HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.a. Adoption of Proposed Individual Sewage Treatment System Ordinance (Section 14.6) CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 7, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of Proposed Individual Sewage AGENDA SECTION:
Treatment System Ordinance (Section 14.6) OLD Business
PREPARED BY: Paul Heimkes, Building Official d// AGENDA rfEm 4.1 a
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum, Proposed Septic APPROVED BY:
Ordinance, Planning Commission Minutes, Comprehensive
Guide Plan Agreement and the Existing Ordinance (14.6) __islet
The attached memo, draft Ordinance 14.6 and miscellaneous correspondence provide details
regarding the adoption of this ordinance.
The adoption of this ordinance will fulfill the agreement the City made in the adoption and
approval (in 1993) of the current Comprehensive Guide Plan with the Metropolitan Council.
The proposed ordinance language has been reviewed and approved by the City's legal counsel
and is in general conformance with Metropolitan Council mandates, MN. PCA 7080 Septic
Codes and Dakota County Ordinance 113-Regulating Septic Systems in the County.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt, as mandated by the Metropolitan Council, the
revised Zoning Code Ordinance-Section 14.6, Regulating Individual Sewage Treatment
Systems and their maintenance.
COUNCIL ACTION:
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council Members
From: Paul Heimkes,Building Official
Date: May 1, 1996
Re: Proposed City Zoning Code Revision to Section 14.6, On-Site Individual Sewage
Treatment Systems. Proposed Ordinance Revision for Adoption.
Attached is a newly revised copy of the proposed individual sewage treatment system ordinance
(section 14.6 of the City Zoning Code). I have also included a copy of the minutes of the April
23rd Planning Commission Meeting in which a recommendation of approval (with revisions) was
made. I have made the recommended revisions per the Planning Commission request. Also
included is a copy of the existing ordinance, the Comprehensive Guide Plan Agreement to adopt
such an ordinance and the proposed fee schedule for the ordinance.
The Planning Commission recommended a change to subpart"J" of the ordinance, changing the
schedule for obtaining the initial permit from 12 months to 24 months. There was also a lot of
discussion with regards to changing the duration section of the ordinance from two years to three
or four years. However, to comply with the 1993 agreement in the Comprehensive Guide Plan,
(refer to attachment)we must go with a two-year maintenance or operational permit. Only the
motion to change subsection"J"was made, so that is the only change to this proposal since you've
seen this last.
The process for this ordinance update and revision began in July of 1994. Since its initial draft,
staff has had numerous meetings with surrounding municipalities, the Metropolitan Council staff
and the Dakota County Environmental Management Division. Staff has also had numerous phone
conversations with the MN PCA, Commission members, the University of Minnesota Extension
Office and City Legal Council. In addition, staff completed two direct mailings to all septic
owners and held two public informational meetings at the Community Center. Direct
informational notices were also sent out for the Planning Commission meeting on the 23rd.
At this point, staff feels that this draft ordinance meets all of the mandates of the Metropolitan
Council per the City agreement, Minnesota PCA rule 7080 for septic installations, Dakota County
Ordinance 113 regulating septic systems, the Planning Commission recommendations of the
public hearing held on April 23rd 1996, and it was also changed as a result of public comment at
the public informational meetings. In addition, the ordinance is uniform with the cities of Inver
Grove Heights, Eagan and Farmington making it easier for enforcement purposes. It's also easier
for homeowners and contractors for maintenance purposes, and it results in a cost savings to the
City in regards to computer software, and most of all, it protects groundwater and the
environment.
•
SEPTIC FEE RESOLUTION FOR 1996
The following proposed fees represent the costs associated with City Code section 14.6
Ordinance update.
• Private Septic-All Classifications $50.50 (existing fee)
• Dakota County Recording Fee $50.00 (existing fee)
• Residential Maintenance Permit NO FEE
• Commercial,Industrial,Public or $42.00
Institutional Operational Permit
• Late Renewal Fee For Maintenance $42.00
or Operational Permits
• Special ISTS Inspections $42.00
or Investigations
•
*** PROPOSED ***
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ".
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROSEMOUNT CITY
ZONING CODE RELATING TO THE DESIGN,
INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ON-SITE
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
The City Council of the City of Rosemount ordains as follows:
SECTION I:
A: Purpose and Scope
Proposed Ordinance Revision to City Zoning Code Section 14.6 for on-Site Sewage
Treatment Systems.
The purpose and scope of the revisions and update of Rosemount City Zoning Code
Section 14.6, Design, Installation and Maintenance of On-site Individual Sewage
Treatment System Requirements, shall be to provide standards and guidelines for
regulations for the compliance and enforcement of:
1. The proper siting, design, construction, installation, operation, maintenance,
repair, reconstruction, inspection, enforcement and regulation of new and
continued uses of individual waste treatment systems and devices.
2. To comply with Minnesota Metropolitan Council mandates requiring the City of
Rosemount to require maintenance of existing on-site sewage treatment
systems on a regular basis to maintain code compliance.
It shall be the primary intent of this ordinance to promote the public health,
safety and general welfare of the City of Rosemount and to protect the
environment and the City's natural resources including soils, bedrock and
surface and groundwater. To this end, this ordinance shall provide for the
prevention and control of waste water - related injury, disease, and natural
resource depletion which can result from the improper generation, storage,
treatment, removal, transport, utilization and disposal of waste water.
