5.5. PCSR 07-08-2008!~ J~
City of
Elk -~-_,
River
REQUEST FOR ACTION
To Item Number
Plannin Coininission 5.5.
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Plannin Items ul 8, 2008 erem Barnhart, Plannin Mana er
Item Description Reviewed by
Request by City of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment Jeff Gongoll, Community
Regarding Placement of Black Dirt, Public Hearing -Case No Develo ment Director
OA 08-06 Reviewed by
Action Requested
Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the proposed ordinance, receive public comment,
and table the discussion to allow staff to address concerns raised during the public hearing. Concerns
include:
1. Effectiveness in actual water reduction
2. Enforceability
3. Cost
Based on the information provided to date, Staff cannot support the ordinance as it is written.
Staff can also support a Planning Commission recommendation of denial, due to the concerns listed.
Background/Discussion
The Utilities Commission, in an effort to reduce the City's water use during the summer months, is
proposing an ordinance amendment that would require certain soil improvements for new lots
throughout the City. This draft ordinance is attached.
Bryan Adams, Elk River Municipal Utilities Superintendent, will verbally provide information regarding
the proposed ordinance at the meeting.
The intent of the ordinance is to reduce water consumption during the summer months. Utilities have
noticed a trend where the summer water demand doubles and triples the winter demand. The bulk of
this water is used to water lawns, wash cars, etc. Utilities generally have an obligation to reduce summer
water usage metro area wide, to preserve water for non-recreation or lawn needs: drinking, cooking,
bathing, and fire protection.
Utilities have instituted volume pricing, education, and other programs to reduce the amount of water
being pumped during the summer months. The ordinance proposed is another `tool' to reduce this
water.
Case File: OA 08-06
Page 2
Financial Impact
Additional personnel costs, undetermined
Attachments
Draft ordinance
• Staff memo dated Apri126, 2007
Overview
The ordinance would apply city-wide.
Dirt Ordinance
July 8, 2008
Analysis
Staff recognizes the importance of water conservation. Clearly a paradigm shift is necessary to
effective measurable change.
Though supportive of the goal, Staff is concerned that the proposed ordinance may not truly be
effective in reducing water usage, will cause unreasonable enforcement demands, and place
unknown financial and time burdens on a relatively few effected property owners.
Concern #1: Undetermined actual water reduction -The majority of the city's urban services have
been developed. Based on a review of the zoning map, as much as 80 to 85% of the City's urban
service area (the area to be served by City water and sewer) is built out. The ordinance requires 4-6
inches of top soil on these lots. The top soil will retain water longer than the sand prevalent
throughout much of the city. The concern is that only 20% of the urban service area will be
required to import top soil, and the cost to administer the ordinance does not appear out weigh the
benefits provided to the city. Additionally, the ordinance applies throughout the City, even those
lots outside city services/
Concern #2: Enforceability -Staff has genuine concerns related to enforceability. Staff is
researching enforcement programs, but it appears that a staff person would need to be on site when
the soil is delivered, (to verify mix ratio), spread (to verify depth), and tilled, to verify depth into
existing ground. These three inspections add up in staff time, and prevent a homeowner from doing
this work on a weekend. The ordinance suggests a certificate system where the property owner
would sign a statement saying that adequate top soil has been provided and tilled into the ground.
Concern #3: Cost -Staff is unsure of the cost to the homeowner. Affected lots would range in size
from 8000 square foot residential lots to multiple-acre industrial sites. Importing, spreading, and
tilling top soil has been estimated at $3,000 for the average city lot (12,000 sq ft),
Action Motion by Second Uy Vote
Follow Up
S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\OA\OA 08-OG Black Dirt\Staff report dirt ord -Revised DH.doc
ORDINANCE No. 08-
CITY OF ELK RIVER
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER AMENDING SECTION 30-
416(0)(5)(e) OF THE CITY CODE TO IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF TOP SOIL IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Elk River finds that excessive watering of
green spaces is a waste of valuable natural resources, unnecessarily depletes our underground
water supply, necessitates additional water infrastructure to supply and deliver water, and
increases undesirable runoff to the storm water system; and that adding topsoil and tilling the top
8" of grade after building construction is complete breaks up compacted soil from construction
activities and increases water penetration into the ground, therefore decreasing water runoff and
increasing the drought tolerance of grass cover.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Elk River does hereby ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1. Section 30-416(0)(5)(e) of the City Code shall be amended to read as
follows:
(e) For all lots less than one-half acre in size, all planned green space
areas shall have 4" of top soil tilled into the upper approximate 8" of grade. For
lots greater than one-half acre in size, all disturbed areas shall have 4" of top soil
tilled into the upper approximate 8" of grade. Top soil shall meet the
requirements of MNDOT Specification 3877 "Select Topsoil" containing the
following approximate blend of materials:
Minimum Maximum
Sand 20% 70%
Clay 5% 30%
Silt 10% 70%
Organic 10% 20%
In locations where the above approximate blend of materials already exist on the
lot, as determined by an independent certified testing laboratory or with prior
approval of the Elk River building official, tilling the top 8" of grade only shall be
allowed.
