The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5. Zoning / Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendment - Continued from July 20, 1993 4 City of Rosemount Executive Summary for Action � `i City CounciZ Meeting Date: August 17, 1993 Agenda Item: ZoningjSubdivision Ordinances Agenda Section: Text Amendments PTTBLIC HEAR.ING tcontinued from 7i2fl} Prepared By: Lisa Freese Agenda No: Director of Planning �� Attachments: Memo; Propased Ordinances Appro ed 'By: (2) ; Illustrations; PC Review; Public Notice; Ma.iling List. ' This hearing was continued on July 2�, 1992 to t s meet g to allow developers additional opportunity to review and comment on' the amendments. The attached memo discusses some of the concerns identified by the City Council and those speaking at the last meeting. Copies of the amendments were sent to all developers on the mailing list. Recoamnanded Action: A MOTION to adopt ORDINANCE B-30, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B, CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE. �i`!-fr� `{� �ti,f�,��j�n O b `1-�,� �,�l�I,Q,v� �L�V i S i tMS A MOTION to adopt ORDINANCE N0. XVII.103 , AN ORDIN.ANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE XVII.4, CITY OF ROSEMOUNT SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. City Council Action: 08/i'7/93.OPH . z�� o osemau�� PHONE (612)4234411 2875-145th Street West,Rosemount,Minnesota MAYOFi FAX (672)423-5203 Mailing Addreas: Edward B.McManamy P.O.Box 510,RosemarM,Minnssota 55068�OS1Q COUNCiLMEMBERS Sheila Klassen TO: M1y01' & City �OLtI1C1I James(Aed)Staats Hatry Wilicox FR4M: Lisa J. Fxeese, Director of Planning oe��w��,�,n ADMINtSTRATOR DATE: August 13, 1993 s��na�.,�►� RE: General Comments on Propased Text Amendments A number of concems were identified during the discussion at the public hearing an 7uly 20 regarding these proposed text amendments. I thought in preparatian for your reconsideration of this item on Tuesday that it would be helpful to reuiew some background and legal principles associated with these amendments. Ptp�,nvE Sa�'�['Y At the last meeting Councilmember Willcox expressed concern regarding the pipeline setback and whether it is adequate. Included with this memo is a copy of the report that was produced by the Office of Pipeline Safety after the Mounds View tragedy in 1986. The report provides the basis for the Planning Commission's recommendadon to require setback of thirty feet for principle structures. It was felt that this is a reasonable requirement and anytlung more restrictive cannot be substantiated without extensive study of the pipelines in Rosemount. SETBACK/BUFFER YARD/DENSITY/STANDARDS • During the course of the comprehensive plan update a number of difficult decisions regarding the appropriateness of residential development adjacent to certain areas such as rnajor roadways, pipelines and railroad tracks were considered. The policies adopted in the plan need to be implemented in the form of regulations in order to require develapers to adhere to those standards. - The objective of these standards are to insure that lots created through the subdivision process will be quality lots that will continue to have high resale value long after the newnesS of the development wears off. The�City will have to serve the homeowner for many years after the development is complete and there is a responsibility that the City has to make sure the lots created under the subdivision ordinance will provide trouble-free, quality living to the greatest extent possible. If the City needs to go back into a development and put in sound barriers or other types of mod�cations to resolve issues that were knawn at the time a development was approved, it can be quite costly, embarrassing and can cause hard feelings among the property owners. Requiring reasonable standards at the front end is the best solution. The ordinanee changes presented to you by the Planning Commission are intended to address these deficiencies in the City's ordinances. A considerable effort went into d�termining whether or not these standards vvere reasonable. The Commission reviewed other communities requirements and toured developments in those communities. , �( �verr�l�i�.gs �oming ��i �Jlosemount�� n . . _ _ . Pcoposed Teact Amendments - August 17, �.993 Public Hearing Continuation It is important that minimum standards he established far setbacks, buffer yards and densities. Without defini.ng these minunum standards, city staff cannot provide clear directian to developers. Developers always have the option to ask for modification of these standards for their specific proposal. The City Council has at its disposal mechanisms to vary these standards. The subdivision ordinance has a variance procedure and the zoning ordinance has a Planned Unit Development Procedure which can provide fle�bility in application of minimurn standards. The City cannot impose standards which are over and above the minimum standards in the ordinance even if adopted policies encourage them. Important polieies should be codified into ordinanees. This legal procedure places the City in a more credihle positive position to make requirements mandatory where appmpriate. If a desired standard is not in an ardinance the City can only seek voluntary compliance. A.PPLICATION OF ORDINANCE CHANGES TO EXLSTING/F�JTURE DEVELOPMENT At the meeting the City Council expressed concem as to whether or not these regulation changes would impact developments currently being considered by the City. The setback regulations as drafted would apply uniformly to all new subdivisions and may impact existing preliminary plats under certain circumstances. Currently most of the preliminary plats approved in the City have some of these regulations stipulated in the development agreements_ If it is directly addressed in the contract, the agreement takes precedent over the zoning and subdivision regulations. If it is not directly addressed in the contract, State Statute protects the developer from such rules changes for a two year period after the approval of a prelimirrary plat. Beyond that time frame the Ciry has the right to impose new restrictions on approved plats if it is deemed appropriate by the City Council. At the current time we have no preliminary plat applications pending. We know that two or three emerging developments are in various stages of planning by the different developers. They all have been notified of these changes and are encouraged to comment on the proposed regulations. Whenever you change regulations it will affect someone either positively or negatively. Unfortunately, unless the City puts a moratorium on new plats, there is never an optimal tune to make adjustments to the ordinance. The City needs to begin a some point to change direction if it intention to reach its objectives. Changes will be painful and will require some case by case exceptions'. It would be my strong recommendation that as you develop your regulations that you focus on your objectives for the long term rather that the focus on the adjustments that will be made necessary in the short term. � - z�?� o osevnouvi� PHONE (6t2}4234411 2875-145th Street West,Rosemount,Minnssota MAYOR fAX (612)423�5203 Mailing Addrass: Edward B.MeMenomy P.O.Box 510,Rosemount,Minnesota 35068-0510 COUNCILMEMBERS SheNa Klassen August 3, 1993 �ames cR�st�� Harry Witicpx Dennis Wippermann Interested Developers AOM�N�sra►roR Stephan Jiik Re: Pending Ordinance ehanges that may impact Developers in the City of Rosemount. To Whom It May Concern: This leiter is a follow-up to previous carrespondence describing proposed ord.inance changes that will have an effect on pending developments in the City of Rosemount. The City �Council opened a public hearing on Tuesday, 7uiy 20, I993, to discuss the ordinance amendments. Only one representative of the Development Community sgoke at the public hearing. As a result, the City Council decided to table action on the amendments until August 17, 1993, in an effort fo provtde additional opportunities for comment. The public hearing will be reconvened at 8:00 pm. on August 17, 1993. Persons wishing to comment may do so at that time. Written comments will alsa be considered if attendance is not possible. Please contact the Planning Department at 423-4411 if you have any questions. 'Thank you for your attention in this matter, Sincerely, C�� ,,2�:.P�.-- ` Lisa Freese Director of.Planning cc: Mayor & City Council Planning Commission City Administrator �vert�l�tngs �omiszg �CIC�i C>�,osemourcPll .. CI'T'Y OF ROSEMOUNT oxDnvarrcE No. B-3a AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONIlVG ORDINANCE Section 1. Section 7.2 C SUPPLEMENTARY YARD REGITLATIONS of Ordinance B - City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is amended to include: 5. Where a lot or a parcel of land abuts or is traverserl by an easement intended for or containing a pipeline conveying natural gas or petroleum, principal structures shall be setback a minimum af thirty (30) feet fmm the pipeline easement l�aundary. 6. Where a yard has been increased in size to include a planting strip or buffer yard, principal and accessory building setbacks will be increased accordingty to protect xhe buffer yard from building encmachment. ADJACENT USE BUII,DING SETBACK Railroad right-of-way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 feet Principal Arterial row (Major Thoroughfare) . . . . . . . . 50 feet Minor Arterial row (Minor Thoroughfare) . . . . . . . . 30 feet Collector streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 feet Section 2. Section 6.7 R-3 MULTIPLE FAMII,Y RFSIDENCE DISTRICT, Subsection B.2. Uses Permitted Bv Right of Ordinance B - City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows; 2. Multiple Familv Dwellings Apartments and accessory uses at densities•no grea.ter than xwelve (12) dwelli.ng units per gross acre. Density bonuses o� 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 in addition ta minunum ordinance requirements. Such amenities may�include but ar�e not limited to, intensive landscaping, outdaor group open space, indoor and outdoor reGreational : amenities, high quality design standards, energy conservatian, provides for mass transit needs, or a proposal that satisfies unique and special market niches and needs for affordable housing. Ord.