HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.a. Zoning Ordinance TA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Planning Commission Regular Meeting: July 28, 2020
Tentative City Council Meeting: August 18, 2020
AGENDA ITEM: 20-39-TA Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment to Section 11-2-15: Essential
Service Facilities and 11-1-4: Definitions
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Anthony Nemcek, Planner AGENDA NO. 5.a.
ATTACHMENTS: Aerials depicting two areas of ½ square
miles APPROVED BY: KL
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to recommend the City Council adopt an amendment
to Sections 11-2-15 and 11-1-4 of the Zoning Ordinance related to the Essential Services
and Transmission Facilities.
SUMMARY
The City of Rosemount zoning ordinance regulates transmission facilities, which are defined as essential
service facilities consisting of overhead electric lines in excess of thirty-five (35) kV and supporting
structures or natural gas transmission pipelines in excess of two hundred (200) pounds per square inch.
This has resulted in some confusion related to the review of industrial pipeline projects that do not
specifically carry natural gas, but the land use implications would be similar.
There is a second component to this issue, and that is related to the review process required for pipelines
and other transmission facilities. The City Code addresses essential service and transmission facilities in
section 11-2-17. Currently, pipelines longer than ¼ mile require a Transmission Facilities Permit, which is
similar to, but not the same as, a Conditional Use Permit. Larger industrial users, like Flint Hills Resources
(FHR) have indicated that they install pipelines often for their internal operations and those installations
could trigger the ordinance prescribed public review process.
Following the discussion that took place and the feedback staff received during the Planning Commission
meeting in June, staff is recommending an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would update the
definition of transmission facilities so that essential service facilities are not limited only to pipelines that
carry natural gas and also amend the threshold at which a conditional use permit is required for such
facilities.
DISCUSSION
During the Planning Commission meeting in June, the Commission indicated support for updating the
definition of transmission facilities to include all pipelines, not just those that are used to move natural gas
at a pressure above 200 pounds per square inch. This would allow the City to regulate a wider range of
pipelines as the land use implications are the same regardless of what a pipeline is carrying. Rosemount’s
definition is more specific than other communities where the definition does not identify natural gas at all.
Therefore, staff is recommending the following amendment to Section 11-1-4: Definitions.
TRANSMISSION FACILITIES: Essential service facilities consisting of overhead electric lines in excess
of thirty-five (35) kV and supporting structures or natural gas transmission pipelines in excess of two
hundred (200) pounds per square inch pipelines not required for the local distribution network serving
homes and businesses.
2
The bigger question that required a deeper discussion at the June Planning Commission meeting is
whether a transmission facility that is greater than ¼ mile in length but located entirely within a larger
facility such as the Pine Bend Refinery should still be required to go through the public hearing process
and receive a Transmission Facility Permit.
Staff has reached out to Flint Hills Resources, as they are the entity most impacted by the ordinance due to
the nature of their operation. Their main concern relates to the installation of pipes within their facility,
specifically within the tank farm at the northern end of the refinery. Because of the layout of that part of
the facility and the way pipes need to be routed, it is not difficult for a project to exceed ¼ mile within a
relatively small area. FHR could potentially have 30 projects or more in a given year going through the
public hearing process, which is not necessarily reasonable. Staff is recommending a text amendment that
calls out transmission facilities located entirely within a single processing facility and creates a threshold
based on a project area within which a pipeline would be exempt from the transmission facilities
permitting process. The amendment is proposed as follows:
C. An application for transmission facilities shall be required to be submitted to the city, including
information related to the proposed design, proposed siting, and alternative sites together with such
application fee as may be approved from time to time by the city council. All transmission facilities
shall be required to receive a permit from the city, except for those that are less than or equal to one-
fourth (1/4 ) mile in length or, in the case of transmission facilities located entirely within a single
processing facility, located entirely within a ½ square mile area measured equally on all sides. No
application shall be considered until a public hearing has been held by the planning commission. A
notice of such hearing shall be published at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, and notices shall be
mailed to each property owner within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the affected property, except
when located in agricultural (AG), agricultural preserve (AG-P) and rural residential (RR) districts
which shall require mailed notice to each property owner within one-fourth (1/4 ) mile. The city council
shall consider the recommendation of the planning commission and either approve or deny the
application.
The proposed amendment would keep the same ¼ mile length threshold, thereby ensuring that pipelines
outside of individual facilities still receive the same review, while the ½ square mile area threshold will
ensure that larger projects within a facility that have a wider scope still undergo the transmission facility
permitting process. To provide some context of what that area looks like in relation to the refinery, two
aerials showing a circle and a square both ½ square mile in area are attached.
CONCLUSION
This is the second time this text amendment is coming before the Planning Commission. Staff has
incorporated the feedback received from the Planning Commission during the previous meeting and is
recommending approval of the proposed amendments contained within this executive summary. If the
Planning Commission feels the proposed amendment is not ready to be acted upon by the City Council,
staff will accept any further comments or feedback. Because this amendment is not related to an
application, there is not a deadline for approval of the proposed amendment.