HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Review of Proposed Revisions to Zoning Ordinance �
, ,
StIM�1ARY O� CttANt;ES tN I�ROPOSFI) 2.t)NlNt: (�RI)INANCE
The Planning Cornmission and the City Council of the City of Rosemount are in
the process of reviewing for acioption an amended Zoning Ordinance which
represents a comprehensive revision to [he current Zoning (Orc�inance. The City's
current Zoning Ordinance which was origonally adopted in 1972 and which had
been amended from time to time, has been recognized by the City as bein�;
antiquated in terms of adequate[y addressing the complexities of regulating land
use in today's development climate. Changing attitudes in the cammunity,
changing development trends and the addition of new state and federal land use
re�utations have� prorapted a need to nndertake a comprehensive revisioa of the
City of Rosernc}unK Zoning Ordinance. Development of [he Proposed Zonin�;
Ordinan�e which is now unc�er review by the Planning Commission and City
Cowncil has actually heen in progress for several years. The rurrent draft �f
the Proposed Ordinance represents a culmination of efforts of both City Staff
and ConsultanEs as well as a considerable amount of review time by the Planning
Commission.
Ttce Proposed Zoning Ordinance represen[s a continuation of many of the
concepts regarding the orderly regulation of land use that formed the basis ol'
Ehe current ordinance, hotvever, the Proposea Zoning Ordinsnce is a much more
detailed and all encompsssing dacument. This surnmary is brief section by
section description of major changes or additions which cause the Proposed
Ordinance to differ from the current Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 1•2 - which indicate the name and purpose of the Proposed Zoning
drdiaance remain basically the same as the current ordinance.
SECTION 3 (llEFINITiONS) • This sectian has been considerably expanded with
many new definitions and changes to many of the definitions that were used in
the current zoning ordinance.
SECTION 4 (GENERAL PROVISTONS) - This sections expands upon its
counterpart in the current orciinance co specify new or existing pravisions which
suggest regulations which affect a11 zoning districts or least several districts.
�or example ihis section includes provisions which regulate the conducting of a
Home Occupation (business run out of a home); Horne Occupations are permitted
in alt residential districts and the Agriculture District subject to the provisions
cited in Section 4.
SECTION S (ZONING 1)ISTRICTS) • This sec�iran which lists the Zoning Distcicts
indicates that the following new districts have incorporated into [he Propose�l
"Lonin�; C)rdinance:
RE Residentiai Executive District
R-2 Singte Family Attached Residence Distrlct
R-3 Multiple-Family Residence I)istrict
R-4 Multiple-Family Residence District
C-4 General Commerclai Uistrict
' } � . . � . . . . � . . . � :
SECTION 6 (DISTRICT REC;ULATIONS) - This section of the Proposed Zoning
Ordinance lists in detail the uses which are permi[ted in each Zoning District.
Refer ta this section €or descriptions (statement of purpose) for the five new
districts ciEed above.
SECTION 1 (D�STRICT DEWELnPMENT REGULATIQNS) - This section pro��i�ies
dimensional requirements including yard setbacks, height limitations, density .
requirements and open space requirements. Also included in this section under
subsecti�n 7.2 (Supplementary Re�ulations) are proVisions which regulate
appearance of Buildings by requiring that cerEain types of building materials be
used in exteriar constructian. This section addresses building aesthetics in all
districts with garticUlar attention directed toward Commercial and Industrial
Distriets and al$4 to regulating the size and appearance of accessory buildings in
alt Residential Districts and the Agriculture District (under 20 acre parcel size).
SECTION S (OF�-STREET PARkING, LOAllING ANU LANDSCAPING) - Most
significan[ in this section are many changes in parking requirements for
commercial and industrial uses from what is required under the current
ordinance. It has been lon$ rzcognized by the City that parking requirements in
the current zoning ordinance are somewhat excessive for certain uses and the
new slandards are an atiemp[ to establish a more logical ratio of parking for
many commercial uses. Also, specific landscaping requirements are estabiished
for all districts which cite numbers of required plantings of trees and foundation
plantings. The currenC zoning ordinance does specify that landscaping is
requir�c� for new development vut does not include any numerical requirements.