2
SECTION II:
Section 14.6 of the Rosemount City Zoning code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
• 14.6 Design, installation and maintenance of on-site individual
sewage treatment system requirements
A. Definitions
For the purpose of this ordinance, definitions of terms provided in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 115.03 and Chapter 145A, and in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7080 and 4715,
and Dakota County Ordinance 113 as well as related laws and regulations, as
referenced, shall have the same meaning subscribed to them in this ordinance, unless
provided otherwise as follows:
"Abandonment"shall mean the permanent and proper termination
or decommissioning of an individual sewage treatment system or
part thereof.
"Approved Testing Methods" shall mean all those relevant sample
collection, preservation, analytical and statistical reporting
methods known to accurately and precisely represent physical,
chemical, biological and radiological parameters of interest or
concern in water, waste water or waste. Approved testing
methods shall be regulatory or consensus standards and shall not
be limited to, standard methods for the examination of water and
waste water (APHA, AWWA, WPCF), methods for chemical
analysis of water and wastes (EPA) and, where applicable, test
methods for evaluating solid waste (SW-846, EPA).
"Baffle" means a device installed in a septic tank for proper
operation of the tank and to provide maximum retention of solids,
and includes vented sanitary tees and submerged pipe in addition
to those devices that are normally called baffles.
"Commercial and Industrial" means a building or'property use
other than dwelling, multiple family dwelling, or two-family
dwelling, or attached or detached dwelling.
"Contaminant" shall mean any physical, chemical, biological, or
radiological substance or material in water which tends to degrade
the environment by contributing toxicity, constituting a hazard or
otherwise impairing its usefulness.
"Contamination" shall mean the presence of certain infections or
toxic agents or certain hazardous characteristics capable of
causing disease or other harm.
3
"Dwelling" means any building or portion thereof, which is
designed or used exclusively for residential purposes but not
including rooms in motels, hotels, nursing homes, boarding
houses, nor trailers, tents, cabins or tailer coaches.
"Failed Individual Sewage Treatment System" Failed individual
sewage treatment systems means any ISTS that discharges
sewage to a seepage pit, cesspool, drywell or leaching pit and any
system with less than three feet of soil or sand between the
bottom of the distribution medium and the saturated soil level or
bedrock and in addition.
"Groundwater or Ground Water" shall mean subsurface water in
the vadose (unsaturated) and phreatic (saturated) zones occurring
naturally in soil and rock formations, whether or not capable of
• yielding such water to wells, and shall specifically mean that
subsurface water present in the saturated zone defined by a
perched, free or confined ground water surface.
"Hazardous Materials" means any substance, which when
discarded, meets the definition of hazardous waste in Minnesota
Rules 7045.
"Holding Tank" means a watertight tank for storage of sewage
until it can be transported to a point of approved treatment and
disposal.
"Imminent Threat to Public Health or Safety" "Imminent threat to
public health or safety" shall mean situations with the potential to
immediately and adversely impact or threaten public health or
safety.
"Individual Sewage Treatment System" (Hereafter known as ISTS)
"Individual sewage treatment system" means a sewage treatment
system, or part thereof, serving a dwelling, or other
establishment, or group thereof, and using sewage tanks or
advanced treatment followed by soil treatment and disposal.
Individual sewage treatment system includes holding tanks and
privies.
"Owner" means all persons having possession of, control over, or title to an
individual sewage treatment system.
"Pollutant" shall mean a contaminant whose form concentration
or other attribute in an environmental medium such as soil or
water, exceeds established, acceptable criteria and standards
prescribed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and,
therefore, may be capable of causing disease, injury or death in
4
•
humans, animals or plants, contributing to the risk thereof,
otherwise degrading the environment or creating a public
nuisance.
"Public Nuisance" or "Public Health Nuisance" shall be defined as
in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 145A, as amended, and shall be
restricted in this Ordinance to those conditions in which wastes,
waste waters, sewage, septage, sludge and other releases or
related activities contribute to the annoyance or endangerment of
persons or the degradation of the environment and which require
appropriate preventory, control or abatement to resolve.
"Pumper" shall mean any qualified person currently licensed by --;;;--4,'"
- the State of Minnesota to properly clean, service, pump out and
remove all septage, sewage, sewage sludge and other waste
•
water solids and liquids from sewage tanks, pits, lagoons, privies,
and other containers or devices, to temporarily store and transport
such waste water, and to properly dispose of such waste water
in a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency-permitted municipal or
other waste water treatment facility or land apply, incorporate and
\beneficially use such waste water on a MPCA permitted land
application site.
"Reserve Area" shall mean that portion of a property that is
designated to be protected from all vehicular traffic; construction
and other disturbances to the original, natural soils' such that a
future waste water treatment system or device may be
constructed meeting all Ordinance requirements when the existing
primary system or device malfunctions, becomes irreparable or
when it fails to comply with this Ordinance.
"Septage" "Septage means solids and liquids removed during
periodic maintenance of an individual sewage treatment system,
or solids and liquids which are removed from toilet waste
treatment devices or a holding tank.
"Septic Tank" means any watertight, covered receptacle designed
and constructed to receive the discharge of sewage from a
building sewer, separate solids from liquid, digest organic matter,
and store liquids through a period of detention, and allow the
clarified liquids to discharge to a soil treatment system.
"Sewage"means any water carried domestic waste, exclusive of
footing and roof drainage, from any industrial, agricultural, or
commercial establishment, or any dwelling or any other structure.
Domestic waste includes liquid waste produced by toilets,
bathing, laundry, culinary operations, and the floor drains
5
I
associated with these sources, and specifically excludes animal
waste and commercial or industrial waste water.
"Sewage Tank" means a watertight tank used in the treatment of
sewage and includes, but is not limited to septic tanks and aerobic
tanks.
"Sewage Tank Effluent" means that liquid which flows from a
septic or aerobic tank under normal operation.
