HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.02.93 Special Council Packet AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL
C CTOBER 12, 1993
6:30 Convene
Public Hearings
a. Sanitary Sewer Easement Vacation- Section 13 -�� �' u {'` (` 0� '1 UCcC G�k.z.
b. Ailey/street vacation- City Center project 2� rtiQ _ J- /aj
c. Utility easement vacation- N 5' of lot 1, block 2, Dakota County Estates 7th Addition
Workshop -Pine Knoll Sewer Improvements (See Packet) \
Consider Proposed Ordinance Amending Loading Dock Screening in a B-2 zone -
Reduce from 40' to 5'
Adjourn
Memo to: Larry Thompson, City Administrator
Date October 8, 1993
Re Pine Knoll - Septic System Analysis
Attached is an analysis of septic systems in the Pine Knoll
Subdivision. I believe Council was trying to determine the cost to
issue credits to property owners for their septic systems .
The attached analysis assumes the following:
1 . Average cost of installation of septic system - $5, 000
2 . Average life of septic system - 20 years
3 . Septic system installed the year the house was built .
The City would be issuing $97, 500 in credits using this method. To
fund the credits the City may be looking at :
* Spreading the cost of the credits over all assessable
properties .
* Increasing the City' s debt service levy each year for ten
years by approximately $11, 000 .
* Combination of above.
To visually show the areas of Pine Knoll receiving various credits
a color coded map is attached showing the properties and
depreciated value of septic systems .
w
Wayn E. Henneke
Finance Director
c . c . file
PINE KNOLL Page 1
SEPTIC SYSTEM ANALYSIS
OCTOBER 8, 1993
Given: Average cost of installation of septic system $5, 000
Average life of septic system - 20 Years
Depreciated
Year Age of Value of
House Septic Septic
Address Built System System
20015 Dunbar 1977 17 $750
20055 Dunbar 1977 17 750
20075 Dunbar 1973 21 0
20115 Dunbar 1975 19 250
20135 Dunbar 1978 16 1, 000
20155 Dunbar (Vacant Lot)
20175 Dunbar 1981 13 1, 750
20195 Dunbar (Vacant Lot)
20215 Dunbar 1974 20 0
20235 Dunbar 1982 12 2, 000
20255 Dunbar 1982 12 2, 000
20265 Dunbar 1979 15 1, 250
20050 Dunbar 1973 21 0
20090 Dunbar 1974 20 0
20130 Dunbar 1980 14 1, 500
20150 Dunbar 1982 12 2, 000
20170 Dunbar 1982 12 2, 000
20190 Dunbar 1980 14 1, 500
20210 Dunbar 1978 16 1, 000
20230 Dunbar 1982 12 2, 000
20250 Dunbar 1975 19 250
20020 Akin Road 1974 20 0
20115 Akin Road (New System - 1987) 1975 7 3, 250
20135 Akin Road ' 1976 18 500
20155 Akin Road 1973 21 0
20175 Akin Road 1976 18 500
20195 Akin Road 1973 21 0
20215 Akin Road 1974 20 0
20235 Akin Road 1981 13 1, 750
20255 Akin Road 1981 13 1, 750
4825 - 203rd St . W. (New System-1985) 1972 9 2, 750
4855 - 203rd St . W. 1974 20 0
4925 - 203rd St . W. (Vacant Lot)
4975 - 203rd St . W. 1973 21 0
4920 - 203rd St . W. 1982 12 2, 000
4900 - 203rd St . W. 1985 9 2, 750
4810 - 203rd St . W. 1979 15 1, 250
20315 - 204th St . W. 1989 5 3 , 750
20345 - 204th St . W. 1976 18 500
f
Page 2
Depreciated
Year Age of Value of
House Septic Septic
Address Built System System
20365 - 204th St . W. 1975 19 250
4925 - 204th St . W. 1979 15 1, 250
4945 - 204th St . W. 1981 13 1, 750
4940 - 204th St . W. 1980 14 1, 500
4920 - 204th St . W. 1982 12 2, 000
4900 - 204th St . W. 1977 17 750
20380 -204th St . W. 1980 14 1, 500
20360 - 204th St . W. 1976 18 500
20340 - 204th St . W. -New System-1988 1973 6 3 , 500
20320 - 204th St . W. 1974 20 0
20300 - 204th St . W. 1975 19 250
20315 Akin Road 1981 13 1, 750
20335 Akin Road 1982 12 2, 000
20339 Eaves Way 1983 11 2, 250
20345 Eaves Way 1981 13 1, 750
20349 Eaves Way 1982 12 2, 000
20355 Eaves Way 1979 15 1, 250
20359 Eaves Way 1978 16 1, 000
20365 Eaves Way 1982 12 2, 000
20369 Eaves Way 1983 11 2, 250
20375 Eaves Way 1982 12 2, 000
20379 Eaves Way 1982 12 2, 000
20385 Eaves Way 1983 11 2, 250
20404 Eaves Way 1979 15 1, 250
20400 Eaves Way 1979 15 1, 250
20394 Eaves Way 1979 15 1, 250
20390 Eaves Way 1981 13 1, 750
20384 Eaves Way 1977 17 750
20380 Eaves Way . 1978 16 1, 000
20374 Eaves Way 1979 15 1, 250
20370 Eaves Way 1986 8 3 , 000
20354 Eaves Court 1977 17 750
20350 Eaves Court 1977 17 750
20344 Eaves Way 1979 15 1, 250
20340 Eaves Way 1982 12 2, 000
20334 Eaves Way 1980 14 1, 500
20375 Akin Road 1980 14 1, 500
20395 Akin Road 1981 13 1, 750
$97, 500
� \ _
\I ' 0
i //
to Th"*//79
• la
h1
N r l S / O
a - AN
, r--
. ,< rc 0,
C2. p,•�
,.>> - -$.5 if , ' - \ 0,-F . Eln ri „.; .4..
