5.3. BASR 08-12-2008/j
City of
Elk -~-~
River
REQUEST FOR ACTION
To Item Number
Plannin Commission 5.3.
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Plannin Items Au ust 12, 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-OG Reviewed by
Action Requested
Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the proposed application because insufficient evidence
to justify the cost. Concerns include:
1. Effectiveness in actual reduction of water consumption
2. Enforceability
3. Cost
Background/Discussion
In an effort to reduce the City's water use during the summer months, the Utilities Commission 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 (ERMU) Superintendent, presented information illustrating
the need for metro wide water conservation at the Planning Commission meeting July 8, 2008.
The intent of the ordinance is to reduce water consumption during the summer months. ERMU has
noticed that the summer water doubles and triples the winter demand. The bulk of this water is used to
water lawns, wash cars, fill swimming pools, etc. Utilities generally have an obligation to reduce summer
water usage metro area wide to preserve water for non-recreation or lawn needs, including drinking,
cooking, bathing, and fire protection.
To assist in water preservation, ERMU has instituted volume pricing, education, and other programs to
reduce the summer water demand. The proposed ordinance is another `tool' to reduce the demand and
would replace the existing ordinance. The ordinance in place is generally consistent with those of
surrounding communities.
Case Filc: OA 08-0(,
Page 2
Dirt Ordinance
August 12, 2008
Financial Impact
• Additional costs to the average residential lot are approximately $3,000. Costs to
commercial/ industrial are undetermined at this time.
• Additional personnel costs, due to increased inspection and clerical work
Attachments
• Draft ordinance
• Staff memo to Bryan Adams dated April 26, 2007
Overview
The ordinance would apply city-wide.
Analysis
Staff recognizes the importance of water conservation. Clearly a paradigm shift is necessary to
affect measurable change.
Though supportive of the goal, Staff is concerned the proposed ordinance may not truly be effective
in reducing water usage, will cause unreasonable enforcement demand, and place unknown financial
and time burdens on a relatively few affected 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 to outweigh
the benefits provided to the city, which have not been proven. Additionally, the proposed
ordinance applies throughout the City, even 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,
which raises some concerns relative to effectiveness.
Concern #3: Cost -Staff is unsure of the cost to the homeowner. Affected lots would range in size
from 8,000 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).
At their meeting on July 8`", the Planning Commission, recognizing Staff concerns, and based on
claims made by Mr. Adams regarding the marked reduction found in area communities, requested
supporting information, in part to justify the cost on a relatively few property owners. Because no
supporting information can be provided, Staff is recommending denial.
S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\OA\OA 08-OG Black Dirt\Staff report dirt ord 8-12-08.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
GP2348174 vl
2
~-'iCa'~'•~
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 ardinance.
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
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR
ORDINANCE 08-
t 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
Sheet2
Chart #1
Elk River Municipal Utilities Peak Day Pumpage
25000
~0 20000
(9
0
°0 15000
._
~ 10000
Q.
~ 5000
a
0
Current DNR Maximum:
Daily Pumping Leve Maximum
Well Capacity ._~,_.__.f-
Minimum
~"_" _ Probable
....~
O~
° OO 0~ p1 OO O~ OO O~ O~ OO ~~ ^"~ ~h ~1
~
~ ,~°~ ,~°~ ^O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O
Year
This graph reflects the peak day 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
~ 1500
c
0
1000
500
0
Current DNR Annual Withdi
Limit is 1,600,000,000. Gal.'
Maximum
Minimum
Probable
0~
° 0p 0~ O~ OO O~ OO O~ O~ O°~ ~'` ~"~ ~h ~1
~
~ ~O ~°~ ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O
Year
ElecWaterProj1 Page 1
Chart #2
Elk Rlver Municipal Utilities Monthly Water Pumpage
180
160
7
(
c
0 140
120
~
100
.
