HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-07-24 Planning Commission Meeting Packet1
COTTAGE GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION July 24, 2023
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Open Forum
5. Chairs Explanation of Hearing Process
6. Public Hearings and Applications
6.1 Zoning Definition Text Amendment - Case TA2023-014
Discussion: The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a text amendment to
remove bees from the Agricultural Use definition in City Code Title 11-1-3.
6.2 Water Resource Chapter Comp Plan Amendment - Case CP2023-015
Discussion: The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a text and map
amendment to the Wastewater Management section of Chapter 7 in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan. The amendment includes the most recent calculations of
future wastewater flow into the Metropolitan Council's South Washington
County Interceptor and a map update showing additional sewer connections to
the interceptor within the city.
7. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes
7.1 Approve 2023-06-26 Planning Commission Minutes
8. Reports
9. Adjournment
Page 1 of 40
City of Cottage Grove Planning Division • 12800 Ravine Parkway South • Cottage Grove, MN 55016
STAFF REPORT CASE: TA2023-014
ITEM: 6.1
PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 7/24/23 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 8/16/23
COTTAGE GROVE PLANNING DIVISION
Planning Staff Contact: Conner Jakes, Associate Planner; 651-458-2868; cjakes@cottagegrovemn.gov
Application Accepted: N/A 60-Day Review Deadline: N/A
APPLICATION
APPLICANT: City of Cottage Grove
REQUEST: A text amendment to remove bees from the Agricultural Use definition in
City Code Title 11-1-3.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval.
SITE DATA
LOCATION: N/A
ZONING: N/A
GUIDED LAND USE: N/A
LAND USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: CURRENT GUIDED
NORTH:
EAST: N/A
SOUTH:
WEST:
SIZE: N/A
DENSITY: N/A
Page 2 of 40
Planning Staff Report
Zoning Definition Text Amendment
Planning Case No. TA2023-014
July 24, 2023
Proposal
The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a Zoning Text Amendment to City Code Title 11 -1-3 to
remove “bees” from the Agricultural Use, Livestock definition.
Background
The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan states the City should investigate the policy and ordinance
opportunities for residential animal keeping, such as chickens and bees, to promote healthy food
at home (Chapter 9, Goal 2, Policy 9.9). Given this, the City Council has requested staff to further
research ordinance opportunities relating to bee keeping on lots zoned Agriculture and Residen-
tial (single-family lots).
In order to adopt a bee keeping ordinance that allows the activity to occur on lots within the desired
zoning districts, staff is proposing to remove “bees” from the current Agricultural Use, Livestock
definition where “bees” are currently defined. Due to how “bees” are currently defined, the keeping
of “bees” is permitted on parcels greater than five acres. However, the current code does not
adequately and effectively address many of the factors relat ed specifically to bee keeping and
only provides standards for a wide range of livestock animals. The current definition is provided
below.
AGRICULTURAL USE: The use of land for the growing and/or production of field crops, livestock,
and livestock products, including but not limited to the following:
1. Field crops, including: barley, soybeans, alfalfa, corn, hay, oats, potatoes, rye, sorghum,
and sunflowers.
2. Livestock, including: alpacas, bees, dairy and beef cattle, deer, donkeys, goats, horses
and ponies, llamas, mules, sheep, pigs, hogs, chickens, turkeys, ducks and other poultry, fish,
mink, and game birds.
3. Livestock products, including: dairy, eggs, meat, feathers and honey.
4. Tree farms.
A new ordinance specific to beekeeping would be added to City Code Title 5-4, Animal Control,
which is where the recently adopted (2022) Chicken and Duck Ordinance was placed.
Proposed Change
Staff is proposing to remove “bees” from the Agricultural Use, Livestock definition. Removal of
“bees” from the current definition is proposed in order to allow for the adoption of a new ordinance
that will effectively address the many specific factors related to bee keeping.
Page 3 of 40
Planning Commission Staff Report – Zoning Text Definition Amendment
Planning Case No. TA2023-014
July 24, 2023
Page 2 of 2
The current definition is included below with the strikethrough indicating the removal of “bees”
from the definition and honey from the livestock products definition.
AGRICULTURAL USE: The use of land for the growing and/or production of field crops, livestock,
and livestock products, including but not limited to the following:
1. Field crops, including: barley, soybeans, alfalfa, corn, hay, oats, potatoes, rye, sorghum,
and sunflowers.
2. Livestock, including: alpacas, bees, dairy and beef cattle, deer, donkeys, goats, horses
and ponies, llamas, mules, sheep, pigs, hogs, chickens, turkeys, ducks and oth er poultry, fish,
mink, and game birds.
3. Livestock products, including: dairy, eggs, meat, and feathers and honey.
4. Tree farms.
Public Hearing Notice
The public hearing notice for the July 24, 2023 Planning Commission meeti ng was published in
the Saint Paul Pioneer Press on July 13, 2023. Staff has not received any comments at the time
of writing the report.
Recommendation
That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the text amendment to
remove “bees” from the Agricultural Use, Livestock definition in City Code Title 11-1-3.
Prepared by
Conner Jakes
Associate Planner
Attachments
Proposed Zoning Text Amendment
Page 4 of 40
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. XXX
AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 11, CHAPTER 1 REGARDING PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS
The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. The Code of the City of Cottage Grove, County of
Washington, State of Minnesota, Title 11, Chapter 1, Section 3 shall be amended as followed:
AGRICULTURAL USE: The use of land for the growing and/or production of field crops, livestock,
and livestock products, including but not limited to the following:
1. Field crops, including: barley, soybeans, alfalfa, corn, hay, oats, potatoes, rye, sorghum,
and sunflowers.
2. Livestock, including: alpacas, bees, dairy and beef cattle, deer, donkeys, goats, horses
and ponies, llamas, mules, sheep, pigs, hogs, chickens, turkeys, ducks and other poultry, fish,
mink, and game birds.
3. Livestock products, including: dairy, eggs, meat, and feathers, and honey.
4. Tree farms.
SECTION 2. SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
412.191, in the case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While a copy of the
entire ordinance is available without cost at the office of the City Clerk, the following summary is
approved by the City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing the entire Official Zoning
ordinance:
The City of Cottage Grove’s City Code Title 11-1-3 shall be amended by removing bees
from the Livestock definition under Agricultural Use.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance amendment shall be in full force and
effective from and after adoption and publication according to law.
Passed this ______ day of _____, 2023.
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
Page 5 of 40
City of Cottage Grove Planning Division • 12800 Ravine Parkway South • Cottage Grove, MN 55016
STAFF REPORT CASE: CP2023-015
ITEM: 6.2
PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 7/24/23 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 8/16/23
COTTAGE GROVE PLANNING DIVISION
Planning Staff Contact: Mike Mrosla, Senior Planner; 651-458-2825; mmrosla@cottagegrovemn.gov
Application Accepted: N/A 60-Day Review Deadline: N/A
APPLICATION
APPLICANT: City of Cottage Grove
REQUEST: A text and map amendment to the Wastewater Management section of
Chapter 7 in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The amendment includes the
most recent calculations of future wastewater flow into the Metropolitan
Council's South Washington County Interceptor and a map update
showing additional sewer connections to the interceptor within the city.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval.
SITE DATA
LOCATION: N/A
ZONING: N/A
GUIDED LAND USE: N/A
LAND USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: CURRENT GUIDED
NORTH:
EAST: N/A
SOUTH:
WEST:
SIZE: N/A
DENSITY: N/A
Page 6 of 40
Planning Staff Report
2040 Comprehensive Plan
Water Resources Chapter Amendment
Planning Case No. CP2023-015
July 24, 2023
Proposal
The City of Cottage Grove is proposing an amendment to the Wastewater Management section
of Chapter 7, Water Resources, of the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The amendment
updates the sanitary sewer map to show additional connections to the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services (MCES) sanitary trunk line and updates supporting text and tables.
Comprehensive Plan Requirements
Cottage Grove’s sanitary sewer system consists of sewer pipes that serve neighborhoods and
businesses that then feed into to larger trunk sewer pipes that ultimately connect to the MCES
Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS) pipes that lead to treatment facilities. Given our sewerage
system feeds into the MDS, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires all Comprehensive
Plans to include a sanitary sewer element covering the collection and disposal of wastewater
generated by the community. The wastewater section in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
describes these demands out to 2040.
Background
At its May 17, 2022, meeting the City Council approved the final plat, development agreement,
construction plans and specifications for Ravine Crossing located at the northwest corner of
Keats Avenue and 90th Street. As part of the construction permitting process, the developer
was required to obtain a sewer extension permit from the MCES. At that time, the MCES notified
staff that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan did not show a sanitary sewer connection in the location
where the developer was proposing to connect. MCES requested that the City update the
Sanitary Sewer section of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to show a connection at the proposed
location. Staff, in coordination with the Metropolitan Council, are not only adding the Ravine
Crossing connection but also taking this opportunity to add additional planned connection points
throughout the City and update associated tables and text.
Page 7 of 40
Planning Commission Staff Report – 2040 Comprehensive Plan Water Resources Chapter Amendment
Planning Case No. CP2023-015
July 24, 2023
Page 2 of 2
Notice and Public Comments
Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on July 13, 2023. At the time of writing this report,
City staff has not received any comment letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property
owners or residents in regard to this planning case.
Next Steps
If approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, City staff will then submit the
amendment to the Metropolitan Council for formal review and approval. The City has worked
closely with Metropolitan Council staff to ensure compliance with their policies and forecasting;
however, the Met Council has up to 120 days per State Statute to review proposed
amendments.