�JB-30 Page}of 4 Section 3. Section 7.1 D.IlVIENSIONAL STANDARDS of Ordinance B - City af Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows: Minimtun LoY Size (ft) Minimum Yards (ft) Other Standards Diatrids Zone2 WSdth(ft) Area Depth Froct Sidel� R�sr D�um D�Bldg Lot9 Unit(sf► �°��Y Cover AG N/A 300 2.5 AC 50 30 30 1f10 AC 50 N/A N/A AG-P N/A 300 40 AC SO 30 30 1l40 AC 50 N/A N/A RR N/A 2004 2.5 AC° 40 30 30 115 AC 35 N/A I�tlA RL NIA 110 20,000 180 30 15 30 N/A 35 30% N/A R-1 N/A 80 IO,OOd� 125 305 10 30 2.5/AC 35 30SK N/A R-IA N/A 80 10,00d1 125 305 512 25 N!A 35 3096 N/A R-2(SFj N/A 100 12,000 120 305 10 30 b/AC 35 30% NJA (3+� N/A 120 18,000 150 30S 30 30 6/AC 3S 95% N/A R-3 N!A l50 22,500 150 305 30 30 12/AC 35 75% 500 R-4 N/A 150 22,500 150 305 30 30 40/AC 35 ?5% 500 GI i AC3 150 15,000 125 305 106 106 N!A 35 75% N!A C-2(CBD) N/A N!A NtA N/A N/A N/A N/A 35 N!A NtA G3 .S AC 120 0.5 AC 30S 106 106 NIA 35 75% N/A C-4 t AC 120 20,000 305 106 ]O6 N!A 35 759G N/A IP 5 AC N!A 0.5 AG 3Q 30� 3d7 N/A 40 75% N/A WM lb AC NIA 5.0 AC 75 50� 50� N/A 75 505f� N/A IG 10 AC N/A SA AC 75 50� S0� N!A �5 SOSE N/A P N!A N/A N!A 30 30? 307 N/A 40 755E NIA FP N!A N/A NJA N/A N!A N!A N!A N!A N/A N/A � For ndditiomi rcquiremeats refe�to Section 7.2.Supptcmcnttuy Regulntions;Sccaoa 8,Off-atreet Purking;snd Section 9.Speeiul Overiny Regulauans. Z Unless contiguous W an existing sueh district. 3'It�tee(3)acrca maximum zone siu. 4 300 feet width md 5-aere lot size minimum when land is not ptntud. S Refer to Section 7.2 C.4.a.for esmblished front yartls. 6 30-foot minitnum side or rear yatd where abutting m'R'DiaVict. � Refer w Section 7.3 C.2.c.for buiidiags exceeding 35 feet ia heighG t, 8 UnitslGross Acrc. 9 Iacludea sWcwres.Pnved per};ing area.a�other impsrviaus surfaces. 10 Sec Section 7�C.2.n,and 7.2 C.2.b. �� Comer Lou in Fri shall have a minimum of 12,000 aquure feet ia arw. --:::, - 12 5 feet for single story reaidencu:10 fxt for two-story reaidencea. --. Ord.#B-30 Page 2 of 4 Section 4. Section 8.3.B. M]QVIMUM NUMBER OF PLANTINGS of Ordinance B - City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows: :.:}>::« ::<::€:>:�`:::;`>;:><`:;>;;;;:>:�;»::::::;::::::::::::r:::::.::;.,. ��'>�4'tatzi�°�>':><:>�:::`�>�::::�;`�:�::>:::;::::€:;`:::;<;:�;:;:;'>:::'�>:::>>:�_::�<'�:::>::::<::' ':;{........................:...,:::.:::.::.�::::::::,:::::::::.:::...,............................ .:.�E3I1�3A.'�T':<;;<,>: .OAt;` :::>,<>:.:><>->:::::<.:::::::::::::::.:::....:.::.:: r:'��` -:<;:�:::.:>:::::i::::':::?::::;r;::r:.:::;;::::.::::::j.''.:::.;<:''�:'<:::..::::>::��:;::::.>:<:::;::«:';;,:::._: ::::>::;:::':;::�:::::.,::;�.<:.;:;.;>;;;.::;;.;;:::<.::< ��e �.'i"...:: ...,.,... .;:..,:::. :. . ::r.:_.:.::.;�:;:.;:.. ...:�.. �: . �:�'�::::�'�::�::::::::>::>::,:r.::>::>:<:::�:>:=::::r::>:>:>�>: �..;4�:::.:::......................................................:�.�;tsa.�'��t��;;;:: AG None None ........AG-P......'None................................. ...... . ..........., ..... ...............,.........--None� ............................................................... ......... ......................... ..................................... ....._............ RR 2 trees/unit/frontage� �None ............................................... ....................... ...... ......... ............................................... RL 1 treelunit/frontagef........................... None ............................... ......................... ........ ............................................... ................. R-1 1 tree/unit/frontagei.............................. �None ............................................... ......... ........ ...........................,........................,................... ................. R-2 1 treelumtffrontage� None ............................... ......... ......... ......... ................... ......................... ................. R-3 1 tree/open spaee umt exposure� � � �� 4(foomote) ............................... .........:............... ..P..,. ......... ...... ................................ .... � ..........�..... �..... R-4 8 trees minimum lus T treelunit� ootnote ............................................... ....:............p... ......... ...,.... ......... .... � .........)..... R-4 8 trees minimum lus 1 cree/2 unitsg� � d� oomote ............................................................... ......... ....... ......... ......................... ,...♦.... ................. All Cs 8 trees or 1/3,000 sq. ft. land area7 . ............................................... ......................... ....... .......:.. ................. IP 8 tress or 1/3,000 sq. ft. land area�.�................�.....+............�.(footnote) ............................................................................... ......... ........ ........................ .... ................. IG Per Reconnmendation of Planning Commission �(foomote) ......><>:>:t<:;:::>:: ...... .. ......... .. . .... ... ................ ............................... Trees:;;;>: ...... .;:.;;:.;::::;.:::�:«.::.>;:.;:•:::::::.::;•:�;::;::-;;:.:s;:�.;:.;:-;;::;;.::::.:.;:;:.;•::..;»:.:;>:z:;>•;><::•>;:<::�.�,:::::..::.::.;;:_:.�:•::.>:<•;:.;:•;;:.;:<;.>:.:�:.:.;:.;:.;: shall be deciduous,planted at the boulevard of each tree exposure. 2 Two Family Dwellings: Trees shall be deciduous,planted at the boulevard of each street exposure. 3 Other Attached Dwellings: Trees shall be deciduous;spacing must include trees ac the boutevard at fifty (50)foot intervals. 4 One foundation planting per ten (IQ)linear feet of building perimeter{principal or accessory)andlor an equivalent value in overstory trees, or combination thereof. 5 One to Three Story Building: Spacing mus[include trees at the boulevard at fifty (50)foot intervals. b Over Three Story Building; Spacing must include trees at the boulevard at fifty (50) foot intervals. � Whichever is greater: Spacing must include trees at the boulevard at fifty (SU) foot ' intervals. $ One foundarion planting per five (5) linear feet of buildin�perimeter(principal or accessory)and/or an equiva}ent value in overstory trees, or combination thereof. Sect'ion 5. �Section $.3.C. M�rrnvlU�v1 P1,p,l�trrNG STr�tn�[tns of Qrdinance B - City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is amended by adding the following: 11. Planting strips or bufferyards intended to screen residential uses from adjacent cornmereial, industrial or public/institutianal uses, railroad right- of-way, major and minor arterial and collector streets must be a rninimum of fifty (SQ} percent opaque to a height of eight feet at the time af installation if vegetative materials are used, and/or seventy five (75) percent opaque to a height of eight feet if inechanical screening is used. o�a.�e-sa Page 3 of 4 Section . 2his ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOP'TBD this 20th day of July, 1993. Crrx oF ROs�ovrrr E.B. McMenomy, Mayor A�sT: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk , Published in the Dakota Counry Tribtcne this day of , 1993. Ord.#B-30 Page 4 pf 4 Crr� oF RasEMourrr Ox�INAtvCE No. X�II.103 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. XVII.4 SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THE CITY C�UNCIL OF THE CTTY OF ROSEMOUNT, MII*1NESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. SECTION 5.8 Pt.AtrrrIl�tG S'r1uPs of Ordinance XVII.4, City of Rosemount Subdivision Ordinance, adopted October 19, 1972 is amended to read as follows: � a. Planting strips shall be piaced along lughways and railroad lines to screen the view and to reduce noise levels in residential areas. Where a residential lot abuts a major thoroughfare or principal arterial right-af-way, the lot shall have an additional fifty {50) feet of width and/or depth added to the lot's side adjacent to and abutti.ng said right-of-way that is in addition to the minimum required standard for the gurpose of establishing pianting strigs. Where a residential lot abuts a railroad or minor arterial (ar thoroughfare) right-of-way, the lot's side shall be increased by thirty (30) feet in width or depth adjacent to said right-of-way. Where a residential loi abuts a collector street right-of-way, the lot's side adjacent to and abutting said right-af-way shall be increased in width or depth by twenty (20) feet. SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective immeciiately upon its passage and publication according to law. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT E.B. McMenomy, Mayar A�s'r: Susan M. V�a1sh, City Clerk Published in the Dakota Caunty Tribune this day of , 1993. �ENT BY�Xerax Telecopier 7021 ;10-19-92 �12:04P� � 6122969641� 1 ��2 423 5208t� 4 STATE OF MZNNESO�A . DEPARTMENT OF PUa��C SAFETY '. ' OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY Tn the matter o� the presposed 3�'ATEMENT OF NEED rule o� the Department o� Pub- AND R£.ASONABLENESS lic 5afety ado�ting a Model . setbac}c ordinanca. GENERAL STATE�IENT . The Minnesata Legislature adr�pted statutory languag� mandating that xesident3a3 devel�pments be "s��Gb�ick" �rom high pressure p�.pelines. The Lagislature todk '�he action bas�d on a r�Commendaticn fram �h� Governoz�s Cammission on Fipeline Sa�et�. Th� Commission w�s an dtltgrowth a� the trz�gic pipeline aceident in Mourids Va:ew, Minnesota, in �ha �ummer o£ 1.�86 that incinerat�d h city blocks and taok two lives. The Legislature sugg�sts thraugh the model .setbaa}t that �► saf� $istance grom high pressure p�pelines could be determined and that the publ�.cs � safety �nhancad. � In general mini�num p�.peJ.ine sa�ety regul�tions are pez�ormanc� hased. The fR�eral govarnmen� sets minimum standards far cansistency throughaut the countsy. States are allQwed to i�sue or pramulgate rulemakings that are more stringent than federal minimums. But the g�neral working framewark in the design, cc�nstruation, oper3tion, mait'itenal'i�e and em�xg�ncy operatiori . ot. pip�lines ar� pertozmarlCe based. In ccntrast most stat� �gencies seek specifia ar.c� detail�d xegu7.at�.ans. zt would b� incons:stent and �.ncongruous with the nat icanti,ride model ot pipeX�.ne sa��ty to change such parform�nc�-based safety � s��naaras un�.