Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A Rear Yard Turf Establishment and Erosion ControlYR10� U �rj �SNNESO% 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake. MN 55372 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MAY 2, 2011 AGENDA #: 9A PREPARED BY: JANE KANSIER, BUILDING AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIRECTOR PRESENTED BY: JANE KANSIER AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 401.401 AND 606.200 OF THE CITY CODE TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR REAR YARD TURF ESTABLISHMENT AND EROSION CONTROL DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is to request Council approval of an ordinance amending Section 401.401 and Section 605.200 of the City Code. These amendments address the need to establish turf in a rear yard within a prescribed time after occupying a residence or building and to provide for enforcement of erosion control measures, respectively. Hi story On February 22, 2011, the City Council discussed concerns raised by residents about damage to their property from the runoff of topsoil from adjacent properties caused by a failure to establish turf in rear yards. The Council directed staff to analyze the ordinance regarding completion of back yards, and bring a recom- mendation to the City Council within 45 days (see attached minutes). The staff presented a report to the Council on April 4, 2011, identifying some short-term so- lutions to the immediate problems, including amending the ordinance to require some sort of turf establishment in the rear yard, and amending the public nuisance section of the City Code to include erosion and runoff issues. The City Council directed staff to move forward with interim solutions (see attached minutes). Current Circumstances — Rear Yard Turf: Section 1005.1100 of the Subdivision 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." The Subdivision Code generally applies to land development. Section 1005 lists the required improvements in a subdivision, and includes everything from survey monuments to stormwater management. 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 compliance with Section 1005.1100; however, we have no mechanism to require seeding or sodding in the rear yard. Section 401.401 of the City Code states: "Any person engaging in the construction of a one- or two- family dwelling within the City shall complete all exterior items associated with such construction, including but not limited to grading, sodding, landscaping, tree planting, driveways, siding and painting, within one hundred eighty (180) days after the date the City building permit is issued." Section 401.401 is referenced as part of the provisions for the Builder's Deposit. While this section is complementary to Section 1005.1100 of the Subdivision Code, Section 401 of the City Code is focused on individual building permits. This section gives the City the option to use the Builder's Deposit to complete any of the items listed in Section 401.401. In order to get something in place for the construction season, the staff is recom- mending an amendment to Section 401.401 as follows: "Any person engaging in the construction of a new one- or two- family dwelling, either attached or detached, within the Gity shall will complete all exterior items associated with such construction, including but not limited to grading, sodding, landscaping, tree planting, driveways, siding and painting All boulevard, front and side yard areas must be sodded except those areas that are otherwise landscaped, and all rear yards must be seeded or sodded. Turf must be established within the time specified by the certificate of occupancy within one hundFed eighty (180) days afteF the date the Gity building peFFnit is issued." This language restates the requirements in Section 1007.1100, and also estab- lishes the requirements for rear yard sodding or seeding. The timeline is tied to the certificate of occupancy, and can be flexible depending on the time of year construction is completed. Current Circumstances — Erosion Control: Provisions for erosion control are included in the NPDES permit for a specific project, and in the City SWWP plan. However, these are often difficult to refer- ence when faced with the need to enforce erosion control. Section 605 lists spe- cific conditions and activities that "are public nuisances whenever they may be found in the City......." Staff is proposing to amend Section 605.200 (Public Nuis- ances) to include the following specific conditions or activities as public nuisances: (5) Allowing any soil or other debris to wash or erode from private property or construction sites onto the public street, drainage system, adjacent property, ponds. wetlands or lake system. 6) Failure to take appropriate measures to contain soil or sediment on a Dropertv or construction site from erodina. as described in subparaaraph (5) above. The addition of proposed Section 605.200 (5) and (6) will allow code enforcement staff to reference a specific code section when working with a property owner to remove a public nuisance. Conclusion The staff is recommending approval of these amendments in order to manage some critical issues during the upcoming construction season. ISSUES: 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. The proposed amendments help solve some immediate is- sues. The City Attorney has reviewed the ordinance amendments. FINANCIAL Requiring sodding or seeding in a rear yard will impact new homeowners, but the IMPACT: amount can be minimized using seed. The cost of enforcement will not be any greater than the current enforcement costs. ALTERNATIVES: The Council has three alternatives: 1. Approve the attached ordinance amending Sections 401.401 and 605.200 as proposed. 2. Deny the proposed ordinance. 