Recommendation
That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the 2040 Compre-
hensive Plan map and text amendment to Chapter 7, Water Resources and subject to
modifications as requested by the Metropolitan Council.
Prepared by:
Mike Mrosla
Senior Planner
Attachments:
A. Existing Sanitary Sewer Map
B. Amended Sanitary Sewer Map
C. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 7, Water Resources Redline
Page 8 of 40
Cityof AftonCityof RosemountCity of CoatesCity ofEaganCity ofInver GroveHeightsCity ofSouth SaintPaulCity ofNewportCity ofCottageGroveCity ofWoodburyDenmarkTwp.RavennaTwp.NiningerTwp.GreyCloudIsland Twp.kjkjkj!.!.!.!.!.")!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.S-7S-6S-4SE-4S-2S-3CGR-4S-5L-4L-3SE-2C-2C-3CGR-21TG-3SE-6CGR-9C-5ED-4SE-5TG-9L-5CGR-11CGR-15CGR-8S-1L-6WD-14CGR-6ED-2ED-5ED-1CGR-2WD-1L-1TG-2TG-4C-4WD-9CGR-10CGR-18SE-3CGR-3SE-1WD-7CGR-16CGR-19CGR-14CGR-7C-7WD-4CGR-12C-6WD-5TG-8WD-8CGR-1CGR-17TG-5TG-1C-1L-2WD-6C-8CGR-5WD-2ED-3WD-11WD-12TG-10CGR-20ED-6WD-3WD-13CGR-13TG-6TG-7WD-1057981245049483231302928272625232224212035514647454143424039383634181716371113141219#5#4#3#2#1452755452755456036456036459317459317462597462597465878465878469159469159472440472440475721475721479002479002482282482282485563485563488844488844492125492125495406495406108267108267111548111548114829114829118110118110121391121391124672124672127952127952131233131233134514134514137795137795141076141076($$¯Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied inelectronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provisionof the data.03,4006,80010,200Feet1:40,789 (At Original document size of 11x17)!.Trunk Node ID")WWTP!.MCES Connection PointMCES Sanitary Trunk LineExisting_Sanitary_Trunk_LineskjIntercommunity_flowSan_PipeParcelsSewer_Districts_2040Sewershed DistrictCCGREDLSSETGWDCity of Cottage Grove, MNSanitary Sewer Map1 inch = 3,399.08 feet*The Connection Points to the Met Council System shown (MCES Interceptors #1 through #5) are current and future connection points (when future development occurs). *COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES110Figure 7-2: City of Cottage Grove, MN Sanitary Sewer MapPage 9 of 40
MississippiRiver 10thAvenueS t P a u l P a r k
N e wpo rt
M o o r eLake
B a l d w i n
L a k e
U p p e r
G r e y
C l o u d
I s l a n dRiverRoad
907 ft
902 ft
Mississip p iR iv e r
Pine B endTrail
140thStree t E a st
19
20
13
61CenturyAvenue D a l e Ro a d
Gl en Road RadioDrive6 5 t h S t re e t S o ut h
Mil i tary Road
MilitaryRoad WoodburyDriveHi ghlands Park
L o w e r
G r e y
C l o u d
I s l a n d
39
61
HillsideTrail South
8 0 t h S tre e t S o uth
9 0 th S t reet S o u th
1 0 0 t h S t r e et South
9 5 t h S tre et S o uth
Hamlet Park
C ottage Grove
Rav ineLangdon
C o t t a g e G r o v e
963 ft
S p r i n g
L a k e
JacobAvenueM ississippiTrail1 3 2 nd S t re e t E a s t
Spring Lake
Park Reserve
Mi ssissippi
National River
and Recreation
Area N i n i n g e r
S e di l
1049 ft
95
D a l e R o a d
7 0 th Str ee t S o u th
E a s t C o t t a g e
G r o v e
967 ft
95LamarAvenueSouth
KimbroAvenueSouth1 0 0 t h S t re e t S o u th
River Oaks GC
and Event
Center
61120thStreetSouth
4 t h S t re e t W e s t
NiningerRoad
H a s t i n g s
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5 !5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5 !5 !5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5 !5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5 !5
!5 !5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5 !5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5 !5
!5!5!5
!5 !5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5 !5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5 !5 !5
!5!5 !5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5 !5!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5 !5 !5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5!5
!5 !5
!5
!5!5 !5!5
!5!5 !5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5 !5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5 !5 !5
!5
!5!5
!5!5 !5!5!5 !5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5 !5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5!5 !5 !5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5 !5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5 !5!5
!5 !5
!5!5!5
!5 !5!5 !5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5 !5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5 !5!5
!5!5 !5
!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5!5 !5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5 !5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5 !5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5 !5 !5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5 !5 !5!5!5
!5!5!5 !5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5 !5 !5
!5 !5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5 !5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5 !5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5 !5 !5!5
!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5 !5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5 !5!5 !5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5 !5 !5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5 !5
!5!5!5!5!5 !5
!5!5!5
!5 !5
!5 !5
!5
!5 !5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5 !5
!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5 !5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5 !5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5 !5 !5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5 !5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5 !5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5 !5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5 !5!5 !5 !5 !5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5 !5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5 !5!5
!5
!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5 !5
!5
!5!5!5 !5!5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5!5 !5 !5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5 !5
!5!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5 !5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5 !5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5 !5
!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5 !5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5
!5!5 !5!5!5!5
!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5 !5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5 !5 !5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5 !5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5 !5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5 !5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5 !5
!5
!5 !5 !5
!5!5
!5!5!5 !5 !5!5
!5 !5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5 !5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5 !5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5 !5
!5!5 !5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5
!5!5!5 !5!5 !5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5 !5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5 !5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5 !5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5
!5 !5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5 !5 !5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5 !5 !5!5!5 !5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5 !5
!5 !5
!5
!5 !5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5 !5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5
!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5 !5!5
!5!5
!5
!5 !5!5!5!5
!5
!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5 !5
!5!5!5
!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5 !5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5 !5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5 !5 !5
!5!5!5
!5
!5 !5
!5!5
!5
!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5 !5!5!5!5!5!5 !5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5
!5 !5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5 !5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5 !5 !5
!5
!5 !5 !5
!5!5!5 !5!5
!5 !5!5
!5!5!5
!5 !5
!5
!5 !5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5
!5 !5 !5
!5
!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5 !5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5 !5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5 !5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5 !5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5 !5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5
!5
!5!5
!5 !5
!5!5
!5 !5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5 !5
!5
!5 !5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5 !5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5 !5
!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5 !5!5
!5
!5!5!5 !5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5 !5 !5
!5!5
!5!5 !5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5 !5 !5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5 !5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5 !5!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5 !5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5 !5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5 !5
!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5 !5
!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5 !5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5 !5 !5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5 !5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5 !5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5 !5
!5!5!5
!5 !5 !5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5
!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5 !5
!5 !5!5!5!5 !5 !5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5 !5 !5
!5!5 !5 !5 !5!5!5!5
!5 !5!5 !5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5 !5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5 !5!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5 !5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5 !5!5
!5!5 !5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5 !5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5 !5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5 !5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5 !5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5 !5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5 !5 !5!5!5
!5 !5!5 !5!5 !5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5 !5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5
!5 !5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5 !5
!5
!5!5
!5 !5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5 !5
!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5!5
!5 !5 !5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5 !5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5 !5 !5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5 !5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5 !5!5
!5 !5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5
!5
!5
!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5
!5 !5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5 !5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5 !5
!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5 !5 !5 !5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5 !5
!5 !5
!5 !5!5
!5
!5!5 !5!5!5
!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5
!5!5 !5!5
!5!5!5!5 !5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5 !5!5!5
!5 !5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5 !5!5 !5!5!5 !5 !5 !5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5
!5 !5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5 !5!5 !5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5 !5!5
!5 !5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5 !5 !5!5!5
!5
!5 !5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5 !5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5 !5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5 !5 !5
!5!5
!5
!5!5!5 !5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5
!5!5
!5
!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5!5
!5 !5 !5!5 !5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5 !5 !5 !5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5
!5 !5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5 !5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5 !5
!5
!5
!5 !5
!5
!5!5
!5 !5
!5
!5 !5!5 !5
!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5 !5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5 !5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5
!5!5!5
!5!5!5!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5!5!5 !5!5!5!5!5!5 !5 !5!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú !5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5
!5 !5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5 !5
!5
!5
!5 !5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5 !5 !5
!5
!5 !5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5 !5!5!5 !5
!5!5!5!5
!5
!5!5!5
!5[Ú
WWTP
MCES.5
MCES.4
MCES.3
MCES.2
MCES.1
MCES.4A
MCES.1C
MCES.1B
MCES.1A
MCES.2C
MCES.2B
MCES.2A
MCES.3CMCES.3B
MCES.3A
MCES.5A
Legend !I
Intercommunity Flow
!5 Future Sanitary Manholes
!5 MCES Primary Connection Point
!5 MCES Secondary Connection Point
Existing MCES Sanitary Pipes
Existing Sanitary Trunk Sewers
Future Trunk Sanitary Sewer
Future Trunk Forcemain
Woodbury Intercommunity Flow Area
3M Private System
City Limits
WWTP
Sewer Districts
Central (C)
Cottage Grove Ravine (CGR)
East Draw (ED)
Langdon (L)
South (S)
Southeast (SE)
Thompson Grove (TG)
West Draw (WD)
0 1
Miles
Source: Washington County, Cottage Grove, MnDOT, NearMap
Sanitary Sewer System Map
City of Cottage Grove
Figure 7-2
July 2023
Page 10 of 40
COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES 97
WATER
RESOURCES
Water is critical to the health and vitality of a community. This chapter describes three elements of water
resources in Cottage Grove:
• Water Supply
• Waste Water and Sanitary Sewer
• Surface Water Resources and Stormwater
7
Page 11 of 40
98 COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES
WATER SUPPLY
Introduction
The Metropolitan Land Planning Act (amended 1995) requires local governments to prepare comprehensive plans and submit them to the Metropolitan Council
to determine their consistency with metropolitan system plans. One element of these plans must address municipal water system s. Minnesota Statute 473.859
requires Water Supply Plans to be completed for all local units of government in the seven-county Metropolitan Area as part of the local comprehensive planning
process. Additionally, Minnesota Statute 103G.291 requires all public water suppliers that serve more than 1000 people to have a Water Supply Plan approved
by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). An approved Water Supply Plan is also a requirement to obtain a Water Appropriations Permit
Amendment from the DNR.