"Soil Treatment Area" means that area of trench or bed bottom
which is in direct contact with the drainfield rock of the soil
treatment system, and for mounds, that area to the edges of the
required absorption width and extending five feet beyond the ends
of the rock layer.
"Soil Treatment System" means a system where sewage tank
effluent is treated and disposed of below the ground surface by
filtration and percolation through the soil, and includes those
systems commonly known as seepage bed, trench, drainfield,
disposal field, and mounds.
"Standard Systems" means an individual sewage treatment
system employing a building sewer, sewage tank,'and the soil
treatment system consisting of trenches, seepage beds or mounds
which are constructed on original soil which has a percolation rate
equal to or faster than 120 minutes per inch.
"Water Table" means the highest elevation in the soil where all
voids are filled with water, as evidenced by presence of water or
soil mottling or other information.
Section III
A. Administration
Standards for the installation, maintenance and repair of ISTS are as
established herein.
Adoption of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Rule 7080 and
any subsequent amendments thereto, and Dakota County
Environmental Management Department Ordinance 113, in the
most current editions are hereby adopted by reference and shall
be part of this ordinance as if set forth herein.
B. Design of ISTS
6
In addition to requirements contained within MPCA 7080 and Dakota County
Ordinance 113, all new, rebuilt or otherwise modified individual sewage
treatment systems located in the City shall be designed by a person licensed
by the State of Minnesota as being qualified to design such systems. Proof of
such certification shall be provided to the City at the time the design of the
ISTS is submitted to the City's Building Inspection Division for approval. The
"" design shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Inspection Division
prior to issuance of any permits for the subject site.
C. Installation of ISTS
The installation of an ISTS shall occur only at the location approved by the
City's Building Inspection Division. Installation of the system at any other
location shall require submission to and approval of revised design and location
plans by the City's Building Inspection Division ; The system shall only be
installed by a person or company licensed by the State of Minnesota as
qualified to install such a system.
D. Permit Requirements
No person shall install, repair, or alter an ISTS without first obtaining a permit
as provided herein. Applications, provided by the City, must be completed in
writing prior to issuance of a permit. Permit fees are established by resolution
of the City Council.
E. Testing for ISTS Design .
•
For all buildable lots and existing lots of record in unsewered areas, the
landowner shall submit to the City two (2) separate ISTS site evaluations for
a primary and secondary reserve area sewage/soil treatment system. A
minimum of four (4) soil borings, two (2) perculation test results and a
complete site evaluation for the primary and secondary ISTS soil treatment
system per PCA 7080.0110 must be submitted. The site analysis must show
the existence of adequate land area for both the primary and secondary ISTS
taking into account seasonably saturated soils, `soil types and conditions,
topographic features, flooding potential and mandatory setback requirements
as dictated by City Ordinance and any applicable State and Federal regulations.
The evaluation of the soils and the soil borings as well as the two (2) potential
locations for the ISTS shall be submitted to the City for review and approval
prior to any preliminary or final plat approval or waiver of platting or permit
issuance.
Failure to provide the information required by this section or failure to have at
least two (2) potential sites for a soil treatment system on each lot shall be
grounds for denial of the building and septic permits.
F: Shoreland and Flood Plain Regulations
7
The design and installation of any ISTS within a designated shoreland or flood
plain area shall be in accordance with Section 9.1 of this ordinance and any
other applicable federal, state or county shoreland or flood plain regulations.
G: Maintenance and Operating Regulations of Existing ISTS
1. Residential Maintenance Permit
The owner of every residential dwelling with an ISTS system
must obtain an ISTS maintenance permit from the City's Building
Inspection Division. An ISTS maintenance permit shall be issued
by the City's Building Inspection Division only upon successful
completion and proper recording of the sewage system
maintenance log sheet in accordance with 14.6G Subp. 3 of this
ordinance.
2. Commercial, Industrial, Public, or Institutional Operational Permit
The owner of every commercial, industrial, public, or institutional
ISTS is required to have an ISTS operational permit for each ISTS
from the City's Building Inspection Division. The operational
permit shall be issued only upon successful completion of the
following requirements:
a. The owner of the ISTS has successfully completed
maintenance on the system in accordance with 14.6G
Subp. 3 of this ordinance.
b. Inspections shall be completed by the City's Building
Inspection Division to verify water use and suitable effluent
quality for on-site treatment. For an increase in discharge
rate due to a change of use or building addition, the owner
will be responsible to complete an ISTS evaluation by a
licensed evaluator to determine capacity of the existing
system. Permits will not be issued if the existing system
is not capable of handling discharge.
c. The owner of the ISTS pays the required permit fee for
each ISTS as set forth by resolution by the City Council.
d. A new operational permit is required when a change of
ownership, building use or building addition occurs.
3. ISTS Maintenance
Upon successful completion of ISTS maintenance per PCA
7080.0175 the licensed pumper/inspector shall submit a sewage
system maintenance log sheet to the Dakota County
Environmental Management Department within 30 days with the
8
•
appropriate county recording fee. The log sheet must be
completed in its entirety and all information recorded must be
verified in writing by the signature and date of the licensed
pumper/inspector completing the maintenance. The log sheet
must also state the condition of and work done on the following:
a. The sewage or septic tank(s) has been thoroughly pumped
by a licensed pumper to remove all solids and scum in
accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Rules
Chapter 7080.0175.