SECTI�N 9 (SHORELAND UVERLAY REGULATIONS} - This section adds
completely new provisions which are not includeci in the current zoning
ordinancz. Ii is the intent of these shoreland overlay regulations to impase
r�strictions in addition to those required by the underiying zoning for the
protection of shoreland areas, the preservation and enhancement of the quality
of surface waters and the w'rse utilization of water and related land resources.
The City is required ta ad�}�t Shoreland Re�ulations which are in compliance
wiih Shoreland Management Regulati�ns of the Department of Natural Resourccs
c�f the State c�f Mi�anesol<�. In ex��n�inin� these regu(ations it is impartant tc�
reniei��[�cr thal wherever the unJerlyin�; zoniug is more restrictive, thc
rcyuiremepts ot the Loning District shall apply.
5EC'�'!ON lU (StGNS) - This sectian provicies much expandeti provisions for the
regulation of signs. A large section of definitions of various Eypes has been
inclucied anc� m�re detailed informati�n re�arding permittin� requirements has
been included. The orciinance remains relatively strict regarding size
requirements for signs with the largest si�n allowed bein� 100 sq. ft. {10' x 14'}
fur Con�n�ercial Developments with 10 ar more businesses. Of particular note is
that this section no longer atlaws }�errnanent use of the yeilow portable signs
which have bezn a real problem in the commercial districts. The portable signs
are ai(owed to be used for a maximum af 30 days per year, to accommodate
adveriising of grand openings or special events (sales, etc.).
SECTION 11 (PERFORMANCE STt1NDARDS - ALL D[STRICTS) - This section
s�»cifies standarcts by which Uses shalled be judged which because of the natvre
of their aperation are accompanied by excess of noise, vibration, dust dir[,
smoke, odor noxious gases, �lare or wastes shall not be permitted. The
provisi�ns of this section have been slightly maciified from the carresponcting
provisions of the current zoning ordinance, but the inten[ of the section remains
the same.
' + w
SECTION 12 (PLANNEU UN1T UEVEL�E'MENT "PUU") - This section specifically
details Planned Unit Deveiop;nent procedures applicable to all uses in all districts
which atlow variation from ordinance provisians in order to:
1. Encourage more creative design in the development of land.
2. Pramote variety in the physical development pattern of the City.
3. Create larger expanses of usable open space and preserve unique
natural features.
4. Preserve and provide a more desirable environment than would be
possible under strict ordinance requirements.
5. Permit variations in traditional lot layouts when high standards Qf
design are implemented and necessary services can be provided.
6. Estat�lish a confiaence between the c�evloper, the City and the
resideats of Rasemc�unt that is irnpassible with traditional zoning
p roced u re.
This sectioa reflects the same procedures which are cuxrenCly Ueing u[ilized by
the City under th� Current Zc�ning Orclinance.
SECTI()N 13 (N()N-CONF()RMlN(: USES} - This section plac�s conditians on ►he
continuation of structures, uses anc� signs le�ally exist on the effective dale of
[his orciinance but which do not conform to the provisions established in the
(proposed} ordinance, set farth for the district whithin which said structure, use
or sign is loeated. This section remains basically the sarne as provisions within
the current zaning ordinance.
SECTIt)N 14 (AI)141INtSTRATION ANU ENFORCEMENT) • This section of the
prapose�i orclinance ineludes a varicty of provision regardin� the Administratit�n
and Enforce�nent of the Zoning Ordinance some of which were s�ecified in ihe
C'urrent Zaning 4)rdinance as well as sev�rai new requirements. Mvst
si�nificantly new or si�nificantly changed requirenients are established for thc
following:
1. Site Plan Review - requirements anci procedures
2. Licensing Rec�uirements for Contractors.
3. Grading Permit Requirements.
4. Mining Permit Requirements (Mineral Extraction).
5. lunk and Salvage Operation Permit Requirements.
SECTIUN 15 (SUARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENT3) - This seciion remains
predominanity unchanged from its counterpart in the current zaning ordiaance.