Cottage Grove’s Water Supply Plan as submitted to the DNR prior to the December 31, 2016 deadline. The Water Supply Plan was updated per comments from
DNR and Metropolitan Council and resubmitted in June 2018. The Water Supply Plan consists of three main parts:
• Part 1: Water supply system description and evaluation
• Part 2: Emergency preparedness procedures
• Part 3: Water conservation plan
The City of Cottage Grove also regularly prepares a Water Supply and Distribution Plan (WSDP). This more detailed and comprehensive engineering analysis
of the existing and proposed trunk water system serves as a planning document to guide Cottage Grove as it extends city water to urbanizing areas. The WSDP
performs a more exhaustive engineering analysis of the water system than is required to meet the minimum Metropolitan Council and DNR requirements. The
most recent WSDP was prepared in 2006. The previous WSDP was prepared in 1995. A new WSDP is planned within the next few years.
The purpose of this chapter of the comprehensive plan is to provide a summary of the water system and the Water Supply Plan. The Water Supply Plan is included
as an appendix to this 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Past Usage
In order to establish future water usage within the City, it is first necessary to look at past usage. The usage for the past five years has been examined to determine
how residential, commercial and industrial growth has impacted the overall water use in the City. This past usage also serves as a benchmark for evaluating the
effectiveness of previous conservation practices. As shown in Table 7-1, water usage has remained relatively steady during the last five years, until water demands
dropped in 2017 due to a temporary outdoor water use ban. Between 2013 and 2016, the City of Cottage Grove pumped an average of 1.2 billion gallons of water
into the system each year. The highest peak day water demand in the last 5 years was 10.2 million gallons per day (MGD). Cottage Grove’s Water Supply Pl an
contains a detailed analysis of existing water usage, including historic water demand and high volume users. The water use for the last five years is shown in Table
7-1.
Page 12 of 40
COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES 99
Table 7-1: Past Water Usage
Year Population
Served
Average Demand
(MG/day)
Maximum Demand
(MG/day)
Annual Demand
(MG/year)
2013 35,500 3.6 10.2 1,323
2014 35,669 3.3 9.7 1,201
2015 36,615 3.2 7.2 1,187
2016 35,596 3.2 7.3 1,139
2017 36,492 2.6 5.8 938
Source: Annual DNR Water Usage Reporting, 2011-2015
Forecasts
Past water usage within the City has been relatively steady, but the population has increased slightly from 35,105 to 36,615, or four percent. It is expected that this
growth will continue to accelerate as the economy continues to recover from t he housing crisis and recession. Housing starts are up in the City and it is expected
that water usage will continue to increase accordingly. The projected water demand for 2040 is a daily average of 4.7 MGD with an estimated daily maximum of
14.1 MGD as shown in Table 7-2. Water conservation is discussed later in this chapter.
Table 7-2: Projected Water Usage
Year Population
Served
Average Demand
(MG/day)
Maximum Demand
(MG/day)
Annual Demand
(MG/year)
2020 38,400 3.8 11.5 1,400
2030 42,200 4.2 12.7 1,540
2040 47,000 4.7 14.1 1,715
Source: Stantec
Page 13 of 40
100 COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES
Water Supply, Storage and Distribution System
The existing water supply and distribution system has served Cottage Grove’s needs well. Previous studies have identified cost-effective and timely improvements
for the system. The existing trunk distribution system is presented as part of the Existing and Future Trunk Water Supply and Distribution System Map (Figure 7-1).
The system operates under three pressure zones. This approach provides satisfactory pressure to all customers.
The City presently obtains its raw water supply from twelve wells in two well fields. All wells obtain water from the Jordan-Prairie du Chien aquifer. The total well
supply capacity is 17.7 MGD and the firm well capacity is 13.0 MGD. Firm capacity is defined as the amount supplied with one out of every 7 wells out of service.
In May of 2017, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued new, lower health based recommendations for two industria l chemicals Perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). In addition, MDH established a hazard index (HI) related to the accumulative concentrations of PFCs found in
drinking water. As a result of the new standards, eight of Cottage Grove’s 11 wells exceeded the new established HI values. Cottage Grove well testing have not
detected any PFOS in the drinking water. In late May, Cottage Grove utilized only 3 wells to provide water for the community to ensure full compliance with the new
standards. However, these 3 wells could not meet the community’s peak water demand and the City instituted a watering ban unt il more capacity could be brought
online.
An action plan was established with an interim solution to resolve the City’s wa ter quality concerns for five years, thus allowing time for a permanent solution to be
developed. Ongoing coordination with MDH and MPCA was necessary to meet requirements of the emergency response. The interim plan involved blending water
from various wells and treatment of water at critical wells. A carbon filtration system for Well 3 and Well 10 was identified as the approved treatment option and was
placed online within two months of groundbreaking.
Several storage facilities stabilize pressures during peak water demand and also serve as a source of water during fires or power outages. There is a total existing
usable storage volume of 4.65 million gallons.
Other Water Supply Issues
Emergency Response Procedures
Cottage Grove prepared a water system vulnerability assessment and emergency response plan in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, as modified by
the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. These documents identify contacts for emergency situations, outline emergency response procedures,
describe water sources and services areas, and provide procedures for augmenting water supplies in the event of an emergency.
The Water Supply Plan identifies triggers for implementing demand reduction pr ocedures in the event of a water system emergency. Water use is rationed in
accordance with water use priorities established by state statute. These triggers and water use priorities are regularly reviewed and adjusted as needed. Demand
reduction measures are instituted by the City Administrator or City Emergency Management Director.
Water Conservation Plan
Water conservation programs are intended to reduce the demand for water, improve the efficiency in use and reduce loss and wast e of water. Conserving
water protects the region’s water supply and is a cost-effective way to reduce the need to construct and operate additional water supply facilities. As shown by
recent water usage rates, the current water conservation efforts are having an effect. Both the average day demand and the maximum day demands have been
decreasing in relation to the population served.
Water conservation planning is a relatively new concept in the metropolitan area compared with some of the drier regions of t he country. Cottage Grove’s first
water conservation plan was a component of the 1995 WSDP. Since 1995, Cottage Grove has expanded existing conservation practices and implemented new
water conservation measures. In 2016, Cottage Grove developed a stand along Water Conservation Plan which detailed existing and proposed conservation
programs.
Page 14 of 40
COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES 101
Figure 7-1: Future Trunk Water System
LEGEND
EXISTING WATER SYSTEM FACILITY
STORAGE TANK
PRV STATION
WATER MAIN
PRESSURE ZONE BOUNDARY
FUTURE WATER SYSTEM FACILTIY
STORAGE TANK
PRV STATION
BASE MAPPING
PARCELS
CITY LIMITS
HIGH PRESSURE ZONE
HWL 1093 FT
HIGH PRESSURE ZONE
HWL 1093 FT
INTERMEDIATE
PRESSURE ZONE
HWL 990 FT
LOW PRESSURE ZONE
HWL 935 FT
INTERMEDIATE
PRESSURE ZONE
HWL 990 FT
RIVER PRESSURE ZONE
HWL 865 FT
0 ¼ ½
MILE
Page 15 of 40
102 COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES
With the latest Water Supply Plan, DNR has established target conservation requirements to work toward over the next ten years; these targets include:
• The reduction of unaccounted water loss to less than 10%
• The reduction of residential use to less than 75 gallons per capita per day
• The reduction of peak demand water usage to less than 2.6 times the average demand
• The implementation of a water conservation rate structure; and
• The reduction of institutional, industrial, commercial, and agricultural water use by 1.5%.
Cottage Grove’s water conservation work to date means the City has already exceeded most of these conservation targets. The City established the following
recommendations for further conservation measures in the 2016 Water Conservation Plan:
• Voluntary Water Audits
• Creating Commercial and Industrial Billing Structures
• Pilot program for Pressure reducing valves
• Adjust ordinance to require separate irrigation meters
• Water Reuse for Public Irrigation and Commercial/Industrial Purposes
• More Proactive Enforcement
Cottage Grove annually reviews the effectiveness of its existing water conservation programs. Adjustments to existing programs and new and innovative programs
are evaluated regularly.
Ground Water Health
As this plan was bring written, the state of Minnesota settled its lawsuit against 3M Company, filed in 2010, in return for a grant of $850 million. The settlement
depicts the top two priorities being: ensure safe drinking water and enhance natural resources. Nine cities, including Cottage Grove, and two townships in the east
metro were named in the settlement as the communities damaged. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Department of Natural Resources were granted
the funds with the intent that the state departments will work with the eleven communities to accomplish the priorities of th e settlement.
