Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10F Requesting City Council Direction on Potential Amendments to City Code Pertaining to Erosion Control Measures for New ConstructionPRp\ U \rNNESO'/ 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake. MN 55372 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: APRIL 4, 2011 AGENDA #: 10F PREPARED BY: JANE KANSIER, BUILDING AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIRECTOR PRESENTED BY: JANE KANSIER AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER A REPORT REQUESTING CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION ON PO- TENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO EROSION CONTROL MEASURES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is to request Council direction on amendments to the City Code pertaining to the following: • Rear yard turf establishment • Timing for completion of construction projects • Builder's deposits • Erosion control escrows • As -Built Surveys for New Construction • Erosion Control Ordinance History On February 22, 2011, the City Council directed staff to analyze the ordinance re- garding completion of back yards, and bring a recommendation to the City Council within 45 days (see attached minutes). Current Circumstances Section 1005.1100 of the City Code currently states: "The builder shall spread a minimum of four inches (4 ") of topsoil over the boule- vard, front and side yards. All boulevard, front and side yard areas shall be sod- ded except those areas that are landscaped. Such topsoil and sodding shall be installed by the builder prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy." There is no timeline associated with this requirement, nor does it include the rear yard. We are able to delay issuance of a certificate of occupancy to ensure com- pliance with Section 1005.1100; however, we have no mechanism to require seed- ing or sodding in the rear yard. Failure to establish turf results in soil erosion and runoff issues. Every new devel- opment is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This permit establishes soil erosion and runoff control require- ments for the lots within the development. However, as lots are transferred from developer to builder to individual homeowners, enforcement of these standards becomes more difficult and takes more time to enforce. Each year, soil erosion costs the City of Prior Lake thousands of dollars in clean- up, including costs for time and equipment to remove sediment from ponds and catch basins. Each year, inspections staff spend many hours enforcing erosion and runoff problems. Yet, in spite of our best efforts, construction sites continue to be a major contributor to erosion issues. In an attempt to provide better educa- tion and communication, staff spent a great deal of time in 2010 creating a new "Erosion Control Standards for Construction Sites" handout. Staff also partnered with the Scott Soil and Water Conservation District and other communities to de- velop and conduct a workshop on soil erosion and runoff control measures for res- idential construction sites. We mailed more than 70 invitations to our local build- ers, yet none chose to attend the workshop. Conclusion Based on our experience in the last year, staff has identified a need for more spe- cific language in the City Code to address soil erosion and runoff, as well as the timing for construction projects. ISSUES: What appears to be a simple problem with a simple solution becomes more and more complex with every proposed solution. For example, we can include a pro- vision requiring seeding or sodding of a rear yard within 180 days of permit is- suance, but what if construction is not complete within that time? What if con- struction is completed during the winter months? Staff has identified some short-term solutions to the immediate problems. We can, for example, amend the ordinance to require some sort of turf establishment in the rear yard. We can also amend the public nuisance section of the City Code to include erosion and runoff issues. While these will help in the interim, the same answers pose additional questions. For this reason, staff is seeking Council direc- tion in the following areas before proceeding. Rear yard turf establishment: Turf establishment in the rear yard is a necessi- ty for erosion control. This can be accomplished through sod or seed. Sod is definitely more aesthetically pleasing, and more immediately effective; howev- er, the cost can be a hardship for new homebuyers. Seed will be effective in the longer term, but is not nearly as aesthetically pleasing early on. The cost, however, is much more affordable. 2. Timing for completion of construction projects: The Building Code generally uses 180 days as a benchmark for construction projects. For the average sin- gle family home construction, 180 days is more than enough time to complete construction. For larger homes, multifamily residential or commercial con- struction, the 180 days may fall short of the necessary construction time. At one time, staff proposed a sliding scale for project completion as part of the property maintenance ordinance, but Minnesota Statutes prohibited us from moving forward with that plan. The statute has since been revised. Should we move forward with timelines for construction, and if so, what are the appropri- ate timelines? 