No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment - Waste Management / Public & Institutional Land Use Plan Elements.r CITY OF ROSEMOIINT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 5, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Minor Guide Plan Amendment AGENDA SECTION: Clarification of Waste Management & Public Public Hearing PREPARED BY: AGENDA Lisa Freese, Director of Planning !r # 44 3 k ATTACM(ENTS: Memo, PC Review, Minor Guide APBY: Plan Amendment Application, Hearing Notice �.., L - - I - tl Recent discussions with the Metropolitan Council staff regarding the City's Guide Plan and how to regulate the Dakota County Resource Recovery Facility have prompted the need to clarify the Waste Management land use plan element and the Public Services element in the Guide Plan. These clarifications are considered to be a Minor Guide Plan Amendment by the Metropolitan Council staff. Attached is a copy of the minor guide plan amendment application, proposed text revisions, and a background memo. At the Planning Commission's October 22 Regular Meeting this amendment application was reviewed. The Commission recommended approval of the amendment and requested that the City Council forward it to the Metropolitan Council for their review and approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION: A motion to forward to the Metropolitan Council the Minor Guide Plan Amendment clarifying the Waste Management and the Public Service Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. COUNCIL ACTION: SHONE (612) 423-4411 FAX (612) 423-5203 TO: FROM: DATE: (94 Of (Rosevnouni 2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota Mailing Aaaress: P O. Box 510. Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-051() Mayor Napper Council Members Klassen, Oxborough, Lisa Freese, Director of Planning SePtember 27, 1991 Wippermann, RE= October 1, 1991 Council Agenda BACKGROUND ON MINOR GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT MAYOR Vernon Napper COUNCIL VEMBERS Sheila Klassen John Oxborough willcfty Willcox Dennis W,ppermann ADMINISTRATOR Stephan Jilk Over the past few months Cit the Cit Y Staff has been meeting with County Staff to discuss yts concerns about the proposed Dakota County Resource Recovery review (RRF) and to develop an appropriate land use re i deciding on the appropriate landeuse freview or the project. In clouded by the Waste Management land use and re part. issues Process has been issues to the University property regulatory authority ed as Part of the Comprehensive Guide Plan at are being are well aware of, no definitive conclusions have been made on these issues to this date. Process, As you The County is at a th land use review, Cit Point that they want to proceed Strategies, y Staff and our consultant, Dean Johnson lOf Resource have examined the various alternatives carefullyan have developed a recommendation for a review have substantial comfort with, d Staff recommends thatlessand use. Dakota County RRF be considered a public or institutional land us scenario, the review follow consists of threecomponents:the County would be requirender this Zoning Ordinance to required to permit 1) petition to amend the incineration facilities in the publicly owned municipal waste via Interim Use Permit; 2 Public/Institution zoning district Agricultural to Public; and petition to rezone the land from the Facility.) request an Interim Use Permit for in order toApproval of all three components would be re Permit the facility in the City, required This approach does not force the Cit to about whether or not to have a Waste Management UniversityY make a premature decision property, district on the The rationale used for considering this is based on the fact that this facility burn incinerator that will b- a Public Institutional Use burn it is a publicly owned mass e serving the area needs. Y is comparable in function to the Rosemount Treatment Plant which is currently designated as Public and the Comprehensive Guide Plan. ent Public and This Zoning This is also consistentwiththe al in to accommodate tuti g District intent which is designed majorpublic and osPmounl: institutional uses that serve the (vertylllings (Pominq'Z'� � .1 � �. Minor Guide Plan Amendment October 1, 1991 City Council Agenda Item Page Two entire community. The attached materials reviewed b the Y y Planning Commission at the September 24 Regular meeting, provides additional background on the concept. The Dakota County RRF is located in the Airport Search Area and the Metropolitan Council requires that all rezonings or land use changes within the search area be administratively reviewed by the Metropolitan Council. On Tuesday, September 24th, City and County staff met with Metropolitan Council staff to discuss the appropriateness of this proposed land use process from their perspective. The Metropolitan Council staff responded that the City's proposal was acceptable to them, but they felt that the City should clarify its Guide Plan prior to any actions on the Dakota County RRF' proposal. The clarifications they suggested included refining the Waste Management Land Use Element to include only private waste management activities and to clarify Public and Institutional uses to the Comprehensive Plan. The Metropolitan Council considers these clarifications a Minor Guide Plan Amendment. If the City Council approves of this policy direction, staff recommends that a public hearing be set for the October 15 Council meeting to consider the guide plan text amendment. Presently staff is working to draft the text of the amendment. The Planning Commission