Perfluorochemicals (PFC) contamination treatment strategies:
• Continue to track and monitor PFC levels and contaminants of emerging concern in City wells, in partnership with MDH.
• Investigate further treatment options to remove PFCs from drinking water.
• Work to ensure no, or limited, decrease in service for water utility customers.
• Partner with neighboring communities to treat water, if feasible.
Page 16 of 40
COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES 103
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
According to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, a Local Comprehensive Plan is required to include a sanitary sewer element covering the collection and disposal
of wastewater generated by the community. Similarly, the Metropolitan Sewer Act requires local governments to submit a Comprehensive Sewer Plan (CSP) which
describes the current and future service needs required from Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). The Comprehensive Sewer Plan is attached to
the 2018 Comprehensive Plan as an appendix.
GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal 1: Effective and efficient operation and maintenance of the city’s sanitary sewer system.
• POLICY 7.1 Cottage Grove will construct its system to facilitate operation and maintenance and prevent inflow and infiltration.
• POLICY 7.2 Cottage Grove will maintain a detailed inventory of its sanitary sewer system including an up-to-date electronic map including location and
specifications of all pipes, structures, and lift stations.
• POLICY 7.3 Cottage Grove will clean a portion of its sanitary sewer system every year.
• POLICY 7.4 Cottage Grove will regularly televise and clean its sanitary sewer system to determine whether it is performing adequately.
• POLICY 7.5 During major street reconstruction projects, Cottage Grove will assess the system within the project area and makes improvements as needed.
• POLICY 7.6 Cottage Grove is committed to training those responsible for managing its sanitary sewer system and ensures that staff has the equipment
necessary to properly maintain the system.
• POLICY 7.7 Cottage Grove will maintain an organizational chart of its sewer maintenance department and ensure that each staff member has a job
description.
• POLICY 7.8 Cottage Grove will rehabilitate sewers before their deterioration negatively affects residents, businesses, or the Metropolitan Disposal System.
• POLICY 7.9 Cottage Grove will maintain a general emergency response plan that pertains to sanitary sewer overflows.
• POLICY 7.10 The City will coordinate sanitary sewer utility services and development with surrounding communities, Washington County, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, and the Metropolitan Council.
Goal 2: To provide sanitary sewer service that is adequate to meet current and future development needs.
• POLICY 7.11 The extension of sanitary sewers shall be programmed so as to achieve maximum benefit from the existing utilities.
• POLICY 7.12 The sanitary sewer system shall be constructed to accommodate the proposed land use densities and uses identified in the future land use
plan.
• POLICY 7.13 Cottage Grove will provide a system reserve capacity in all trunk designs so that local occurrences of higher sewage generating uses or higher
densities can be accommodated.
• POLICY 7.14 When in-fill development or redevelopment occurs, Cottage Grove will evaluate existing sanitary sewer systems as to their capacity.
• POLICY 7.15 Cottage Grove develops and regularly updates its sanitary sewer system Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
• POLICY 7.16 The City will encourage development densities that maximize the use of the existing sanitary system. Where existing facilities do not have
capacities to accommodate the maximum allowable densities, the City reserves the right to restrict development to average density.
Page 17 of 40
104 COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES
• POLICY 7.17 For properties in the rural service area, subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS) shall be allowed provided such systems conform to all
local, state and federal requirements.
• POLICY 7.18 When feasible, maintain sanitary sewer depth to provide maximum flexibility related to future development.
• POLICY 7.19 When installing new sanitary sewer adjacent to properties on private well and septic, sanitary sewer services will be installed to allow for cost
effective connection it the future.
Goal 3: Cottage Grove provides a cost effective sanitary sewer system that is equitably financed.
• POLICY 7.20 Cottage Grove finances new sanitary sewer trunks for new development through area and connection charges.
• POLICY 7.21 Cottage Grove finances its existing system operation and maintenance through utility billings.
• POLICY 7.22 Cottage Grove prepares for replacement of its sanitary sewer system by incorporating replacement costs into its utility billing rates.
• POLICY 7.23 The extension of sanitary sewers shall be programmed so as to achieve maximum benefit from the existing utilities. This staging program will
result in the most efficient expenditure of public funds while maintaining the City’s growth pattern.
COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE SANITARY SEWER PLAN
Introduction
According to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, a Local Comprehensive Plan is required to include a sanitary sewer element covering the collection and disposal
of wastewater generated by the community. Similarly, the Metropolitan Sewer Act requires local governments to submit a Comprehensive Sewer Plan (CSP) which
describes the current and future service needs required from Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). This sanitary sewer section will serve as both
the sanitary sewer element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the City’s CSPP document.
In May 2015 the Metropolitan Council adopted the 2040 Water Resources Management Policy Plan (WRMPP). The 2040 WRMPP includes the metropolitan
wastewater system plan with which local comprehensive plans must conform. Cottage Grove will prepare this sewer element chapt er of its Comprehensive Plan
to demonstrate its conformance to the regional plan. This chapter will update previous sewer planning efforts and describe in detail the expansion of the City’s
sanitary sewer system to serve urban development. This sanitary sewer section provides the specific information needed to meet the 2040 WRMPP requirements.
Cottage Grove’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan included a wastewater section describing the expansion of the City’s trunk system through 2030 and the demands this
expansion would place on the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS) operated by MCES. The wastewater section in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan will describe
these demands out to 2040. MCES also uses this section to determine whether capacity upgrades will be needed at the Eagles Point Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP), which services all of Cottage Grove.
Cottage Grove’s sanitary sewer system is designed to carry wastewater from homes to the MDS, which is owned and operated by MCES. The MDS consists of
interceptors and wastewater treatment plants and appurtenances to these including lift stations, siphons, valves and tunnels. Cottage Grove’s sanitary se wer
system consists of lateral sewer pipes that serve neighborhoods and businesses, trunk sewer pipes (larger than 10-inch diameter) that collect wastewater from
laterals, and lift stations that pump wastewater from lower areas of the City.
Municipal sanitary sewer service was initially provided within Cottage Grove in 1961 as a replacement for the individual septic tank systems that were serving the
Thompson Grove plats. The first stage of the Cottage Grove WWTP was constructed in 1962 in conjunction with this original municipal sewer installation. This
Page 18 of 40
COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES 105
plant continued to serve the wastewater treatment needs of Cottage Grove until it was replaced by the Eagles Point WWTP in 2002. The new treatment plant has a
wastewater capacity of 10 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) to serve Cottage Grove and portions of Woodbury via the South Washing ton County Interceptor (SWCI)
through approximately 2020, at which time it could be expanded to 20 MGD for added service capacity. Ultimately, the Eagles P oint WWTP discharges effluent to
the Mississippi River.
Sanitary Sewer System
The Sanitary Sewer System Map (Figure 7-2) identifies the ultimate service area, represented by sewer district delineations, delivering wastewater to the Eagles
Point WWTP via the SWCI. The Sanitary Sewer System Map provides a detailed inventory of the City’s existing trunk facilities, including: trunk sanitary sewer pipe,
lift stations, forcemains, and MCES Interceptors. The location of lateral sanitary sewer pipe is also identified. All five 15 existing and future connection points to the
MDS (i.e. connections to the SWCI) are identified and numbered one through five. The Sanitary Sewer System Map also identifies the
intercommunity wastewater flow connection points.
The only existing private treatment facility in Cottage Grove is located at the 3M Cottage Grove Center industrial complex. Because 3M is a high-volume facility,
it is inspected annually by either the Environmental Protection Agency or the MPCA to determine compliance with their National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System permit. The City of Cottage Grove oversees proper operation of the 3M facility by maintaining contact with the MPCA representative responsible for this
plant and reviewing the annual inspection report. The location of the 3M treatment facility is identified on Figure 7 -2.
Forecasts
The Metropolitan Council requires municipalities to include adopted forecasts for population, households, and employment in t en-year increments to 2040 in their
comprehensive plans. Table 7-3 includes the forecast figures directly from the Metropolitan Local Planning Handbook for the City of Cottage Grove. These forecast
numbers are confirmed in the WRPP revised forecasts adopted in May of 2015. The City of Cottage Grove has reviewed and concur s with these projections.
Table 7-3: Cottage Grove Population, Household, and Employment Forecasts
Year Population Households Employment
Census 2010 34,589 11,719 6,484
2020 38,400 13,300 7,700
2030 42,200 15,200 8,400
2040 47,000 17,300 9,000
Source: Metropolitan Council
The Metropolitan Council uses these forecasts to plan all wastewater infrastructure. Table 7-37-4 presents projected average flow data from two sources:
• Flows identified in the Metropolitan Council Water Resources Policy Plan dated May of 2015 and amended in May of 2018.
• City flow projections are calculated by a spreadsheet sewer models (existing and ultimate). Projected flows were determined by multiplying the ratio of
increase in flow from 2020 to 2040 to roughly match the projected growth forecasts for the City.
Page 19 of 40
106 COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES
Table 7-4: Wastewater Flow Projections
Year MCES Projected
Average Flow
(MGD)
City Projected
Average Flow
(MGD)
2010 2.03 2.76
2020 2.28 3.86
2030 2.49 4.49 6.38
2040 2.70 5.20 7.76
The City-wide average flows presented in Table 7-4 are further divided into the projected average wastewater flow to each MDS connection point in 10 -year
increments through 2040. Figure 7-2 identifies the five 15 connection points to the MDS from Cottage Grove and the area tributary to each of these five connection
points. This information is provided in Table 7-5.