3. Builder's deposits: The City currently collects a $1,500 deposit with each building permit. This deposit is intended to cover the costs should the City have to complete the exterior items associated with construction, including grading, sodding, landscaping, tree planting, driveways, siding and painting. The deposit is returned to the builder once a final certificate of occupancy is issued. If the builder allows the temporary certificate of occupancy to lapse, 1/3 of the fee is forfeited to the City. The remaining portion is returned once the work is complete. There are two major issues with this deposit. First of all, the $1500 will not even begin to cover the costs of the work it is intended to cover. This same deposit has been in effect for at least 15 years, if not longer. Should the amount be increased? We also have deposits from permits 10 or more years old. At what point should the deposits be simply returned or forfeited? 4. Erosion control escrows: The City does not presently require an escrow or deposit to ensure erosion control measures are maintained. As noted earlier, erosion control enforcement takes a great deal of time. Is the Council inter- ested in establishing an escrow to guarantee erosion control is maintained? 5. As -built surveys for new construction: Over the last several years, we have encountered a number of problems when new homes are built to the improper ground elevation. The problem is usually not discovered until the final grade inspection or worse, when neighboring homes are built. In either event, a so- lution is very costly. The end result is drainage problems on one or more lots. One way to manage the issue is to require as -built surveys before the founda- tion is approved. In this way, the problem is discovered early enough in the construction process to fix before costly drainage issues occur. As -built sur- veys are an additional cost to the builder ($700 + / -), and may add time to the process. On the other hand the city has a benchmark in perpetuity if drainage issues arise on the subject lot. 6. Erosion control ordinance: There are several places in the current City Code we can insert erosion control provisions, or we can prepare a separate, free- standing erosion control ordinance. There are advantages to both approach- es. Does the Council have any preference? FINANCIAL Any action may have a financial impact on the City, builders and residents. The IMPACT: exact impact depends on the course of action the Council chooses. ALTERNATIVES: The staff is seeking Council direction on how to proceed from here. Some options include: 1. Direct staff to move forward with interim solutions and schedule a more de- tailed discussion for a later date — probably this fall. 2. Provide staff with specific direction on all of the questions. 3. Take no action. RECOMMENDED The staff recommends Alternative 1 or 2. MOTION: iewe by 1ti Frank B es Ci Manager 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 22, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6 :00 p.m. Present were Mayor Myser, Council members Erickson, Hed- berg, Keeney and Soukup, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Pace, Public Works Director Albrecht, Parks and Fleet Supervisor Friedges, Finance Director Erickson, Fire Chief Hartman, Police Chief O'Rourke, Community Development and Natural Resources Director Parr, Assistant City Manager Meyer and Admin- istrative Assistant Green. PUBLIC FORUM The Public Forum is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address concerns to the City Council. The Public Forum will be no longer than 30 minutes in length and each presenter will have no more than ten (10) minutes to speak. Topics of discussion are restricted to City governmental topics rather than pri- vate or political agendas. Topics may be addressed at the Public Forum that are on the agenda except those topics that have been or are the subject of a scheduled public hearing or public information hearing before the City Council, the Economic Development Authority (EDA), Planning Commission, or any other City Advisory Committee. The City Council may discuss but will not take formal action on Public Forum presentations. Matters that are the subject of pending litigation are not appropriate for the Forum. Comments: Ted Maro,16200 Visionary Heights Circle NW, requested consideration of a change to landscaping ordin- ance, specifically for back yards. He related their experience of several inches of siltlsoil eroding from the neighbor's property into their back yard causing loss of plants and sod, which the builder replaced but ero- sion from neighboring yards continues. Code Enforcement Officer Corrow came out to house in August 2010 to look at the affected area. Stated that currently, no timeline conditions exist in the ordinance for completing backyards. Referred to covenants in the neighborhood and stated that the builder has indi- cated they are not willing to enforce the covenants. Kansier: Stated that staff has visited the site and is aware of Maro's problem. Staff