SECTIUN 16 (AMENDMENTS} . Unchanged.
�ECTION 17 (VALIDIT�C) - Unchanged.
SECTii)N 18 (REP�ALS) - Unchanged.
SECTION 19 (EFFECTIVE nATE) - Will be dated upon Adoption by City Counci}.
PROPOSED ZONII�tG ORDINANCE
MAJQR CHANGES/ISSUES
Note: Misprint has shown page 5 repeated on page 6 (nothing is missing)
i. CREATION OF NEW DiSTRICT DE5IGNATIONS: The Propased Zoning
Orciinance includes the following new Zoning Distriet L7esignations:
RE Resldential Exeeutive District
R-2, Siagte Family Attached Residence Dfstrict
R-3; Multfpte-Family Residence District
R-4 Multipic-Famity Resldence District
C-4 General Commercial Distrjct
Council Members shouid re;fer tc� Section 6 (pages 19-27) for complete
descriptions of Che new Zoning DisCrict Designations incorporated into the
Propased Zoning Ordinance.
RE RESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVEs As the description of purpose and intent of this
district (p.20} suggests, it is being proposed as a means of accommodating a
somewhat reduced density (appraximately 2 units/acre) of sewered single family
resideniial developrnent. The inCent is to capitalize on Rosemount's limited areas
of rolling topography and wooded landscape by limiting the negative impacts
caused by development including tree cover loss and major earth moving which is
required for higher density development. It is recognized that lower density
develapment al}owed under requirements of this districC would not totally
mitigate the environmental impact of development but would help to reduce some
of the negatives. Another consideration is that the less dense development
provided for in the district wouici help promote the percieved "smatl town°
character which has been expressed as being important to many citizens in
Rosemou�t. If Couneil Members refer to the dimensional chart on page 38, the
ta[ size, setback and fron[age requirements are indicated. The controversy
ass�ciated wi[h adclition of tbis district to the Zoning Ordinance is associated
with the fact that a prospective subdivider of land would be limited to less
tiu�la,ng locs than would be alloweci on the same size parcel in the R-1 Single
Eamiiy Resicientia! District which has a 10,000 square foot }ot size minimum with
an $0' rninimum frontage reqUirement. The RE District would have an 1$,0t30
square foot minimum lot size and 110 minimum frontage requirement. Minimum
side yard setbacks would be 15' for the RE District to 10' for the R-1 District.
Although the difference in lot size and width standards is not dramatic it does
have important implications. Lots within ihe RE Dis[rict would be able to
accornmodate larger homes or hon�es with three car garages; also, the larger lat
size would allow rnore flexibility in the exact siting of a hame on the lot. The
l�wer ciensity would increase development costs because of the higher
construction costs per loE (m�re lii�ear t'eet of streets and ulilities) and therefore
would sugges[ a higher selting price 1'or lots. A consensus �f the Planaing
Commissic>n agreed chat Rosemount has accommodated a high percentage �f '
entry-level {modestly priced) single family housing in the past and is continuiing
to do sc�. It was agreed that it is important to promote alternative styles or
price ranges of housing to accommadate the needs and desires of residents or
�rospecUve residents of different incorne brackets. In particular it was noted
that little has been offerecl in Rosemount in the way of a step-up (moderately
pric�d housin�;}. A key aspect of evatuating the use of the RE District will be
_ _ _ __ , �
�
� -
2 LANUFiLLS: Because oC the recent proposal for a IndusErial ContainmenE
Facility from USPCI, the n�anner in whieh the City addresses the regulation
of sanitary landfills has t�ecome an issue. The curren[ draft of the Proposed
Zoning Or�iinance which preciates any contaci with ihe City from USPCI does
not include lanclfills as a permitted use in the Industrial Districts. Landfitls
were excluded as a pertnitted use in the Industriat Disiricts for many reasons
including environmental concerns and potenlial impacts on property values
and on the at�ility to attract more desirabte uses. Because the City Council
has approved a six month n�Uratorium on permitting of lanc�fills and directed
the C'ity Planner to r�search the matter I wi11 defer discussing this matter at
length until having researched apprapriate measures for regulating such uses.
