Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/07/2019

Home

Regular Planning Commission 6. 6. Meeting Date: 02/07/2019 By: Chris Anderson, Community Development Information Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Ordinance #19-03 Amending the Definition of Topsoil (Project No. 18-146) Purpose/Background: In the mid -to -late 2000s, the City adopted a new development requirement, requiring all new construction to establish 4" of premium topsoil. The intent was to reduce the consumption of water related to lawn irrigation. Through several appropriations request to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for additional public wells, the City needed to implement additional water conservation measures due to the high consumption compared to peer communities. A large portion of this consumption was due to lawn irrigation in very sandy soils. While the current standard is quite effective in water conservation, Staff believes it is an appropriate time to evaluate the cost -benefit ratio. The standard has not reduced the amount of development in the community, but the City has received much feedback on the standard. For several years now, the City has been receiving feedback on the current topsoil requirement, both in the field and at other forums such as the Contractor's Networking event, hosted by the City. More recently, the City received a written request from Capstone Homes to consider revising the topsoil standard by eliminating the specification for Premium Topsoil Borrow (a now former MnDOT specification). The request identified two negative effects of the current topsoil requirement. First, that the topsoil is doing too good of a job in terms of holding water. They acknowledge that many homeowners are likely not adjusting their irrigation systems to account for the topsoil and are actually contributing to the problem. Secondly, they identified price as a concern compared to the cost of 'regular' black dirt. Staff has had multiple discussions with the EPB regarding this topic. The EPB requested Staff to gather information on what similar peer communities (with similar sandy soils) require and what the purpose of the requirement was (to see if it is an apples to apples comparison). Staff looked at the requirements for communities such as Andover, Big Lake, and Blaine, all of which have a topsoil requirement and are growing communities on sandy soils (Elk River was also contacted but due to significant opposition, they did not adopt a topsoil requirement and rather, through their municipal utilities division, implemented a rebate program focused on improving irrigation systems). Notification: A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Anoka County UnionHerald. Observations/Alternatives: Review of Peer Communities Topsoil Requirements Staff contacted multiple communities that are all situated within the Anoka Sand Plain (these would, in general terms, all have sandy 'base' or native soils with less water holding capabilities). A summary of each communities' standards is attached to this case. Based on this review, it is clear that Ramsey has a much more stringent approach to topsoil, from how it is defined to our inspection process, than other communities. It seems that communities that have adopted a topsoil requirement have done so with an intention of reducing demand on groundwater while also assisting with vegetation establishment. Cost Comparison