Exception: Pumping is not required if a licensed pumper or
licensed private inspector determines that accumulated
sludge and scum layers do not exceed the levels required
for pumping per Minnesota Rule Chapter 7080.0175.
b. An ISTS evaluation is completed 13y the licensed
pumper/inspector verifying that the baffles and tank(s) are
in working order and in substantial compliance with
Minnesota Rule Chapter 7080 and if there is any evidence
of ISTS surface discharge or failure.
4. Duration
The duration of the residential maintenance permit and
commercial and industrial operational permits shall be for two (2)
years and shall be renewed by the owner after fulfilling the
requirements of 14.6G of this ordinance again making application
to the City for such permit. The permit(s) shall be deemed
revoked if the system becomes a failed ISTS.
5. Renewal
If an owner has not renewed the ISTS maintenance or operation
permit(s) as required by 14.6G Subp 4 within 30 days of
expiration of the permit, a late renewal fee as established by
resolution by City Council shall be paid before'a permit is issued.
Failure to obtain the required maintenance or operational permits
or to renew said permits as outlined in this section may also
result in penalty as outlined in Section 14.6 Subpart M.
H. Limits on Commercial and Industrial Discharge
No animal waste or commercial waste water or industrial waste water shall be
discharged on the surface or into the sub-surface unless the person allowing
or causing the discharge first obtains a state disposal system permit from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Such discharges must comply with the
terms and requirements of the state disposal system permit in order to
9
continue. An ISTS that on the effective date of this section (14.6) is used for
the discharge of animal waste or commercial waste water or industrial waste
water may continue to be used for such purposes until such system becomes
a failed ISTS or the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency orders discontinuance,
whichever occurs first; then, in such case the new installed systems must
comply with this Section (14.6).
J. Schedule for Initial Permits
The owner of any ISTS within the City shall obtain a maintenance or
operational permit within twenty-four (24) months of the effective date of this
ordinance and shall maintain said maintenance or operational permit under the
conditions of Subpart G of 14.6 of this code until use of the ISTS has been
abandoned or terminated.
K. Failed ISTS
The owner of any failed ISTS shall replace, modify or reconstruct the failed
system in conformance with MPCA rule 7080 prior to January 30th, 2002.
The requirements of this section does not preclude the requirements of other
sections of this code, MPCA 7080, Dakota County Ordinance 113, or any
other State or Federal law from requiring earlier or immediate ISTS
replacements or upgrades.
L. Systems Causing Imminent Threat To Public Health or Safety
The owner of any ISTS defined as causing an imminent threat to public health
or safety shall immediately replace, modify or reconstruct the ISTS in
conformance with MPCA Rule 7080.
M. Penalty
Violation of this section (14.6) shall be a misdemeanor. Presentation to the City
of any false or intentionally misleading statements, certificates or applications
by the owner or by the certified pumpers, designers or installers of the ISTS
shall also be a misdemeanor. A separate offense shall be deemed committed
each day during or upon which a violation occurs or continues.
N. Inconsistency
If any provision of this Section (14.6) is inconsistent with MPCA Rule 7080,
or Dakota County Ordinance 113, then that provision which is more demanding
or provides a greater level of requirements or restrictions or provides an earlier
date of compliance shall prevail and be controlling. If any provision of this
Section (14.6) is inconsistent with City code, then that provision which is more
demanding or provides a greater level of requirements or restrictions or
provides an earlier date of compliance shall prevail and be controlling.
10
0. Effective Date
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption and
publication according to law.
Adopted this day of 1996.
Cathy Busho, Mayor
ATTEST: w
r
Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk
Published this _ day of , 1996 in Rosemount Town Pages.
•
11
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 612 291-6359 FAX 612 291-6550 TTY 612 291-0904
September 23, 1993
Lisa Freese, Planning Director
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street W.
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: City of Rosemount
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review
Update 2000, Plan Revision
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 15468-6
Dear Ms. Freese:
At its meeting on September 16, 1993, the Metropolitan Council considered the city of
Rosemount's comprehensive plan amendment. This consideration was based on a report of the
Committee of the Whole. A copy of this adopted report is attached.
The Council adopted the attached Resolution No. 93-57 Which Resolves:
1. That the Metropolitan Council adopt the findings and the staff report as part of
these recommendations.
2. That the Metropolitan Council inform the city of Rosemount that pursuant to the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act (Minnesota Statutes Sec. 473.175, Subd. 1),
before it can put the plan amendment into effect it must:
a. modify its plan by removing the area within the proposed year 2000
MUSA (including the area identified as removed from the MUSA
until after 1996) until such time as the Council has approved the
Commission's Implementation Plan for expanding the capacity of the
Rosemount wastewater treatment plant.
b. modify its Comprehensive Plan to reflect the Rosemount wastewater
treatment plant capacity of 0.9 million gallons per day.
c. specify that all on-site r
at modify least its bienniaplan llto y by an inspector licensed by systems the a city e to or be County inspected d, an
46, certified by the MPCA.
Recycled Paper
•
Lisa Freese
Page 2
September 23, 1993
3. That the Metropolitan Council recommend that the city revise its plan to respond
to the changes to the region's roadway classification system adopted by the TAB
in 1992 and 1993.
4. That the Metropolitan Council recommend that the city revise its plan to
specify how the city will incorporate the recommendations of the TH 52/55
Study.
5. That the Metropolitan Council commend the city for its support of strategies to
work with developers to remove barriers and encourage design that promotes
transit usage in specified corridors.
Attached is a copy of a letter from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission commenting on
the plan amendment.
Sincerely,
de-T4- ej
Dottie Rietow
Chair
DR:lv
Attachments
cc: Stephan Jilk, City of Rosemount
Donald Bluhm, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Tom Caswell, Metropolitan Council Staff
•
II. ORDINANCE REVISIONS
VISIONS
r
The primary implementation tools of the Comprehensive Guide Plan are the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances. These ordinances are the official controls that will enable the City to pro-actively
utilize the Guide Plan and achieve the City of Rosemount's vision for the year 2000.