off . \` I z 1,a009' CI
V0 , rs m `
Moi,.: Q�14,4 .s•. ,' -''' ‘-- Az• 41, NG' : \-• - - -,....-- a, 0
\ ,�" C 00
'ej
X00 �j ":1
1\3;____
c).- El ....v .? , ill ,
•
r. r� Y� ,,.`" 'tet= cl
NII, yr �"l 1 4 1^ q g
A �, n
�' �L a ^!4 vU'�_v \/�, _l_ 3-3231 S }11 O Z
`1,* z -. .
n , e '
t ''''' .6.7y 110 , \ ->- 1J� p� .o I
_____ 1 0. ' . cl i.1/41(K, / ,,_, 67041 \ ,
0 \.,, - __ _ _.
,--5-----,,e_6;,„, ,v/
tit
_.,
` o
___ ,_ .._ 0a _ ...
M T
0 .•,
\ ' \ .n a ..._.
d - - --„9,-b, ♦
--
-
T___--
, a
.0 ,N
'' --'1-1-7---,v11--- -11--i,-- -;_t__ :___ . .`i, _____C-:,._ b_l --..--,_ ______ 'J) . _'_ ..____ :_ - - -
.,
_— - a 0 N .
o U 1 r!1
Q 1 m7 CZ
\ OPI:-)H
---- a b B o z
i
- N I �`,..
cj-e`�- r( I c1 ? J
VI\ .--‘ C-V4
o �,
yin ` �0 " ,�--t1
a,t v � �� _A . ,
tt ILri1
c5 \ / C{ /-.rte
\\ "
rt0 tJ
krill� d
. h- rd
�.n �c6 J" o
N
0131) r',.1.,7
_ig .. 0 vi _/ '4,7
U1 a 0 Q1 Q1 01 O
0 Q1 Q1Q\ 1a ,S-
...----;:c . cf,
- '44/4 _ -
N 01 N M
).1 Q 411 /} 4/).
}
d
t! at
S
VI I I 1:-. '
•
Ce
V r' CU
' � o`L o
CD O O O "
0 0 QQ `
CD o 0 0 0
V . 0 0 � V
•
0 0 0O ccs iv
4 `-
0O N ,...1 NM
.4 d G
-L�
06 cu 0 f---
f-i Ala
',"i, OZA --- , , D\::_________—
Cy -3-- ,, . ct
_--- ?'1O0 cl(
_., 0‘ r... , n
ili-V
c°6 1 _V
\o
o
i , ''.-----
q L o�
rd\011,41
cfa
\ • -
\v" l'
t.s \\ ---_ -
\ . o0.
n / M e0 rrl
qq M
s) . ,
go q
\_) L__, , - \ igg& //7c/ , / 7 - 0
' \ <0.
:VT
sY ., .-------- <7_,_.- 3 s\..7e– ------I -
J .. c..... 11,, 1 ., i/ re—i----
1. N. -' ..D -- -\ •,-. ---10 ;II
N. o c• n /4
e• m
.7 Q),a
it i
en / ".......\‘..--:.", 5 0 i.
a
N 6 zi- (--6 \ .,- , :•..._.-. ri Pt
ail N. /
•• •7 "4- ri cA fa. o
01 Ci jii
ci
ca- • iii'v . 141 .