�$S the sa�ety issue to �ha pubY�.c �.s of a nature that the condition could be hazardous and federal response is l�mi'�ed, A state .mus� stay within the parameters� oP a regulatary �ramewar}c that fs performance based. In such ].a.ght, tha •o��ice is is$uing this rulamaking wi�h the uz�derstanding that the marginal bene�it ta safety from a setbaak zs �ot grea� enough to �.nitiate an ordinance bayond performance language.. Initiating a rulemaking beyand the �cope o� perf4xmance would give the public a false s�nsa of sa�urity. Tt would be impxvdent fcr the Office to mak� a promise that knowingly canno� be fu7.��.11ed. � 3 SENT BY�Xerox Tetecopier 7021 ;10-19-82 �12�04PM ; 6722969641i 1 612 423 5203C# 5 zn pursuit of this setbaak ordinanc� the 0ffi�e entertainad extensive conununications with znterested and affected parties. . Priar to �he public outzeach the Of��ce sought � 'tharough xevi�w of the nation�� and international exparieriCe with setbaaks. As a guidepas� the Office rev�ewe�, analyzed, evalu�t�d an� pr�oritized tha xasults of a study by �he National T=ansportation Board �hat specifical2y considered setback in the �nterest of sa�ety. • The Report of the National Txansporta�ion Baard of the National � Research. Council, Special Report 214 "Pipeline and PubliG S��ety" ' discussed recommendations for e�hancing p�pelina safety. Sp�cifically these recommandations wera organized into thzee issue ssctiaris: 1} d�mag� preventian and public �wareness programs, 2) �and use measures, and 3) . emergency� preparedn�ss progxams. This rul�making is con�idered in the sectian on land use maasures. �he repart discussad �and use m��sur�s by saying' "control o� l'and use � in and adjacent to p�peline rights�of-way is another approach to enrianc�ng public sa�ety naar p�pelanes. Th� ob�ec�ive of such caritro� i� �o ensuxe land uses campatible with pipeline safety. Th8 primar� authority to irist�tute such land use controls zs vest�d in local governm��ts thraugh the police powers conferred by the state. » In rega�d to setbac3c conditions, the �tudy :reparted two critical issues: ��what is an adequate aetback di��ance, and what is the cost o� restrit�ting davelopabJ.e proper�y xelativa to the b�r�efits oi° preventing pipeline accidants?" The report conclude� th�►t "ther� �ppear to be � �no • def3nitive answers t4 the first quest�.on. D�tezmining a sa.ngle ctistance �or safe setbaek from liguzds ar gas transmission pipslines is GompZicated because the damage radiu� of an accident yr� affeated by the si2� of the pip�, the pressur� at wh3ch it is operated, the material cnrri.ed, the dap�h o� caver, the climata, and the character of the terrain near th� pipeline. " Th� Amarican'��txoleum Institute conduc�ed an "analysis of tZe damage radius o� a sample of liquids pipeZir�e acc�.dents. The analysi� �howad '�hat two-thirds o� the deaths and damage and th�e�e- �'ourths of the• injuries �aused by 11.qufds pipelirie fa;ilur�s toak place within 150 feet of the poin� of dischargei only 8 percent nf the deaths, and none af the �in�uri�s, and � percent o� the property� ' dam�ge oacurr�d beyand 1/2 miXe fxom the pipel.ine. Thesa rasul�s could be �.nterpreted to provide �up�ort for minimum building setbacks of 150 feet fram ex�stzng pipelines to provide a good margin oP safety, How�vex, ths sacand i6sue of east rema�.ns ta be addressed. '� . The report continu�d: "Casts and ben�fi.ts of �imposing � se�back rec�tixxement can best be deter'm�.ned at the l�eal level, whare the benefits gaa.ned by r�duci.ng the risk o� a po�en�ial pa.peline failur� in a city or county can be balanced ag�inst the casts of limiting developmant. Costs arid bene��ts are determined by such 2 1 \ SENT BY�Xerox Telecopier 7021 �10-19-92 ;12�05PM ; 6122969641y 1 612 423 5203;# 6 factors as the ex�a�ure of local popula�fons to a potential p#.peZine �2tiJ.uxe and the stxength of loa��, r�al esta�e market�. �� 1�1so, "thexe is so much difficulty sssociated with developing a se�.baok standard to apply ac�ross a varie�y o�' different local c�.zcumstances, without being p�ohibitively exp�hsive, that the decision to impose s�tback requirements ha� gerlerally been lef� ta the discretian o� localities. " In essence the report focused on the lack o� clea� definition of what is a safe distanc� snd the potential prahi.bitive cost ot denying use o�• large� tracts of land. The Offioe, usinc� this study a� a ��.artir►g poin� agree� with the phzlosQphical tenet of the study. The Offiae hel.ieves that performanGe language is �he most • xeasonable method to de�.ermine a setbaak. Pipeline. operators ara required to desi$n, constxuct, operate and maintain a system thnt i� s�a�e. The �ffice beliaves that the i.r��erit of the Lsgislatttz�t� is addressed by recognizing easements as the� bas� definition of distanca. x�t our affort to de'termine a "sa��" distaryce and evaluate th� cast of this distanca the 0�fice initiated a. task farce titled I3and Use � Measures Ta I7nprove Pipeline Sa�ety (LUM'1'ZPSy . LUM'1^Yp5 was made up of 42 people representing the diverse interests impaQted by a madel setback orditianCe. Pipelil'ie operators, iszdustrial and� cammercial developers, bui.lders� as�ociation, �municipal representatives and others met and discussed the intent and purpcse a� the utadel s�tback. � Th� axtend�d meetings revolved around the legislativa mandat�� and a1l.awed -Por free :�lowing discu�s�.ans af the safety attain�:d "arid a'� what leveX �atety was increas�d by a satback. The participants could not conclude that a spacifia distance incr�ased the margan • of safety expeated at a cost that was not unrea,��nabl�. The OttiCe b�lieves� that any increasQ in the margin of sa�ety sr��uJ.d bs substantive befare a rulemaking that inclLide� a speci�io dist�nca is instituted. The margin c�� safety must be evalur►t�d,ir� light of the cost also. � LUMT2�'S donsidered �.he vara.ous t�setbacks'� found in present� 7.aw and by example.� C.F.R. 395 requires a 50. �oot �setbaak from liquid pipelines unless added caver is provided. The Federal �iauring Admin�.stration denies �inancing tp srty ham� within 10 teet of a high pressure pipel.zn�. The �zre marshal '� a�saciation . urged conszderatia]� �� a 64 �oot setbaak.to accommadate �i�e equipment -• • access �o a p�.peline failure. Industry repres�ntatives iizdioa'�ed � th2�t a general aetbaak of 50 ta 1d4 feet is Bougnt through tha purch�� pracess o� xi.ght-oS-way. Th� City o� Edmantan, Canadn, was the on3y community fdunc3 to h�ve a speei�ie setback. LUMTIPS rev�.ewed state leg�slation and 14�a1 ordinances that re�tr�.cted in�ring�ements on p�.pekine aasat�ents, encroachment 3 SENT BY�Xerox Telecopier 9021 � 10-19-92 :12�06PM � 6122969641� 1 612 423 5203;# 7 pXograms of �he industry, lccal plari�ing ag�naies review of developments near pipslin�s, and eas�rnent rgcords, and documentatian. zncluded in this pres�ntation is background . intormation raviewed and evaluated by LUMTIPs. The intens� review by LUMT'IPS and the thorough �tudy by the Transpor'Gat�.on Research Hoard convxnces tha 4�:��ce o�' Pipeline Safe�y performance-based setback is mast approp]C�.ate. The easement �.s the distance ar� operatc,� has determir��d i� th� bet�t to achieve a safely eons�Gructed, operated and maintained pip�].in�. � ,�,TATUTQRY AVTHORIT� These rules ar� �peaifical3y authori�ed by Mitinasota Statutes, sectio2ls 239J, OS EFFEC�' OF TH� RULE ' These rules will have a direct effect on p�rsons wha operate pipelina sys�ems and each statutory or hama rule chart�r city, town, or county that has planning and zoning authority und�r ' Minnesota Statu�es, sections 366. 10 to 366. 19, 394 , Z1 to 394 .37, or 462.351 to 462 . 365, and in which a pipeline �.� located. �� BUSINESS COtLS2DER7�i7'IONS Miynneso�a Statutes, section 14 . 1.15 requiras th� vff�.c� to consider the eff�ct on small businessas whan �.t adopts rules. � The businesses af�ected by this pax-t are nat small bus�.nesses as defined by section 14.115, subdivision 1, FEES IMPO�ED BY THE RULE� The rule does not �'ix any fees nor does the statute au�horizing pramul,gation of �he ru].es requira th�� a.ny �ees`', be �ixec�. . Thcare�ora, no approval. f rom the Crsmmissioner o:� FinanGe is needed. FIBCAL ��'8CT Adoption a� zhis ruZe wi11 not raquire the �xpanditure of public money by lo�ai b�a�.es. L'"T�t�7IR�NMENTAL EFFEC�� . Adoption o� these rules will h�ve no negative ef�ect oi� the quality of air c�aC water in tha stata nor will the rules have a nagativ� . ef�ect on the qua�.f.ty and �mount of agriaultur_aX �.and. These rul�as will help th� p�'��ce of Pipe].ina sat�ty protect the quality c�f air, water, and agricultural land in the stata from the ef�ects af pipeline leaks. � 4 �ENT BY�Xerox Telecopier 7021 �10-18-92 ;12�OnPt� � 6122969641i 1 612 423 5203�� 8 Rul� by Rula Analys3.s 7535. 0100 DEFYNITTON$. subp. i. It is neGessaxy to defina tarms whiah are• used in this chapter, but 7nay b� found in othar sti�.t.utes or rules, with ditferent mean�.ngs. It is reasonable to clarify' what .tndividual terms mean within this p�rt to ensure the explicit scope and appliaation for which this chapter is irt��nd�d. subp. 2. =t is necassary� to expZ3.o3.tZy de�ine which structures cor�stitute a bu�.ld�ng with3n this part. It ig reasonable that buildings which are designed prim�rily for human occupanay, and any �ttached struCtuzes, be included within th� detini�ian a� a building z.n order to assura that the minimum s��back�•�t�r�d�7^ds are applicable to the rasidentis�l and other development �oz which they are intended. . It is alsa necessary to state explicitly that appurfi enances r�quired �'ar the aperation arid zctaintenance of a pipeline system are excluded �rom the definition of bui7.d�.ng in order to assura that the safe op�ra�tior� af the pipelina is not undu�y r�stricted. This � exception is reason�ble becaUse it speci�ically allows the tspexator of a pipeline system the necassary flexibility to op�rat� and maintain the3r system safely and effective�.y. subp. 3, It is necessary to exp].icitly define co�missianer as th� commiseion�x of public safety in ord�r to prevent any confusion related to the authorities at'�d responsibilities �ssa�ia'ted with this chapt�r. 8ubp. 4. It is neces�ary to� dePine othez devel,opment in the _ context of the legislativs intant to establish a minimutn distz�nce from pipeli.nes in which res3,dential or oth�r developraent may occur. zt i� reasonab].