Table 7-5: Projected Wastewater Flows by Connection Point to the MDS
Stage Year #1 (MGD) #2 (MGD) #3 (MGD) #4 (MGD) #5 (MGD) Total
2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.72 0.00 2.72
2020 0.12 0.03 0.03 3.68 0.00 3.86
2030 0.24 0.03 0.29 3.90 0.03 4.49
2040 0.28 0.04 0.32 4.36 0.20 5.20
Ultimate 1.07 0.28 1.33 4.51 2.57 9.76
Connection Point Stage Year
2010 2020 2030 2040 Ultimate
MCES.1C 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.32 (1)
MCES.1B 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03
MCES.1A 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.23 0.23
MCES.1 0.00 0.12 0.32 0.41 0.41
Subtotal #1 0.00 0.12 0.52 0.72 0.99
MCES.2C 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.05
MCES.2B 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.39 0.39
MCES.2A 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.06
MCES.2 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.07 1.98
Subtotal #2 0.00 0.03 0.39 0.57 2.48
MCES.3C 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01
Page 20 of 40
COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES 107
MCES.3B 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.05
MCES.3A 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.21 0.21
MCES.3 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.16 2.47
Subtotal #3 0.00 0.03 0.27 0.43 2.74
MCES.4A 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.24 0.39
MCES.4 2.72 3.68 4.09 4.29 4.51
Subtotal #4 2.72 3.68 4.25 4.53 4.90
MCES.5A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20
MCES.5 0.00 0.00 0.95 1.42 3.06
Subtotal #5 0.00 0.00 0.95 1.42 3.26
Total 2.72 3.86 6.38 7.67 14.37
Table 7-6 presents the capacity and design flows of the future trunk sanitary sewer pipes. The trunk system is summarized from node to node, as identified on
Figure 7-2. For the purposes of this narrative, a node is identified within trunk sewer system at the follow ing locations:
• Upstream end of a trunk (generally considered 10” pipe and larger) sewer pipe
• Where new flows from the sewershed are introduced into the system
• Trunk sewer junction points
• Trunk sewer pipe size changes
The design flows presented in Table 7-6 on the next page are calculated from the summation of the average flow values of the sewer districts tributary to a trunk
pipe segment, multiplied by the appropriate peak flow factor. In the next ten years, development may occur in the southern p ortion of the City, which could be
served by Metropolitan Council Interceptor #4 or #5. Capacity evaluations for the City’s wastewater system must be evaluated before development can occur.
However, at this time, given known development that is intended to occur, there is sufficient capacity in these areas of the City system to convey future wastewater
flows.
Page 21 of 40
108 COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES
Table 7-6: Design Flows (MDG) for the Ultimate System
Page 22 of 40
COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES 109
Infiltration and Inflow
The Metropolitan Council has continued its Inflow/Infiltration (I/I) Surcharge Program. The fundamental policy statement summarizing this program is that the
Metropolitan Council “will not provide additional capacity within its interceptor system to serve excessive inflow and infiltration.” The Council establishes inflow
and infiltration thresholds for each of the communities that use its system. Communities that exceed this threshold are required to eliminate this excess flow within
a reasonable timeframe. The Metropolitan Council has not identified Cottage Grove as a community with observed excess I/I. Cottage Grove’s sanitary sewer
system is relatively new and I/I has not been a significant issue to date. Comparing the MCES flow meter (M600A) data and dai ly rainfall data over the past few
years, no consistent correlation is observed between rainfall events and higher average flow values, indicating I/I problems. The City has identified the Thompson
Grove trunk sanitary sewer through subdistricts TG -1 and TG-3 as a potential I/I contributor and is diligent in inspecting this trunk sanitary sewer frequently to
identify cracks or joint separations and performing crack grouting or joint repair as necessary.
An outline of the City’s proactive implementation program directed at identifying and correcting I/I, is as follows:
• City Ordinance 8-1-13A prohibits roof and foundation drains to be connected to the sanitary sewer system. The ordinance states that “No owner, occupant or
user of any premises shall direct into or allow any storm water or surface water to drain into the sanitary system of the City.”
• Cottage Grove conducts sewer line televising for a portion of the system annually in conjunction with the sewer cleaning schedule, making repairs where
potential I/I problems are indicated. All new City facilities are also televised before being placed in service. Additionally, after major street reconstruction
projects, sanitary sewer pipe in the project area are televised to ensure that no damage occurred.
• Continue regular monitoring and maintenance activities on trunk sanitary sewer lines suspected of contributing to I/I.
• Communication with the MCES regarding above average flow readings at meter number M600 indicating a potential I/I problem
The City has a robust program of televising sanitary sewer pipes on a five-year rotation plan and any I/I problems identified are corrected when work is done in
that area under the City’s pavement management program. The City has no current I/I issues, and does not anticipate issues in the future. The City will continue
to monitor on a regular basis. Regarding inflow & infiltration from private properties, the City works to identify and addres s this issue in several ways. When
conducting water meter replacements, the City is able to identify if a sump pump is discharging to the sanitary sewer. If this is the case, the City will work with the
resident to correct the situation. This would also be the case if a connection of roof drainage to a sanitary sewer is identified. Finally, when completing televising
of public sanitary sewers, the City is able to observe the flows from private connections to the public sewer. If flow into the public pipe suggesting I/I is observed,
the City will reach out to the property to further inspect the issue.
An analysis was completed to determine the percentage of pre-1970 housing stock within the City. Using parcel data, it was determined that roughly 23% of the
City’s housing stock was built prior to 1970. The City will televise its older trunk sanitary sewers between 2019 and 2021. The City also has a major slip lining
project scheduled for 2020 ($350,000) on a large portion of trunk sanitary sewer. Table 7-7 presents a summary of budgeted implementation costs to address I/I in
the City’s system. Since the City does not have a significant issue with I/I, these costs will be incurred annually on an as needed basis.
Table 7-7: Estimated I/I Implementation Costs
I/I Implementation Activity Activity Cost and Frequency Duration
Televise and inspect sewer facilities for leaks $20,000 per year In perpetuity
Inspect sewer facilities in response to backups and in
coordination with street reconstruction program
$50,000 per year As needed, in perpetuity
Perform repairs or rehabilitation of sewers $150,000 per year As needed, in perpetuity
Disconnect prohibited/unused connections to sewer $5,000 per year As needed, in perpetuity
Page 23 of 40
110 COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES
The EPA Guide for Estimating Infiltration and inflow (June 2014) was used to estimate the proportion of I/I contribution in the City’s wastewater system. Monthly
flow data were obtained from MCES, for the period of 2010 to 2017. Monthly average flows for the five -year period (2010-2014) from March to November
(representative of a wet portion of the year) and December to February (representative of a dry portion of the year) were cal culated. It was determined that the
wet monthly average flow (March-November) was 62.48 mg, and that the dry monthly average flow (December-February) was 60.67 mg. Thus, on average, I/I
contributes roughly 1.81 mg monthly (roughly 3% of base flows). The peak flow for the City is 66.20 mg in March 2014, which i s roughly 9% of base flows.
Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS)
According to estimates provided by Washington County, there are approximately 808 SSTS in operation within the City of Cottage Grove. In August 1999, Cottage
Grove turned administrative responsibility for SSTS over to Washington County. The transfer of authority was conducted under the premise that Washington
County can more easily keep up-to-date on evolving regulation regarding these systems. Chapter 4 of the Washington County Individual Sewage Treatment
System Regulations (Ordinance 206) states:
“The owner of an individual sewage treatment system or the owner’s agent shall regularly, but in no case less frequently than every three years, have the
tank or tanks pumped. As an alternative, the owner may inspect and measure the accumulations of scum, whic h includes grease and other floating
materials at the top of each septic tank and compartment along with the sludge, which includes the solids denser than water.”
The following is a comparison of Washington County regulations versus those contained in Minnesota Rules 7080:
• The Washington County regulations establish a 30-day time frame to correct failing systems which pose an imminent threat to the public health, safety and
welfare, whereas Chapter 7080 establishes a 10 month time fr ame.
• The Washington County ordinance establishes a 90 day time frame for correcting failing systems that do not pose an imminent threat to public health, safety
and welfare, whereas there is no time frame listed in Chapter 7080.
• The Washington County regulations require percolation tests and four soil borings for proposed sites, while Minnesota Rules 7080 has no such requirements.
• Under the Washington County regulations, a minimum of 12 inches of rock layer is required, while Minnesota Rules 7080 requires 6 inches.
• The Washington County regulations require that homeowners have tanks pumped every three years or be inspected, while Chapter 7080 requires a
homeowner inspection every three years
The City of Cottage Grove does not currently have an ordinance regulating or prohibiting privately owned community wastewater treatment systems.
The Metropolitan Council seeks to understand the number of subsurface sewage treatment systems within the City by decade. According to previous
correspondence with Washington County staff, there are 808 SSTS in operation within the City of Cottage Grove as of 2018. Table 7-8 provides estimates of SSTS
systems in 2020, 2030, and 2040..
Table 7-8: SSTS in Cottage Grove, 2020-2040
Year Number of SSTS
2020 787
2030 577
2040 577
Page 24 of 40
COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES 111
!.
!.
Trunk Node ID
WWTP
MCES Connection Point
MCES Sanitary Trunk Line
Existing_Sanitary_Trunk_Lines
Intercommunity_flow
San_Pipe
Parcels
Sewer_Districts_2040
C
CGR
ED
L
S
SE
TG
WD
●
●
●
.