0 iqq
- -., _ lc ,
o �'� 1q1
1 440 �\�� l) i 3 3?31 S v4-1- ti O Z
\ \ic:;1\0;e1- '',:.,,,, :.. . ' •--- \'
i>.p • \ ,-,,a .101 a .4-_. i
\ . ...1 -..,,,,,,N, : . \ GJY ly.
�m
m n {
M
%.*••l
rt ^cl' El r m /
0JCl � M
---.-..„...„,„, t, ° °1:1 '------
(-- ---N--
o y
,o 6$�1
o
•
,i __, %
, , ..
_ ._„n1.. ------------- 1c31. , , 1 1 ..._-____ ..___ _
_,:z), ....._____ _ 0
a
. —____ 0 0
1.11 W1713 . d1
o N
►$�, -C:3 . 0(.-.0.1-1 Ca Zi Boz
. ...... . _ -----) ./_.b1
ko
_
I b/-b1 << 0 ;
r Art \-
,, 0 C. 4 iii -24, ,
�'li. 4' ,
�� U�Q \\IT
o
\1v cc6 S
111
0 - ' ki\ 3,
4. ,s, __, ,, . : ,-T_
c,,A
p !- --
\ PT
of. ikt, 1--- .
"4- \ a 7)0
6,
CAI ')-- '' 1 4 i
-2. cto. cs. ' 7 s. 4'1,1
d. j ce
... ... ......C.)
it r �� � �
vi �''•` • aL
H o 0 0 O C, 1 p7 ` C-1”"
cn O ori rn CT)
Cc\ 1111Illik _ -� Cl. 42o_��Jb�!`,
o rn rn rn tk c6
U • ., ., ., J G °c 6
H O� EA E9 M Q o0 \ a
H al Esq Ef} Ef}
W EA- 1 1 1 O o
vi - 11 N
w 1 O O OC.Q N ct O
O O O O O O 0o ------ •
W O • O O O J cd •
O O O O O til OJ
de- K} be- Ef} Ef} :/ J-0 S--- ‘11 6\ .\
\'� 1 \ \ 5 1
X11 CY . . �/
OCIC\
O
J `, .No
O. cr- V
\p
C
i ,
st
4
how. ritib • 0001' /
Memo to: Larry Thompson, City Administrator
Date October 8, 1993
Re Pine Knoll - Septic System Analysis
Attached is an analysis of septic systems in the Pine Knoll
Subdivision. I believe Council was trying to determine the cost to
issue credits to property owners for their septic systems.
The attached analysis assumes the following:
1 . Average cost of installation of septic system - $5, 000
2 . Average life of septic system - 20 years
3 . Septic system installed the year the house was built .
The City would be issuing $97, 500 in credits using this method. To
fund the credits the City may be looking at :
* Spreading the cost of the credits over all assessable
properties.
* Increasing the City' s debt service levy each year for ten
years by approximately $11, 000 .
* Combination of above .
To visually show the areas of Pine Knoll receiving various credits
a color coded map is attached showing the properties and
depreciated value of septic systems.
(t)
Wayne E. Henneke
Finance Director
c. c . file
PINE KNOLL Page 1
SEPTIC SYSTEM ANALYSIS
OCTOBER 8, 1993
Given: Average cost of installation of septic system $5, 000
Average life of septic system - 20 Years
Depreciated
Year Age of Value of
House Septic Septic
Address Built System System
20015 Dunbar 1977 17 $750
20055 Dunbar 1977 17 750
20075 Dunbar 1973 21 0
20115 Dunbar 1975 19 250
20135 Dunbar 1978 16 1, 000
20155 Dunbar (Vacant Lot)
20175 Dunbar 1981 13 1, 750
20195 Dunbar (Vacant Lot)
20215 Dunbar 1974 20 0
20235 Dunbar 1982 12 2, 000
20255 Dunbar 1982 12 2, 000
20265 Dunbar 1979 15 1, 250
20050 Dunbar 1973 21 0
20090 Dunbar 1974 20 0
20130 Dunbar 1980 14 1, 500
20150 Dunbar 1982 12 2, 000
20170 Dunbar 1982 12 2, 000
20190 Dunbar 1980 14 1, 500
20210 Dunbar 1978 16 1, 000
20230 Dunbar 1982 12 2, 000
20250 Dunbar 1975 19 250
20020 Akin Road 1974 20 0