� to :Cnclude withir. the definition a� othe�c d�velopment, th� types of development whiah �r�n't cansi,dexed residential, but �Qu].t� be designad �or human acaupano�. �ubp. 5, It is necassary -ta explicit;.y define pipelina in order to clarity �he applicabi�.ity of this chapter. Zt �.� �easor�able to maintain the detini�ian of pipel�.ne specified in statute. :3ubp. 6. Yt is necessary ta d�fine pipelina eaaesnen� �s the exi.sting easement or ths n�go'�iated eas�ement resulting from a blanket easement in order t4 establish clear meaning to �h� term which. establ,is��es the requisite minimum setbaak distanca. This . definitS.on is reasanable beeause it genar�lly correspdnds tc� a distance determi.ned by the operator o� a . pipelxne system to be necessary for the sa:�e and efficient installation, r�p�rat�.dn and maintenan�e of their pipeline system. . 5 SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 9021 � 10-19-92 ;12:07PM ; 6122968641� 1 612 423 5203F� 9 subp. 7. z� is necessary ta defin� plaees oF pub�ic assefibly to assure that the minimum setb�ck standards �r� maintained for areas � u�a�saciated wi�h a buiiding, �s de�ined in this part. It is reasonable to defin� place� o� publ�c assambly consist�nt with tha defin�tion �ound in tha f�d�ral regulations which specify �he • minimum standards for pipe�ine safety. �pb C.F.R. Title 49 - Subcha:�� D. 192 . 5. ?53 5.02 C10 PIIRI�OSF7. • . The purpose af th� madel setbac}c ordinance i5 'Co enhance publ.ic safety by inhibiting the d�velapment of p�copart�r near pipel�.nes. I�. zs necessary to ea�tablish minimum standarda �ar setback r�quirements �.n order to assure that a n►inixnum s�tback distance is maintait��d. Lc�cal gov�rning authdrities will be allowed ta excead the minimuzn sstbacic standards, and' furth�r enhance public •satety. Tt �.s reasanabla to raguire that new residentis2 arid other devalapment b� setback �rom �ipelin�s by at lea�t a minimum standard, because the risk associated with a pipe2ine incident increases as the dist�nce frora the pipeline decrease�. 7535.0300 SCOPE. _ As required •by Minnesrsta Statutes, section 299J. 05, paragraph (b� , this setbacic orditzance wi7.l agply to aach �tatutory or hame rule charter city, town oz ceunty that has planning and zoriing au�hor3t�y under Minnesota Statutes. It is necessary that the model setback or�inanoe ar��ompass a31 3.oca1 governing authax'�.ties i1'� order to 2�ssura that the requi��d Yninimum standard is app�.icable a.n all 1.ocalit�.es. It is reasonable to apply the setback ordinanc� to all. lacalities becausa, as a minimum standard for setback distar,ce, the gdal i� nat met un3.ess it is applicab�� throughout the ��ate. 7535.0400 AD47?TION OF aETBACK URDINANCE. � subp. �.. This subpart establi�sh�s a timetrame tor each afPected juzisdic��.on to adopt thei�' own spec7.fic s�tback ordinance whi.ch m��ts or exceetis th� minimum standards s�t forth in �par`'ts �535. 0400 and 7535. 0500, as required by atatute. It is necessary �o promote _ adopt�.on of s�ecifi� s�tback ordinance� in individual jurisdicti.ans witha.n a specified time in orde= to prevent unnecessazy delay �.n� �2i� a�optian of minimum standarda. The specified data, Augus� 37,, 1991, �is r�quired by Statute. Subp. Z. This subpar� unilatera].ly appl3.es the madel setback ordinance adopted in th3.s ehaptez to a17. affected juriscii�tions _ which have not adopt�ad appraved satback ordinances within th� specit'iec3 time�rame. It is nece�s$xy to pxovide far the possi}a�l.ity ot �urisdictions b�ing unable to adopt an approved se'�back ordinance within the speci�ied tim�trame. zt is reasonable, and required by statute, tha� the madeX setback 5 SENT BY�Xerox Telecopier 7021 �10-19-92 �12�07PM ; 6122969641i 1 612 423 5203;#10 ordi�anae apply to thase jurisd�ctions, in order ta assure min�mum standards are appliaable to all �urisdictions. ' Subp. 3 . Z� �s neaessary �o specify �he proce�s for whiah commission�r appr�vel will be gran�ed, or nctices of deficien� areas wil� be pxovided. Commissioner spproval �s r�quired by � s�atute. This subpart specifias �hat a proposed ��tback ordinance shal� bs compared �a the �definitions a�d model setb�ck ordinance adopted in this chaptez �o assure that �t mea�s dr excG�d� the .minimum standards set �arth part 7535. 4500. It is necess�x�y' to gauge a propos�d setback ord�.nance again�t '�he minimum standard in order �o assure that the zninimum standard will be maintaincd. This subpart also raquir�r a wri��en de�ision by the cornmissianar be sent to the jurisdicti,an within 5o d�ys of rsceipt, and �hat . the decision specify either appro�,*a1 of the ordinance, or ar�as of defici.ency, with xecommended modificat�,ons. zt is necessary to speci�y the physic2�1 process tor raview and trie assacia�ecl �imeframe. It is reasonable to require a writt�n natice af determ�.nation, as a r�at�er �if rscord. It is, a].so reasariable to require a wri�tan natice o� areas . which are det�rmined �o be deficient, and possible correctl.va modifications, in ord�r that -t.he jurisdiction is pxovided direction towards an apprcvad setback ordiriance. 7535.OS00 MODFT.� SETSACR ORDINANCE. Subp. l. Tt is n�ce�sary that th� purpose of this model setk�ack ordinance be ax�ressly �ta►ted as an at�exapt to inexease public sa�ety by requiring that new d�velopment be setback from pipelsne loca�ions. =t is reasonable ta requixe a setbaok �rom pipelina locations, in an at�empt �.a inGrease gublic sa�ety, b€:cause the assacia�Cad risk from a p3paline incident in:cxeas�s as the distance �rom the pipeline decreases. _ _ gLtbp. 2 . _ :It is riecessary. tf� e�cplicitlx state th�: d�velopment for wh�.ch this paxt applies. Minnesota �tatutes, section 299J.05, paragx'�p3z (a) s�eci.�'ies that the u►odel setback ordiriai�c� shall be $pplicable only ta new development, and not ta development that has accurred, or f4�' which developznent permits have been issued, betora the effecti.ve date o� this ardinance. Subp. �. zt �s ��►ece�sary to specify that �11 buildings an� pSac�� of publiG assemhly sub�ect ta �h� provisians of this ordinance shall be dasigned to aceommodate a setback from the pipe�.ine equal ta or grea�er than the pipelina �asement boundar�.es, so �hat the minimum setback d�.stance is understood to ba a dis�ance equal. ta �he pipalin� easament boundarie�. The requirement of a minimum setb$ck di��noe equal �a the pipel.ine easement boundaries is 7 ScNT 6Y:Xerox Telecopier 7021 �10-19-9Y �12�08PM F 6122969641i 1 672 423 5203�x11 reasanable dua to the �ons�daratians giv�ri to safety and eost. It has been shown in re�earch referenced earlier in this docume»t that a s�fe distance �rom a pipel�.ne in th� event af an it'�.cid�nt is dependent on t� number of wide ranging faotors including the size of pipe, preseure, ma�erial aarried, depth c►� cover, cl�.mat� and characte�r oP terrain. Further, limit�d stud�.es have shr�wn that even� at a di.stance �� 15o feet �rom the poin� af dischax�ge, ona third o� the deaths, and one �eurth of the injux�.�$ woul.d not have been pravQnted. In addition, the costs and b�nePits asaociated with impasing a. setback distance will vary grsatly among jurisdictions. Du� ta tha dif�iculty in quantifying a spea.i�i.c setback distance th$t would en�ure publio safety, without b�ing prcahibitively expensive, the establishment of a setbacK dzstance equal, to the p7.peline easement bo'�ndar�es provides a r�asonable minimum s�andard which local �urisdic�ions c�n evalua.te ar�d excaed, a� they deem appropr�.ate. GONCLUS39� � The prapasad model setback ordir�ance specified in thi� chapter provides a starting point to a�ssurE triat new residentia7. and othez� developments ax'e setback from pipel.ines. Prior research has shown that the inar�a�ed public safety and fi.nancial� impaat related to specific setback di.starices vary greatly among jurisdictions. Thir si.tuation makes the daterminati.on of a speci�ic distance to specify as a minimum setba�k xequirement di�ficult at best. Th.rough the cour�e of research and extend�d discussien, t3�.e LUM7'IPS tAs3c �orce d�t�Y1�i27ed that the rnost equitabla me'thod c+f increasing �ublic safety wi�h a setback dis�ance was to develop a perferxnanae base+3 standax'd, and allow indi�idual jurisdictioz�s the apporttiriity ta evaluate their own uniqu.^. situations, and determine whs�hex to exceed the mirtimum standard. � 8 z :i SENT BY�Xerox Tetecopier 7021 � 10-19-92 ;12�09PM ; 61229696411 1 612 423 5203;#12 . . , . . � 69-2400-52�5�1 �`��6 ti l8 Jg�, • ,�,� � ��, � S'CA'tE 4� MZNNESOTA -� pPR1991 � OFFIC� OF ADMINI57RATIVE H�ARINGS � N►irsn. L)aPE. of .''i°. °° Pubtla 58t+h' ,� FOR TN� MZNNESOTA D£PARTMENT OF PUBLIC 5AFETY '�,c�P�p.1te��afehr,�� OFFICE OF PIPEI»zN� 5AfET`( . c�1�IS0��'�'�� In the Matter of the Proposed RT OF t�E Rul e of the State Department of 8��--�— Pub11c Safety Adopting d Model qDMINtSTRA7T�lE l.AW 3_ 1t DGE 5etback Ordinance. The above-entitled matter came on for hearing be�"are Adm9nistrative Lax Judge Steve M. Mihalchiek on Tuesday, March 12, 1991 cammencing at 9:00 a•m- in Room 11b8, Adminlstration suilding� b4 Sherburne Avenua, in the City o� St• Paul , Minnesota, ThjS �eport is a part of a rule hearing proceeding held pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 14.131 - 14.20, to determine whether the Department of Public Safety has fu3f1] led alt relevant substantive and procedural requlrements of lavr, to determine whether the proposed rules are needed and rea:sanabte, to determine whether the Department has statutory a�thorlty to adoP'� the ruies and to determine whether or not the rules � if modified. are substant�ally different firom those originally proposed. Members of the agency panel appearing at the hearing included: Lee T9schler� Acting Director ot the Office of Pipeline Safety, Sr�an P1erzlna, Senfor Englneer, pav9d Orren� Management Analyst, Paul W. Norgren� and Joan M. Archer, memBers of the Land Use Measures to Ymprove P1pellne Safety Task F'orce _ (LUMTiPS), and Nancy Bade, AsSistan� Attorney Genera.l . Appraximately 12 persons attended tfle hearinq and eleven signed ttte registration sheat. The Department submlt#ed 20 xritten exhibits. 