa sion S�ppo�ve apple le' e�itie ay eU aa�� s
dm cities in an som �s w way
T�mPa S°��t e P�ng C e�mp�son a�a�c S. F°half o phe�g o�rna 9 streets an
d�s�uSse erit�tThere a ln va oUs Z°�g tback icel�erliz�e���e�ts 1v�eT Standards
amend� apprOa�hes ce poin�and �dths�'d e approach' change for �th the C1�1
d1�eci g as a referen ht_of v'lay of-waY lva teria���eX riegotitations
a �g �ghtr Setback�n k for
w y iri
lciigr„ variat��he Setback fr°m fo��a�ations tO ��ben��� t t'
`1 a e resultea ss a�°wS thenbe�Omes a n felt theas
ssio ,�g
h he ytJD prO��he��a�a�ce the p�ax��g C t,b�ba� �
p�s�`uays't a creativi�1� d 5tandards� other cities, oSernou"t�
of deSl oan.�aith e�an�e �lasger t�'�e�uta1 chara�te� °f R
St��g e of the Setba�a�ta�Some�f th
�vle s°�' nit�1 t°
was°ne�pp��
the Cl��
gose
the C'� �ads.
mend�ng ra�°
� t an�rdin o lector Streets a�a
N to ad p, hways,
o� p'1��TIokS alo�g�g
ecomme�a a Ce to i�c�e�e$etb
go�ci� g Orclln
Z „ �'
Act►p4'
Cout►ci1 _
' City of Rosemotint
� Ordinance No. B-55 DRA�T
;
�
AN�RDINANCE E�MENDING�RDINANCE B 9�'_Q!, '
CITY OF ROSEMOUNf 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. �u�lementary Yard
Regulations of Ordinance B - City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is amended to include as follows:
6. Scope: The following supplementary yard rewlations 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 shalt apply when property is adjacent
to railroad, collector street, minor arterial, principal arterial rights-of-way; and easements
for high voltage transmission lines (HVTL):
MilliIIlu�rl LOt Siz@ (feet)
Minimum Yards �
' cipal Bldg ccessory Bldgs arl�ng/Driveways�
DISTRICT I WIDTH*I ARF.A* I DEPTH�` SIDE&REAR SIDE&RF.AK* SIDE&REAR
' � , .. � ; . �
AG,AG-P,&RR .. , I
Collector Street Right-of-Way N/A 2.5 acres N/A 50 50 25 �
i
Minor Arteriat Right-of-Way/ N/A 2.5 acres N/A 60 60 35 I
Railroad Right-of-WaylHVTL (
Princi at Arterial Ri ht-of-Wa N/A 2.5 acres N/A 70 70 45 I
x-1 st R z Cs� . ,
Collector Street Right-of-Way 1W N/A 145 50 35/50 30
�
Minor Arterial Right-of-Way/ 110 N/A 155 60 45/60 40
Railroad Right-of-WayIHVTL
Princi al Arterial Ri ht-of-Wa 120 � N/A � 165 70 55/70 50
R-2 (3+�
Collector Street Right-of-Way 140 N/A 170 50 30 30 �
Minor Arterial Right-of-Way/ I50 N/A 180 60 40 40 i
Railmad Right-of-Way/HVTL
Principal Arterial Right-of-Way 160 N/A 190 70 50 50 �
R-3&R-4 _: >: ; . . < : �
Coltector Street Right-of-Way I 170 I N/A I 170 50 30 30 �
Minor Arteriai Right-of-Way/ 180 N/A 180 60 40 40
Railroad Right-of-Way/HVTL
Princi al Arterial Ri ht-of-Wa 190 � N!A 190 70 50 50
C-1,�*C-3&C-4
Cotlector Street Right-of-Way 140 N/A I N!A 30 N!A 30
Minor Arteriai Right-of-Way/ I I50 N/A N/A 40 N!A 40 !
Railroad Right-of-Way/HVTL �
Principal Arterial Right-of-Way 160 I N/A I N/A 50 N/A 50 i
* N/A does not tupplant p�eviously specifud dimensions in Section�1
" Bufferyards or iacreases in yard area ia GI Drstrict shall be in addition to maximum�one area specified in Section 1.1
; SEC���o1v II. This ordinance shali be effective immediately upon its passage and publication '�
according to law.