20115 Akin Road •(New System - 1987) 1975 7 3 , 250
20135 Akin Road ' 1976 18 500
20155 Akin Road 1973 21 0
20175 Akin Road 1976 18 500
20195 Akin Road 1973 21 0
20215 Akin Road 1974 20 0
20235 Akin Road 1981 13 1, 750
20255 Akin Road 1981 13 1, 750
4825 - 203rd St . W. (New System-1985) 1972 9 2, 750
4855 - 203rd St . W. 1974 20 0
4925 - 203rd St . W. (Vacant Lot)
4975 - 203rd St . W. 1973 21 0
4920 - 203rd St . W. 1982 12 2, 000
4900 - 203rd St . W. 1985 9 2, 750
4810 - 203rd St . W. 1979 15 1, 250
20315 - 204th St . W. 1989 5 3 , 750
20345 - 204th St . W. 1976 18 500
i
t
Page 2
Depreciated
Year Age of Value of
House Septic Septic
Address Built System System
20365 - 204th St . W. 1975 19 250
4925 - 204th St . W. 1979 15 1, 250
4945 - 204th St . W. 1981 13 1, 750
4940 - 204th St . W. 1980 14 1, 500
4920 - 204th St . W. 1982 12 2, 000
4900 - 204th St . W. 1977 17 750
20380 - 204th St . W. 1980 14 1, 500
20360 - 204th St . W. 1976 18 500
20340 - 204th St . W. -New System-1988 1973 6 3, 500
20320 - 204th St . W. 1974 20 0
20300 - 204th St . W. 1975 19 250
20315 Akin Road 1981 13 1, 750
20335 Akin Road 1982 12 2, 000
20339 Eaves Way 1983 11 2, 250
20345 Eaves Way 1981 13 1, 750
20349 Eaves Way 1982 12 2, 000
20355 Eaves Way 1979 15 1, 250
20359 Eaves Way 1978 16 1, 000
20365 Eaves Way 1982 12 2, 000
20369 Eaves Way 1983 11 2, 250
20375 Eaves Way 1982 12 2, 000
20379 Eaves Way 1982 12 2, 000
20385 Eaves Way 1983 11 2, 250
20404 Eaves Way 1979 15 1, 250
20400 Eaves Way 1979 15 1, 250
20394 Eaves Way 1979 15 1, 250
20390 Eaves Way 1981 13 1, 750
20384 Eaves Way 1977 17 750
20380 Eaves Way •' 1978 16 1, 000
20374 Eaves Way 1979 15 1, 250
20370 Eaves Way 1986 8 3 , 000
20354 Eaves Court 1977 17 750
20350 Eaves Court 1977 17 750
20344 Eaves Way 1979 15 1, 250
20340 Eaves Way 1982 12 2, 000
20334 Eaves Way 1980 14 1, 500
20375 Akin Road 1980 14 1, 500
20395 Akin Road 1981 13 1, 750
$97, 500
\9� 1
''., U10. tai 1\
v�
�
°A4-).- HO
ooa � a
W o
aQv, A
c
j\ __s_s 64,,,,a, . ,:_:,,,.6,\__ \.:(1
a -
�i
giip
53 Q
sil
LI 0 : 0 Tj <
tr\
��, v4� 40
� ' o �l
\ o (19v9p \ � _n D
1 6 :/ U. ij 0,. � ‘,..\..s h—C3 t
rn
1 DIV
—•--- S S 1-
110"
OOO (T)bftN.
CI
ro
, `� QO_l /� I I I U9
64
/\T / Yo I 5-' --E, 1 in i/ i/3 10
W N 1-+ 10 N
.0
\0 lD 1O O al
kr‘ lc
� 1-ti A 0W 1/41:, t00O
Go 1.- VD 10 10 N
O O O
0 0 0
o o p
SI 0s_ -1;) (3
o v 1/4-k. Q
.104
0 1-'' ‘.1\ 4
')., _.____-.--7C--:,----
T, 0 '-ii.„ —,—, 0),
.. .... _, t. \
„ ,,
_ ....... ..,‘
,..... ,,,,,
• . ._._.__ „... _____ , tsr. 0 , .
, .._ \
. - . ..,,--g_..
. A -9
.,0
ft 0
, c � � s
S -rte ____
2O3 Ra\ 113/1 1 H900 \ lit — 'AS to
CA :, D w
0
, _....,
....z,
,c1,,
F _
1 _ __ "
u _________
.._____.,
__„-- c ,
_ _ _ _ ___., ___......_ ____________. _ \,_ . ___ . z
____±_. _____._---1—:.----- * ---ki-4 yi k...L! --.Z, D, 0c1 Oa.
tr\ \ ,
w
,(\,......' ' !I •
W
..1 )
?� g J V 1
• o
O
P OW
' i - ----- 9-? ui (I) D _
...„ , .. „),,
___ _ ,
. ,.. . ,_ .. --- I, -----,, ., 56, /_. .