will review and make recommendations on the proposal at the October 7, 1991 Regular meeting. As well, the Airport Search Area Land Use Change submission to the Metropolitan Council should be considered by the Council at the next meeting. No public hearing is required for the City to submit an Airport review request. �tiiy of Rosemount HONE (6121 423-4411 2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota FAX 16121 423-5203 Mailing Address P. O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-0510 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lisa J. Freese, Director of Planning DATE: October 17, 1991 SUBJ: October 22, 1991 Regular Meeting Reviews ATTACHMENTS: MINOR GIIIDE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MINOR GIIIDE PLAN AMENDMENT TEXT REVISIONS CITY COUNCIL MEMO 4a. OLD BUSINESS: MINOR COMPREHENSIVE GIIIDE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT CLARIFICATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND WASTE MANAGEMENT MAYOR Vernon Napper COUNCILMEMBERS Sheila Klassen John Oxborough Harry Wi1ICox Dennis Wippermann ADMINISTRATOR Stephan Jilk RECOMMENDED MOTION: Motion to recommend approval of the Minor Guide Plan Amendment to the City Council and request that the Council forward it on to the Metropolitan Council for their review and approval. BACKGROUND: As you will recall, at the September 24 Regular Meeting the proposed review process for the Dakota County Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) was discussed. Basically staff recommended that the RRF be considered a public and institutional land use and suggested that the County proceed with review by: 1) petitioning to amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit publicly owned municipal waste incineration facilities in the Public/Institution zoning district by Interim Use Permit; 2) petitioning to rezone the land from Agriculture to Public (also requires a Airport Search Area Land Use Change submittal to the Metro Council which the Planning Commission did recommend approval of on September 24); and 3) requesting an Interim Use Permit for the Facility. When this item was considered by the Planning Commission in September, Staff was in the process of seeking the Metropolitan Council Staff's input on the proposal to consider the incinerator a public use. The Metropolitan Council staff responded that the City's proposal was acceptable to them, but they felt that the City should clarify its Guide Plan prior to taking any action on the Dakota County RRF proposal. The clarifications they suggested included refining the Waste Management Land Use Element to include only privately owned waste management activities and to clarify the public services element of the Comprehensive Plan by defining public and institutional uses. The Metropolitan Council considers these clarifications a Minor Guide Plan (Sverylhings (Pouring 'Up goseinounl!! Minor Guide Plan Amendment Page 2 amendment. The City Council has set a public hearing for November 5, 1991 to consider the amendment. Attached is a copy of the Minor Guide Plan Amendment application and the proposed clarifications. The amendment as proposed provides immediate clarifications regarding waste management and public institutional uses. Staff recognizes that additional definition and clarification may be desired to deal with University of Minnesota land use issues, but feel those issues should be handled in the update of the Comprehensive Guide Plan which'is currently underway. IE INFORMATION SUBMISSION FOR MINOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS This summary worizheet must be filled out and submitted to the Metropolitan Council with a copy of each proposed minor comprehensive plan amendment. Minor amendments include, but are not limited to: 1. Changes to the future land use plan where the affected area is "small or where the proposed future land use will result in minor changes in metropolitan service demand. 2. Changes (land trades or additions) in the urban service area involving less than 40 acres. 3. Minor changes to plan goals and policies that do not change the overall thrust of the comprehensive plan. Please be as specific as possible; attach additional explanatory materials if necessary. If a staff report was prepared for the Planning Commission or City Council, please attach it as well. Communities submitting regular plan amendments may wish to enter this form or a reasonable facsimile into their word processing menu for ease in preparation of the form. Send plan amendments to: John Rutford, Referrals Coordinator Metropolitan Council, Mears Park Centre 230 E. Fifth St., St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 I. GENERAL IFOR ,,kTION A. Sponsoring governmental unit City of Rosemount Name of local contact person Lisa Freese, Director of Planning Address 2875 145th Street West, Rosemount, PSN 55068 Telephone (612) 423-4411 Name of Preparer (if different from contact person) Dean Johnson, Resource Strategies Corp., (612) 942-8010 Date of Preparation October 1 1991 B. Name of Amendment Rosemount Text Clarification Descriptiom'Summary Clarification of Waste Management and Public and Institutional uses C. Please attach the followinE: 1. * Five copies of the proposed amendment. ?. (N A) A cirv-�ide map showing the location of the proposed change. 3.(NA) The current plan map(s), indicating area(s) affected by amendment. 4.