~
rn 80
Q, 60
~
40
a
20
0
~~~ ~`Gr PQ~\
J~~ ~~~~
,°~c
,°~c
~~~
J~~ ,J\~
o~~`
~~`
a~ ~~
~ J
~
~
,`Z OG
GO
JO
Q'
,
~
~
~ ~ O~
~~Q
~O
Month
Elk River Municipal Utilities Peak Day Pumpage
8
R
C7 6
c
5
~
4
p
3
~a
a
2
1
0
~Ja~~ ~`Jac~ ~~~~r QQ~~ ~~~ ,J~e ~J~~ JAJ~'` e~,o~~ G~o~ec e~~~c ~~~~c
m
~ ~~ P O~Q~ p ~o~ Oeo
Month
Peak Day Establishes
~~ Water Production Facilities
~,
Irrigation Needs ~~
~-- -
~~
..r ~
-- Zoos a
omes c ee s
i•
i
i
i
i
2007 i~ `~
~,~ rr gat on ee s ~~` 2006
~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~
C `,~ ~ - ~ .. .......... ~
4i $
"~ ~ Cl
3 ~ ~ N,a
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
e
~, {~ w
~ ~ ~ 0 0 o t'i f/ ~ ~,7 ~
~n O ~ 'LJ P. to ~ f°-''
~Cv
~ N ° °
N ~ ~ [ ~ ~ ~ ,
p v ~ ° ~ , o °' ~ o o ,~ >,
~ o +, o v ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~~ :~a ~ ~~ _ ,a
~ ::-CCU{{ v
cn 5 Ql ~ t10 QI ~ O V~' ~ f ¢p ~ ~
a. ~ > ~ -C 7 iti ~ ~ `~' 1 1~. ~ 'b a~
,- .; o ~ _
v r. C
~, a ~ ; ~ ;~
~ ~ ~ ~ v v
~.,
° ~ ~ .................. ......... ~~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ v
+J ro ~ ~ w O
r _
m ~ - t ~ ° o a
C
`~vJ ~ y S W 1~ rd p ~ 'o ~
r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~o
.d~ ~.I[~ ...................... __ ~ f r FW+ R.C].v~ ++
~~ ~ ~ v ~~ ~
.~ °'
~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ t Z ~ a. Q1 ~ ~
r
rn ~ ~ ~ v 3 C_ ~
~,,. v
a,d o °q~ ,~~ ,' ~ ci.° ; v ~ ~v
~ ~ 7 67 ~ b o `° ro ~ t,
y+~-. jJJ ~ o
N ~~ rj ~ :] G/ i i r y.~ ~ ~ ~ Q1 Yom. QVl 'd ++ A
~ c
~~ f ~ c ° ~ a~ v ~ °~ o
`~ 1rn f ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ o o °
.. ,~ m
® .~.~^ . ,, ~ o
~ +~ a ~^~r ~ o t ~~
a , o
c
r' ~w
d vi "~
o ~ ~ ' Q 0 '~ I.a M
f7
~ ~ ~'
O ~
~
~
~ TT
A~
~ ~1 ~.
v G
~
~
~
,
v
~ .~
vN .~ ''' U N Ir ~
>, cd ~ a v .d
F.y V1
~ ~ ° ~' ~ ~
~ Xi
~
~ ~ ~ 'C1 CJ
~
° TS ~ ~ y
O b "
ti ~ ~ l
~jn
x ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ '' ~ b o y ~ ~, ~
z
p N~v v~v
i a ~ v '~
..-. °
a
~ . ~ v~
C ~ oo ~ ~a vim' o ~o
y ~
yy
~
N v fa ~ ~ ,r.
N~
o ~ `"~ 4!
ro
v
~
.
.
r +~
w ~ r
a rd i' ^O F~ O y cn
~
w
p ° - nom. cd i.r ~ N
.7 (d ~ '~ 4l N N v '~1
+.+ ~
~ ~
Q 3 3
~
5 ~ O
~ ~
o v a~ v ~°
~
a
a. o
~v ~n n.U,w~
o ~ 'b ° on ° o 0
fL O v v N~~ ~
'~- ° `d °' c' J ~ ~ cad
.d ~
N
b
~ ~ _~ ~ p
a0 is CL ~ a" `~ v +-'
~r^Vj ~i ~ Q1 Ql C° V
~7 ~ ++
i.7 ~ ~ ~M 'O v ~
~~^ OD ~ b 'O ~ ,O j
v
° ~ ~ ~ y
~~~~~~~~
H QJ C1r ,~
W ~ ~ y ~ ~
~G-! ~
~ ~ J
N ..-1 ~ ~ 1
O
N ~ U O '1
~ V7 ++ ti {
-~
u
°
Cv
A
.o
y G
!--~
G
.~ ~
~ ~ o
on ~
o °~' u
v
N
Q/
.~ V ~
~ v ~-^
a
z ~° v ~ A