Prior to ac4ing on the ProposQd Zoning Ordinance it will be important for
City Cc��rncjt to examine �ill issues pertainin� to whether or no# the City
shout�l cho�s� tc> aliu�v la��dfills c>r spccific types af lancf[ills (i.e. Industrial
C'c�niaini»cnt e��ilitics).
3. PRt)VISIQNS FERTALNtNt; TO TIIE REGULATION 4)F BUILDiNG
AESTHETlC/h1ATERiALti:
An impartant and sornewhat cantroversial additian to the Proposed 2onin�
(lydinace is f�uncl on pa�;es 39--11. (Section 7.2 Supplementary Regulations). This
section in generat addresses buildin�; standards regarding construction and
exterior materials for all districts ancl specifically places some new requirements
on buildings constructed in the Commercial and Industrial DisEriets.
The General Provisions of this szclion indicates that beyond being required to
meet all applicable Building Cocie requirernents that the City requires a high
standard of architecturat anci aesthetic eompatibility for buildings constructed in
alt districts within the City. A tist of acceptable materials for exterior finishes
for buildings is provided,
Specific standarcis regarding the use of exterior materials for buildings in
Comm�rcial ana Inciustrial Districts have been included (Section 7.2.2, 7.2.3, ?.2.4,
on page 39 & �10). The intent of these provisions is to preclude the construcEion
of entirety metal or fibergtass sided buitdings in Ehese districts. In an effort to
promoEe pro�erty valnes and improve aesthetic qualities of the City's Commercial
anrl Industrial areas it has been City policy, established by precedent, not to
ailnw complete(y metal/f'rberglass sided buildings. The purpose of these
provisi�ns is to formalixe this policy by translating it inlo defined and
enforceable standards. These provisions have been rnodeled after similar
provisians in lhe C:ity of Lakevilie Zoning Ordinance based upon reeommendation
nf the City Attc�rney. Although these provisions arc rudimentary and do not
speceficatly address design matters such as architectural style (ie histaric period
or d�sign deiails) they do provide a basic framework to guaranlee that a mix of "
acceptable building materials will tse usc:d to face the exterior of commercial and
in�iustrial F�uitdings. Th� C:ity C<tiunci( ancl/or Chc Planning C�mmission depenclin�;
on th� actic�n rec�uired r�iain ciicretic�n ovcr thc s�eeifie architectural detaiis c�[
a praject.
Many prospective developers and l�uilaing contraclors have argued the case for
the city ta allow cumpletely metal sided pre-engineered buildings. The
arguernents usualty center arounc� the ic�ea that they represent a cost ef[ective
way tca buitd Inw maint�nance, energy efficients commercial ar industrial
l�uitdinbs. The City has cc�nsistently held to the po(icy that using a mix of
exterior tnateria[s or alternative consEruction techniques {i.e. precast concr�te
panels or masonry) can be accomplishec� in a cost effective manner and
cc�nirihutes �reatly ta the a�pearancc of new struc[ures as well as settin� a
standard which �romotes com�arable cor�struction on ahutting properties.
4. �[GIY PR(}VISIONSt
Section 10 af the Pr�nc>sca 7.oni,ig nrdinance (�ages 60-67� which delai(s
provisions re�ulating the use of signs generated considerable discussion by Ehe
Plannin� C�mmission, Although it c�ntains more detailed provisions the content
of this sectian remains very simitar lo the current zaning ordinance in intent.
A very important issue is that the siae and use of Billboards (off-preraise
advertising signs) is tightly restricted. The largest signs allowed under Ehe
ordinance are 100 square feet (1�' x 10'). The Planning Commission when
reviewing these provisions allawed representatives of Naegele Advertising to
present an arguement on taehalf of allowing biilboards in Rosemount.
Representatiees failed ia convince the Planning Commission of the merits of
atlowing billboards. I would note that there is a national movement to restrict
the use of bittboards and even havens for of f-premise acivertising signs such as
Houston, TX, have chasen to ban or severely restrict their use.