1 ,. b., t\r\-\ . ' , _,Lm, ...„
o
1 \ 1-10 --„ . , ,(3 5_,
-t, ,.. ,-N..
0. '
/..„.. L. itf;,t v,
( ....z,
\ \ \4,0 .
,_ 7/s........
X1551KO YJCo
�. R. u.
A.
01 s
p
. I o\ L- , N ' 7), . . 0.\\J. 1u - - _...1; --„. c44(
ZO4 TF1 GJTriE'E._` 1, h/C/i7 .► 0 - \ /� z>
_ „, '.° ^,,
. .4itiN
'0121 ' 0 \ , h)
-k E. i gfc-) Ei .
___ st.... 0
..t. .k. \0 4 -5.
,,-..., , r,
. I, 4:, .
iNs ..24111
0 - �, `��� Pig,, • .°0 0 �S
\''')
o t�tAb .. neo \ ` �/� ; 1
, \ . - . .
teT :: • ‹N
O 646/ 9861 1
zr.
o W V �' / lIbl
. [Il
r v � a j k
River Reach 2
This fall a major initiative,the Minnesota River Multimedia Compliance Project, will begin. This
particular effort will focus on those pollution problems that relate to municipal and industrial
waste control facilities in the river basin. MPCA professionals from all program areas,including
water, solid waste,hazardous waste, and air will work together to inspect facilities within the
basin.
In the past,each agency program (water, air, hazardous waste, etc.)conducted its own separate
inspection of a particular facility. As part of the Multimedia Compliance Project,inspectors from
each of the agency's programs will conduct joint inspections of facilities in the Minnesota River
Basin. This project will serve as a pilot for looking more holistically at the compliance of facilities.
A total of 12 multimedia inspections will be conducted from October 1993-94. This approach is
expected to become more of the norm in future years. The benefits of this approach include better
service to clients who must comply with state and federal regulations and the ability to provide
clients with integrated enforcement actions. •
If a facility is found to be in noncompliance with state or federal laws, the MPCA will attempt to
work with the facility to find the best way of addressing a particular problem.The MPCA is
coordinating this effort with the Minnesota Technical Assistance Program(MnTAP), which has
the technical expertise to offer assistance to plant operators in identifying pollution prevention
opportunities.
The initiative will also focus resources on developing outreach efforts in the areas of household
hazardous waste,illegal dumping, wastewater treatment plant operation,vehicle maintenance
shop waste, and hazardous waste management training. For more information about the MPCA's
Multimedia Compil uce Project,contact Kathryn Kramer at(612)297-8604 or 1-800-228-5635.
An estimated 70 percent of state's septic systems nonconforming
by Vicky Cook, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Twenty-seven percent of the housing units in Minnesota are not connected to public sewers; most
of these homes are located in small cities,rural subdivisions and lakeshore areas across the state.
County officials estimate that 70 percent of all the individual sewage treatment systems(septic
systems) serving homes and other establishments do not meet minimum treatment and/or design
standards. These nonconforming systems discharge raw or inadequately treated sewage to surface
and ground waters,which can result in serious health and environmental consequences.
In the Minnesota River Basin, an estimated 70 to 90 percent of all systems are nonconforming.
Information from soil and water conservation district land use assessments indicates more than
67,000 homes use septic tanks for their wastes. Almost 50 percent of these septic tanks are dis-
charging to tile lines, ditches, creeks or streams. In order to understand why these systems cause
h.'alth and environmental problems,it's important to discuss how a septic system works.
The purpose of a septic system is to treat sewage(wastewater)from your home. Treatment of
sewage requires changing or removing its biological and chemical components.
Systems are composed of two parts:the sewage(septic)tank and the soil treatment system.
River Reach 3
After the wastewater enters your septic tank, a majority of the solids in the sewage settle to the
bottom. A layer of scum or grease forms on top of the liquids in the tank. The biological breakdown
also begins in the tank. Partially treated wastewater then leaves the tank and flows into the soil
treatment system that completes the job. It is very important that septic tanks are maintained
properly. Periodically(every 2-3 years), all the tank contents must be removed to prevent the
solids and scum from being flushed out into the soil treatment system.
The most common soil treatment systems are drainfields, seepage beds and mounds. A basic
system consists of distribution piping, rock and soil. In the soil, microscopic organisms break down
the remaining biological contaminants. Nutrients are absorbed by soil particles or taken up by
plants. Soil-based treatment systems, when properly designed,installed and maintained, do an
excellent job of treating household wastewater.
