Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mayor Ramsey called the regular City Council meeting back to order at 10:00 p.m. <br /> <br />Case #7: <br /> <br />Introduce Ordinance Establishing Topsoil Requirements; Case of <br />City of Ramsey <br /> <br />Assistant City Engineer Rimmer stated that the City of Ramsey has been identified as one <br />of the largest users of non-consumptive water in the metro area. The City has <br />implemented various conservation measures over the years in an effort to reduce this <br />water usage. There have been several iterations of a topsoil requirement considered by <br />both the Public Works Committee and the Environmental Policy Board, dating back to <br />January 2006. At the July 15,2008 Public Works Committee meeting, staff was directed <br />to prepare a topsoil ordinance requiring a minimum of four inches of topsoil, meeting <br />MnDOT specification 3877.2C (premium topsoil borrow) in landscaped areas of all new <br />developments (residential and commercial/industrial). Since then, staff has done <br />additional investigating and modified the recommended topsoil specification slightly. <br />The modifications will more specifically address the soil conditions found in Ramsey by <br />restricting the allowable sand content and will also be more in line with surrounding <br />communities that have a similar requirement, such as Blaine, St. Francis and Andover. <br />Currently Ramsey's top soil was 80 to 90% so adding 60% to that did not make sense. <br />MnDDT's specification includes a range of allowable sand content (25-65%); the <br />proposed ordinance will limit the allowable sand content to a maximum of thirty-five <br />percent (35%). The Planning Commission is in agreement. Mr. Rimmer stated that he <br />had a discussion with an organic dirt maker, John Enstrom. We continue to use <br />MnDDT's specs, but Mr. Enstrom is not in agreement with those. Mr. Enstrom felt the <br />minimum should be 40, upwards of 60%; however, MnDDT felt that was high and would <br />be cost prohibitive. Mr. Rimmer stated that no one else in the area has this level and it <br />would be difficult to find. Re stated that he wanted to introduce this ordinance as stated <br />and then discuss it more at a Public Works Committee meeting prior to bringing it back <br />to the City Council for adoption. Mr. Rimmer stated the proposed revisions are <br />summarized as follows: <br />Chapter 9: Zoning and Subdivision of Land - Section 9.02 (Definitions) <br />· Definitions were added for Natural Area, Organic Matter, and Topsoil <br />Section 9.11 (Performance Standards) <br />· Repetitive information, related to grading and ground cover, was taken out of <br />each specific zoning district and combined into the general performance standards <br />for all districts. <br />· The timing to complete the required landscaping was reduced from one (1) year to <br />six (6) months from the date the Certificate of occupancy is issued. <br />· The required tree and sod escrow, which is $600.00 and is collected at the time of <br />building permit issuance, was eliminated from the building permit process and <br />replaced with an amount to be determined if the builder/property owner is <br />requesting a Certificate of occupancy prior to having the required landscaping, <br />including topsoil, installed. <br />Sections 9.50.30 (Subdivision Design Standards) and 9.50.50 (construction of <br />Improvements) <br /> <br />City Council7January 13,2009 <br />Page 22 of31 <br />