AnUtl�c;r importunt issu� ��ddr�;s.,cd in Scctian 10 is ih�it thc tttic ��f �oxtahle signs
(teni���rary) signs is r�strictcd tf� a m,txii��um c�f 30 clays �cr year, As thc
Council is probably aware we have numerous yeltow porlable signs {some wilh
flaship� lights) being utilized wi►fiin our commercial districts. These portable
signs are unsightty and I t�eli�ve si�nificantly detract from the ap�earance of the
City'� c�inmercial areas. The {�rovisions of the new ordinance will provide the
legat means to cause mos� of these portable si�ns to be remaved.
5. hitNERAG EXTRACTIL)N:
Sec[ion 14.8 (�ages 78-83} of the Pr��c�sed Zoning Ordanance (Mineral Extractinn}
��rovicies much more detailed provisions regarcling the regulatian of sand & gravel
mining.
Two vcry iniportant as�ects of ttie t;ity's palicy regarding mining expresseci in
this prop�se� ordinance arc:
1. Sand and Gravet Mining is prohibited west of Akron Avenue to
avoid conflict with urban devefopmenE activities.
2. Sand & Gravel Mining is allowed as a permitted use by permit
only withi�i the General Industrial District rather than in all
Industrial Dislricts and the Agricutture Distriet as is now the
case.
The Ptanning Comrnissian recogni-r.ed that Sand and Gravel Mining is a difficult
use to regulate and has the patential to cause signficant disruption to the
landscape both in terms of environmental and aesthe[ic impact. The intent of
limi�ing where or under what circumstances Sand and Gravel Mining may occur is
considered a means of reducing the p�tenlial fc�r environmental problems such as
sail erasi�n and sedimentation as well as avoiding wha[ can he a major zonin�
enforcernenl problem. The Planning C�mmission has recognizec! lhat within the
City there are currently thrze long term Sand and Gravel Mining Operations
�ti�hich encompass a tocal of 1$U acres; also, the Cixy is currently considering a
praposal for another long-term mining operation for an 80 acre si[e (BMI). It
was further recognized by the Planning Commission that if the need for local
sources of sand and gravel cannot be met that the City always has the option of
clianging this policy and allowing mining to occur in areas zoned Agriculture.
fior the time being, however, since there is little benefit from a tax perspective
for the City to allow minin� and because there are many problems associated
with mt�nitUring and enforcing condi[ions associated with mining it has be�n
cieterminecl tc� be pruaent fiy the Plannin�; Commission Co limit the scope of
n�inin� in Rosemount.
Several local mining operators have been informed that the City is considering
lhis policy and they have indieateci opposition as may have been expected. The
c���t;ratc�rs feet that if the City �irecludes mining in the A�riculture District thdt a
large potential source of sand and gravel will be restricted from development,
thereby effecting their future liv�lihood. If this policy is enacted the City could
expeci it to be ctihallenged at some p�int in the future.
6. JUNti AND SALVAGE OPERATION (RECYCLING) REQUIREMENTS:
Section 14.9 (pages 83-8�} inctuc�e provisions to regulate the development of Junk
and Salvage �perations. Staff has decideci that a more ap�rro�xiate title for chis
section wou[c� be Recyling t)peration Requirements. The reason for this is that
it is thought that the negalive conotation assoiciateci with Junk yards is not
appropriate for modern operatians which are invotved with recyling of
autamt�tailes or other equipement or materials.
Recycling Qperations would be ailowed only in Ehe General Industrial District by
permit according to ihe requirements of Section 14.9. The Planning Commission
in reviewing these ptovisions reco�;nized that it was necessary to provide an
opportunity to allow such c�peralions !o exisx in Rosemoun[ under stringent
conditions [o control visual impact on surrounding property. The Commission
further recognized that these provisions would he necessary to allow relocation
of the AAA Salvage Operation currently operating on a site where it has not
been legally permitted.