Zoning Ordinance
The Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1989. Amendments to the ordinance are necessary to
implement the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The following amendments will be considered by the
City Council:
1. Establish a Planned Residential and Mixed-Use Development District to preserve sensitive land
use transition areas and unique topographic features. The R-L Low Density Single Family
Residential District should be replaced by PD-R - Residential.
2. Establish Interim Use Permit (IUP) and/or Conditional Use Permit (CUP) provisions to
legitimize some existing non-conforming uses with performance criteria and to enhance official
controls as needed. These mechanisms will promote greater flexibility within existing zoning
districts.
3. Expand locational criteria for R-3 Multiple-Family Residence District to go beyond the
Rosemount Central Business District (CBD). Expand locational criteria in the Purpose and
Intent paragraph in accordance with High Density Residential plan elements that are not
dependent on the CBD.
4. Establish performance standards for Multi-Family Districts beyond the basic development
standards that specify density bonus requirements. Maximum overall densities will be lower per
ordinance if the density bonus is not requested. Examples of performance standards include, but
are not limited to: (1) enhanced architectural or aesthetic treatments; (2) private recreational
amenities; (3) enhanced landscaping, parking, open space, and/or building setbacks.
5. Reduce the maximum density allowed in R-3 Multiple-Family Districts to twelve (12) units per
acre from the current density permitted, eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre. Up to eighteen
(18) dwelling units per acre would be allowed with conformance to performance standards.
6. Modify the Purpose and Intent paragraph of the R-2 Single-Family Attached District to
discourage development of additional manufactured home parks. Existing manufactured home
parks should not be rendered non-conforming.
7. Consider expanding the list of permitted uses under R-1 Attached Single Family by PUD to
accommodate density bonuses allowed for adherence to adopted performance standards.
8. Analyze the results of the Downtown Scoping Committee to consider refinements as appropriate
to the Commercial Districts.
9. Rezone as necessary and amend zoning map:
1) Broback Industrial Park: Industrial Park to Residential;
2) University Addition: Industrial Park to Residential;
3) CMC 104-acre Site: Industrial Park to ResidentiaUCommercial;
4) Kelley Trust Property: Agriculture and R-1 Single Family Residential to PD-R;
5) 15-acre Islamic Community Cemetery Site: Agriculture to PB (Public or Quasi-Public);
6) East of Shannon Parkway, West of Chippendale, South of CSAH 42, and North of 152nd
Street West: Agriculture to Mixed Use PUD;
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT SECTION VI-3 OCTOBER 1993
•
7) Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 3, South Rose Park Addition Replat: R-3 to Business Park;
8) South Half of Section 32, Range 19, East of Chippendale, and West of STS 3: Agriculture
to Business Park.
10. Identify Non-conforming Uses, and clarify and strengthen non-conforming use provisions.
11. Adopt a revised Storm Water Plan and revise development ordinances in compliance with the
Metropolitan Council's Interim Strategy for Non-point Source Pollution. Storm water design
standards for all new ponds will be in compliance with the National Urban Run-off Program
standards and state regulations.
PROJECTED COMPLETION TASK
► Within 90 days of Plan Acceptance Adopt Interim Storm Water Management Ordinance based on the
Metropolitan Council Model Ordinance.
► Within 18 months after Plan Acceptance Complete Storm Water Management Plan and update 1989
Drainage Plan in conformance with Metropolitan Council Interim
Strategy and new state and federal regulations.
■ December 1994 Revise DNR Shoreland Regulations consistent with the 1989 rule
changes. Rosemount is a priority 3 City and the DNR anticipates
working with those communities in 1994.
I. April 1995 Adopt Storm Water Management Ordinance consistent with City's
Storm Water Management Plan and revised Drainage Plan.
12. Establish a Tree Preservation Policy and Ordinance.
13. Establish a Sidewalk/Pedestrian Corridor Standard for neighborhoods to connect the City trail
system.
14. Establish Site Plan Review Requirements for parking lots of more than fifteen (15) spaces and ink
development of slopes that are in excess of twelve percent (12%) gradients.
15. Establish a Conditional or Interim Use Permit requirement for any tower or structure to be built
200 feet or higher.
16. Create a Conservancy Zoning District consistent with the Conservancy Land Use Designation.
17. Review the R-1 Single Family District and determine if the district needs to be revised or
additional districts are necessary to increase the diversity of the City's housing stock.
18. Repeal the Industrial Park (IP) District and create a flexible use Business Park (BP) District with
appropriate standards regarding outdoor storage, setbacks from residential uses, loading
facilities, landscaping, etc.
19. Differentiate sewered and unsewered general industrial areas in the east end of the City by
creating a Rural-Limited Industrial District intended primarily for existing industrial uses outside
the proposed eastern MUSA.
Subdivision Ordinance
The Subdivision Ordinance was originally adopted in 1972. Adoption of the Guide Plan will
necessitate major changes to this ordinance. Among the needed changes identified are: (1)
increasing setbacks to major thoroughfares and railroads; (2) converting all references "Village" to
"City"; and (3) clarification of the lot split/administrative plat process. The overhaul will
streamline the ordinance by removing repealed sections and consolidating definitions and
exemptions.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT SECTION VI-4 OCTOBER 1993
4 On-site Septic System Inspection Program
Because the City's rural development is inconsistent with the Metropolitan Council, the City is
requized to implement an on-site inspection program. To this end the City has been supporting
Dakota County's efforts to develop such a program on a county-wide basis. This program has not
bee n adopted by the County and in the event that the adoption is not timely, the City is taking steps
i
to implement a local biennial inspection program in conformance with the Council's requirements.