Problems arise when sewage is not properly treated. Many systems in the Minnesota River Basin
are more like disposal systems than treatment systems. Septic tanks that discharge their wastes
to tiles, ditches,etc. are, at best, discharging inadequately treated wastes. When septic tanks are
not maintained, they discharge
untreated or raw sewage into our
precious water resources. PERCENTAGE OF HOUSING UNITS
When sewage is not treated WITHOUT PUBLIC SEWER
IN MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN COUNTIES
properly,it can contaminate ground
and surface waters.
Potential health risks from
nonconforming systems are a major ::2' �:Z ;;.,;; ti� 52.8%to 70.0%
concern. Hepatitis, cholera, " � >
dysentery and other diseases can be .........GRAT ` " ` 35.7%to 52.8%
spread by the pathogens that exist
in wastewater. These pathogens 18.5%to 35.7%
may make near-shore surface waters
unsafe for recreation because of the
potential of human contact both "°"°"E ;,,. ;V-0 1.390 to 18.59'0
externally(from swimming,wading, *
etc.) and internally (from swallowing
water). This is part of the reason p..,EWA
why you shouldn't go swimming in , , ,, ,KLL°, ,E,,E",
much of the Minnesota River. au mai REIMLLI
YELLOW YEOIC7R
Ground water contamination from LINCOLN LTO" DAKOTA
these failing systems is also a great 'ES" "'CE
MCOLLET
concern. Over 60 percent ofLi MYR
Minnesotans get their drinking
wPE$1o" NOM/
water from ground water aquifers.
One failing system can contaminate \ `` annesw000 WATCHMANKUEEAIRM
an aquifer and spread disease to
MS PIMEDOIN
many homes. Nutrients,especially
nitrogen, can cause other problems
in ground water.
SOURCE: 1990 Decennial Census of the United States
River Reach 4
Nitrogen is a special concern because of its dominant form in water—nitrate. Exposure to nitrate
in drinking water can lead to methemoglobinemia,commonly known as "blue baby syndrome".
Many wells in Minnesota that have been tested exceed the 10 mg/I nitrate-nitrogen drinking water
standard, and septic systems have been a source of contamination in many areas.
Most people don't like to think about what happens to their wastes when they flush the toilet or do
the laundry. It is a lot easier to demonstrate how each of us contributes to the solid waste in a
landfill than it is to show how our inadequately treated wastes harm the environment. We all
share the responsibility for this type of pollution. You can help address these problems by starting
in your own home. What type of system do you have? When was the last time you had your septic
tank pumped and maintained? What are you doing to conserve water?
If you need help understanding your system and/or if it poses a problem, contact your county
planning and zoning administrator or the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. If you need finan-
cial assistance to repair or replace your system, contact your local Community Action Council or
Housing and Rural Development Authority.
Minnesota receives wetlands grant in Minnesota River Watershed
By Tom Landwehr,Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
In September 1992, Governor Carlson announced the Minnesota River Initiative, an accelerated
effort to make the Minnesota River swimmable and fishable within 10 years. Water quality in the
Minnesota River is of poor quality,largely due to the delivery of nutrients,sediment, and bacteria
to the tributaries and main stem of the river. A significant proportion of these pollutants are
reaching the river because of land-use practices, both in agricultural and urban areas. Over 90
percent of the watershed's original 3 million acres of wetlands have been drained and 99%of the
original prairie is gone.
One effective tool for alleviating some of the river's pollution problems is wetland restoration.
Wetlands capture and retain runoff, trap sediments and nutrients,recharge ground water, and
minimize the effects of flooding and shoreline erosion. At the same time that wetlands help to
improve water quality, they also serve as important nurseries for fish and wildlife.
In March, 1993, the Minnesota River Initiative was given an added boost from the federal
government—a $1.8 million grant. The U.S. Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approved
a grant request to several Minnesota partners under the North American Wetland Conservation -
Act(NAWCA) to restore and protect wetlands in the Minnesota River watershed. Partners in this
effort include:Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited,Minnesota Waterfowl Association,Bureau of
Indian Affairs,Board of Water and Soil Resources, Reinvest in Minnesota,Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency,Minnesota Extension Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of
Natural Resources.
The NAWCA grant will be used to acquire, restore, and enhance wetlands in the Minnesota River
Watershed by the project partners. Over 8000 acres of wetlands and adjacent lands will be
improved under this grant. Pheasants Forever,Ducks Unlimited and the Department of Natural
Resources,for instance,will use the funds to acquire existing wetlands and surrounding uplands,
preserving them as Wildlife Management Areas.