3. PERM[TTED USES WITHIN THE C-1 NEIGHBORHOOn COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT:
Another signiCicant issue which [he Planning Commission addressed in reviewing
the Prorosed Zoning Ordinance was the issue of which uses shoutd be recagnized
as permitted uses within the C-1 Nei�hborhood Commercial District. The C;ity
Council will recall that last Pall, staff recommended a zoning amendment to lhe
current ordinance which woulci have allowed self-service gas/convenience stores
as an ailowed use ia that District. Because this issue sparked considerable
contrnversy among Couneil Mernbers a decisian was made that it was appropriate
to wait until the entire Pro�osed Zoning Ordinance was addressed to deal with
i t.
As drafted the Proposed Zoning (ardinance does recognize Self-service
gas/convenience stores as an allowed use in the C-1 Dis[rict. It is the opinion
of both the Direclor of t'ommunity Develo}�ment and the City Planner that this
is aa appropriate use Co allow wilhin the C-1 District. This use is in fact
neighborhood oriented and proximity is the key for convenience s[ores to serve
the needs of residents. In to�iays market there are virtually no convenience
stores being constructed wilhout self-serve gas because it for the rnost part is
not prUfitable to operate one without the other. Our existing Tom Thumb on
!-�3th 5treet is an exception tc� this rule in that it is located in an older
� • a� . ..�` � � . . . . . . � . . . . .
builc�ing which would not have the high overhead associated with devetopment of
a new site. Another issue to cansider is that there is eurrent(y one self-serve
gas/convenience store in the d�w�ttc>wn (A}�co) an�i two within Sauth Rose Park
(Noiiday �i Totn Thurnb). There is certainly no need far additional development
of this use in these areas. If a demand does exist or will exist in the future it
wil! be in other areas of the City in high visibiiity, high traffic areas which are
conducive to serving oar newly devet�ping nei�hborhoods, In considering the
Prop�seci Ordinance City Counci( must consider the merits of including the means
of allowing self-serve gas/convenienee stores in the C-1 District keeping in mind
that Council would still have ta rc:zone new areas to accomm�date develop ot'
this use.
Althau�h it has nat yet been adciressed in the Proposed Zoning Ordinance, an
issue for Council to �onsider is whether the fact that a variety of nther
commercial uses beside seif-serve gas/convenience stores are allowed in the C-i
District coutc! lead io undesired compe[ition vwith the Downtown (C-2 Dis[rict)
dnd S�uih R�se Park (C-3 District}. As shown in the Proposeci Zoning Ordinance
the C-i District is maciele�i close{y after the provision of the current zaning
ordinance, l sug,gest that (;ouneii Members examine the list of permitted uses in
�he +C-1 District (p. 26} anci coasider if it would be desirable to further timit the
types of comm�rcial uses which woald be allowed in the G1 District. '
��� ��
� � .�� � q N c� �c5x �,�o
td t f C3 �t�;�,-ia5rt� 5r �,v
� (�, ry�]/ /'j ROSEMOl1P!(. MINNE`,OTA 55�6A
'� �..,� V�.��a�7��i'[(.�L���-L
612 423 h�i 1 1
..+.-'�.
TO: LITY COUNCIL
FRt?M. RtIC.HA�,i, WOZNIAI�, C1T1' PLANNER
D.4T�: FEBRUARY I0, 19$9
SUBJ: FEBRUAIiY 14, 1989 - SPEGIAL COUNCIL MEETING REYIEW
�
CITY COUNCiL REVtEW nF PRt)POSEU ZONING ORDIIVANCE
The purpose of this Speciat Cc�uncil Meeting is to initiate City Council Review of ,,
tk�e Prop�►sed Zoning Ordin�ince. Over the course of sevcral years City Staff and
C'on�ultants have drafied a com�r�t�cnsive revisit�n of the C'ity of Rosemount
Zc�ning Ordinance (current c�rctinance ad�pted in 1972).
The most recent efforts lo cc�mplete the document and to abtain a formal
recommendation fr6m Ehe Plannin� f;ommission and lastty, co request City Cauncil
actinn were initiated in 3une of 1987.
An extensive review process c�f the Proposed Zoning Ordinance which I
ce�ordinated was undertaken by the Ptanning Commission beginning June 1987.