Formally acted uport 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.
ora,�s-ss
Page�
i�� o osevnoun�
PHONE (612)423-4411 2875• 145th Street West,Rosemount,Minnewta MAYOR
FAX (612)a23520.'! Mading Address:
Edward 8.McMenomy
. P.O.Box StO.Fiosemount.Minnesota 5506&OStO COUNCILMEMBERS
Sha�ls Klassen
TO: Planning Commi.ccion �em�caea►s��u
Marry Wilkox
FROM: Richard Pearson, Assistant Planner o�,�;,W;p��,�,�
DATE: June 18� 199J ADMINISTRATOfi
SUBJ: June 22, 1993 Regular Meeting Reviews: Agenda Item 5 s`e°"�,�''k
Proposed Zoning Text Amendments - Discussion
PROPOSAL
Last October and November, Planning Staff suggested that the Planning Commission discuss
sev changes to the Zoning Ordinance that will be the first of a series of text amen nts
intended to ' g the ordinance into conformance with policies in the Compreh ve Guide
Plan. Addition the amendments are intended to provide cl�catio substance to
existing ordinances tha e perceived to be vague. Amendments ' uded with this proposal
include:
1) increased setbacks to major and m tho g ares, and railroads;
� 2) creating setbacks for pipelines;
3) enhancing landscape s s; and
4) lowering the m ' um density allowed in multi-family resi e ' districts to 12 dwelling
units per from 18 du/acre (but allowing density bonuses).
O r amendments such as the tree preservation ordinance amendment will not be inc ed at
his 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 thiity foot standard.
CITY COLLECTOR STREET ARTERIAL STREET
Apple Valley 30 to 40 feet 40 to 50 feet (minor}, 50 feet
(principal)
Bumsville 45 ft. (incl. minor art.) 50 ft. (principal)
SQ 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.
�ver�t�ings �oming �(JL�6 �osemounl��
� . . .. � � . `"J,«w.e oao« � �� �. � - . �� � . . � .
' ' June 22, 1993 Regutar 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 iailroads be treated similar to principal arterials.
SETBACKS FOR PIPELINES
Very cities have setbacks for pipelines esta.blished by ordinance. The Minnesota O ce of
Pipeline S was charged with the task of writing a model ordinance for cities in e wake of
the Mounds Vi tragedy. It took over a year for a recommendation that spec' ed pipeline
easement boundarie hould define a setback for any building.
Most ordinances have been 'tten consistent with the model ordin e. Fipeline easements
normally have extensive restricti on the use of land within t easement. A homeowner
might not be able to plant trees or co ruct a fence in the' ack yard if such an easement were
in pla.ce. Other improvements such as pav' and acces ry buildings would not be allowed.
Planning 5taff recommends that an easement fo ipeline (petroleum or natural gas) be treated
the same as a public right-of-way and that setbac or any building to a pipeline easement be
a minimum of thirty feet. The typical nt and rear yar tback for urban residential uses is
thirty feet and most neighborhoods ve pipelines adjacent to yards.
3) ErtH�vCE La�vnSCArE Arm�s
Generally, 5ection 8 , dscaping Requirements is effective for establishin inimum
standards for caping. However, some flexibility would be gained in the Ge ral Industrial
district by s stituting the foundation planting minimum of one planting per ten feet building
perimet or "Per Recommendation of Planning Commission". This substitution would
ap priate given the typical General Industrial building that has a significant amount of pav
ound at least one half the perimeter.
�s:.
' � r
��
.� � �� =p1'
. '� �
The comparable sales bracketed the subject property both in size and unit density. The
best comparable sales would be number three and five, both developed in Rosemount
with both single fa.mily and townhouse lots, although the subject property has almost
twice the density of comparable number five and SQ% higher density than comparable
three. A survey of comparable sales data did not reveal any sales within the past two
years that would be in the competitive environment of residential raw acreage sales but �
were not considered in this report.
The adjustments made to the seven comparable sales for undeveloped land were for
time, location, size and terrain. The adjustments appear to be consistent with current
market conditions with the possible exception of the time adjustment at a 1Q% annual
upwards adjustment may appear to be high.
The conclusion of the undeveloped land value on page 99 at $635,000 correlates closely
to the purchase price of$634,200 for the subject {that represents a combined price of
two parcels). This price represents undeveloped raw land.