7hree written c4mments xere submitted by members of the pub) 1c. This Report must be available for revlew �o a11 affected �.ndiu9duals upon request for at lea5t flve warking days before the agency takes '�ny further action an the ruiets) . The Department may then adopt a f7na1 rule or modify or vrithdr�rr 1ts proposed ruie, Zf the Department makes changes in the rute Qther than those recammended �n thts report� �t must �submit the rule with the complete hearing recQrd to the ChSef Adm#nlstratfve Law Judqe far a rev�ew of the changes prior to f1na1 adoption. Upon advptlon of a final rute, the agency must submtt 9t ta the Rev9sor of Statutes f'or a revl�w of the form of the rule, The agency must also give notice to all persons xho requested to be lnformed vthen the ru�s is adoptnd and filed with the 5ecretary of State. • Based upon ali the testlmony, exhibits, and writ�en comments, the Adminlstrative Law Judge makes the fotlowing: bENT BY�Xerox Telecopier 7021 ;10-19-92 �12�09PM ; 6122989641a 1 612 423 5203.tt13 , �I N(?I NGS 0� FA�I r . 1 . Qn January 17, 199I � the Depar�ment filed tlte folioNing documents with the Chief AdminiStrative Lax Judge pursuant to M1nn. Rules pt. 1a00.0300, subp. 1 : • <a) A capy of the proposed rutes approved by �he Revlsor of Statutes. t£X. A) . � cb7 An 4rder for Heartng. CEx. 8) . <c) A proposed Notice of Nearing. (Ex. C> . td) A Statement of Need and Reasonabteness. CEx. D> . Ce) A Statement o4' the number of parsans expected to attend the� hearing. the ttm� needed i'ar an a�ency presentation, and a Sfiatement af Additlonal Public Notice. <Ex. E). . 2. On February 4, 1991 � the notice qf hearinq and the proposed rules were pubiished at 15 State Register 1722. tEx. .L) . 3. On January 31 , 1991 � the Department malled the Nottce of tiearing to ail persons and assa�iatlans who had reglstered their names Nith the Department for ttte purpose pf recelving such notice. CEx. N) . : 4. On �ebruary 6, 199� , the Department f11ed the follOwing documents xith the Adminlstrative Law Judge: <a> Tt�e Affldavjt af Mailing the rule and Statement ofi Need and . fteasonableness to the Legislative Gommisslon to R�v1ew Admintstrative Rules. (EX. F> . Cb> The agency` s certificd.tian that 1ts mailing list +aas accurate and complete. 4Ex. G> . tc) The Affldavit of Mailin� the Nottce of Hearing to all persan� an the - agency{ s :mal3ing 1ist. {�x. H> . _ Cd) The Affldavlt o� Mailing discretionary natice of �he hearing. {Ex. I> . (e) An Affldavit o�' Service of Natice of the Hearing ta the Board members of the Rea] Property Section of the Minnesota State 8ar Assoctation. CEx. J> . (f> The Notice a� Intent to SoliCit 0utslde Opinion regarding the proposed rules published actober 31 , 1488 toge�ther wlth the camments received. {Ex. K> . , ' (g) A copy of the State Register containing the Notice of Hearing and proposed rules. cEx. L) . (h) A copy af a publication entitled Pipelines and Pu6lic Safety prepared 6y the Transportatlon Research Boa�rd of the htatlonal Research Council , as xell as other rePerence ma�erials used by �he members of LUMTIPS. (Ex. M) . (1) A Statement of the aqency pers4nnel who rrould appear at the hearirtg. (Ex. N� . S. On February 29, 199I the Department submitted a revised Statement o1' the members of thp agency panel at the h�earing. (Ex. 0)• -2„ SENT BY�Xerox Telecopier 7021 � 10-19-92 �12� 10PM � 6122969641� 1 612 423 5203;�14 .. The documents were avaitable fvr inspection �t the Office o€ : Adm9nis�rattve xeartngs from the date of filing to the date af the hearing. b. At the hearing on March 12, 1991 the Department submitted thQ �Pollowing documents: � . Ca> An Aftidavit af Mailtnq natice flf the date of hearirtg to persons submlfiting a request for a hear4ng. tEx. P) . Cb> A copy af cArrments recelvsd by the Departmenfi from the publlc since February 4, 1997 . <Ex. Q3. <c? The members o� the 1991 CUMTIPS Yask Force CEx. R> . ' . td) A proposed madtfleation to the proposed rutes. (Ex. S) . 7. The periad far submission of written comment and statements �Prom fihe pub}ic remained open through March 19. 1991 at 4:30 p,m. , flve working days after the hearing. 7he record rematn�d open for an additional thxee working days through March 22, i991 for responses to earller submissions. S a 3� rv Authori t . 8. •- The Department states that statutory authortty for the proposed rules � 5 set out at Minn. Stat. § 299J•OS. That statute pravtdes as fallaws: <a) 7he commisslane�- shalt adopt, by December 31 � 1990, a tt�odel 4rdinance under chapter 14 requiring a� setback fram pipellnes in areas where residential or ather development 1s aiiowed. 7he modei ordinance must� apply only to nex developm�nt and not to development that has occurred, or for xhlch development permtts have been lssued, before the • effective date af th¢ ordtnance. <b) 8y August 1 , 1991 . each statutory o� home rule -- Charter sity, tawn� or County that has 'planning and zoning authority undex sections 366.70 to 366.19, 394.21 to 394.37, or 462.35i to 462.355, and tn whlch a ptpellne is located, shall adopt a pipeline setbacic ordinance that. meets or exceeds the minimum 5tandards of the modei ordinance and is appraved by the tommissioner. The model ordinance appiies in a _ �_ _ �urtsdiction where the .local government unit does not adopt a setback ordlnance that 1s approved by the commisslarier by August 1 , 1991 . Additionally� M1nn. Stat. § 2993•44. sub�. �1C�) provides that the Gammiss9oner shali adaptdri�ss enerallstatuto§y2authority to�adopt the�p.raposederuiesS � demonstrate g Na r of�,�osed Rule 9. As �khe statute cited above indlcates, th1.s rute contair�s a model ordtnance for adoption by clties, towns, or� counties which e5tablishes a 1 _�_ - BENT BY�Xerox Telecopier 7021 � 10-19-92 �12�10PM � 6122969641� 1 612 423 5203;�15 ' ., s tback fr`om pipeline si�e� �here residential or other development may occur, e The rule as orlg�nally praposed pravlded deflnitions � guidellnes for adopt on oF the ordtnante by political subdivisions aidethe� modet�sorb$r�a�te�ithangthe itself rrMtch provided a setback from a p1pe1 �[ . plpeltne easement boundart�s.° 10. The adaptl4rt af the ruie xill nQt require thQ expenditure of pubiSc money by lacal public bod�es withln the meaning of Minn. Stat. § l4,it . subd. ° 7 , beyand that� requtred by tfie 3egislature 1n mandating adoption of the riwGel ordinance by palitical subdivislons. See a1so, Findings of Fact No. 34. The rule does not f1x any fees.. Neither does the rule a�Ffect smali buslness within �he maaning of Minn. Stat. § 14.1t5. r..�._a._..+�.�� b.-n�ii ct�Tlt Of tt19 pt"OD04�f� �2� ' 11 . The portions of the proposed rutes which were sub�ect to comment or presented problems, are discussed beloH. Any ruie or ruie� subpart not discussed 15 faund to be needed and reasanable and fn compl-lance �rith all reievant substantive and pr�cedural requirements of 1aw or rute. " �i nn Rt�t p 75'�� 0100 — Defi 1 tlot�s_ 12. M1nn, Q�,tp 7�t3..5 010 5ub,�2 defines "building" . "BuSlding° 1s d�fined 9n part as "a structure designed primarily for human use or occupancy inctuding the businesses, offices, educa�lonal fac1littes , med�cal f�Glljtie5 , restdances and instituflan�." Wliliams Pipeline Company commented that the phrase "human use" is op�n to lnterpretation and suggested further defin�tlan in order to avold 31t1gatlon over whether stara�e �uildings. 9arages , sheds , -- stables , barns, ponds, playgraund equipment. above—ground swlmming pools or hockey rinks would be intluded.- tEx. W, p. 4) . The .Depar�ment commented that storage buildtnqs, sheds, stables , barns, and similar structures are generally not cansldered designed fior human use ar occupancy. It felt that sNimml;ng poo3s, however, would appQar to mPet the def9nitio� of bulld�ng as propased. It further stated that utility and communicatlon transmisslon 11nes, as well as structtires 'hausing utility and cammunicattons equipment rrould not be within the definition since 9f human use or accupancy is incidental to the purpase of the bullding, the building Nou1d be permltted -under �he model setback ruies. C�x. X, p. 12) . The Repartment �herefor� doss no� beiieve that any� modlfitati�n ot` addltton to the deflnition ts necessary. Th8 def4nition 1s not so vague or ambiguous as to be legal7y deflclent. 7he deflnt�ion 1s needed and reasonable as propased. 13, M1nn Ru1�_7_„�3 O�Q�s— b�o.� defines "pipeline e�sement° as "the existing easement or the nego�lated easement resulting from a blanket easement." �tilliams Pjpetine Campany ar9�stedhthaththenfollowtngidefinition� is one wh9ch 1s flied of record. 7t sugg be used: _4- SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 �10-19-92 t12�11PM ; 6122969fi41� 1 612 423 5203;tt16 "Pipeltne easement" means the easementts) that is recorded w�th �he Reqistrar of Titles or Recorder of Deeds on the sub�ect property. Witliams suggests �hat the existing definitlon mlght tause sameonr to have the false lrnpression that samething other than an easement af record cauld be used to describe the terms and tocatlon af the easement. tEx. W, p. 2) . The Department stated in its past—hearing comm�nts that tt does not bQlisve that th15 modificafilon of the definitjon Hau1d be apprapriate. It appears tha� 1t is the practice of pipeline campa�ies to record every easement since it fs 1n thetr best intere5t. However, in the event that an easement is nat recorded, A it is stjil neressary to require an appilcatlon of thts rule. Tfie Departmer►t also seelcs to use the dei`lnition to encauraqe the nego�iatlan af specigic easements frarn bianket easem2n�s after installatlon of the pipeltne. The Department dfd sugqest that the definition could be clari�ied as folloks: Subp. 6. P1c�e11ne e�sement, "pipellne easement" means the existing easement ar a subsequent easement resulting frQm the negottatlon of a change 1n the boundaries of �he exlsting easement. � The Department suggests that this more clearly state its intent, (Ex. X, p. i) . 7he ch�nge �tould not be a sub5tantial one but 1s merely a clarification. 5o modifled� sub an rt 6 t�as been shown to be needed and reasonable. , Minn. Rute 75:�5.04�O�dbntion of Setback Ordinae e 14. 