The City plans to adopt an ordinance by the end of the first quarter of 1994.
0
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT SECTION VI -5 OCTOBER 1993
•
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 250 E. 5th Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612-291-6359
RESOLUTION NO 93-57
RESOLUTION REQUIRING MODIFICATION OF
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the city of Rosemount, by letter submitted March 22, 1993, transmitted a proposed
amendment to its adopted comprehensive plan regarding revision of the entire plan, in
accordance with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and the Council Guidelines for
Reviewing Local Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on September 16, 1993, the Metropolitan Council reviewed the
Rosemount plan amendment and adopted a plan review report, in accordance with the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act and the Council Guidelines for Reviewing Local
Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment has been reviewed for impacts on metropolitan systems,
apparent consistency with other adopted Metropolitan Development Guide chapters and
compatibility with plans of adjacent local units of government; and
WHEREAS, the Council has concluded that the amendment as proposed constitutes a substantial
impact on or substantial departure from the Council's Wastewater Treatment and
Handling Policy Plan, and that a plan modification is required prior to Council approval.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that:
1. The Metropolitan Council finds that:
a. The forecasts contained the Rosemount comprehensive plan, Update 2000
are consistent with the Council's forecasts.
b. The city's policies for rural area development are consistent with the
Council's rural policy, except for the existing developed areas shown on its
zoning map as Rural Residential.
c. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has completed interim
improvements to the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant that has
increased its design capacity to approximately 0.9 mgd. The city's plan and
flow projections must be consistent with the plant's capacity.
d. The long term facility plan for the Rosemount plant will not be approved
until 1994.
e. The city's program for infiltration/inflow is acceptable, and the provisions
for private wastewater treatment plants comply with Council requirements.
f. The city needs to modify its on-site system regulations to require biennial
inspection of on-site systems by certified and licensed inspectors.
•
g. The city's surface water management policies comply with the Council's
Interim Nonpoint Management Strategy.
h. The plan's functional classification system complies with the current
Transportation Policy Plan, but not the classification revisions adopted by
the TAB in 1992 and 1993.
L = The city does not specify when the results of the TH 55 Corridor Study will
be available, nor how it will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.
j. The plan amendment indicates the city is studying the provision of
municipal services to the eastern portion of the city, but not address the
volumes and types of traffic expected to be generated by expansion of the
proposed industrial uses and densities.
k. The transit section of the plan is realistic in scope given the level of service
available. The city is committed to work with developers to remove
barriers and encourage transit use in the design of development projects in
transit corridors.
L A decision to relocate the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport to the Rosemount
search area would require a major revision to the transportation element of
the city's Comprehensive Plan.
m. Approximately 200 acres of Spring Lake Regional Park is located on the •
eastern end of Rosemount. Adjacent development appears to be
consistent with regional parks.
n. There regional are no other re ional recreation facilities within the city. Proposed
development in Rosemount, adjacent to Lebanon Hills Regional Park
located in Eagan and Apple Valley, is compatible and consistent with
open space.
metropolitan plans for regional recreation o p
P P g
o. The plan provides complete information on its housing goals and policies,
as well as implementation measures necessary to achieve them.
2. The Metropolitan Council concludes that it will:
a. Adopt the above findings and the staff report as part of these
recommendations.
b. Inform the city of Rosemount that pursuant to the Metropolitan Land
Planning Act (Minnesota Statutes Sec. 473.175, Subd. 1), before it can put
the plan amendment into effect it must:
0
•
1. modify its plan by removing the area within the proposed year 2000
MUSA (including the area identified as removed from the MUSA
until after 1996)until such time as the Council has approved the
Commission's Implementation Plan for expanding the capacity of
the Rosemount wastewater treatment plant.
2. modify its Comprehensive Plan to reflect the Rosemount
wastewater treatment plant capacity of 0.9 million gallons per day.
3. modify its plan to specify that all on-site systems are to be inspected •
at least biennially by an inspector licensed by the city or County,
and certified by the MPCA.
c. Recommend that the city revise its plan to respond to the changes to the
region's roadway classification system adopted by the TAB in 1992 and
1993.
d. Recommend that the city revise its plan to specify how the city will
incorporate the recommendations of the TH 52/55 Study.
e. Commend the city for its support of strategies to work with developers to
remove barriers and encourage design that promotes transit usage in
specified corridors.
' _ Adopted this 16th day of September, 1993.
Kevin owe, Vice Chair andra L. Lindstrom,'ecre
•
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings
April 23,1996
Page 2
DR4
.
MOTION by Tentinger to recommend that the City Council adopt the ordinance amendment for
accessory structures in the Agriculture and Rural Residential Districts subject to the modification of
Paragraph E: Exceptions. Seconded by Shoe-Corrigan. Ayes: Tentinger,Droste, Shoe-Corrigan,
McDermott and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5-0.
Public Hearing: Septic Systems - Ordinance Amendment
Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding
the proposed Septic System Ordinance amendment. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of
Publication and Affidavit of Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City.
Building Official Heimkes related that the Metropolitan Council, upon agreement and acceptance of the
City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, is mandating that the City approve an on-site sewage treatment
system maintenance ordinance. Mr. Heimkes stated that this proposed ordinance has been reviewed and
discussed at 2 previously held public informational meetings. Since that time, he stated that he has
revised this proposed ordinance to include: (1) changes to the definition of"failed septic system" and
"imminent public health threat"; (2) allowing septic system owners approximately 5 years to come into
compliance if they have a"failed" system; and (3) adding Paragraph L which requires septic system
owners to immediately replace or repair their system Wit is causing an imminent threat to public health.