is in the process of re- viewing the portion of ordinance that currently does not require completion of backyards; and is working with adjacent properties to assure that soil erosion controls are in place. Myser: Clarified that staff is already considering whether more permanent processes should be put in place. Kansier: Affirmed. Hope to have solutions to bring before the Council in April. Keeney: Queried whether builders have erosion control processes to follow now. Kansier: Affirmed, adding that in this instance seeding has not been established. Keeney: Reiterated that there are some enforcement options that the City has. Erickson: Suggested that staff be given direction to amend the ordinance to require seeding of the back- yard within 90 days of the growing season. Myser. Stated the topic could be added to the agenda. Maro: Added that every time it rains a brown stream comes through the back yard, which he believes re- flects that silt fences are not stopping all of the erosion. Stated there is silt build up behind the fences of one- and -a -half feet deep. Does not think the fences functions as well as finishing the backyard would. Myser: Suggested they email their list of issues to Kansier. Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 www.cityofpriorlobe.com Kansier: Replied that staff works on enforcement, but when property changes ownership, enforcement changes from a builder to a homeowner and it is more difficult to enforce erosion control measures against the homeowner. Believes there is a loophole in current ordinance and it should be looked at. Myser: Asked what would be an appropriate time frame for staff to bring back a recommendation. Kansier: Responded that 45 days should be adequate and staff wants to have something in place before the building season. Myser: Would support staff completing its analysis to complete the ordinance and fix the loopholes. Soukup: Asked about covenants stating that homeowners have 60 days to complete their yards. Asked if the City can hold the builders to enforcement of covenants. Kansier: Replied that the City does not have legal authority to enforce covenants and the City cannot even be sure that Maro and neighbors have the same covenant. Stated that Maro would have to contact his own attorney regarding covenant enforcement. MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY HEDBERG TO DIRECT STAFF TO ANALYZE THE ORDINANCE REGARDING COMPLETION OF BACK YARDS AND BRING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL IN 45 DAYS. VOTE; Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS Community Events Myser: Extended a thank you to the public works staff for the snow clearing and removal. EXECUTIVE SESSION The meeting recessed at 9:27 p.m. in order for the Council to meet in Executive Session to discuss the City Manager annual review. The Mayor reconvened the meeting at 11:21 p.m. ADJOURNMENT With no further comments from Council members, a motion to adjourn was made by Erickson and seconded by Soukup. With all in favor, the meeting adjourned at 11:22 p.m. VAL Frank B yl, dity Manager Charlotte Green, Administrative Asst. 02 2211 City Cound meeting minutes 11 The City's lakes and numerous natural areas enrich the lives of its residents and attract visi- tors from around the area. They are the legacy to be left to future Prior Lake citizens. These valued and unique natural amenities are key to preserving the quality of life in Prior Lake." City of Prior take 2o3o Vision and Strategic Plan Natural Resources Vision Element INTRODUCTION Each year soil erosion costs the City of Prior Lake thousands of dollars to clean up. Soil erosion fills ponding areas, catch basins, and natural areas. Construction site erosion is a major contributor to erosion. This handout describes the City of Prior Lake's standards for construction site erosion control. Details are also provided to assist in proper implementation of erosion control standards. EROSION CONTROL FOR CONSTRUCTION SITES As a part of every building per- mit, the City requires an escrow deposit. The deposit is used by the City if contractors do not clean up or install the minimum erosion control measures need- ed for their site. This deposit will be used in cases where the contractor has failed to install the minimum construction site erosion control measures within 24 hours notice from the City. In cases where a deficiency is noted by the City Inspector, the Contractor will be notified. The Contractor must notify the City once the deficiency has been corrected; if not the City will as- sume the work is not corrected and will proceed to use the es- crow deposit to correct the work after the 24 hour period. FAILURE/CONSEQUENCES FOR DEFICIENT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES* • Building Permit Inspections immediately Halted • 24 Hour Notice to Builder : Stop Work Order • Use of Escrow • Citation MINIMUM CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES Every construction site must include a rock construction entrance and site perimeter protection. The mini- mum erosion control measures for a typical home site are shown graphically in the drawing below. These ero- sion control measures must be installed