7�35.0400. subn. i requires each jurisdlction to adopt and approve a �etback ordlnanC� meetittg or exceed9ng �Che mtnlmum standArds set out" in these rules by August 1 � 1947 . A number of cities �.nd counties expres�ed cancern about the cast to them of adopting an ordtnance and enforctng the ordinance. . The Department tto�ed that the Leglstature dealt with this contern in th� statUte by providing that the model sethack ordinance applies automatica�lly to — � — a- local gavernment unit that does nat adopt and approve- the ordlnance by ---- august l , 1991 . It also nated that the Legislature asstgned the adminlstratlon and enforcement of setback ordinances to local government and sfiated that the tncremental increase in po] icy and pracedures necessary to carry this aut should not be signi�Flrant. The Department noted that 1t fiad no authorlty to speclfy fees or fixed costs regarding the admints�ration or enforcament. CLx. X, p. 10>. The subpart is needed and reasondbie as _ _ proposed. _ - M�np R�t e 7�,35 05� Model Setbac,,�Ord nance 15. �,i nn. �i .e. 7535.Q50Q, sub� as f1 rst proposed provi ded that "buildings and places of pubiic assembiy sub�ect ta this or.dinanre must b� designed to accommadate a setback fram the pipeline equai to ar greater than the pipeline easement boundaries." A large number of cbmm�ntors fiound thls language to be ambiguous. 7he Depar�ment agreed. It stated that when it praposed the subpart it lntended that �he setback baundaries would be identicat to the easement baundaries . It therefore praposes to adopt the �ollowing moc3lf�cation: .,�_ �ENT BY�Xerox TelecoRier 7021 �10-19-92 �12�11PM � 6122969641� 1 612 423 5203�#17 SUbp. �. �.�5. Buildings and places of pubt �c assembly sub�ect to this ord�nance shail. nof be � constructed closer to the pipeljne than fihe boundary of . the pipeiina easement. The Oepartment states #ha� this change would clarify the dimensions of the setback and minlmiza the potential for misinterpretation. tEx. S? . A large number of commentors supported this mod;�lcatlon. It does not constttute a substantlal change slnce 1fi merely clarifies the orlg9nai lnfient bahind the rule. � 15. W111iams Pipeline Company supparted a sperlffed setbatk dis�ance i�rom the pipeline rather than the proposal wfiich equates the setback dlstance xith the easemen� boundaries. rt argued that a spetifled dlstanc� wauld provide a vnifarm and cvnsistent distance throughout the 'State of Minnesota and the boundary couid be determined without the need of a survey. It sta.ted that the rule as proposed and mddlfied does not provide a reasc�nable setback far pipellnes an narrow easements and wouid no� provid� far a setback frorn p9pelines located by vlrtue of ltcen5es or permtts such a5 most railron,d properties, public lands� and U.S. government lands. •tEx. W, pp. 2-3; sQe a1so, Ex. T, p. 1 ) . Qne commentor suggested a f.lxed distance of f9fty feet from the`�plpellne for the easement while ano�her suggested 75 f�et. In its StatemQnt of Need and Reasanableness the Department noted that a safe dlstance �rom a plpellne in the event af an lncident is dependent on a number af wide ranging fac.ors including the size fl� the p1pe, pressure, material carrted, depth of cover, climate and character of terrain. Additonalty, the costs and benefits assacia�ed x9th imposfng a setback distance xS71 vary qreatiy art�ong �urlsdicttons. (Ex. A, p. 8) . 'fhe Department atso nated that the LUMTIPS Task Force re�ected a set dlstance for a setback because it was un+rorkable as a statewlde requirement. The LUMTIPS Taslc Force was made vA Q�' 42 people repreSenting pipeline operators , industrial and cammercial develapers. builders a5sociation, munlcipal representatives� and o�hers. The participants cautd not conclude that a speciftc distance lncreased the margin of safety . . expected,__at a cost that was not unreasonable. _ The Task Force suggested tha� a vartance pracedure coutd provide for� the mltiga�i�n of undue hardships created by unique locai circumstaRces. At the hearing it was noted that the Transpartation Research Board had cancluded that it was di�ficuit to set specific distances for setbacks because of the many factors involved at different lacations. See aiso� Ex. D, pp• 2�3. The mc�dffied rulg subpart d1d receive widespread support from commentors lncludtng the �u1lde�s Associatton - of Minnesota, Northern t�atur�t Gas and �he Lakehead- P1pellne Company. It has been shown to be needed and reasonable. The rule and the statute da permit local �urisdictlons to adopt �n ordinance wlth a greater setback if �lacal . conditlons make that dtsirabie. Setting a speclfic setbatk dlstance afi this palnt would likely be a substantial change. 17. A number of commentors expressed concern abo�t how the rute would apply tn the case of blanket easements in whith the eas�ment ,may extend tp an entire parcel of land rather than a defined area surrounding the plpeline. Wi111ams Pipelirie Company ar�ued that blanket e�sements are lawful rQal estate interests and suggested that the rules shauld not attempt to defeat them. (Ex. W, p. 2) . The Mid—Mlnnesota Dewelopment Commission suggested that blanket easements be dealt with by statinq that where a blanl�et constructton easement exists the easement would be 5U feet on either sjc4e of the ex9s�ing —b— SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 10-19-92 � i2:12PM ; 6122969641� 1 612 423 5203��18 . ' . � ^ p1pe11ne . It suggested th�t this wbuld save landowners and governmental �urisdic�ians fram having to ho]d public h�arings ,to grant variantes. 7t would save the expen5� ��F renegotiattng and redefining pipellne easements. (Ex. V) . Carver County 'argued that where anty blanket easQments exist the pipellne companles should be required to survey and redefine that easement. <Ex. U> . 18. In its post-hearing comments. �he Department stated that as pr4posed the model ordlnance prohlblts devetopment Nithin a btanket easement. �t stated .that many pipellne companl�s have aiready lmpiemented proqrams ta ellminate their blanket ensements by negofilating a spscifi�c easement xh9ch reflects their actuat requ9rements . The aepartment belt�ves that the p�oposed setbaCic requirement xould lilcely aCcelerate tt�ese programs and irtltiate new anes. It believes that �h1s can anly serv� to better dsfine plpetine ' lotatlons and therefore reduce the potential dangers oi' excavation and construction near ptpelines. The Department noted that under M1nn. Stat. § 300�.0�45, a� pipeline company acqulring an easement, ezrept a temporary easement far construction, must "ds�initely ar►d speclf�calty descri6e thQ Qasement beinq acqutred, and may not acquire an easement greater than the minimum necessary for the Safe conduct of their business." The agency' s deCi5lon to not provide an exeeption in the proposed rules for blanket easements has been shown to be needed and r�asonat�le. 7he aqenty has articulated lts polity �udgment and made a reasaned defierminatlon. �.�.�.kiL�� Nousina Insti�i te +c_.. Patterser�� 347 N.W.2d 238, 246 (M1nn. 1984) . This policy decis9on is rationally relafed to the �nd sough� to be a�hleved by the st�tute. 8ro_�.il Merrx�ri al Hom�, v Mi nnesota DeR,�y pnt of Hy,�r�.p S�rv1 c2� , 36� N.W.2d 436 (M1 nn. Ct. App. 1985) . i9. A number of commentors expressed the concern that the adapt9on of fihis ordlnance by a tocal �urisdictian xould resuit in the taking of land without compensatlon. tSee, e.g. . Ex. T, p. 1 >. W9lltaros Pipeltne Gampany noted th�t in P�nnsylvania the setback rules were not effecfiive for any parcel of property unt11 the title is transferred from its present owner. (Ex. W� p. 5> . The Department pointed out that a minamum se�bacfc equivalent to-the pipeltne easemant boundary greatly minimizes any adverss condemnation concerns. It noted atsa that local �urisdictions had fihe ability to grant variances where undue hardship exists and tf�e safety purpose of the ordinance w111 not be defeated. (Ex. X, p. 13 ). Given the spec9fic lpglsla.tiv� directfon to adopt a model ardlnance requiring � setback from p�,Relines, th� model ordlnance is needed and reasonable based upon thls r�card.• The � Departmant may wtsh to consSder the Pennsylvania approach. -- 20. Several cor�rnentors arqaed �hat the propased rules 5hould incTude an appeal provislan to permlt a varlance from the ordinance. See � e.q. Ex. W, p. 3. The Department noted that under the statute the model setback ordinance becomes one a� the local governmental units ordinance5. The planntng and zoning authprfty of each locat governmental unit contains procedures gavernit►g variances to 1oca1 plannin� and zoning ordtnances. The Department argues •that it is reasonable for the cr�del ardinance to �se existing variance procedures becau5e 1t wili became a parfi of the extstinq zoning regulations. It argues that lc�cai control over variances is consistent xlth the position of the Department that casts, risks a�d benefits of mare specific setback requiremenfis can best be determined at the lacal 1eve1 . Based on the publlc comments , however� the bepartment did s�tggest that the followinq language be ..7� �ENT BY�Xerox Telecopier 7421 ;10-19-92 ;12�13PM � 6122969641� 1 612 423 5203t#19 . added to nar� 7�,�,�._4:�44, in order to clarify that a lotal un�t of government wauld handle variances: • ' 5ubp. 4. yarl�n es. Varlance procedures adapted by the � lozal unit o�f gdvernment under Minnesota �tatutes, 5ections 35G.10 to 36b.19, 394.21 to 39A�.37, or 4b2.351 ta 462.365 shalt appiy. . The change 1s not a substanti�l one slnce it merely clariflas the avaitability of variances and the procedures for seeking them. I� has been shown fio be needed and reasonabie. The absence of a varlancg procedure xlthtn the model ordinance or thQ proposed ruies daes not render th�m unreazonable. ' Z1 . W111iams Pipellne Campany ex�ressed concern about #he interactian between the proposed ru1es and Minn. Stat. § 11bZ.015� dealing Hith pipeTine routing permlts . That statute specifically references Minn. 5tat. § 299J.05. Williams �tas tancerned tha�t a route 1n conflict with ar� ,ardinance might not be granted a permtt. (Ex. W, pp. 3-4). 