HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.c. Set Public Hearing - Zoning Text Amendment i S
City of Rosemount
Executive Summary for Action
City Cauncil Meeting Date: Tuly 6. 1993
Agenda Item: SET PUBLIC �IE;ARING- Agenda Section:
Zoning/Subdivision Qrdinance Text NEW BUSINESS
Amendments
Prepared By: Lisa Freese Agenda,. o:
Director of Planning �� ,# 7 �
/
Attachments: PC Review, Comp Plan Excerpt, Work Appr B .
Program,�Public Notice, Mailing List
The Planning Commission has been discussing a work program for completing the implementation
program of the Comprehensive Plan. A large portion of the implementation program involves
changes or additions to the zoning and subdivision ordinances. T'he Planning Cornmission has
decided that these amendments should be handled in smaller increments sa that they can be
implemented in a timely fashion rather that as one large package that will take until the end of 1994
to complete. Discussions are continuing with the Commission as to the timing of the various
subsets of the proposed amendments. Attached to this surnmary sheet is a draft schedule of tasks.
At the last Planning Commission, however, they identif'ied numher of changes that should precede
these major amendments. When the Comprehensive Plan is approved later this summer it is
anticipated that developers will want to proceed with those pending prajects so the Planning
Commission felt it was unportant to implement several changes irnmediately. At their last meeting
they made several recommendations: 1) to change maximum densities in the R-1 and R-3 districts
to conform with the 2.5 unit/acre and 12 unit/acre policy in the Comprehensive Plan; 2)
esta.blishing a 30 foot setback for principie structures adjacent to pipeline easements; 3) setting
standards for the size and type of planning strips and buffer yards along railroads and major or
minor thoroughfare right-of-ways; and 4) clarification of landscape standards in the General
Industrial District. 'These periding changes are discussed in a Planning Review prepared by Mr.
Pearson of my staff and is included with this packet.
On Tuesday, the City Council is encouraged to provide feedback to the Planning Commission on
the proposed amendments. A public hearing by the City Council is required far all amendments
to the zoning and subdivision ordinances. The Planning Commission is requesting that the Council
set a public hearing on the amendments for Tuesday, July 20 at 8:00 pm to consider these changes.
The Planning Commission will be finalizing the wording on these ordinance amendments at a
Special July 12 workshop as well a:s discussing future amendments pertaining to the subdivision
ordinance and stormwater management regulations for development.
Recommended Action: A Motian to set a Public Hearing on July 20 at 8:00 pm to consider
changes to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
City Council Action:
106 93.
z�� o osemoun�
:E (612)423-4411 2875-1<Sth Street West,Rosemount,Min�esota MAYOR
J( (612)4235203 Mailing Address: Edward 8.McMenomy
P.O.Box 510,Rosemount,Minnesota 55068-OStO COUNCIi.MEMBERS
Sheila Klassen
TO: Planning Commission �em�tR�s�ts
Harry Wilicox
FROM: Richard Pearson, Assistant Planner o����:w�,���,n
DATE: June 18� 1993 ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJ: June 22, 1993 Regular Meeting Reviews: Agenda Item 5 s`�h'"�''k
Proposed Zoning Te�rt Amendments - Discussion �
PROPOSAL
Last October and November, Planning Staff suggested that the Planning Commission 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 substanc� to
existing ordinances that are perceived to be vague. Amendments included with this praposal
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 residentiai 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 Lr1CREASES
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 Iakeville, 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.
CITI' 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 3Q ft. 50 ft.
40 ft, (high density)
Woodbury 50 ft. 80 ft.
C'�ver�t�ings �oming �UC� �osem:oun��l
r
. ..�. .�__._,.