_ ~_
Memo To: Karen
Subject : On Site Sewage Systems
Date: October 12, 1993
Dakota County is in the process of revising Ordinance No.
113, which if adopted, could cause all septic systems in the
county to be upgraded to the current State Rules 7080. The
current time line is to have all systems comply by the year
200?.
I do not believe the City should give credit for septic
systems in Pine Knolls, because, ( 1 ) The cost can not be
determined fairly. (2) It may set precedence for other areas
throughout the city in the future. (3) The goal should be to
protect the ground water .
4 / 4ZA 4eilrc,4L.
.:bhn W. Manke
Building Official
AUGUST 26, 1993 UNAPPROVED MINUTES
DAKOTA COUNTY ISTS SEWAGE SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE
•
The Dakota County ISTS Advisory Committee met at 7:00 p.m. on August 26, 1993 at
the Farmington Extension Building. The members present were Featherstone,
Hendrickson, Sjoquist, Weierke, Manke, Heimkes and Majerus. Absent were Benson
and Raymond.
The Committee approved the meeting agenda and the July 14, 1993 minutes as written.
Ron Spong explained how the current Uniform Record system would become the
Certificate of Compliance. Featherstone expressed concern that the future system not be
set up with additional cost, but that an incentive be provided. Discussion noted that an
incentive program needs some type of additional funding, which is not available with a
direct cost-for-service program.
The "non-conforming" issue was discussed, noting that it is defined in the present State
Rules 7080. Weierke asked if a system should be "grandfathered" if it were "State
approved" at the time of installation and was not presently ground-surface discharging.
Spong explained that Minnesota's Rules are based upon the treatment of sewage
effluent, which occurs in the upper part of the soil profile (shallow trench drainfields),
versus real deep systems (cesspools/drywells) which do not provide treatment but rather
are disposal at best. "Working" according to the homeowner means no problems with
back-ups, and cess-pools/disposal could meet that very limited criteria. "Treatment"
means much more than just "working".
There was significant discussion on funding and loan availability in that sewage system
upgrading will have a substantial cost. Possible sources of help referenced included the
Dakota County'IRA (Housing &Redevelopment Authority) and the FHA.
Marjerus brought a letter that was read referencing..that Municipalities need to act
promptly when aware of a sewage discharge. If property damage can occur, there is
precedent for having liability.
The factor of people by nature waiting till the last minute for compliance with
regulations was discussed. Concern was expressed for the enforcement that may be
needed for significant non-compliance. It was noted that an inspector with the authority
to write citations has a helpful enforcement tool for obtaining compliance.
Education of the ISTS owners and users was discussed as the largest factor that can
bring forth voluntary compliance with the program and help the people best manage
their own systems. Ongoing Sewage Maintenance Workshops are therefore being
planned throughout the different parts of Dakota County. A video of this workshop is
planned to be available for viewing and checkout at the County Libraries.
Spong explained his lengthy discussion with Jim Larsen with Met Council. An '88 Met
Council Policy requires that each septic system be inspected every 2 years to determine
if it needs to be pumped/cleaned. Their posture on this requirement appears to be very
firm and unchanging. This is the specific requirement that Inver Grove Heights
encountered with their proposed ordinance.
Their was alot of discussion on the frequency of pumping needed to properly maintain
septic systems. A house with a garbage disposal unit would need annual pumping
because of the additional solids that are added to the septic system. The "change-of-
use" factor is a large factor for septic system problems, where a larger family moves
into a house with a septic system that was designed for fewer people.
Spong explained that the Public Well Head Protection requirements would address
point and non-point pollution, hazardous wastes, old dumps, etc. Sewage systems will
continue to be looked at more closely from additional perspectives.
The Committee discussed man-hole and man-way requirements, distribution boxes
needing to be replaced by drop-boxes, and the problems associated with holding tanks
and portable privies.
The Committee discussed the time-line options for pumping requirements. It was
moved by Sjoquist, seconded be Weierke, that the Committee recommend Phase 1,
where all septic tanks would be pumped, or be inspected to determine if pumping were
not needed, by 1-1-96. The motion passed with 6 ayes, and Featherstone voting no.
The compliance schedule for upgrading sewage systems was discussed, wing the
proposed chart prepared by Spong. A number of different possible options were
considered.
It was moved by Featherstone, seconded by Manke, that the pre-1950 era systems be
upgraded by 1998, 1950-59 by 1999, 1960-69 by 2000, 1970-89 by 2001 and post-
1989 by 2002. All in favor and the motion passed.
The Certificate of Compliance was explained by Spong, that it would be initiated by the
Uniform record and that it be renewable on a 2 year basis tied to the required
pumping/inspection. This would be verifiable by the maintenance permit that would be
sent out by the County. This motion was so moved by Heimkes and seconded by
Manke. All were in favor and the motion passed.