Mr. Heimkes also mentioned that it is possible to get financial assistance to help pay for required
replacement or repairs to a homeowner's septic system.
The Commissioners and Building Official Heimkes discussed and questioned how this ordinance would
be implemented and the approximate cost to a septic system owner for an inspection and pumping
(approximately$80.00).
Laxman S. Sundae, 2637 132nd Court West, explained his extensive background in septic systems to the
Commissioners. He stated that there is no legal basis for this ordinance amendment and felt that if a
system fails, the homeowner if the first to know and will repair the system. Mr. Sundae also stated that
there is no necessity for this amendment and felt this was a"nuisance" ordinance.
An individual representing her mother who lives at 12391 Dodd Blvd stated that since the first
informational meeting many changes have been made to the proposed amendment which she was very
appreciative of. She questioned whether having no manhole on a septic system would automatically
"fail" the system. Building Official Heimkes replied that a manhole is required and without one the
system will be considered"failed."He stated that a septic system owner would have 5 years to bring this
issue into compliance. This individual did not understand why, if a system is otherwise working properly,
the manhole would be required. Mr. Heimkes explained the purpose of the manhole and the approximate
cost ($200.00 to $600.00) to have one installed.
Dennis Wippermann, 12538 Danbury Way, mentioned that he supported the concept and principal of
this amendment in that if a system is causing environmental concerns, then it should be repaired or
replaced. However, Mr. Wippermann believed that all septic system owners were being penalized
because of a few owners who neglect their systems. He stated that this ordinance was very intrusive and
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings
April 23,1996
Page 3
R4p
T
the Metropolitan Council was dictating and blackmailing the City into adopting this amendment. Mr.
Wippermann requested that Paragraph G.4. be amended to require permits every 3 or 4 years -he felt 2
years was too excessive. Mr. Wippermann also requested a modification to Paragraph J to require
owners 24 months(instead of the proposed 12 months)to obtain the initial permit. Mr. Wipperman also
mentioned that the informational meetings were very helpful and necessary.
Marlin Rechtzigel stated that he owns a septic system on a rental property which the renters have
"abused."He asked that consideration be given to him and others for"abuse"that others have caused to
their systems.
William Rohr, 2813 132nd Street West, asked if the City was going to inspect every system to which
Building Official Heimkes replied that private inspectors will be doing the inspections. Mr. Rohr further
questioned how the City will be made aware if an owner of a septic system does not comply with this
ordinance. Mr. Heimkes responded that after an inspection is completed, a form will be sent by the
private inspector to the County and the City will obtain a report from the County in regards to who
completed an inspection. Anyone who does not comply will be sent warnings and then possibly could be
charged with a misdemeanor. Mr. Rohn and Mr. Heimkes discussed the Keegan Lake area.
Ted Hammond, 12375 Dodd Boulevard, had questions for Building Official Heimkes in regards to the
manhole issue.
Doug Gustafson, 12310 South Robert Trail East, stated that he has a seepage pit and questioned
whether he needed to only replace the manhole or the whole system. He also asked if there were still
setbacks required from trees. His final issue was whether the City, sometime in the future, could charge
him assessments for installing City sewer and water. Building Official Heimkes responded that Mr.
Gustafson would have to replace the whole system, there are no setback requirements from trees, and he
possibly could be charged assessments in the future.
Vern Rinehart, 1290 Charleston Court, had questions on the manhole issue and asked what the average
lifespan of a septic system is. Building Official Heimkes responded to his concerns.
Richard Bland, a resident of 121st Street West, asked what the overall process would be for applying for
this permit to which Building Official Heimkes responded.
A resident of Chinchilla Avenue raised the issue of replacing and repairing baffles. Building Official
Heimkes discussed this issue.
Mr. Hammond stated that only a few individuals abuse the system and he did not feel that everyone
should be penalized for these few individuals. He believed that owners needed more"slack" to get the
systems up-to-date.
A resident of Diamond Path Road questioned how the Metropolitan Council was appointed. Senior
Planner Mack responded to this question.
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings
April 23,1996 DRA
P age 4 F
T
Dick Lugging felt that if a system was in compliance when it was installed, then it should be considered
in compliance until it is replaced.
Mr. Sundae asked that the City review the legality of"grandfathering"the current septic systems.
A representative of Rich Valley Golf Club questioned why there is a fee for commercial permits and no
fee for residential permits. Building Official Heimkes explained the rational for the fee schedule.
A resident of 2975 145th Street East asked what would happen if a system had recently been pumped.
Building Official Heimkes responded that a system pumped and recorded within 12 months of adoption
of the ordinance amendment would be accepted.
There being no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public
hearing. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: Droste, Shoe-Corrigan,McDermott, DeBettignies and
Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5-0.
The Commissioners questioned whether the proposed 2-year interval for the inspections could be
increased. Building Official Heimkes stated that he has spent considerable time speaking with the
Metropolitan Council on this issue and that the Metropolitan Council will not budge. Mr. Heimkes
stated that he does not agree with the 2-year intervals, however, if the amendment states anything above
2-year intervals, the Metropolitan Council will not accept it.
The Commissioners then questioned increasing the time allowed to obtain the initial permit from 12
months to 24 months to which Building Official Heimkes stated that the Metropolitan Council might
agree with this.