7he Department noted.that the Environmental Qua] ity Board 1s reSponsible �ar the interpretation nf Minn. Stat. § 11bI .015. Hawever� the Department beti�ves that th2 model setback ordinance does no�k govern construction of a pipeline 1n relation tg exlsting buildings and would therefore have na dtrect effect on the routing of a pipeitne, (Ex. X, p, l0? . Based upan the for�gaing Findings of Fact� the Admini5trative Law Judge makes the foilowing: �QNCLUSTONS 1 . That the Department gave proper notice of fihe ttearing 1n this matter. 2. That the Departmen� has fuit111ed the procedural requlrements of Minn. Stat, §§ 14.1�� and al1 other proccdural requirements of law or ru3e. � 3. That the 0epar#ment has documented its statutory authority �o adopt the proposed rules, and has fulf�lletl all other substantive requir�menfis af law or ru3e within the meaning of Minn. Stat. §� 14.05� subd. 1 , 14.15, subd. 3 and 14,50 {i ) and <1i) . 4. That the Department has demanstratPd the need Por andj��easonableness of the proposEd rules by an affirmative presen�kation af f�acts tn the record within the meantng of M1nn. Stat. §§ 14.i4, subd. 2 and 14,5Q <fii), 5. Yhat the additions and amendments to tt�e praposed rutes which were suqgested by the Departmen� after publ1catian of the proposed rules tn the 5ta�e Rsgister do not result tn ru3es Khich are substantlatly different frorn tt52 proposed ru]es as published in the State Register within the reeaninq of Minn. Stat`. § 14. 15, subd. 3, M1nn. Ru1e 1400. 1400, Subp. l� and ]400.11a0: 6. That any �indings which might properly be termed Concluslons and any Conciusions which might properly be termed Pindings are hereby adapted as such. _g_ �ENT BY�Xerox Telecopier 7021 � 10-19-82 �12�14PM � 6122969641� 1 612 423 5203+�20 7 , That a finding �r concluslon of need and reasona6leness in regard th� any part1cular rule subsettion does not preclude and should not discourage t Department from fvrther modifica�ion a� the rules based upon an examinafilon of • the publlt comments , proVided �hat no substantial chanqe is made trom the proposed ruies as orlqinaliy published, and provided that the 'rule finally adopted is based up4n facts appearinq 1n thls rule hearing record. Based upon the �oregotng Conelusions, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: R��nr�t�ENOATION It is hereby retommended that the praposed rules be adopted consi5tent with the Findings and Conclusians made above. Dated thi s �� day of Apri 1 , 1991 . �. •,.�''��''..-��--;•c�-r�-----��,� ��- TEVE M. MIHALGHICK Adrninistrative Lax Judge . , -9- City of Rasemount Executive Summary for Action City Council Meeting Date: _ July 20. 1993 Agenda Item: Zoning/Subdivision 4rdinances Text Agenda S+ection: Amendments PUBLIC HEARING Prepared By: Lisa Freese Agenda�� # � Director af Planning ., Attachments: Proposed Ordinances {2), Illustrations, PC Approved By: Review, Public Notice, Mailing List In an effort to begin implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission has begun work an a series of amendments to the zoning and subdivision ordinances. The first set of amendments was finalized at a Commission workshop held on July 12 and the recommended language is included on the attached proposed Ordinance. This ardinance consists of the following changes: 1) reducing the maxunum density permitted 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; 2j establishing a 30 foot setback for principle structures adjacent to pipeline easements; 3) setting standards for the size and type �f planning strips and buffer yards along railroads and major or minor thoraughfare right-of- ways; and 4) clarification of landscape standards in the General Industrial District. These pending changes are discussed in a Planning Review prepared by Mr. Pearson of my staff and is included with this gacket. Illustrations of these changes are also included. An amendment to the zoning and subdivision ordinances requires a public hearing prior to adoption. Recommended Action: A Motion to adopt ORDiNANCE NO. B 30, AN OitDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B, CITY OF ROSF.MOUNT ZOI�TING ORDINANCE. A Motion to adopt ORDINANCE NO. XVII.103, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE XVII.4, CITY OF ROSEMOUNT SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE City Council Action: 1201 3.001 . P�Pr�c ns r _ . _ _ �AS�.+-�EK�' _ P _ PI PEU�� PI!`�LtNE SE.TP� Ec�2 uN�-5 TYPc C.A-c. . . _ _ . . . (Z�='i-.Y�r� __ : �.TE�-t�- . ._. _ _ __ PCLoPe�E� F'I PELt t�tE �.��EME�—f' �J' �.TC�C-�_. C� �� E�T . � �- � _ ` _ _ : _ _ � t � _ . � :. , _ _ _ � � _ � ; � .. . . --- ! � _ - _ _ _ _ . . �,t�tT�ncC� S`f l2t P _P�L�� /�. _ . __ _ . �'t � �toC� ��T�21�L _ . . . . _ _ __ ,. . . ._ , . __. _ '. , . i i i � , ; � + 1. 1 . .. . . . i � . . . . ._ � 1 � � � . . ' � �_ � 1 � _ � C t-- i j ; k � I � i j j f z , , , � , � � , i � _ � i. l._ .._ . . . r_ .__' _._ ..� " � _ � i __ .. .} '. . i � . a � . ; C , ; -a� � � , ; , r �� ; ► . , � . , _ . � . . : . . . . . _ . _ _ . , , . ; . , � � , . . � . . . � 3 + ' _ , � ' C �o ; !G-��r.✓Y� �7N�,S'` � /'-?1 '�,y��d,�.L' _,0�/�',��2/�'��►h�,7' � _; �+v, .c,�,�r?/ , , , , , � . - � r , , _ � t-- . , _,'�� , � i _�_. __� y t , �_.. ' } ' l _ . . _�. . _ _, . . ,� ��"1 � t . �h _ . _ , fi , � _ , , , f , , , � . ; . . - . f a � , _ � � , �.� f ' � � i ; � _ ; ' 1 ._ � ;- ; �� . : , , . , __ , � ; � v2l �� , , � , , , ! � � �� ; � � � . �� . -: , �r � � i ! _ , , � _ � � . � ' ` f , � , ..� _ , � ._.� ,.._ � . i i f,. �. , �_. .._. i � � , , : ( � r i""rt'_ _. , ' � S ' i ' � — t— � � � 1 . i � �-- , � j_ � � , . � ; _ _( __� t__ � �— , � _�— , ._, ___ { t � , , ; : : � � , . . . .-- , . � , , . i . , , , , ; � _ ' � x-�'�l ' ; , � i -� , _ . � : . � . , . _��. __ _ � ,- �- - ;� ; , 4 , . { ; � ' . � � , , , ; � f , � ; i . , , � � i i � � ( � ��-- . � � � � ' � . r.- r I � f ` � ; } �_ ! k i � _ ,_ } , i _�` � ` ' , , ; �r � � _ � � � ` a;� . � , _�_ , - � . , t � . �— � � . . � �� , � � � , , , ; , � . , � ; ,i � ; + . ` ' t ;.._ . . , . , , , -- -- _ , , � „___� t � � � f � , � 1 , � r � � � , : � � i— � �� 1 ; , _ I , f � i � � � , � , � � ' � � j � _.� �_ .: : � � . . , �. � . � _- { � ' � __ -- . , . . , � . . � � : , � t , i � �, ' t I { � t � ' � ' ' � . � � r i � , _ I , 1 �- �. , � � r ' , . _ , � __.r . _ �. � �- _ �---� � � . � ; � �' �� , ,- � : � ! , : � , —. � ! ' � —�,��z ! '�, id3. r Q7,.1'bJ. �►�,—� a ; 1 � : � , . _ � , � � ,.� t . , � . s _ ; ; _ __ � _ �d -,�r , � .. , ; ' . ' � � � j ! � � ' ; ; , I r ' r G7?.J�d,�, "'}1"d'�,�j �3:�G]d t1 r �' � � �� ( � �,� �� ; � � . ' � �� j ; f� � : , , � . V"t1t/f. 1..iJc� � , � � � , ; ; i � � ; . t. � � . � � "Zi� � � � � � � III , � , , � , _� i � , ' ' , . , � ; � ` + _ , r , _! t ` --� -t � , �_ � � , ,- �- � 1 � � , s I , I j i �_ r_ , f . � , , s I �_ ;. . ,. i. ' 4 � ; t �� I� . . .. � � � 1^ } � ! � � . t .. I � . � � .. � 1 .` 1 f. i � � ' �..._ � ♦_ ..Y' ;... . i.. —1 — {- j —�— . �.. .µ i._. � . �.._. f ! � _ � �� . : � � � _ , 4 , , _ ! . ! . � i � � • � , . l � � i � � � t i � < < ; , � r , , i _- �_ _ . � ' ; ' ' ' ; i , , � s � � , � . � ' , ,. � ' i � ; � � - . I , ; k , � � 1 ! r i , ` " ` � i r i _ � ', � � � F � ) � ; � � � a { , _ � � � , r � ,� � �� i � ' ; f I �: ; � � � t i I I j �. �. , . a �.._. ( -..,�. - � --{� J � i ' . . .� . � �._. ' C .. �. .� . � , . - -� t ��.-}- I� i � F � _ j � I f . , � ..� � � � � � _ .. . � � . � . i� . � i 1 �r ; i , , � i •� � �� .. _� .� � � � � � � �� { � � ( ��: � i - � . � � . � . . , . ; � 1 , � . 1 � . ` � i I _ _ � __y ; _I_ .� _ ..E � ; -; � r , � ' t , i i ; � : . , , i , . . . � . _ , i , I ` i � , � , , � � ', ; , , � , r , 1 � ; � , . . � ; , . i � . � .I '. _—�. � � i � . _ . ..i �. I _ , . t ' �.. C . ; . , . . _. � ; } ,- � I � . ; � � � ; , � � ! � � � � � t � , , ,� � I� ` � � � i � � ,� � , � k , ; ; , , � �� . i � ' j � I � � � � � � � � ! � �� j � i � '� � � � F � , ; ; ; i— i i � � i f i l � ! j I i 1 I �, ' I l I s : t . , , . , , �, , i ; ; � ' � ; , , � { ; , ,; � , , � , : ; , , , � � , � , ' � . . . � � I I � � , ' ; i f � , � � r � , � i 1 i ; i � I � f i t , � � ! � I1 � . . . . , < . � ; � , _ � � � � � ' � �� j �� j � � � � i i� : �: ; � � ; i . ' j ' ; ' } � ; , , � i � i � � , � ! I i � ` ! ; 4 . , ; � � , , I _ � + � � . � I � � i ; , � �, � � 1 � � � � ' � ; , � , , . ; , � ._ . , i � � � � � � � ; _. � � _.� } � a � �� ' , � � ' i i � � r .�. .� ; �� r r � , ( � � � � � , ; � � f �t � I � � � � , jE � � ' i i i � ; � ; � � ; � F � � + ; . � ' , , , ; ! 1 ' f � ; � ' 1I � ; � ! ' ; ; " , � i ' ! ; ki � j � , � � � I � � I ' ; ; f , ;' i ' � ; � � ; ! �( , ; , � i I { � , , ; ; ! ! ; i ; I i � ' � ; � I � i � � � i ; i f , : ' � , �� , J i i , � � ,� � � i , � 1 � j � ` � 1 � � I � I � j � ; I � � I '; "' + ! � � ' � ' ' 4 � : � ! � � � ; � I i ! � � , i ! � j ' ' : 1 j j i i { I ' � I � � ' + I ` i � r ' � � ! F ; , ' i � � , � � , i i i � � ! I i � ; � , � ; ; ; ! � � � ' i � I , i � -�r . i � t � i r i � . � 1�� I. � i I ; , i � � � � � 1 ' f � � � � j 1 i �. .� � .. ; .� i. f �� . j . l � � . . 4 .�. .� I . I �� I i � f � � � �. � i 1 + I. + E i. � t , ' { ' . , , '. ' '. , � , ' ' 1 I i , 3 � � � _ _ � } ! ' j � � � � � , , 4 { : � � ; _ � j ; � � � � � � } ' , , � , � , t , � � � r , � �r ; �� ! � �� i � i � � � � 1 � 1 � �� , . , > , , � i � i � � ' l , � � : , : j � t � + i � � � � . � � �, � � � ; � � � � � � ; � � � � 4 ' � � 1 ' { i ' ' � � ' ' i i � i � � � , ; � , � ; ; ; , ; � ; , ; � � i � � l � ; � � ; , ; � ; � ' � I � i , i i i j 1 i j i ; i � , I i I i I � ! i i 4 � i � 1 � . . � . . � . �. . � . ., , , , . . .. �. . � �� . . i . � . . � . . � . . � . � . ■ .� . � � � � � � � r--'' � . h��Y;� _ _� � � �� _ � � � . _. ' _ . _ _ _ � . � � � '�►. _ . , .�_ . _ . .__ .. . . _ _ - - �` _ _ _ ' __ . . _ . _ _ ��'t"'( '�t`tF�.H Aht t C.�-c.... _�c.(z�N I rsL�� __ ._ . _ ` . _. _ . _...� ._.--.-. : __,_—._ _._..._-_ _ ...-_-..... __.,., _ "'�., __ _ __ _ . _ _ _ _. _ _ _ O pA��.-�-TY" �oN.C.�PT �� .PL/-�I�t�T►�� . ��I1?-� �S . , _. C.c�-►f�t�t.H�Ctor�c �_dF' . v��-Tr4�'rvE �ND �-5��..H-t�r-tt:c.R2.. �c.2e-..E�tc�tC� _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ A? "T t r-1.�. �F j r�l S"T'PtL_C..