The Committee discussed the permit categories that would be used in the system. It was
noted that local municipalities could be more restrictive with their Ordinances if they so
desired.
The next meeting was tentatively set for September 23, 1993.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
Planning Agenda - Page 3 - 10/12/93
d. 7: 40 P.M. - Requested conditional use from Progress Land Company
for a Wetland Alteration Permit to grade a protected
wetland within Prairie Creek PUD
Tom Kaldunski will submit a report which will be mailed under separate
cover.
e. 7 :50 P.M. - Proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment which involves
a reworking of the existing flood plain ordinance as
required by the Minnesota DNR.
This ordinance was mailed earlier and has been given tentative approval
by the DNR subject to one additional change. Copies of the ordinance
as revised are included in this package.
f. 8 : 00 P.M. - A proposed amendment to the Sign Ordinance for flexibility
in the size of signs for approved conditional uses
within residential districts.
In Section 4-3-3 (A) 3, the wording change suggested by the sign being
placed at 310 Division Street involves expanding the square footage
for signs in residential districts from twelve (12) square feet to
thirty (30) square feet. The change would accommodate a two faced
sign of 24 square feet together with a 6 square foot filler between
the sign faces. It is pointed out that the sign at Dexterity Dental
Arts, Inc. will appear larger since the two faces of the sign are at
right angles to one another rather than back to back as anticipated
by the wording of the ordinance. The question to be answered by the
Commission is at what point does a business sign in a residential district
become too large. This subject came up when the dental office sign
was placed along the Highway 3 frontage near Ash Street. This sign,
which was approved, may provide some guidelines as to what size limitation
would be reasonable. The staff will supply dimensions of that sign
at the meeting. In addition, Mr. Ihle has indicated that his sign
will be in places before the hearing.
g. 8 : 30 P.M. - Proposed amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining
to screening of loading areas within the B-2 General
Business District
The developers of Farmington City Center have petitioned for an amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance which would change Section 10-6-9 (A) 2 by reducing
the minimum of a forty foot (40 ' ) wide landscaped yard to five feet
(5 ' ) in the B-2 General Business District when a wall or other suitable
screening are in place. This wording makes some sense when one con-
siders the limitation of space within the Downtown. The ordinance
also makes sense if undeveloped land is being converted to business
use. Redevelopment in the downtown is different because of the confined
spaces that exist and the long term effort to make the downtown a con-
venient to use pedestrian area.
Planning Agenda Report - Page 4 - 10/12/93
Recommendation
Forward to the City Council a recommendation to reduce the landscaped
area between service courts and public streets from 40 to 5 feet within
the B-2 District when a wall or suitable screening are in place.
4. Discussion
The enclosed memo from the City Attorney explains the need to complete
action on the requested variance from the zoning ordinance regarding
the screening and landscaping of the service yard of the proposed grocery
store in Farmington City Center. This issue needs to be brought to
closure.
a44164:44-4•
Charles Tooker
City Planner
r AGENDA ,
PLANNING COMMISSION .,x"
REGULAR
OCTOBER 12, 1993
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. ,,
rrr
2. APPROVE MINUTES (�
a. September 14, 1993 - Regular ��f .
b. September 20, 1993 - Special
c. September 28, 1993 - Special
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. 7 : 00 P.M. - Rezone No Corner of Third and Ash Street for
Propose Casey' s eneral Store
b. 7: 00 P.M. - Variance/Conditional Use to Build Convenience Store
with Gas Pumps at Northeast Corner of Third and Ash
Streets - Proposed Casey' s General Store ,/�' ,�
c.. 7: 30 P.M. - Variance for an Existing Deck at 18075 Elgin Avenue.(
d. „„,.-7: 40 P.M. - Conditional Use Reques for Wetland Alteration Permit
for Prairie Creek PUD 7:30 6__-- 074p-
e. 7: 50
pe. .7: 50 P.M. - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Flood Plain Ordi ce
Pu-ani-ta-4,_
f. 8 : 00 P.M. - Amendment to Sign Ordinance - Flexibility of Size for
Approved Conditional Us s ." 'tt-A-7- 0°
g. 8: 30 P.M. - Amendment to Zonin Ordinance -Scree�nin• within the
B-2 District fu ftx- GA. rY '7:DO
4. DISCUSSION
a. Complete Action on Requested Variance - Screening and Landscaping
of Servi - -rd in Farmington City Center
5. ADJOU'
\.... t�
- /6,-„ LL