The Commissioners also discussed whether this amendment has a legal basis (Building Official Heimkes
stated that legal counsel has reviewed this amendment); the"grandfathering" issue (Mr. Heimkes stated
that the Metropolitan Council would not agree to that); the possible replication of fees for commercial
owners; the manhole issue; possible financial assistance; and Staff organizing a packet of information to
distribute to septic systems owners regarding this amendment, etc.
The Commissioners expressed their feelings that this amendment was very intrusive and that they felt
forced by the Metropolitan Council into approving this amendment. The Commissioners also stated that
they agreed with many of the comments from the audience. It was discussed at length the consequences
the City could face from the Metropolitan Council if this ordinance amendment is not approved.
The Commissioners concurred that allowing 24 months for the initial inspection is appropriate and
requested that the proposed motion read that they approve the ordinance amendment"on a mandate by
the Metropolitan Council."
MOTION by DeBettignies to recommend approval, on a mandate by the Metropolitan Council, of the
revised draft of the Rosemount Zoning Code, Ordinance Section 14.6, Individual Sewage Treatment
Systems, to the City Council subject to revising Paragraph J to allow owners 24 months to obtain the
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings
April 23,1996
Page 5 q�
initial permit. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe-Corrigan,McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger and
Droste. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5-0.
Public Hearing; Hanson Addition - Administrative Plat
Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony regarding
the Administrative Plat application of Richard Hanson. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit
of Publication and Affidavits of Mailing&Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City.
Assistant Planner Pearson stated that Richard Hanson wishes to purchase approximately 10 acres from
his neighbor to the north, Mrs. Hart, and combine that with the approximately 2.6 acres that he owns at
12275 Cobblestone Court. Mr. Pearson mentioned that several other alternatives were considered before
arriving at the current proposal. Mr. Pearson stated that the main area of disagreement between Staff and
Mr. Hanson is the condition that Mr. Hanson dedicate the eastern 60 feet of the Hart acquisition for a
public street right-of-way. Mr. Pearson explained that when Cobblestone Lane was constructed it was
expected to continue north to provide access to the Hart property and other properties to the north and
east with the possibility that Cobblestone Lane would eventually connect with 120th Street.
Richard Hanson provided a handout to the Commissioners.He stated that his one objection to Staff's
recommendation is the requirement that he provide 60 feet for right-of-way. Mr. Hanson stated that this
request is premature and there is no development planned for the 10 acres he is acquiring. He stated that
he is purchasing this land so that he would have a bigger"backyard" and he fully intends to keep this
area in a natural state. Mr. Hanson also stated that it was his belief that if Cobblestone Lane were to
continue north to 120th Street it would no longer be a rural residential street-it would be a collector
street. Mr. Hanson further related his rational for his opposition to the 60 feet of right-of-way.
Assistant Planner Pearson reviewed the street layout and the topography of the northwestern part of the
City to show why Cobblestone Lane will possibly be needed to continue north in the future. He stated
that the City is requesting that the 60 feet of right-of-way be dedicated now so there will not be
problems in the future when the area to the north and east is developed. Mr. Pearson stated that it would
cost the City money in order to obtain the right-of-way in the future.
Carol Albers stated that she was Mrs. Hart's daughter. She stated that Mrs. Hart currently owns
approximately 29 acres and that this land has been in the family since 1931. Ms. Albers stated that the
Hart family has no desire to further develop on this land and is selling the 10 acres to Mr. Hanson
because he too does not wish any of this land to be developed. Therefore, she felt that to require 60 feet
of right-of-way was premature and inappropriate as there will be no need for a road to access the Hart
property from the south.
As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by DeBettignies to close the public
hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and Shoe-
Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5-0.
The Commissioners discussed at length the issue of the right-of-way.
C. conoltiOns: Appl1I73IuI7na, lewa aiw %Anwaiveio wS uI ui Iny alCr --
established by separate ordinance. All information may be obtained
-- through the office of the City Clerk. (Ord. B, 9-19-89)
14.8: ON-SITE SEWER REQUIREMENTS: Standards for the
installation, maintenance and repair of individual on-site
sewage treatment systems are established by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency - Water Quality Division and the Dakota County Public ,x,
Health Department of Environmental Management, commonly referred to as
County Ordinance 113 and ISTS 7080. These standards, in the most
current edition, are herein adopted by reference.
A. Permit Required: No person shall install, repair, or alter an on-site
sewer system without first obtaining a permit as provided herein.
Applications, provided by the City, must be completed in writing prior
*
to issuance of a permit. Permit fees are established by resolution of
<=the City Council.
B. License Required: Installation, repair and pumping of private on-site
sewer systems require licensing per Rosemount City Code, Title 3,
--Chapter 4.
C. Required Conditions:
1. Soil percolation tests must be completed by independent licensed
septic evaluators/designers and must be favorable for the operation
of an on-site sewage treatment system before a permit will be
issued.
t..9 , 2. A minimum of two (2) separate potential septic system locations
must be available and perc tested showing favorable conditions for a
sewage treatment system. The secondary or reserve area for the
septic system shall be maintained as 'green space" and shall not be
encumbered with structures or hard surface materials.
_ 3. No private on-site sewage treatment system shall be permitted on
any site less than two and five-tenths (2.5) acres.
'/ 4. Shoreland regulation for sewage treatment systems shall be in
accordance with Section 9.1 of this Ordinance.
394
* . City of Rosemount
14.6 14.7
1 5. Installations, alterations, repairs and maintenance shall be
performed in accordance with the latest editions of Ordinance 113
and ISTS 7080 as published by the Dakota County Environmental
Management Department and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency - Water Quality Division. (Ord. B-28, 5-19-93)