(NA) The proposed pian map(s), inaicating area(s) affected by amendment. D. What is the official local status of the proposed amendment? (Check one or more as appropriate.) x Acted upon by planning commission (if applicable) on October 22, 1991 x Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review, November S. 1991 Considered, but not approved by governing body on Other E. Indicate what adjacent local governmental units and other jurisdictions (school districts, watershed districts, etc.) affected by the change have been sent copies of the plan amendment, if any, and the date(s) copies were sent to them. - NONE - IL LAND USE A. Describe the following, as appropriate: 1. Size of affected area in acres N/A Existing land use(s) see attached information c„mmary 3. Proposed land use(s) see attached information summary - 4. } mart'4. Number and type of residential dwelling units involved N/A S. Proposed density N/A 6. Proposed square footage of commercial, industrial or public buildings N/A III. METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE A. Population, Household and Emplo%:nent Forecasts Will the proposed amendment affect the city's population, household or empioyrnent forecasts for 2000, or any additional local staging contained in the original plan? x No/Not Applicable Yes. Describe effect. B. Changes to Urban Service Area Boundan, Will the proposed amendment require -a change to the boundary of the community's urban service area? x No/Not applicable. Yes. Under I. C., a map should be attached to show the proposed change. C. Changes to Timing and Staging of Urban Service Area Will the proposed amendment require a change to the timing and staging of development within the urban service area? x No/Not Applicable. Yes. Under I. C., a map should be attached to show the proposed change. D. Wastewater Treatment 1. Will the proposed amendment result in a change in the projected sewer flows for the community? x No/Not Applicable. Yes. Indicate the expected change. Total Year 20002010 flow for community based on existing plan million gallons/day Total 20002010 flow for community based on plan amendment million gallons/day 2. If vour community discharees to more than one metropolitan interceptor, indicate which interceptor will be affected by the amendment. 3. «'ill flov-s be diverted from one interceptor senice area to another? X No,'Not applicable. Yes. Indicate the change and volumes (mgd.) involved. E. Transportation L Will the proposed amendment result in an increase in trip generation for the affected area? x No;,'Not applicable. Yes. Describe effect. 2. Does the proposed amendment contain any changes to the functional classification of roadways? x No. Yes. Describe which roadways Aviation Will the proposed amendment affect the function of a metropolitan airport or the compatibility of land uses with aircraft noise? x No/Not applicable. Yes. Describe effect. G. Recreation Open Space Will the proposed amendment have an impact on existing or future federal, state or regional recreational facilities? x No/Not Applicable. Yes. Describe effect. H. Housing Will the proposed amendment affect the community's ability or intent to achieve the lona-term goals for low- and moderate -income and modest -cost housing opportunities contained in the existing pian? X No/Not Applicable. Yes. Describe effect. 1. V''ater Resources 1. Does the plan amendment affect a '`Minnesota Department of Natural Resources or Z.:.S..4r-my Corps of Engineers protected wetland? If ves. describe t} -pe of wetland affected and show location on a map. Yes. x No. '. V4'ill the wetland be protected? Yes. Describe how. No. Describe whN, not. 3. Will the plan amendment result in runoff which affects the quality of any surface water bodv? If yes, identity, which ones. Yes. x No. 4. Will the water body be protected? Yes. Describe how. X No. Explain why not. IV. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM A. Official Controls Will the proposed amendment require a change to zoning, subdivision, on-site sewer ordinances or other official controls? x No/Not Applicable. Yes. Describe effect. I City of Rosemount MINOR COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT TEXT REVISIONS November 5, 1991 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The City of Rosemount is preparing this Minor Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment submittal in an effort to provide proper clarification between publicly owned and privately owned waste management facilities. The Public Services Plan is proposed to be amended to clarify uses customary in the Public and Institutional land use district. The Waste Management Land Use Plan is proposed to be amended to clarify that the district is intended to accommodate privately owned waste management facilities. The City is in the process of updating its entire Comprehensive Guide Plan. This amendment is intended to provide immediate clarification for the interim. The City is re-evaluating all of its land use policies and growth management strategies at this time. 0 City of Rosemount MINOR COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT TEXT REVISIONS November 5, 1991 PUBLIC SERVICES PLAN Objectives 1. To establish appropriate, compatible locations for public and institutional uses and public services. 