�,(!a� __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __ __. _ _ _ _ _. _ . _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ ._ _ _ __. ._ .. __. _ _ _ _ . ___ _ _ __ . _ _ __ __ _. _ . . _ i�� o osemouvc� �E (612)423-4411 2875•745th 5treet West.Rosemount,Minnesota MAYOR :X (612)4235203 Mailing Address: Edward 8.McMerromy P.O.8ox 510,Rosemouttt,Minnesata 55068-0510 COUNCILMEMBERS Sheila K�assen Z`0: PIaIIIIIrig COIri111lSSlOri �ames(Ree►Staats Harry Wilicpx FROM: Richard Pearson, ASSLS�aIlt PIaIlII�I' De�nis Wippetmann �A�: June 18� 1973 ADMtNISTRATOR SUBJ: June 22, 1993 Regular Meeting Reviews: Agenda Item 5 s`°°h�"�''k Proposed Zoning Te�rt A.mendments - Discussion � P�toYos�, Last October and November, Planning Staff suggested that the Planning Gommission 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 existin� ordinances that are perceived to be vague. Amendments included with this proposal include: 1) increased setbacks to major and rninor 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 LNCREASES 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�ailroads. 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 nght-of-way and typically replace a thirty foot standard. CITZ' COLLECTOR STREET ARTERIA.L STREET Apple Valley. 30 to 40 feet 40 to 50 feet (minor), 50 feet (principal) _ Burnsville 45 ft. (inci. minor art.) 50 ft. (principal) 50 ft. (high density) 80 ft. (high density principal) �gan 40 ft. 50 ft. Inver Grove Heights 30 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. (high density) Woodbury 50 ft. $O ft. s , ) � C�ver�t�ings �oming �(1C�i �osemount�l � . ,.._ .. ._ 3une 22, 1993 Regular Meeting Reviews I � Z.O. Te� Amendment Proposals Page Two The average increased setback to collector streets is 10 ft. in additian 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 faot high berm with vegetation (evergreen trees ar a combination af plantings}, or feneing. The ability ta use berms diminishes with uneven topagraphy. . A three foot high berm centered in twenty feet does nat seem like much but that is the ma�mum slope that allows far practical mawing. 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 arteriai 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 pri.ncipal sfructures. Consideration for platting exceptions to standards, or density bonuses may be given if lazger setbacks are offered with appropriate landscaping. An additional distinction should be given to principal arterials for a thirty foot increase in setbaek. Railraads 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 esta.blished by ordinance. The Minnesota Offtce 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 recommenda.tion that specified pipeline easement boundaries should define a setback for any building. Most ordinances have been written consistent with the model ordinance. Pipeline �asements 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 nat 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) E1v�a,1vCE L,�rnSCaPE S'ra�.rm�s Generally, Section 8.3 Landseaping Requirements is effective for establishi.ng minimum standards for landscaping. However, some flexibility wauld be gained in the General Industrial district by substituting the foundation planting minimum of one planting per ten feet af building perimeter for "Per Recommendation of Planning Commission", This substitution would be apprapriate giuen the typical General Tndustrial building that has a significant amount of paving around at least one half the perimeter. June 22, 1943 Regular Meeting Reviews � Z.O. T�xi Amendment Proposais 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 minunum 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 withaut additional shrub plantings, gaps lirnit opacity. Large evergreens �tten provide the best screening if enough space is provided, but like a boulevard tree, it takes many years to reach maturity. r._._ __ Lacal conditions may favor one variety of planting over another so that mandating an average of opacity in a plantang strip may be a valid approach to the performance standa.rd. 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 11�J��;�VIi.TM DENSITY ALLO WANCE FOR SIIr'GLE A.ND MULTI-FAIVIILY RESIDENTIAL D�s�[ucTs 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 - Upda.te 2004, is 12 dwelling units per acre. Allowa�ce for up to 18 dwelling units per acre as a density bonus is possible if above standard amenities are provided. Those amenities cauld include but are not limited to: intensive landscaping, outdaor group open space, indoor and outdoor recreational amenities, high quality design standards, energy conservation ar a proposal that satisfies unique and special market niches and needs for affordable housing. The eurrent ordinance allows for up to six dweiling 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. RECOA�MENDED ACTION - Na action is requested at this time. Planning Staff is assembling additional text amendment proposals that include refinements to design standards in the Suhdivision Ordinance and a Starm Water Management ordinance. June 22, 1993 Regular Meeting Reviews � Z.O. Te�►t Amendment PraposaLs , , Fage Four " Planning Staff requests that the Planning Commission discuss the proposeci text amendments and provide Planning Staff with direction as needed for revisions. The following draft text amendments have been prepared for discussion purposes. SUBDMSION ORDINANCE - Ordinance No.'XVII.4 Adopted October 19, 1972. MOTION to recommend to the City Council to adopt an ordinance amending SUBD S.8 PLANTING STRII�S to include: Where a residential Iat abuts a railroad or major thoroughfare right-of-way, the lot shall have twenty (24} feet of width and/or depth added to the lot's side adjacent to and abut�:ng the right-of-way that is in addition to the minimum standard required by ordinance for the e�.abLshment 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 Iot's side adjacent to and abut�ing said right-of-way. Planting strips must be a mini.mum of fifty ' (50) percent opaque for a mir:imum of six (6) feet of height as measured-from--�he adjaeent - elevation of the residential yard. ORDINANCE B - ZONIIVG 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 canveying natural gas or petro3eum, no principal structure shall be setback less than thirty {30) feet fram 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) dwellirig units per gross acre are available per Planning Comrnission 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 ?.1 Dimensianal Standards to include the changes in maximum derisity in R-1 from NIA 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 Reguiations 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 accardingly to protect the buffer yard from building encroaclunent. MOTION to recommend to the City Council to set a date for a public hearing for 8 pm. on Tuesday, 7uly 6, i 993 to hear testimony regarding the proposed zoning and subdivision text amendments, r �, 1.�Z� O OSevYL0liLYt� PHONE (612j 4234411 2875•145th Street WeSt,Aosemount,Minnesota MAYOR fAX (612}a235203 Mailing Address: Edward&McMenomy P.O.Box 510,Rosemouni,Minnesota 55068-0510 COUNCILMEMBERS Sheiia Kiassen Jame6{Red)St8at5 Affidavit of Posted Hearing Notice oetM�W p'�`�x�,� ADMINISTRATOR �I`EXT 1�lMENDMENTS TO CITY OF stepnan,i��k ROSEMOUNT ZONIlVG AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES STATE OF 1111.INNESOTA ) COUN'I'Y OF DAKOTA ) SS CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ) Susan M. Walsh, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: I am a Uruted States citizen and the duly qualified Clerk of the City bf Rosemount, Minnesota. _ On 7uly 7, 1993, acting on behatf of the said City, I posteri at the City Hall, 2875 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota, a copy of the attacheci notice of a Public Hearing for consideration of text arnendments to Ordinance B - Ciry of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance and City of Rose�nount Subdivision Ordinance regarding specific requirements as outlined in said notice. , , Sus n M. Walsh � City Clerk � City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota Subscribed and sworn to before me this �� day of _, 1993. . � , � CINDY DORNIDEN -= ` ►�ora�Pu�x;-�r�► DAKOTA COUNTY `� �y comrt►.��wa 2s.��-o Public Y • Vver�t�ing's �oming �IJL�i �osemoun�� < 2�r� o Osemouvt� PHONE (672)4234411 2875-14Sth Street West,Rosemount,Minnesota MAYQq FAX (612)4235203 Mailing Address: Edward B.McMenomy P.4.Box 570,Rosemount,Minnesota 55068-0510 COUNCILMEMBERS Sheila Ktassen • . James(Re�Szaats Publ�c Notice , Ha�ry W;��x Dennis Wippermann 1�XT �NDMEIVTS TO ApMiNISTRATOR Stephan Jilk CITY OF ROSEMOUNF ZONING ANll SUBDIVI5ION ORDINANCES TO 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, 1993 in the Council Chambers of 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 Arnendments ta the City of Rosemo�nt Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances that will resutt in: 1) increased setbacks in residential districts to major and minor tharoughfares and railroads; 2) creating building setbacks for natural gas and petroleum transmission pipelines; 3) clarifying landscape standards in the General Industrial District and defining Planting Strips / Bufferyards; 4) :lowering the max�muni�density a�lowed in_mu�ti-family re�idential distr�e� (R-3) to twelve (12) dwelling units per acre from-18 dwelling units per acre (but allowing density bonuses); and 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 af 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• •Tu1v 20 1993 at 8•Q0� m Dated this 7th day of July, 1993. ' �, S an M. W , City Clerk City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota C�ver�t�ings �om:reg �(/L�i �osemoun�� ., ' MAtLINC L1 T 4 � � ._. . . � � . . � . . � � . ....... ... ...... . . . .. . .. � . Lee Johnson . U.S. Home Corporation 8421 Wayazata $oulevard, 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 SSQ68 Steven Fiterman Ground Development Corp 1550 Utica Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55416 James Allen Hampton Development Corporation 12433 Princeton Avenue Savage, MN 55378 - Herb Wensmann . . _ Wensmann Realty 3312 151st Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Wayne Delfino _ � CMC Heartland Partners � S47 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60606 Timothy Dwyer Kelley Trust Hamm Building Suite 425 408 St. Peter Street St. Paul, MN 55102-1187