$
Figure 7-2: City of Cottage Grove, MN Sanitary Sewer Map
452755
456036
459317
462597
465878
469159
472440
475721
479002
482282
485563
488844
492125
495406
(¯
City of
WD-1
1 !.
WD-4
WD!.-5
5
C-1
.19
CGR-1 !. 48
49 !.
CGR-3
.! 50
CGR-4
CGR-5 Sanitary Sewer Map
W!.D-3 8 WD-2 !.
4 2 7 !. !. !. 9
WD.-6
C-2
!.20
CGR-2
#1 !.
CGR-6
WD-9
WD-7
!.
!.WD-8
WD-10
!. 12
C-3
21 !.
22 C-4
C-5
24 !.
C-6
ED-1
28 !.
ED-2
CGR-7
CGR-8
CGR-9
TG-2
11 TG-1 !.
!. 38
37 !.
13 !.
W!.D-12
WD-11
!.14
!.
WD-14
23 !. 25 .
C-7
. 26
!.
ED-3
!.30
29
ED-4
!.#2 CGR-10
CGR-11
S-1
TG-3
39
WD-!.13
16
TG-8
31 !.
C-8
17 18 !.
27 32
CGR-12
CGR-13
CGR-14
TG-4
!.
42 43
!.
40 !.
41 45 !. !.
!. !.
34 !.
L-1
TG-9
!.E!.D-5
ED-6
!.35 #3 !.
CGR-15
CGR-18
CGR-16
S-2
TG-5 TG!.-6 TG-7
47 !. TG-10
!.46 36
!.L-2
51
!. CGR-17
CGR-19
0 3,400 6,800 10,200
Feet
1:40,789 (At Original document size of 11x17) 1 inch = 3,399.08 feet L-6
S-3 L-3 !.#4 CGR-20
City of
South Saint
Paul City of
City of
Woodbury
City
of Afton
SE-1 SE-2 SE-3 City of Newport
S-4 L-4 L-5 CGR-21
Inver Grove Grey
Heights Cloud
City of
Cottage Denmark
Twp.
of the data.
452755 456036 459317 462597 465878 469159 472440 118110 121391 124672 127952 131233 134514 137795 141076 118110 121391 124672 127952 131233 134514 137795 141076 kj kj kj $ Cottage Grove, MN
Page 25 of 40
112 COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES
475721
479002
482282
485563
488844
492125
495406
*The Connection Points to the Met Council System shown (MCES Interceptors #1 through #5) are current and future connection points (when future development occurs).
Page 26 of 40
COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES 113
Page 27 of 40
114 COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES
Figure 7-3: City of Cottage Grove, MN Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Map
456036
459317
462597
465878
469159
472440
475721
479002
482282
485563
488844
492125
495406
($¯
$
City of
Cottage Grove, MN
Subsurface Sewage
Treatment System Map
0 3,250 6,500 9,750
Feet
1:39,072 (At Original document size of 11x17) 1 inch = 3,255.99 feet
City of
South Saint
Paul City of
City of
Woodbury
City
of Afton
City of Newport
Inver Grove Grey
Heights Cloud
City of Island Twp.
City of
Cottage
Grove
Denmark
Twp.
Eagan City
of Rosemount Nininger
Ravenna
City of Coates Twp. Twp.
Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data
supplied inelectronic format. The recipient accepts full
responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness
of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers,
employees, consultants and agents, from any and all
claims arising in any way from the content or provision
of the data.
456036 459317 462597 465878 469159 472440
SSTS Location
Parcels 111548 114829 118110 121391 124672 127952 131233 134514 137795 141076 111548 114829 118110 121391 124672 127952 131233 134514 137795 141076 Page 28 of 40
COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES 115
475721
479002
482282
485563
488844
492125
495406
Page 29 of 40
116 COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES
Future Growth
The Metropolitan Council seeks to estimate proposed improvements to the sanitary sewer system. The City has provided a Utility Staging Map in the Land Use
section of the Comprehensive Plan (Figure 2-11), which details expansion of the trunk sewer system within the City.
An analysis was conducted to determine future growth in the City by MCES interceptor. Using ArcGIS, Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) were intersected with
the City’s sewersheds that contribute to various MCES interceptors throughout the City. Thus, forecasted household and employ ment information by interceptor
was calculated for the following decades: 2020, 2030, and 2040. This informa tion is given in Table 7-9 below.
Household and employment values for each MCES interceptor sewershed were calculated using the proportion of each TAZ area within the sewershed. This
method assumes that household and employment are distributed evenly throughout each TAZ area.
Table 7-9: Housing and Employment Forecasts by MCES Interceptor
Year Population To MCES Interceptor
Connection #1
To MCES Interceptor
Connection #2
To MCES Interceptor
Connection #3
To MCES Interceptor
Connection #4
To MCES Interceptor
Connection #5
Households Employment Households Employment Households Employment Households Employment Households Employment
2020 38,400 488 55 477 656 656 599 9,754 5,606 1,138 640
2030 42,200 811 75 888 941 865 633 10,408 5,769 1,651 770
2040 47,000 1,418 98 1,186 1,301 983 654 10,989 5,700 2,146 921
Year Population Households Employment
Census 2020 38,839 13,105 8,312
2020 38,800 13,100 8,300
2030 47,800 16,900 12,700
2040 52,500 1,900 14,700
Table 7-10: Sewered Service Forecasts
Year Population Households Employment
2020 36,500 12,313 7,600
2030 46,100 16,323 12,250
2040 50,800 18,423 14,250
Page 30 of 40
COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES 117
SURFACE WATER
The City of Cottage Grove and its residents place immense value on conserving, protecting, and managing its surface water resources. Through the planning
process, community stakeholders identified water resource protection and access to natural amenities as critical issues for the future development of the city.
As part of the established Community Vision, the City of Cottage Grove strives to address these key themes related to surface water:
• Mississippi River Access – work to provide public access to the river and appropriate development opportunities on Lower Grey Cloud Island.
• Environmental Stewardship – continue to protect and enhance the natural environment, including air quality, groundwater resources, stormwater
management and energy usage.
GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal 1: Manage surface and groundwater resources using approaches that meet or exceed regulatory requirements by
following the city’s local surface water management plan, the local watershed plans, and permits administered by the MPCA,
BWSR, USACE, MN DNR, and any other governing agencies that are applicable and have jurisdictional authority within the
City of Cottage Grove.
• POLICY 7.1 Provide adequate flood protection for residents and structures and protect the integrity of conveyance channels and stormwater detention areas.
• POLICY 7.2 Pursue the reduction of Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) loading to water bodies by compliance, municipal
management activities, and public education.
• POLICY 7.3 Pursue the reduction of Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) loading to water bodies by compliance, municipal
management activities, and public education.
• POLICY 7.4 Classify and effectively manage water bodies in the community to achieve watershed management organization, state, and federal regulatory
agency standards.
• POLICY 7.5 Classify, manage, and administer wetlands in the community.
• POLICY 7.6 Regulate new development and redevelopment activities within the community including erosion control at construction sites.
COTTAGE GROVE LOCAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The City of Cottage Grove’s Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) will be attached to the 2018 Comprehensive Plan as an appendix. The 2018
LWSMP serves as an update to the 2008 Plan. LSWMPs serve as a framework to manage the water resources within a city. The Local Surface Water
Management Plan (LSWMP) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan update for the City of Cottage Grove. Previously, the updat es to the SWMPs and
Comprehensive Plans were asynchronous, but beginning with the 2018 LSWMP update, the LSWMP will exist either as an appendix to, or as a chapter of, the
Comprehensive Plan, and the two will be updated simultaneously. The executive summary and scope of the 2018 Plan are provided in the following sections.
Executive Summary
The LSWMP has been created to meet the requirements detailed in Minnesota Statutes 103B (Metropolitan Surface Water Managemen t Act), Minnesota Rules
8410, and the requirements of the local watershed management organizations or watershed districts. The watershed district having jurisdiction in the City of
Cottage Grove is South Washington Watershed District (SWWD). This document provides an inventory of water resource related information including the results
of assessments conducted by other governmental units, both local and state. From this inventory and assessment, the City of Cott age Grove sets forth its goals
Page 31 of 40
118 COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES
and policies and implementation program.
The LSWMP is organized as follows:
• Section 1 offers an introduction to and purpose of this Plan, and includes organizational information on the location of components within this document.
• Section 2 of this Plan provides an inventory of land and water resources within the City, including a description of the physical setting, available and
pertinent water resources data, and land use maps.
• Section 3 lists the City’s goals and policies along with public agency requirements affecting surface water management in the City. This section also
includes general information regarding the roles of the watershed management organizations with jurisdiction over Cottage Grove, as well as those of other
state and federal regulatory agencies influencing surface water management in the City.
• Section 4 outlines the City’s approach to wetland management, in accordance with the standards and requirements of South Washington Watershed District
and other agencies having jurisdiction over wetland management.
• Section 5 presents and assessment of surface water quality issues in Cottage Grove. The section includes discussion regarding the NPDES permitting
process, impaired waters and TMDL implementation, and non-degradation requirements.
• Section 6 provides a current assessment of surface water management in Cottage Grove, including stormwater modeling, various design parameters, and
identification of issues and corrective actions.
• Section 7 covers regulatory responsibilities, priority implementation items, educational programs, operation and maintenance, and financing considerations.
A plan amendment process is also identified and the distinction between major and minor amendment outlined.
• Section 8 contains a summary of the LSWMP and makes recommendations for implementing the Plan.
• Sections 9 and 10 include the list of reference documents and a glossary of terms, respectively.
