Laserfiche WebLink
5.01: Discussion on Topsoil Requirement and Potential Amendments or Alternatives <br /> (Project No. 146) <br /> City Planner Anderson presented the staff report. He noted that the Board previously held a <br /> general discussion on the City's topsoil standard. The impetus for that discussion (and this case) <br /> was a request from a developer/builder that the City revise the topsoil standard by eliminating the <br /> specification for Premium Topsoil Borrow. The request identified two negative effects of the <br /> current topsoil requirement. First, that the topsoil is doing too good of a job in terms of holding <br /> water; they acknowledge that many homeowners are not adjusting their irrigation system to <br /> account for the topsoil and are actually contributing to the problem. Secondly, they identified <br /> price as a concern compared to the cost of"regular"black dirt. He stated that as part of the initial <br /> discussion, staff was asked to gather information on what similar peer communities (with similar <br /> sandy soils)require and what the purpose of the requirement was(to see if it is an apples-to-apples <br /> comparison). Additionally, staff has attempted to compile water usage data for the City over the <br /> past ten years in an attempt to assess the effectiveness of the current topsoil requirement to reduce <br /> water usage. <br /> City Planner Anderson noted that while topsoil is a beneficial addition,both for water conservation <br /> and vegetation establishment, the cost difference of an engineered soil compared to a more <br /> standard black dirt is significant. Focusing more on the irrigation systems and water efficient <br /> technologies rather than engineered soils, along with additional educational information on <br /> irrigation systems, should be as effective as the current standard regarding reducing demand on <br /> groundwater. It would certainly be accomplished at a lower cost to the future homeowner (and <br /> possibly current homeowners if a rebate program were implemented). Thus, staff would <br /> recommend proceeding with an Ordinance Amendment to modify the definition of topsoil <br /> consistent with other peer communities(such as"black dirt composed of unconsolidated material, <br /> largely undecomposed organic matter with no more than 35% sand"). <br /> City Engineer Westby stated that staff is involved with other groups on the topic of water supply, <br /> both regionally and across the metro, and provided background information on the groups that he <br /> is involved with. He stated that he has worked with Capstone over a number of years on the <br /> developments that they have been working on in Ramsey. He stated that he become more involved <br /> in the topsoil specification and the fallout caused by the specification,specifically in the Brookfield <br /> 7th and 8th additions. He provided examples of backyards in that neighborhood that consistently <br /> hold water after rain events or from upstream property owners overwatering their yards. He stated <br /> that staff worked with Capstone in those areas to use a Ramsey topsoil which has a higher portion <br /> of sand and lesser organic material as test cases and that seems to have worked well. He stated <br /> that since the time the topsoil requirement was enacted, the cost for smart sensor technology for <br /> irrigation has come down significantly and is a much more effective manner to conserve water. <br /> He stated that he has attended a lot of workshops, especially those sponsored by the University of <br /> Minnesota,to learn more on the topic. <br /> Board Member Hiatt asked if there is information in the infiltration and the improvement in <br /> infiltration that would be provided through the newly proposed topsoil compared to the current <br /> topsoil. <br /> Environmental Policy Board/November 19, 2018 <br /> Page 2 of 5 <br />