� ' 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
rnowing. 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 fe�t (collector) and twenty feet (arterial) by ordinance primarily for
residential uses. Some of the ordinances indicated that the setbacks were for all principal
sfructures. 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 he 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 unprovements 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) Err�tvCE LAxnsCaPE S��m�xns
Generally, Section 8.3 Landscaping Requirements is effeetive for establishing minimum
standards for landscaping. However, some flexibility would be gained in the General Industrial
district by substituting the foundation planting minunum af one planting per ten feet of building
perimeter for "Per Recommendation of Planning Commission". This substitution wouldbe
appropriate given the typical General Industrial building that has a significant amount of paving
around at least ane half the perimeter,
' ' June 22, 1993 Regular Meeting Reviews
� Z.O. T�� 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 minirnum expectations
are set in-place, and enhanced performance can qualify for density bonuses or piatting
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 condifions may favor one variety of plantin� over another so that mandating an average of
opacity in a planting strip may be a val.id approach to the performance standasd. Sta.ff review
providing direction to a dev�loper to increase plantings or make substitutions would prohably be
the most effective way ta achieve a standard of opacity in any given situation.
Planning Sta.ff recommends that the reference to planting strips in the subdivision ordinance be
expanded to require that planting strips rnust be fifty percent opaque to a height of six feet at
the tune of installation.
4) REDUCE MA7�TMUM DENSITY A,LLOVti'ANCE FOR SII`'GLE AI�TD MULTI-FAMII,Y RESIDENTIAL
DISTRI CTS
The maximum density proposed for R-i Single Faniily in the housing element of the
Comprehensive Guide Plan - Update 2000, is 2.5 dwelling units per acre. The past policy lias
allowed 3 dwelling units per acre, as the midpoint for Medium Density Residential (Urban
Residentia.l 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 cunent 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 limita.tions in the R-3 and R-4
Multiple Family Residential Districts.
RECOMMENDED ACTION - No action is requested at this tune. Planning Staff is assembiing
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
� •� Z.O. Text Amendment ProposaLs
. Page Four
P�anning Staff requests that the Planning Commission discuss the proposed text amendments and
provide Planning Sta.ff with direction as needed far revisions. The following draft text
amendrnents have been prepared for discussion purposes.
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE - Ordinance No. XVII.4 Adopted October 19, 1972.
MOTIDN 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
right-of-way, the lot shall have twenty (20) feet of width andlor depth added ta the lot's side
adjacent to and abutting the right-of-way that is in addition to the miaimum standard required by
ordinance for the esrabLshment 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 stnps must be a minunum af fifty
(50) percent opaque for a mir�imum of six (6) feet of height as measured-from--the adjacent - -
elevation of the residential yard.
�RDINANCE B - ZONING ORDINANCE
MOTION to recommend to the City Council to adopt an ordinance amending Sectian 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 grea.ter 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 canservation 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.l
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. �
MOTIfJN 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 accordingiy 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 zaning and subdivision text
amendments.
.�MPLEMEN�'A?'ION P.LA.N
1fie Comprehensive Guide Plan establishes the City's growth objectives for the 1992 to 2000
planning period and beyond. The Imple�nentarion Plan, on the other hand, describes the programs
and procedures the City will need to successfully achieve its vision. VJithout a pIan of action, the
Cornprehensive Plan will be of reacti��e value only. The Implementation Plan's real value is as a
proactive body of public policy which establishes priorities and balances public needs.
This Lnple�raentation Plan includes the following elements:
I. Additional Studies
II. Ordinances: Zoning and Subdivision
III. Capital Improvements Pro�am
N. HousinJ
V. Inflow and Infiltration Reduction
VI. Tran�porta.tion/Official Mapping
VII. Parl:s and Trails
VIII. Tree Preservation and Replacement
IX. Public Services
X. Economic Development
XI. Plan Amendments
I t�DDI770NAL �TUDIES
_ _ Durin� the course of the develo,�ment of Update 2400, several areas_have been identified warrantin�_
�--.�-- furth��-study. In several cases these studies are currently under way and the initial findin�s have
been included in this guide plan update. In order to compiete these studies, however, the City rnust
solidify the proposed Land Use Plan and Urban Service Boundary. _
Transportation Study (west side): .