Page 32 of 40
COTTAGE GROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES 119
Scope
The LSWMP serves multiple purposes including statutory and rule compliance. Minnesota Statute 103B.235 defines content for Local Surface Water Management
Plans. According to the statute’s text, each local plan, in degree of detail required in the watershed plan, shall:
1. Describe existing and proposed physical environment and land use;
2. Define drainage areas and the volumes, rates, and paths of stormwater runoff;
3. Identify areas and elevations for stormwater storage adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan;
4. Identify regulated areas; and,
5. Set forth an implementation program, including a description of official controls and, as appropriate, a capital improvement program.
Minnesota Rules 8410, administered by the Board of Water and Soil Resources, (BWSR) provide more detail on local plan content. Though the BWSR guidance
applies specifically to watershed management organizations, this guidance has historically been used to frame expectations fo r municipal plans. According to
Rules 8410, local plans must provide or address:
1. Executive summary
2. Land and water resource inventory
3. Impact on other units of government
4. Establishment of goals and policies
5. Assessment of problems
6. Implementation program
7. Implementation priorities
8. Plan contents; amendments
9. Annual reporting requirements
The reader will find that the City of Cottage Grove has structured its LSWP to provide the information required by 8410 without holding strictly to the outline
contained in the rules. Through this document, the City provides signposts identifying where a statutory or rule making requirement might be addressed.
The City of Cottage Grove’s LSWMP must address requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
program. This program is designed to reduce the sediment and pollution that enters groundwater and surface waters to the maximum extent practicable. The MS4
program is regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. These NPDES permits require the development of Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Programs (SWPPP).
The Cottage Grove LSWMP must also satisfy Metropolitan Council requirements as contained in their 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan. These requirements
build on those of Minnesota Rules 8410.
Beyond state level requirements and those of Metropolitan Council, this plan must be consistent with those of the watershed organizations having jurisdiction in the
City. Often, watershed districts outline specific content for local plans that go beyond that required by statute and rule.
Page 33 of 40
City of Cottage Grove
Planning Commission
June 26, 2023
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800
Ravine Parkway South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, June 26, 2023, in the Council
Chamber and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16.
Call to Order
Chair Frazier called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Members Present: Ken Brittain, Jessica Fisher, Evan Frazier, Eric Knable, Derek Rasmussen,
Emily Stephens
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Emily Schmitz, Community Development Director; Mike Mrosla, Senior
Planner; Conner Jakes, Associate Planner; Amanda Meyer, City Engineer;
Tony Khambata, City Council Liaison
Approval of Agenda
Rasmussen made a motion to approve the agenda. Fisher seconded. The motion was
approved unanimously (6-to-0 vote).
Open Forum
Frazier opened the Open Forum and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission
on any non-agenda item. No one spoke. Frazier closed the Open Forum.
Chair’s Explanation of the Public Hearing Process
Frazier explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capacity
to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he explained the
process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should go
to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record.
Public Hearings and Applications
6.1 Shed Setback Variance – Case V2023-013
Peyton and Brittney Rechtzigel have applied for a variance to the side yard setback require-
ments in the R-3, Single Family Residential District, to allow the front corner of a 16-foot by
20-foot accessory structure to be closer than 6 feet to the side property line at 6761 93rd
Bay South.
Page 34 of 40
Planning Commission Minutes – Regular Meeting
June 26, 2023
Page 2 of 7
Schmitz summarized the staff report and recommended appro val based on the findings of fact
and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report.
Fisher asked if the fence belongs to the neighbor or to the Applicant; Schmitz replied it belongs
to the neighbor. Rasmussen asked if the shed was clear from any utility or drainage easements,
any concerns that we’re aware of. Schmitz replied that the shed does not encroach on any of
the City’s drainage or utility easements, not does it impact any infrastructure that might be within
those.
Stephens stated she would assume that this is common; she asked if this had happened previ-
ously, and if so, did the City issue a variance. Schmitz replied in her time with the City, she’s
not previously dealt with this issue; however, she’s certain there have been previous similar
instances. When they are brought to our attention, we navigate as appropriately as we can.
Fisher stated it sounds like somebody from the City granted the permit and then went out and
inspected the structure; she asked if the staff did not check on the property lines. She under-
stands we don’t have a surveyor on staff, but she felt during the application and inspection
process that could have been discovered. Schmitz replied we rely on the property owner or the
Applicant to identify for us where the property line is because we don’t have a surveyor to verify.
Frazier stated the commission received a letter from an anonymous neighbor, but the instruc-
tions he read earlier are that every person has to give their name and address for the public
record; in order for this to be accurate, we need to know who is speaking and providing infor-
mation. So, he told the commissioners they can take that anonymous letter for what they believe
its worth, based on the fact that the letter has not been signed.
Frazier opened the public hearing.
Kristi McMahon, 6763 93rd Bay South, stated she’s the owner of the property with the white
fence. We actually went ahead and got a survey done, and with the overhang of the shed it’s
actually 20 inches too close to our property line, on the side closest to Mississippi Dunes Boule-
vard. Without the overhang, it would be 8 inches too close to the property line. As a homeowner,
you have to do your due diligence, you have to do a survey, and they measured off of our fence
line. They didn’t do their job right, so, it’s too close; 20 inches is a lot, considering the overhang.
If you don’t consider the overhang, it’s still 8 inches, which is still quite a bit; an inch or two isn’t,
but 8 inches is quite a bit. As a homeowner, ignorance is no excuse for the law. We also have
a shed in our back yard; we did our due diligence and we have a 10-foot setback, we have ours
11 feet in. We would love to have it 5 feet in, but we weren’t able to, it had to be 10 feet.
Additionally, our neighbor across the street from us, she believes at 6781 , actually had a shed
in their back yard that had to be moved. They had a concrete slab poured and a structure was
beginning to be built; a neighbor complained, somebody came out, and they had to cut t he
concrete and move their shed. So, she doesn’t see why this wouldn’t be any different from that.
No one else spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing.
Brittain asked staff if the overhang setback is different from the eave; Schmitz replied typically
we measure it to the side wall. Brittain stated he thought the eave was like a two-foot thing.
Schmitz stated the setback isn’t outlined specifically; however, typically, we allow for a two-foot
Page 35 of 40
Planning Commission Minutes – Regular Meeting
June 26, 2023
Page 3 of 7
overhang on a structure. Brittain stated so the overhang doesn’t count towards the ordinance
measurement for the setback, which Schmitz confirmed.
Frazier wanted to make sure he had it right: So, there has to be a six-foot setback from the
property line. We allow, separately in the Code, for a roof to overhang by two feet; so, theoreti-
cally, the roof could be 4 feet from the property line, based on those two numbers that are
separate in the Code, not talking about setback. Schmitz stated yes, generally speaking.
Fisher stated as she was reading this over the weekend, she was thinking about why we grant
variances; typically, it’s because the circumstances are out of the owner’s control. As she read
this, she felt maybe she was missing something. She feels like the people who bui lt the shed
didn’t measure correctly; to her, that’s not something that’s out of their control. So, she is not
supporting granting the variance because if we grant this one, we would be setting a precedent;
she’s seen other variances be denied in the past over homeowners making their own bed,
making improvements or doing something that causes the variance to be necessary when it’s
not necessary. That’s her feeling on this.
Stephens asked when somebody submits a building permit application, what does the C ity staff
do to communicate that it’s on the homeowners to clarify that property line; is it just in the
paperwork so it’s easily missed, or is it verbally communicated that they understand they’re
taking on this ownership because we don’t do that. Schmitz replied that’s why we also require
the site plan to be provided; so, that site plan is included with that building permit and runs with
the property. So, the property owner is identifying where they’re going to construct their struc -
ture, so they’re identifying to us that they understand where their property lines are and will
construct the shed according to that proposed setback. Stephens stated the site plan we were
looking at didn’t look like a survey. Did City staff say this is a good picture, but we need to verify
property lines. Schmitz replied we don’t require a survey to be conducted; however, we indicate
to Applicants that they are responsible to understand where their property lines are in order to
measure from those. We typically use a lot of GIS mapping from Washington County, which of
course can be off a bit here or there; however, we typically have situations where property lines
are outlined in a fence, and folks are certainly utilizing those over the years. So, it’s not uncom -
mon that folks are using those landmarks.
Brittain asked staff to provide a little bit of insight into the intent of the setbacks for the side and
the rear yard, as to what they’re attempting to prevent or standardize. Schmitz stated the set -
backs allow for a bit of a buffer, for two different reasons: 1) The DNU, avoiding any structures
being placed within those; not all properties have those easements on their property lines, but
it’s a standard setback. 2) Creating a buffer for structures, as we’re hoping to avoid str uctures
that are crossing property lines, and it helps keep that distance between property owners and
properties. Brittain asked if it was also to make sure the drainage from the roof and things along
those lines are our best chance to make sure that things are going to work out; Schmitz replied
that’s correct. Brittain confirmed that the City went out and measured to the fence; Schmitz
stated that’s correct, as a part of the building permit. Brittain said they made an assumption that
it was 6 feet. The homeowner didn’t do their due diligence but it appears attempted to measure
from the fence, what they believed was the property line; that was incorrect, but we’re all human.