From June 1987 through February 1988 an exiensive review was accomplishcd
which caused considerable modification to the Proposed Zoning �rdinanee (19t�7
I�raft). During January and February 1988 mee[ings the Planning Commission
conducted review of whai was cosidered to be a final draft of the Proposed
Zoning Ordinance. The Commission was asked to vc�ice any comments or
concerns regarding the document at that time. The Planning Commission was not
asked to m�ake a fina! recammendation until comptetion of review by the City
At[orney and intitial revie�v by the City Councii. The City A[torney (Roger
ISnutson} proczedeci to rz��iew the document and recommend minor changes.
These changes were incorporated into the document resulting in a Draft dated
IL'Iarch 1, 1988. The Planni�g Commissic�n proceeded to conduct additional review
of some minor issues regarding the Proposed Zoning Ordinance during ihe
Sun�mer of 1988 which resultecl in the production of a revised Draft dated
Noveniher 21, 1I88. Copies of this Draft have been distributed to City Caunci!
� � � t� begitt a foi�mat r�;view pr�eess star[ing �vith this Special Meeting. �
(t is cec�ueste� that City Council Members bring their copies of the Proposed
Zoning 1)rclinance (also inclucies curreni zoning ordinance) to ihe meeting to
assist in the review process.
Incluc�ecl with this review are copies c�[ two reports. The first, "Summary c�f
C'liangcs in ProEjcrsed Zoning nrdinanc�;°, rrovides a bri�f descri�tion of tite
co��tc*nt ��1' tt�e varic�us sections c�C the c�rdinance and also briefly describes the
rnost si�nificant changes or eclditi�ns to the eurrent ordinance. The seconci
rc�ori, "Proposed Zoning Ordinance - Major Changes/Issucs, explains seven af
thc !11(35L cantraversial c�r si�;ni€icant issues acldressed in the prc�posed zoning
c�rdinance as c�etermined t�y hoth the Planning Commission and City SEaff. These
E��ports should help the Council to Cocus on the 'tmportant issues which must be
aJciresseci prior tc� takin� actien �n tl�is Urdinance.
__ _ —�
c �
y
•
� "} �-`` l� I'C) t31JX 'al(?
; .i 1�� ,� �%l��� �) ?B7�i-1451 ti ;i[ 1,N
` ' ROSEMI`)UPlT. MINNE50TA 5506E�
��... y� i� �,ryf�y t },
�,� t �� � ��r7��f'!(JLI1�� f,t1 4?:� A•ill
p.... .. . . . � . �
. . ..i"-'� ... � . . � . . � � .
T�c CITY COUNCIL
F'[i(3M: 14U�:.HAEL WOZNIAti, CITY PL,4NNER
DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 198�1
SUBJ: F�BRUARY l�i, 1989 - SPE(>1AL COUNCIL MEETiNG REYIEW
�
t;ITY COUNCiL REVIEW ()F PR(3P()SEI) Z�NING ORDINANCE
The purpose of this Special C'�uncil Meeting is to initiate City Couneil Review of
[!ie Pro}3�►sed Zoning Urdin�t�ice. (lver the eourse of several years City Staff and
Ccansuitants have drafied a c�mprchcnsive revisir�n of the City of Rosemaunt
� � Zt�nin�; t?rdinance (current c�rdii�anEe ac�c�p[ed in 1972). � � � � � �
The most receni efforts tc� complexe the document and to obtain a formal
recommendatiot� from Che Flannin� Commission and lastly, to request City Counci(
action were iniliated in 3une of 1987.
An extensive review process of the Proposed Zoning Ordinattce which I
c��ordinated was undertaken t�y Ehe P(anning Commission beginning June 1987.
From June 1)87 through February 19F38 an extensive review �aas accomplishcd
which causeJ cansiderable n�odification to the Proposed Zoning �rdinance (1987
I7rafE). During January and February 1988 rneetings lhe Planning Commission
conducte� r4view of what �vas cosidered ia be a final draft of the Propased
Zoning Ordinanee. The Commission was asked to vc,ice any comments or
concecns regarding the document at that time. The Planning Commission was nat
asked to make a finai recommendation until eompletion of review by the City
AtEorney and intitial revie�v by the City Councit. The City Attorney (Roger
Knutsonj proczedeci to review the document and recommend minor changes.