In 7une, the City comrnissianed OSM, consultin� engineers, to conduct a Tiar�spa7ation Study on
the western one-third of the City. Their task was to investigate existing conditions, model present
and future traffie, and investigate and make recommendadons on the timin� of roadway
unprovements. Initial work has been completed and has been incorporated in the guide plan update.
Upon approval of the Plan, further analysis will be necessary to refine the timing of necessary
roadway for incorporation into the City's on�oin� Capital Improvement programming.
Highvc�ay 52 Corridor Study:
In coordination with the City of Inver Grove I3eights, Dakota County, and MnDOT, the City af
Rasem4unt has agreed to participate in a study of Trunk Highway 52. The intent of tlus study goes
beyond the frontage road concept develoged as a part of Update 200Q. The scope of the study will
identify the future functional classification and develop design concepts for Trunk Highway 52.
CITY OF ROSEI�40UNT $ECTION VI - 1 1ANUARY, 1993
When the functional class�cation is agreed upon, the study will develop aiternatives for the Trunk
Highway 52 corridor capable of accommodating the projected traffic flows and street extensions.
East End Utility 5tudy
In November 1992, the City of Rosemount initiated an East End Utiliry Study. The study being
conducted by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. will develop a sewer and water plan
for an urban service area in the Pine Bend/Eastern Rosemount area. Wnile this area is nat included
in the City's Interim MITSA, an area for urban industrial development is incorporated in the City's
Year 2004 MUSA.
Duti�nto«rn Development Plan '
Early in 1992, the City Council appointed a Downtown Scoping Committee. The cornmittee is
examining commercial development, focusing on the Central Business District area, and pravidinb
recommendations for a detailed land use plan in the downtown. This plan would supplement the
broad direction provided in Update 2000.
Business Park Concept Plan: Section 32
In November 1992, the City Port Authority initiated a Business Park PIan for Section 32, south of
County Road 42 and east of Trunk Hishway 3. The concept plan being developed by SEFi
Consultin� Engineers, will provide: 1) an overall concept plan showing road, utility, and business
lot locations; 2) a proposed phasing of the project coverin� the 400 to 500-acre area; and 3)
estimated eosts for infrastructure.
�.�. ,�RDINANCE 1�EVISIONS - - � -
77ie prinuzry imple�nentation tools of tl�e Cot�zprehensive Guide Plarc are tlie Zoning and Subdivision
_. Ordinaz�,ces. 77�ese ordinances are t�ie o,�cial controls tliat will erzable tlze Ciry to pro-acrively
urilize tlze Guide Plan and ac3zieve rlie Ciry of Rose�nount's visions_for tlte year 2000.
Zoning Ordinance
The Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1989. Amendments to the ardinanee are necessary to
implement the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
1. Establish a Plazrted Residenxial and Mixed-Use Developrnent District for sensitive land use
transition areas and to preserve unique topographic features. The R-L Low Density Single
Farnily Residential District should be eliminated and replaced by PUD - ResidentiaL
2. Establish Inte�im Ilse Permit (IUPJ and/or Conditio�uzl Use Pen�iit (CUP} provisions to
legitimize some existing non-conforming uses with performance criteria and to enhance official
controls as needed. These mechanisms will promote greater flexibility within existing zoning
districts. •
3• Expand locational criteria for R-3 Mulriple-Farnily Residence District to go beyond the
Rosemount Central Business District {CBD). Expand locational criteria in the Purpose and
CITY OF ROSED40UhT SECTIOv VT - � r...••.�.. ,��^
Intent paragraph in accordance with High Density Residential plan elements that are not
dependent on the CBD.
