Loading...
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)