Compliance with this Section 30-416(0)(5)(e) shall be documented to the
satisfaction of the Elk River Building Official, either through on-site inspection or
the submission of a Certificate of Compliance on a form approved by the Building
Official, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Property.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication as provided by law.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Elk River this day of
2008.
Attest:
Stephanie Klinzing
Mayor
Tina Allard
City Clerk
GP 23481'l4 vl
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR
ORDINANCE 08-
I owner/contractor for the building at
have installed 4" of top soil and tilled it into the top 8" of native soil per ordinance #08-
As certification that this work was completed, the following receipts are attached (check the
appropriate box).
^ Invoice for Top Soil
^ Invoice for Tilling operation
^ Invoice from Contractor doing work
^ Other
'*~Ji
city or
Elk -~_
River
REQUEST FOR ACTION
To Item Number
Ci Council
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
November 13, 2007 B an Adams Elk River Utilities
Item Description Reviewed by
Black Dirt Ordinance
Reviewed by
Action Requested
Elk River Municipal Utilities recommends City Councils direct staff to develop a black dirt ordinance to
foster water conservation that contains the following principals.
1) 4 inches of black dirt shall be tilled into the top approximate 8" of existing soil.
2) 4 inches of black dirt shall have the approximate following make-up by vohune
Sand - 61%
Clay - 12%
Silt - 12%
Organic - 1 S%
3) Areas that naturally contain this approximate soil make-up shall be classified as meeting the
black dirt policy.
4) Inspection as part of the certificate of occupancy process by building inspections.
Background/Discussion
As Elk River continues to grow, so does the demand for water. The attached Chart #1 reflects Elk
River's past and future growth trends on a daily and annual basis. Our past annual growth trend has been
in the 7% range or a new water production facility every 3 years. We currently have 7 water production
facilities with the 8th under construction in Twin Lakes Estates. All of our facilities utilize the Mt. Simon
Hinl~ley aquifer. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) recently increased our ground
water appropriation to 1.6 billion gallons per year and 5 additional wells. This increase should satisfy our
growth needs for the next 10 years. This increase in water appropriations is also contingent on
continuing our water conservation efforts which is the subject of this memo.
Chart #2 reflects the maximum daily and monthly water pumpage for years 2006 and 2007. Elk River's
domestic water need is in the 38 million gallons per month range or 1.26 million gallons per day. This is
approxunately what the waste water plant processes daily. In the non winter months, water demand
drastically increases to 160 ini]lion gallons per month or 7 million gallons per day. This increase is due to
lawn irrigation. On an annual basis, lawn irrigation accounts for approximately 45% of our water use. Is
this a good use of a limited resource?
The attached two articles from the September 16, 2007 Star Tribune titled "Battling Tainted Water" and
"The Pollution That Lies Beneath" very accurately explains the water situation in the metro area. EIk
River uses the Mt. Simon Hinkley aquifer as a sole source water supply. As other metro communities
seek a better water supply, the Mt. Simon Hinkley aquifer will receive more withdraws in the future and
\\Win2003_sever\h\GM Documents\Black Dirt Action Requested.doc
Sheet2
Chart #1
Elk River Municipal Utilities Peak Day Pumpage
25000
w 20000 Current DNR Maximum
~ Daily Pumping.Level Maximum
0
o° 15000
._
~ 10000 well Capacity
a~
is
a
~ 5000 _ Minimum
a ~~~~' Probable
0
Year
~ rns grapn reriecrs [ne peaK aay system usages the water production facilities must satisfy. Growth of the peak
day demand dictates when additional water wells, filter plants,and water towers must be added to the system.
Pumpage projections in the above graph are a function of both weather and growth.
Elk River Municipal Utilities Annual Water Production
3000
2500
2000
C9
~ 1500
c
0
= 1000
500
0
~°o'` ~oo`~ ~°o~' ~oo~ ~ooo ~°°'` ~o°`~ ~o°`' ~o°~ ~o°o ~o^'` ~o%`~ ~o~.`' ~0,~1
Year
ElecWaterProj1 Page 1
Chart #2
Elk River Municipal Utilities Monthly Water Pumpage
R
(7
0
.~
a~
R
a
E
a
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
o, o
~ ~~Q O ~o~ Ora
Month
Elk River Municipal Utilities Peak Day Pumpage
s
Peak Day Establishes
~ -
s ~~ Water Production Facilities
c~ ~ •~
= 5 ~
•a / ~ _I ~~
`~
~
4 ~
~
~
Irrigation Needs ~~
0 3 , _ _
R i ~
_~ ~
d
2 _~~
2006 "~
~
omes is ee s
0
°Ja~ ~
~Ja~ ~~`Gr P~`\ ~~~ ~~~~ ,~~
J~Jy~
~,o~c
~~~ec
~~~`
~~~c
~a ~
O
P
'~e
°
e
~
~~Q O ~~J OeG
Month
i ~,~,
w
~~ ~
o ~ - ~ m ~ ,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~b
.~
0 0 ~ ~:_._;~_... 4 ~ .ti _
~ -~ ~ o O o° ~ ~ t C7 ~ ~ -
o N +- v a ro G rtt-
`° ° ° rd w.. / ...