4. Establish perfornzance standards for Muld-Family Districts that specify density bonus
requirements. Maximum overall densities will be lower per ordinance if the density bonus is not
requested. Examples of performance standards include, but are not ii.mited to: 1) enhanced
architectural or aesthetic treatments; 2) private recreational amenities; 3) enhanceri
landscaping, parking, open space, and/or building setbacks. ' .-
5. Reduce the maxin:u�n deruiry allowed in R-3 Mulriple-Fatnily Districts to twelve (12) units per
acre from the previous ei�hteen (18) dwelling uruts per acre. Up to eighteen {1$) dwelling units
per acre would be allowed with conformance to performance standards.
6. Modify the Purpose and Intenr paragraph of tlie R-2 Single-Fwnily Attaclted District to
discoura�e development of additional manufactured home parl:s. Existina manufactured home
parks should not be rendered non-conforming.
7. Consider expanding the list of perniined uses under R-1 Attached Single Family by PtID to
accommodate density bonuses allowed for adherence to adopted performance standards.
8. Analyze tlie results of the Downtown Scoping Committee to consider refinements as appropriate
to the Commercial Districts.
9. Rezone as necessary and an:end zoning �nap:
1) Broback Industrial Park: Industrial Park to Residential;
2) University Addition: Industrial Park to Residential,
3) CMC 104-acre Site: Industrial Park to ResidentiaUCammercial; �
4) Kelley Trust Property: Agriculture and R-1 Single Family Residential to Residential PUD;
5) 15-acre Islamic Community Cemetery Site: Agriculture to PUB (Public or Quasi-Public);
b) East of Shannon Parl.�vay, West-of Chipp�ndale, South of CSAH� I�Torth ef 152nd
Street West: A�riculture to Mixed Use Pi.T�;
7) Lots 4, 5, and b, Block 3, South Rose Park Addition Replat: R-3 to Business Park,
8) South Half of Section 32, Ran�e 19, East of Chippendale, and West of STH 3: A�riculture
to Business Park.
� 10. Idenrify Non-confonriing Uses and enhance non-conforming use provisions.
11. Adopt the model Stonn Wiuer Manage�nent Ordinance containin� storm water design criteria or
standards for new storm water ponds in conformance with the National.Urban Runoff Pro�ram,
as mandated by the Metropolitan Council.
12. Establish a Tree Preseruanon Policy and Ordina�zce.
13. Establish a Sidewal�:/Pedestrian Corridor Standard for nei�hborhoods to connect the City trail
system.
14. Establislz Site Plan Review Requirernents for parking lats of more than fifteen (15) spaces and
development of slopes that are in excess of twelve percent (12�) gradients.
15. EstablisJz a Condirional or Interi»i Use Perniit for any tower or structure to be built 200 feet or
higher.
16. Create a Conservancy Zoning Disrrict consistent with the Conservancy Iand I3se Desi�nation.
17. Review the R-1 Single Fal�iily Disnzct and detennine if the district needs to be revised or
additional districts are necessary to increase the diversity of the City's housin� stock.
18. Repeal the Industrial Park (IP) District and create a fle�bie use Business Park (BP} District
with appropriate standards re�arding outdoor stora�e, setbacks from residential uses, loading
facilities, landscaping, etc.
19. Create a Co��servarzcy Zoning District that is in conformance with the policies of the Plan.
-
CITY OF ROSEA10UhT $ECTIaN VT - 3 .JANUARY, ISg3
20. Differenriate sewered and unsewered general industrial areas in the east end of the City by
creating a Rural-Limited Industrial District intendetl primarily for existing industrial uses outside
the proposed eastern MUSA.
Subdivision Ordinance
The Subdivision Ordinance was originally adopted in 1972. Adoption of the Guide Plan will --
necessitate major changes to this ordinance. Among the needed changes identified are: 1) .
increasing setbacks to major thoroughfares and railroads; 2) converting all references of "VillaJe"
to "City"; and 3) clarification of the lot split/administrative plat process. The overhaul will
streainline the ordinance by removing repeaied sections and consolidating definitions and
exemptions.