On a portion of the shed, having it 6 inches closer, it appears to him, especially with the roof
line facing 90 degrees to the fenced area, none of the water runoff is going to head in that
direction; so, being 6 inches closer shouldn’t really cause it. He doesn’t really see noise or light
pollution, no lights on the back that could cause a negative impact to the property. So, letter of
Page 36 of 40
Planning Commission Minutes – Regular Meeting
June 26, 2023
Page 4 of 7
the law, you could look at it that way, but there’s also the intent of the ordinance, what are we
trying to protect? We don’t want it to be too close, we don’t want that water running off from the
shed to run right off, over the fence, into the neighbor’s yard. So, while errors were made, in his
opinion, the intent was not there to put it too close, but just following the rules by measuring to
the fence and making an assumption. So, he doesn’t see this as generating a significant hard -
ship, based on what the ordinance is; the 6 inches over a 6 -foot distance doesn’t appear to be
enough of a violation, especially since it’s not even the whole shed, to cause it to be forcibly
moved.
Knable asked if the Applicant constructed the shed or if a contractor did ; Schmitz replied they
had a contractor construct the shed. Frazier noted that on the building permit application there
is a contractor listed. Knable asked if the contractor measured to pour the cement slab. Schmitz
replied typically, property owners will work with their contractors, indicating where their property
lines are, and navigating that process with the contractor.
Fisher stated she agreed with what Brittain said; however, her problem with it is setting a prec-
edent of allowing the variance. When we start to say okay, you did that, but we’ll let you slide,
then the next person that comes through is going to say, well, I wanted to build my shed here,
and I know it’s too close, but I’ll just go get a variance later. To her, that’s the important part
about this; it’s 6 inches and it really seems silly, but it’s the precedent that we’re setting. To her,
it’s not about the shed, it’s about following the rules that everyone else is required to follow. So,
that’s why she’s not supporting the variance; it’s the precedent, not the 6 inches.
Frazier said he understands where both Brittain and Fisher are coming from; on the one h and,
we have the variance factors that say the landowner can’t create the problem, that they now
have come to the City and asked for forgiveness. The other thing is the practical difficulty can’t
be solely economic in nature; truly, if we deny the variance, they’re going to have to tear down
the shed, they’re going to have to move it, and that’s just the cost factor , but that’s kind of the
practical difficulty that’s baked in. On the other hand, he believes this truly is a de minimus
violation if it is one; the 6 inches that we’re talking about is an extremely small incursion into the
setback, especially when we consider other commercial-industrial applications that we get
where they’re looking at 20-foot incursions into setbacks. Another one we’ll have late r on is
asking for an incursion towards the street to have a bigger parking lot; so, this is something that
the City does all the time. Yes, we have setbacks, but we move the setbacks if there’s a good
reason to; so, he’s kind of split on that. He will tell them this: Both of you are here tonight, both
of you live next to each other, and you’re going to have to get along. That is the one fact that is
going to be here today, you live next to each other, you both own properties, so, you have to
get along. This is advice and from the City’s perspective, it will make everybody’s lives better if
you get along.
Rasmussen mentioned he thinks it’s kind of a silly mistake, a little bit foolish of whoever built
their shed; if there’s a 6-foot setback, and I’m going to measure off a property fence, I’d probably
aim for 7 feet to make sure I’m on the safe side. We’re talking very minimal, 6 inches or less,
so he doesn’t see any great problems with drainage or sight lines. He’d be in favor of approving
this variance, as staff recommended.
Stephens said she thinks it’s very difficult for both of the property owners. She can’t speak for
everybody, but she would agree with Fisher that rules are the rules, and it’s really hard to set
the precedent for the next one. She would probably be frustrated if she was the adjoining neigh -
Page 37 of 40
Planning Commission Minutes – Regular Meeting
June 26, 2023
Page 5 of 7
bor, but at the same time, if she was the one who made the mistake and had to do all that work
for 6 inches, that’s also very painful. She just wants to say that she sees both sides, and it's
challenging.
Rasmussen made a motion to approve the side yard setback variance for a shed at 6761
93rd Bay South, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Knable seconded.
Motion passed on a 5-to-1 vote (Fisher voted nay).
6.2 Hohenstein’s Distribution Center – SP2023-010
Gardner Builders Minneapolis, LLC, on behalf of Hohenstein’s, has applied for a site plan
review of a proposed 160,785 square foot distribution center to be located on the southwest
corner of Jamaica Avenue and 95th Street.
Schmitz summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stip-
ulated in the staff report.
Frazier opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing.
Knable asked if the box trucks will be delivering the product there or if there will be semi access
to unload and distribute to the box trucks; how are you getting product to this distribution center.
Karl Hohenstein, 2330 Ventura Drive, Woodbury, replied they get a lot of over-the-road semis
that fill up their warehouse, and we use traditional 16 -bay trucks to deliver to retail, both bars
and liquor stores. Knable asked if we’d planned for parking of those semis on this site or do
they leave as soon as they deliver; Hohenstein replied the semis come and go; as soon as we
unload them, they’re gone. Knable asked which exit they would be using the most to get in and
out; Hohenstein replied semis would use the western access to 95th Street, by the pond.
Fisher asked if they were moving their Woodbury location to this one or if they’re expanding and
having two separate locations; Hohenstein replied they’re moving their entire operation to
Cottage Grove. Fisher asked if he had any idea when they might expa nd, as she noted we’re
earmarking an expansion site. Hohenstein replied right now, he’s doubling the size of his current
operation, but he doesn’t want to move again for a while.
Brittain made a motion to approve the site plan review for the proposed distribution cen-
ter, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Fisher seconded. Motion
passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote).
6.3 Chase Bank – SP2023-011 & CUP2023-011
JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA has applied for a site plan review of a proposed 3,319 square
foot freestanding retail banking center to be located in the south parking lot of Kohls, north
of 80th Street, east of Culver’s, and west of U.S. Bank; and a conditional use permit for an
attached through-the-wall drive-up ATM lane.
Mrosla summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stip -
ulated in the staff report.
Page 38 of 40
Planning Commission Minutes – Regular Meeting
June 26, 2023
Page 6 of 7
Fisher asked if the drive-thru was just for the ATM or if they had drive-thru teller services, too;
Mrosla replied that’s just for the ATM.
Frazier opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing.
Rasmussen made a motion to approve the rezoning and site plan review for the proposed
water treatment plant and utility building, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff
report. Knable seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote).
6.4 Trellis Senior Apartments – SP2023-012 & ZA2023-012
Trellis Co. has applied for a Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review for a proposed
52-unit affordable senior housing building located at 7601 79th Street South.
Mrosla summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stip -
ulated in the staff report.
Dan Walsh of Trellis, located in Minneapolis, stated they’re a nonprofit developer for affordable
multifamily housing for nearly 30 years, with more than 4,000 units and 51 properties primarily
in the Twin Cities metro area and others scattered throughout Minnesota. They’re one of the
largest nonprofit owners and developers of affordable housing in Minnesota. They have their
own management company, which will have a fulltime presence at this proposed development.
This is affordable senior housing, so our primary goal is fitting in with the surroundings, creating
a building of which the City will be proud. They will be the long -term owner of the property, so
he spoke about the parking requirement, which they take very seriously; he noted residents
here will also utilize Metro Mobility to access the many nearby amenities.
Fisher asked Walsh if, in addition to the rent, they will have a monthly HOA fee; if so, what will
that cover. Walsh replied there would be no HOA fee, and they’re not charging for parking. He
said 36 of the units have project-based rent assistance attached to them, so the residents will
actually only pay 30 percent of their income; if they have no income, they won’t pay rent.
Frazier opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing.
Rasmussen stated he’s a bit concerned with the parking. They’re asking for 35 stalls less than
what’s typically recommended. In wintertime, snow builds up, so you might lose 20 percent of
those; we don’t know who will reside there and if they will have cars or not. What happens if the
parking becomes a problem; will they be parking at the library or on neighboring properties. He
likes the project, but that’s his one concern.
Frazier stated Rasmussen’s comment brought up another point for him: Do we have plans as
to where snow storage on site will be, especially if we’re going to agree to have so little parking
compared to Code; do we know where that’s going to happen. Mrosla stated the Applicant had
addressed that as part of the submittal package, he asked if the Applicant wished to address
that; Walsh stated both he and the architect, Brett Petereck, Kaas Wilson Architects, 1301
American Boulevard East, Bloomington, will speak about snow removal. Walsh stated we would
never as a business practice store snow over parking stalls. In extraordinary snow years, we
have trucked snow offsite. We actually have our own snow removal division of our property
management company, so it’s something that we do in ho use and take very seriously. Petereck
Page 39 of 40
Planning Commission Minutes – Regular Meeting
June 26, 2023
Page 7 of 7
stated they worked on the site map with a civil engineer, about onsite management for snow
removal, and one option included storing snow in the east side of the property, into the land -
scape area. Mrosla noted on Page C2 of the submitted plans it states exactly what the Applicant
just said, the snow shall be stored onsite, but if there are events where it cannot be stored on
site, the snow shall be hauled offsite.
Brittain made a motion to approve the site plan review and planned unit development for
the senior housing apartment building, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff
report. Rasmussen seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote).
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2023
Fisher made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 24, 2023, Planning Commission
meeting. Rasmussen seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote).
Reports
8.1 Recap of June 2023 City Council Meetings
Schmitz provided a summary of actions taken at the June 7 and 21, 2023 City Council meetings.
Khambata stated the Planning Commission is doing great work, as what they do isn’t always
easy. There are a lot of things to consider with the applications that come bef ore you, and the
Council appreciates the Planning Commission’s guidance.
8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries
None.
8.3 Planning Commission Requests
None.
Adjournment
Rasmussen made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Brittain seconded. Motion passed
unanimously (6-to-0 vote). The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
Page 40 of 40