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