�TTI' OF Rncq'�4rlt 1\'"T' Cci-�rrn�� VT _ d T ..•.•..,.� �nr1�
City of Rosemount �
Summary of �oning Districts
MlNIMUM MAXIMUM
ZON.ING DISZ'RICT z,o�A�a vE�►sr�
AGxICtTLTUR.AI. . .. � :- :::> :: ::
AG Aaricultural 2.5 acres 1 unit per 10 acres
AG-P Agricultural Preserves 2.5 acres 1 unit per 40 acres
CONS Conservation N/A Density at time of
enactment �
RU]EtAL RESIDENTIAL
RR Rural Residential 2.5 acres (platted) 1 unit per 5 acres
5 acres (unpIatted)
URBAN RESIDENTIAL
PD-R Residential PUD* N/A 2.5 units per acre
R-L Low Density Sin�le Family Residential"* 20,000 sq. ft. N/A
R-1 Sin�le Family Residential 10,000 sq. ft. 2.5 units per acre/
• 4.0 uniu per acre
R-lA Single Family Residential 10,000 sq. ft. NIA
R-2 Sinale Family Attached Residential�-fa��y> 12,040 sq. ft. _ 6 units per acre
R-2 Sin�le Family Attacheci Residential�+ ra��y> 18,400 sq. ft. _ 6 units per acre
R-3 Mult-�rle Family Residential (Attached) 22,500 sq. �t. 12 units per acre/
18 units per acre
_ . _ R-4 Multiple Family Residential �---� —2`�,�BQ sq. ft. 40 units per acre
� C4R�IlVLERCIAL
PD-M Mixed Use PUD N/A N/A
G1 Convenience Commercial 15,000 sq. ft. NIA
G2 Communiry Commercial N/A N/A
C-3 Hi�hway Service commercial Q.5 acres N/A
C-4 General Commercial 20,000 sq. ft. NIA
Ixvus'r�uaz, .
, _
, _ . ,,
BP Business Pazk*** � N/A N/A
IP Industrial Park**** 0.5 acres NlA
IG General Industrial 5 acres N/A
LI Limited Industrial Rural 5 acres N/A
WM Waste Management 5 acres N/A
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
P Public or Quasi Publie N/A N/A
FP Ftood Plain N/A N/A
*` Replaces RL x°�x Replaces IP
'�'� Will be deleted in favor of PD-R '�x~'� WiII be deleted in favor of BP
CITY OF ROSE�'fOU\T Crr-rTnv \�T _ � r ..•....,,. ,�n�
/ / � / . � � � � .
� — — — — — I
/ / � I /i
- �����m������m���mmm�����
---��-------.�--_-------
i �-------------_---_--�
�� i
� , � � � .. , -- -------------_-!
I�:,..;. � ��, ■■■■■■■ ■■�■■■.■.....■�
�� ----�-- --�-----------I
'��� , , ,, ,��� ---��- ��----_—_�---
� �� , , . • ,� .,���„., �----- --------------
----------------_' � ' �'
� � I�o�� �� , ----------------------_-
� --��----------_-------
���!!!1�!1,��!!!!������ ��O�������������
� . :�.,,.� ��,,, ,:, ����� ���������������
�,, . ., , , , . ��������� �����������
, . .,, ����������� ��������
� ;, '.-,-; .,',, �������������� ������
I :_ ,�.: ; , ,� . ���������������� � � :: t���� ` , �a �����
� . ; ..�, , �������������������� ��
�� ,: ���������������������
, a �,:..„:� 1��e��������������� �
� ������������������������
��������������������������
i�� o osevnoun�
PHONE (612)4234411 2875-145th Street West,Rosemount,Minnesota MAYOR
FAX (6t2)4235203 Mailing Address: Edward B.McMenomy
P.O.Box 510,Rosemount,Minnesota 5506&0510 GOUNCILMEM9ERS
SheilB Klessen
James(Red)Staats
PUBLIC NOTICE Ha�ry w�u�X
Dennis Wipparmann
TeX� Amen�len�S t4 AOMINISTRATOR
City of Rosemount Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances stePna���►k
T4 WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, the City Council of the City of Rosemount will hold a
public hearing to consider the items listed below on Tuesday, July 20, i993, in the Council
Chambers af the City Hall, 2875 145th Street West, beginning at 8:00 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as possible.