These changes were incorp�rated into the document resulting in a Draft dated
hfarch i, 198f3. The Plannit�g Commissi�n proce�ded to conduct addi#ional review
of some minor issues regarding the Proposed Zanin� Ordinance during ihe
Sumtner of 1988 which resulteci in the production of a revised Draft dated
Nc�v�n�ber 21, 1988. Copies of this Drat�t have been distrit�uted to City Counci]
tn begirt a format review process s�arting willi this S�ecia} Meeting.
[t is rec�ueste�# that City Council McmFiers bring their copies of the Propose�i
Zc�ning {)rdinance (also inclucles current zpning ordinance} co ihe mee[ing to
��ssist in ihe r�view process.
I�iciuded with this review are co�ies o[ twc� repc�rts. The first, "Summary of
('#ian6c� in Pro}�crsed Zoning ()rdinance°, prc�vicl�s a bri�f ciescription of tlic:
ci�nte�it ��f thc: varic>us sectians ol' the ordinance and alsc� briefly describes tl�e
rnost signi�icant changes or eciclitions !o lhe current ordinance. The second
re�art, "Proposed Zoning Orc�inance - Major Changes/Issucs, explains seven of
thc mc�st c�ntroversiai or sibnii�icani issues acldressed in lhe prc�posed zoning
ordinance as determined by ho�h the Planning Commission aiici City Staff. These
r�ports shoutd hetp the Council to Coc�s on tl�e important issues which rnust be
adclress�d pri�r tc� taking action arr tliis Ordinance.
t a
o • �
The purpose of this initial City C�uncil Meeting is primarily to give the Council
an c�ver�•iew of the Orciinance, to explain the most �bvious issues af concern
and to attempt to determine what questions, concerns or reservations the Council
may have which coutd de[ay adoptian. Realizing that the Proposed Zoning
Ordinance is a lengthy document at 88 pages, it is not expected that the Council
will be fully versed in all its details. However, the Council should at a minimum
scrutinize the table of contents tc� focus on those sections which would cantain
content which should be closely examined. The reports I have prepared shou}d
help the Council to focus on some of the rnore irnpartant issues and may serve
as a basis for discussic�n at the naeelinb.
I wouid ask that Council Members come prepared to the meeting with queations '
rc�;ardin�; the orJinanee i� �llcyw issues of conecrn to be discussed in a forum
with o�her Cc�uncil M�mbers and St�ff. Thc antici�ated result af this meciing is
tc� t�rii�g �ro#j{�ms OF C(lI1CtC115 c�ut into the o�en and to achieve a consensus
aro�n� C'uuacit Members as io h�w niuch additional review wi(1 be necessary
fiefc�re tat�in� action an ilic; ()rdina-nce. 1 would su�gcst [hai since the Planning
C:onimission comEilcle�i review of tlie Ordinance in 8 months within which time
major r�visions and restructurin� �f [he ordinance was accomptished, that a 3 co
4 manth rzview period sh�uld be ac�equale. Two to three Speciat Meetings could
be schcduled within this p�rioei to �ccc�mmoda[e further rcview and to allow
Siaff to �lraft changes which may be propased by che Couneil.
A finat comment in this review is that I will remind the (:ouncii that the Zoning
Ordinance represents one af the mosE important land use c�ntrols available for a
community tc� pres�rve hea(Ih end safely as well as to help maintain or im�rrove
visual character. The Orctinance l�eing considered wil! guide and control growth
in Rasemounl €or many years to come. It is important that the City Council
unders[a«d and supparC this clocument to enable City Staff to impleament its
�rovisians. I invite Council Members to contact me before or after [his Specia!
Meeting with any questions regarding the t�rdinance which might better be
addressed in a one [o one situtation. I am looking forward to a productive
session Tuesday night.