~ v -a
ti ~ ~ ~,'
v .: ~ ~
G v ~ o ~ '
u .a 'O ~ O O w ~ (jj ~ OD .gyn.
•~ a N N OA ,.O ~ •~ 3 J~ ~ v ~ ,rJ. +v+
~I~" aJ 4J ~? C Jt Vf
;zs o 0 0 ~ ~ .
~ ~ ~ ,~ .b Y ~ ~, a o
~ +v+ ~ ~ ~ ~ OA .~ y ~ '~l ~~~• ~ O v ,O m
'. b
W O ro~r' N O G 41 ~~ ~~ _ ~ N O
. ,.
T a ~
. v.
w p t ~ 7 3~ ~ N -'
vpoo .................. ........ • ~G ~
~ w o o v
~ O v ~ ~~•~•' ~ ''~ ,i ,x ~~ ~ .. b
o•
/ ti G _v
~ ~ b .d y !r Gl w Ry
N
p O 4 ~ f [d p ~ p v
,~ o •a a. rfl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ u ~
,-~
O
b ~ '''' ~ ...................... ..... ... ~ a R. v N
G
. ~ O ~ ,--- ~ 3 ~ vpi O > N
t
`~ a ~ ., v ~
a
ro a
~ n. ~ ~ G ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
m ~ ~e ~o .. +~ l~ oo .~
C o .n S ~ °' ~ ,
~ ro ,~ ~ ~ ,~ ~. ~
aN
u ~ L1. ~ ~
6'0 ~ •• ~
H ~~ v y ~ ~l ~ f ,~„i ,b ~ ~ ~ ,v„ ~ •d ~ .D
~ $. ~ .... ~ aro, O ° ~ .°
rW~4 a o0
s • ~ ~~ ~ 3 .~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~
~ /f c,~rovv
t'. w
o ~
0 o w a ~-' v
W.J QJ ~ Q/ y, N
J ~ IFLL fn 3L .~ ~ ~ ro
O 1f Q 0 /l~ ~ a ~ tMJ prp c~ n. ,b [' •CJ 7 C C
_ ~ ~ 1 rj y 'D ~ .~ ~ '~ [C s.. O 5
~........ µW1 4J +' O Ol G! 0! O
a ~ ~ ~ pp ~ a, ~ b
~~ ~ ~ CI ~~ pq O 'C7 ~ ~ ~ ... ._
o ~ u v~~`~a ~ ~ a'~~
v~ v v ~ v vb v v v~
N ~ 'O .v 'd r~ rd +' v O ~r v
~ S p ~ ~ ~~ O ~5 O ~ ~ ~
V a o ~ ~ °; ~ v ~ ~ ~ o v °' ~ C~7 ~ v
>, ~a ~, p •o o ~'d a ~ ~,
ai W ~ O +' .r, ~C ~ w N ro .~ a
~r ~ C w 'N _~ ~ v Ct~ O ~ `+-+ ro v OV N z c•-t '7 ~p >
a 41 cr cn ro v ~ o o v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °' ~ v h >.
Q¢~a¢33~ -o-vroa~w~ ~ ov ~
Memo
To: Bryan Adams, Municipal Utilities Superintendent
From: Jeremy Barnhart, Planning Manager
CC: Terry Maurer, Scott Clark, Rebecca. Haug, Bob Ruprecht, Sheila Cartney
Date: April 26, 2007
Re: Proposed dirt ordinance
Thank you for allowing Community Development and Engineering staff to comment on the
proposed minimum top soil "Dirt" ordinance being contemplated by the Utilities Commission
and Staff.
We met on Tuesday, April 24 and have some comments regarding the potential ordinance.
These comments include:
1. It appears the intent is a reduction of water usage. How much reduction is
anticipated? Is there independent, supporting information available for review?
2. Are there other options available that reduce water usage as effectively? Water
rates, education, enforced water/ sprinkling restrictions, native grasses, etc.
3. How effective will this ordinance be when the majority of the `urban' area has
been built out and or platted?
4. There is some concern that this proposed ordinance penalizes a majority for the
few (those that water their lawns).
5. What is the difference between black dirt and top soil?
6. What is the anticipated cost for the homeowner? What is the savings? As part of
street construction projects, the City imports black dirt (top soil), because it is not
found in the City, increasing the cost.
7. Who puts the soil on, and when? Developer at Final Plat or the Builder at CO,
homeowner?
8. Enforcement, who does it?
9. The City was required to obtain a NPDES permit in 2003 and part of that permit
is to reduce the amount of run-off in to the storm sewer system. It also requires
us to infiltrate more and achieve the 1988 infiltration rates for the City. Would this
reduce the amount of infiltration and increase the amount of run-off:'
10. How will adding 4-6 inches of soil affect the approved grading plans?
11. How would the wide variety of soils and lots types, sandy and clay soils, small lots
and rural lots be dealt with?
Again, thank you for allowing us to comment on your proposed ordinance. We do have some
concern with the effectiveness of such an ordinance, and wonder if other options should be
explored before entering into an ordinance situation. Please feel free to contact me with any
questions or comments.
• Page 2