Subdivision Anal,ysis
The appraiser developed a land value estimate by allocation for the "retail" value of the
lots. The allocation percentage of 20% was supported by the developer's estimates and
other townhome projects. It is consistent with the review appraiser's experience (only the
townhome land values are being analyzed as it is understood that Outlot B is proposed
to have twelve townhome umts placed upon it).
1fie 20% allocation of land from the average $115,000 townhome sale price results in a
land value of $23,000. It is important to note that the $23,000 represents the contributory
value of the land and site improvements when the project is completed, not as of the
date of appraisal in the original appraisal or as of the inspection associated with the
review appraisal. The difficulty with valuation of Outlot B or the entire 18.b8 acre larger
parcel is that it is dynamic because it is being developed.
The raw land value estimate or sale price reflects the improvements that existed
generally at the perimeter of the site and a "raw" parcel. A developer, through the
platting process and providing infrastructure to the platted lots creates value. This value
does not increase in a steady incremental fashion but increases significantly with approval
of the plat, installation of the infrastructure, development and sale of the improved
properiy. All these steps are necessary for the land to have the $23,000 value, including
an estimated development cost of $8,615 per lot (excluding developer's profit and
holding costs).
Page 2
Avulication of Apnraiser's Methodology to Outlot B
The appraisers were not provided with a survey indicating the exact size of Outlot B.
Based upon measurements from the half section map it appears to be approximately
125,000 square feet or 2.9 acres. The plat for the proposed 9th addition indicates that
there will be twelve townhome lots in the area of Outlot B. Application of the appraisal
� methodology to the subject will use both a per acre and per developable unit as units of
comparison.
1. Raw Land: Based on the undeveloped land value the 2.9 acres of Outlot B
would be taken times the $34,000 per acre raw land estimate from page 99
resulting in a value estimate of $98,600.
2. Retail Value less Development Expense: The retail and completed value of
$23,000 per lot less the developers expense of $8,615 per lot yields a net of
$14,385 per lot times twelve lots equals $172,620.
3. Subdivision Analysis: Applying the twelve lots into the subdivision model
_ on page 159 assumes that the twelve lots would be sold early in the
development i.e. five lots the first year, five lots the second and two in the
third year. Using the expenses a.nd yield rate contained within the model
(the model assumptions are consistent with the appraiser's experience and
typical practice of other residential subdivision analyses) results in a value
discounted of 205196.
for the completed lots $ ,
Consideration for 0utlot B
Outlot B represents a portion of a larger parcel taking the portion of the parcel would
reguire that the entire parcel be valued in the before state and the remainder in the
after state to estimate the just compensation due to the taking. For the subject property
it is incorrect to simply estimate the value of twelve townhome lots and assume that the
purchase of Outlot B containing these lots is the entire just compensation. This is the
"Federal Rule" as it applies to a partial taking.
1. Before and After Value Estimates: The proposed 9th Addition
development has fixed costs that would be spread over 111 lots including
Outlot B in an "as is" state and 99 lots if Outlot B is taken. A complete
analysis requires a before and after valuation of the subdivision but the
dimi.nution in value would be higher than the application of the unit values
from the appraiser's methodology.
2. Severance Dama�e: The proposed use as a fire station represents an
institutional use in a residential neighborhood. Generally speaking,
incompatible property uses to residential diminish the value of residential
Page 3
� . , i . . � . � .
properiy, such as a residence adjacent to a commercial, industrial or
institutional use. There is a probability that se�erance damage would be
appropriate for the remainder portion of the land due to diminished
potential sale prices especially for properties that are in close proximity to
the fire station,
3. Progress on the Development: The "dynamic" state of the development for
� the subject makes the appraisal date very important. 4n December 3, 1995,
it appeared that a portion of the infrastructure was in place and concrete
� blocks were being installed representing work in progress on the
townhomes. Even in a "quick take" process, the talang will not occur for at
least 9Q days. The project will be further along with respect to the stages of
development from raw land to retail land value and the enhancement to
value in that process.
This analysis is based upon our personal inspection and review of the property,
comparable sales, and application of the appraisal review process.
Respectfully Submitted, �
�� t�. 2���
� �- 2� �S�
I �
J. Scott Renne, MAI, CAE Leslie J. Racine Jr., SRA
Page 4