The purpose of this hearing is to consider Text Amendments to the City of Rosemount
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances that will result in:
1} increased setbacks in residential districts to major and minor thoroughfares and
railroads;
2) creating building setbacks for natural gas and petroleum transmission pipeli.nes;
3) clarifying landscape standards in the General Industrial District and defining Planting
Strips / Bufferyards;
4) lowering the maximum density allowed in muld-family residential district (R-3) to
twelve (12) dwelling units per acre from 18 dwelling units per acre (but allowing
density bonuses).
5) establishing a maximum density of 2.5 units per acre in the R-1 Single Family
District.
Copies of the proposed amendments are available for review and comment at City Hall
located at 2875 145th Street West, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday.
Persons wishing to speak on these proposed amendments are invited to attend this public
hearing on Tuesday, July 20, 1993 at 8:00 p.m.
Dated this 7th day of July, 1993
Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk
City of Rosemount
Dakota. County, Minnesota
�ver�t�iv�gs �omtvig `(Jl.p �osemoun���
�
c..e��<�b,a�,
DRAFT
i�� o osemoun�
PHONE (612)4234411 2875•t45th Street West,Rosemount,Minnesota MAYOFi
FAX (612)4235203 Mailing Address: Edward B.McM�nomy
P.O.Box 510,Fiosemount;Minnesota 55068-0570 COUNCILMEM8ER5
5heila Kiassen
James(Red)Staats
n Harry Willeox
Jllly 7� 1973 Dennis 1Nippermann
ADMINISTRATOR
Stephan Jilk
RE: Pending Ordinance Amendments.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
1fie City of Rosemount is considering Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance text amendments that will
change some requirements €or future residential, commercial and industrial development.
The amendments are part of the implementation program resulting from the City's Comprehensive
Guide Plan - Update 2000, and the policies that are contained within.
The following is a list of objectives that the amendments will be intended to accomplish:
1) enhanced definition of "planting strips" with performance standards adjacent to major and
minor thoroughfares, and railroads;
2) development of setback criteria far naturat gas and petroleum pipelines;
3) modification of landscape standards to increase flexibility and reduce the number of variance
requests that may involve landscaping;
4) lowering the maximum density allowed in single and multi-family residential districts but
creating "density bonuses" that would enable residential development to occur at existing
densities through the application of defined amenities or enhanced performance standards.
5) adding a Storm Water Management regulations in conforrnance with regional policies and
requirements.
Discussions regarding'these and possibly additional amendments are ongoing with the City Planning
Commission. A recommendation regard'tng each will be forwarded to the City Council for
consideration�at a future public hearing: The City will attempt to inform interested parties of the
date} time and location of the public hearing,
Please contact Richard Pearson or myself at 423-4411 if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Lisa 3. Freese, AICP
Director of Planning
U' ver���ing's �oming �U�� �osemounl��
�
�...P���,o„A ,
� � . . . . \ � � . .
Lee Johnson
U.S. Home Corporation
8421 Wayazata Boulevard, Suite 300
Golden Valley, MN 55426
Thomas O'Leary ,
Rosemount Properties of Minneapolis
2415 Annapolis Lane, Suite 109
Plymouth, MN 55441
Timothy Broback
Rosemount Development Company
3480 Upper 149th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Steven Fiterman
Ground Develapment Corp
1550 Utica Avenue South
Muineapolis, MN 55416
James Allen
Hampton Development Corporation
12433 Princeton Avenue
Savage, MN 55378
Herb Wensmann
Wensmann Realty
3312 151 st Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Wayne Delf'uio
CMC Heartland Fartners
547 West 7ackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Timothy Dwyer
Kelley Trust
Fiamm Building Suite 425
408 St. Peter Street
St. Paul, MN 55102-1187