prior to aM site construction activity including foundation excava- tion. MINIMUM EROSION CONTROL MEASURES FOR A TYPICAL HOME SITE NOTES: INSTALL ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES PRIOR TO AMY EXCAVATION MAINTAIN THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS WILL BE WITHHELD IF EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE NOT IN PLACE OR PROPERLY MAINTAINED TEMPORARY TOPSOIL STOCKPILES SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED IN CURS AND GUTTER OR DRAINAGE SWALES SWEEP STREETS IF SEDIMENT TRACKING OCCURS FM M -WU C".) Rock Construction Entrance The rack construction entrance must be installed using T" diameter to 3" diameter clear crushed rock at a minimum depth of -b inches. The rock construction entrance must be a minimum of 20 feet wide and extend a minimum of 40 feet into the construction site or the length of the pro- posed driveway. The detail depicts the minimum rock construction requirements. Excluding small utility installation, all access to the site should be limited to the location of the rock construction entrance. if more than one access point is need- ed for construction, another rock construction entrance will be required. Rock Construction Entrance Site Perimeter Protection Silt fencing or bio -rolls are required in the front and rear of the construction site and in areas that drain away from the construction site. These perimeter protection measures must be installed properly. The detail below shows proper installation of silt fence and bio- rolls. Silt fencing material must be properly trenched to prevent soil from eroding under the fabric. Bio -rolls must be staked every foot to prevent movement. SILT FENCE DETAIL STEP 1 STEP 2 sTAr WovEN MtX VOFT 3' Da. STEEL ; SET POSTS AND EXCAVATE AMENT POST FAWWTW�4 OR 2' X 2' W=D A 6' X 6' TRENCH FLOW DIRECTION POST 4' MAX UPSLOPE SPACING 0 ALONG THE LINE OF THE FLOW — COMPACT TRENCH LAY FABRIC 6' X; STRAW OR WOOD BIOROLL DETAIL 2 DEEP TRENCH T' NOTE- STAKED. INTO THE GROUND WITH STEP 3 BACKFILL THE TRENCH AND COMPACT THE EXCAVATED SOIL WOOD STAKES ARE A MINIMUM � �- By T LANG AND PLACED I I-_I I EVERY PAVED SURFACE OR ROCK WOOD FArr Li � t 1 11 1 P_i l I I ) I i tI I IT. lj l i I l I i l l WOOD STAKES DRIVEN THROUGH BACK FLALF OF BIOROLL OR COMPOST LAG Al AN APPROXIMATE 45r ANGLE WITH TOP OF STAKE POINTING UPSTREAM _. WHEN ORE THAN -T FLOW BOROLL/CDMPOST LOG is NEEDED. .... .:. OVERLAP ENDS A MINIMUM OF 6' - - AND STAKE _ Special Construction Sites Sites with slopes over 3:1 or abut natural amenities should include additional erosion con- trol protection. Additional measures can include: double row silt fence, heavy duty silt fence, sedimentation basins, or rock check dams. All sites draining directly to a pond, creek, lake, or wetland must include a double row of heavy duty silt fencing. Example of Good Erosion Control MAINTENANCE STANDARDS OF EROSION CONTROL MEASURES Maintenance of erosion control measures on construction sites is critical to the erosion prevention. Storm events and construction activity can decrease the effectiveness of each erosion control measure. • SILT FENCE: Storm events transport sediment to downstream silt fencing. When enough sediment has been transported to fill against the silt fence to 1/3 the capacity, it will be considered deficient and must be corrected. • BIO -ROLL: Sediment is also transported to downstream bio rolls. When enough sediment has been trans- ported to fill against the bio -roll to 1/3 the capacity, it will be considered deficient and must be corrected. • ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE: Regular use of the rock construction entrance may require its replace- ment. At the point where the rock construction entrance is no longer removing sediment, it must be re- placed so as to provide the 6 inch depth of clear crushed rock. • INLET PROTECTION: Inlet protection must be checked and cleaned out when the sediment has reached a level 112- the capacity. For the purposes of street maintenance on public streets, all inlet protection must be removed from the street catch basins by November 15th. The reinstallation of the inlet protection can occur after March 3oth or earlier if weather permits. • SEDIMENT REMOVAL FROM STREETS: If sediment is transported to the street, the contractor must sweep the street that day and correct the reason for the sediment transport. • TEMPORARY SEED: Temporary seed is needed for stockpiles or open soils not in use for 7 days. FROZEN GROUND STANDARDS Perimeter protection is still required during frozen ground conditions. Contractors may use properly installed bio -rolls during frozen ground conditions. A frost pin maybe needed to install the stakes for the bio -roll. In the spring when the ground is thawed, the Contractor must check capacity of the bio -roll or silt fence. TURF ESTABLISHMENT AND CLEANUP Turf establishment is the easiest way to eliminate the erosion control liabilities on a construction site. Once the site is ready to receive sod or seed, the contractor is encouraged to install the turf as soon as possible. The es- crow deposit can also be returned once turf has been established and the required trees have been planted.