2. To locate public facilities and provide public services in a manner that assures the continued health, welfare and safety of the public. Public Services Plan Elements Public services can be categorized as being either emergency -oriented or non -emergency - oriented. On the basis of this categorization, different locational criteria emerge. Police and fire services must be located such that travel times to the development are minimized. It is intended that the existing fire station at Brazil Avenue and 145th Street West continue to serve the urban area and that a new facility be constructed when it is determined that response times can be improved. Police, administrative, and maintenance services will continue at the existing City Hall. When such services require additional space, the City will evaluate options presented in a space needs analysis completed in 1990. The City will annually evaluate its service delivery and space needs, as part of the capital improvements planning and budget process. The 'Public and Institutional" land use designation is a means for identifying areas for public service facilities. Public and institutional uses include local government services, as well as schools, churches, hospitals, libraries, and publicly owned facilities, such as waste water treatment facilities, MSW processing facilities, and recycling facilities. Public Services Policies It shall be the policy of the City to: 1. Annually assess the needs and delivery of public services. 2. Locate publicly owned facilities within public and institutional districts. 3. Protect public and institutional uses from incompatible land uses. 4. Locate public and institutional uses in areas compatible with existing uses. 5. Permit only educational, research, agricultural and public and institutional uses on the University of Minnesota property. 6. Locate and operate publicly owned facilities in a manner in which the public health, safety and welfare is protected. WASTE MANAGEMENT LAND USE PLAN Objectives 1. To promote effective regulation of private waste management activities. 2. To supplement and enhance environmental protection policies. 3. To establish appropriate, compatible locations for privately owned waste management activities. Plan Elements Public attitudes and technology involving waste management continue to evolve. Singular approaches to waste management have given way to integrated systems, including waste reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery, and disposal. Environmental awareness creates increasing demands for responsible waste management. A waste management land use element serves several functions. It allows for the proper identification of a special use district. It provides for a distinction between publicly owned and privately owned waste management facilities. It allows the City to pro -actively determine where private waste related activities may be compatible with other uses and should be located. It allows the City to protect private waste management activities from infringement by incompatible uses. It also allows the City the vehicle to establish proper regulations and responsible management for private waste related activities. Policy review and analysis is an on-going requirement in any growth management plan. The need for continual policy analysis in waste management planning is particularly vital due to the rapid changes in waste management technology, regulatory direction, and public sentiment. Waste Management Policies It shall be the policy of the City to: L Permit private waste related activities only when the public health, safety, and welfare is ensured. 2 2. Require that private waste related activities occur in locations that minimize or eliminate conflicts with other uses. 3. Locate private waste related activities in areas in which long term land use compatibility and protection from other conflicting uses may be maximized. 4. Permit private waste related activities only when any potential or known conflicts or impacts are eliminated or properly mitigated.. 5. Require that any private waste related facility employ the best available technology in any aspect of the facility regarding environmental protection controls. 6. Ensure that the design, construction, and operation of private waste related facilities minimize any negative environmental impacts and mitigate them to the fullest extent possible. 7. Allow private waste disposal to occur only when efforts to rouse and recycle wastes have been exhausted. 8. Consider private waste related facilities only when the economic benefits, incentives, and other advantages to the City and community clearly outweigh any known or potential negative aspects of a facility. 9. Permit private waste related facilities only when the proper infrastructure exists to serve -facilities or when proper improvements can be made without expense or burden to the City. 3 (Pity of (Rosemount PHONE (612) 423.4411 2875- 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota MAYOR FAX (612) 423-5203 Mailing Address: Vernon Napper P. O. Box $10. Rosemount. Minnesota 55068-0510 COUNCILMEMBERS Sheila Kiassen CITY OF ROSEMOUNT John ugh x Harry i11Cy WillC Ox Public Notice Public Notice Dennis Wippermann ADMINISTRATOR Comprehensive Guide Plan Text Amendment Stephan Jilk TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, the City Council of the City of Rosemount will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, November 5, 1991 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 2875 145th Street West, beginning at 8:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of this hearing is to receive comments on a proposed text amendment to the Rosemount Comprehensive Guide Plan. The City Council will consider clarifications of the Waste Management Plan Element of the plan and the Public and Institutional Land Use Element of the plan. Persons wishing to speak on this issue are invited to attend this meeting on Tuesday, November 5, 1991 at 8:00 p.m. Dated this 3rd day of October, 1991. Su n M. Wa sh, City Clerk City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota veryllztsagIs (pouring ,\�'�� JRosemounlll