3. Table this item and provide staff with specific direction. RECOMMENDED The staff recommends Alternative 1. MOTION: Reviewed by: Frank Boyles, City Manager ORDINANCE NO. 011- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 401.401 AND 605.200 OF THE CITY CODE TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR REAR YARD TURF ESTABLISHMENT AND EROSION CONTROL The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that: 1. Section 401.401 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and a new Section 401.401 as set forth below is added Any person engaging in the construction ;of a new one ortwo- family dwelling, either attached or detached, will complete gall exterior itenri � ,associated with such construction, including but not limited to grading, sodding, lanos4aping, tree planting, driveways, siding and painting. All boulevard, front and side yard areas must be sodded except those areas that are otherwise landscaped, and all rear yards must be seeded or sodded. Turf r u$t � be established within the time specified by the certificate of occupancy. ��� 2. Section 605.200 of the Prior Lake City Code is amended to add the following language: Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 2 nd day of May, 2011. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the 7 day of May, 2011. Drafted By: City of Prior Lake 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 u 4646 Dakota Street SE .l ��NBS� A Prior Lake, A4TT 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 silYsoil 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 buildup 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 / � +»> +.cih olpriodai e,crnn Election Process Councllmember Erickson commented on the City's current system of not having a primary, noting that if there were multiple people running for Mayor, someone could win the election for that position with a small percentage of votes. Stated that Minneapolis and St. Paul have instituted a system of runoff elections. Suggested having staff look at whether or not the City should have any alternatives to the election process. Keeney: Commented that there are times when people vote for more than one person for a council seat and is aware that there are problems with the "vote for two' system. Would like to see that addressed as well. Erickson: Responded that the runoff system would probably only work for a "single winner" election. Soukup: Asked if a runoff system would affect the length of time that people wait for results from the elec- tion. Erickson: Replied that in Minneapolis it did not add significant time to waiting for the results. Soukup: Wondered whether polling machines would need to work in a different way. Hedberg: Commented that both Minneapolis and St. Paul are charter cities which allows them to establish their own regulations. Asked if there would be statutory prohibitions to changing the election system. Erickson: Believes it should be researched and suggested having staff look at alternatives of either a pri- mary and/or instant runoff with a report that includes benefits and costs, etc. Myser: Asked how much staff time would be needed to research the topic. Boyles: Unknown. Stated that statute could be checked to see if there is clear authority and if that is not clear, an expert could be sought to provide a presentation. Pace: Commented that the Secretary of State might be knowledgeable in that area. Myser: Believes it is a serious issue and there is an issue of using staff time in that way. Keeney: Noted that, historically, it has not been an issue to have a large number of candidates. Soukup: Stated that it should first be learned whether a primary or runoff system could even apply to the City. Believes it does not need to be addressed immediately. MOTION BY ERICKSON TO DIRECT STAFF TO CONDUCT INITIAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH TO LEARN WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A PRIMARY OR AN INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTION SYSTEM IN PRIOR LAKE. The motion failed for lack of a second. Ordinance Regarding Back Yards Councllmember Erickson believes staff should be directed to look into an ordinance for completion of backyard seeding within 90 days of the growing season from the date of the certificate of occupancy. Comments: Hedberg: Believes the Maro's brought up a legitimate issue and he supports staff bringing forward an or- dinance amendment. Does not want to offer specifics about what the amendment should be at this time. Soukup: Related her experience of trying to establish a back yard before her neighbors did. Believes people who are moving into the City and building a new residence are making a big commitment and the City should consider their investment and help them protect their property. Keeney: Agreed people should be protected from runoff. Ordinances may already be in place that prohibit that behavior. Perhaps penaltles or enforcement of the ordinance can be elevated. Stated he is not sure we want to put the burden on the new resident or that an ordinance amendment is the way to resolve it. Would not specifically mandate an ordinance amendment; maybe staff can bring forward some other rec- ommendation. Myser: Asked if this is an enforcement issue or if there is a loophole. 10 02 22 11 City Cound meeting minutes 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. Kansler: 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. Frank B yl , City Manager Charlotte Green, Administrative Asst. 02 2211 City Council medng minules q11 Cis � Pun. Soukup: Noted that the timeline is tight and this outline moves it forward. Asked when design will be complete. Boyles: Responded that some planning information is anticipated by April 15, but the design Is a more comprehensive process that may not occur for a year or two. Albrecht: Affirmed that the Information brought forth by April 15 will be enough information to analyze costs, but not design. Noted that prior to design, the project will want to pass all other tests by the Council that there is intent to move forward with the project and then the City will know which alignment is being supported and which properties will be affected. Hedberg: Supports the proposed process and timeline. Anticipates that a town hall meeting will raise ad- ditional questions. Suggested that a 30 -day period be planned to investigate and respond to questions that may come up in the town hall meeting. Myser: Supports the decision meeting being scheduled on June 20 in the event anything new comes up at the town hall meeting. Keeney: Supports the second meeting in June for a planned decision. Stated the City is far from final ap- proval on this project, but this determines a direction for movement. Noted that funding needs to be ex- plored, which may raise questions of affordability. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO APPROVE THE CR 21 PROCESS AS PROPOSED WITH THE FINAL DATE CHANGED TO JUNE 20. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried. Consider a Report Requesting City Council Direction on Potential Amendments to the City Code Pertaining to Erosion Control Measures for New Construction. Building and Transportation Services Director Kansier noted that staff spends time on enforcement as well as erosion clean up from construction sites and finds this to be an issue that has continual new facets. Believes there should be discussion on long -term solutions. Outlined the issues. Requested direction from Council. Comments: Soukup: Regarding rear yard turf, believes turf should be established but has no preference for sod or seed; regarding construction project completion, believes seasons need to be considered; regarding builder deposits, the City should learn the costs it incurs so the deposit is large enough to cover the costs; willing to discuss the time frame for forfeiting an escrow. Hedberg: Agreed an interim plan should be used for the summer. Regarding rear yard turf, believes staff should learn what "establishing turf' means and set an appropriate time line; could establish a sliding scale to reflect construction times depending on size of building, season, etc.; building deposit forfeitures should be done after some defined period of time; would favor as -built surveys since it is recurring issue and would take the debate out of the issue; would favor a separate ordnance. Keeney: Stated he has not heard of builder's deposits actually being forfeited and believes the most im- portant issues should be defined and enforced, let the others go. Noted the City spends money on water quality and one major erosion control failure can negate all of the efforts made to improve water quality. Favors increasing the enforcement level. Suggested considering the front and back yards together for es- tablishing a completion date. Erickson: Concurred with Keeney's comments that enforcement is needed. Believes certificate of occu- pancy should not be issued until grading and turf is established. Believes as- builts should include grading. Myser: Asked why back yards were not included with the ordinance originally. 04 0411 City Council meeting minutes Kansier: Responded that the original provision probably considered that front and side yards are more aesthetic and a different kind of landscaping in a rear yard might be desired. The rear yard is an added ex- pense and fewer people see it. Believes there was no intent to avoid completing the back yard. Myser: Asked about a builder's symposium offered by the City that no one attended. Kansier: Responded that a decision was made to conduct a work shop at the request of a local builder. Stated she acquired certification so the work shop could be offered as continuing education for builders, collaborated with surrounding communities for presentations, mailed 70 invitations and made follow -up phone calls, but no one attended. Stated that the building inspectors out on sites heard from builders that they already had the information they needed. Myser: Asked what percentage of projects might have erosion control issues. Kansier: Replied that most sites have some issues and most of them are inadvertent. Some contractors are more conscientious about cleaning up than others. Myser: Generally supports gaining control over the problem because of water quality benefits and would take direction from staff on the best way to address it that includes enforcement. Concurred that back yards could be established with seed, builder's deposit should be increased, staff can recommend forfeiture at some period of time, supports an erosion control escrow, and supports as -built surveys. Kansier: Will consider some interim solutions and bring them back to the Council. Keeney: Commented that the City can expect a similar reaction as experienced with the sign ordinance. Suggested beginning with something such as an increased deposit or some kind of introductory step, then can provide explanation and increase enforcement. The workshop could be offered again afterwards. MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY HEDBERG TO DIRECT STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH INTE- RIM SOLUTIONS FOR EROSION CONTROL FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND SCHEDULE A MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION FOR A LATER DATE THAT STAFF FEELS IS APPROPRIATE. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried. Consider Approval of a Resolution Extending the Deadline for Recording the Final Plat, Develop. ment Contract and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for Jeffers Waterfront Addition. Planner Matzke stated that Mattamy Homes is requesting an extension of one year for recording the final plat, development contract and PUD amendment for the Jeffers Waterfront Addition. Staff recommends 60 days. Noted that additional extensions could be requested after a 60 -day period. Stated that a Letter of Credit (LOC) was offered from a non -local bank, but City ordinance requires a LOC from a bank with a local branch within the seven -county metro area. Comments: Erickson: Concurred with staff on a 60 -day extension and use of a local bank. Keeney: Clarified the amount of a LOC and that it is intended to cover City expenses if we have to finish improvements on the project. Matzke: Affirmed. Keeney: Does not favor relaxing the requirements. Favors a 60 -day extension period. Hedberg: Understands the parent firm of Mattamy Homes is a well - established Canadian firm and ex- pressed a desire to have Mattamy Homes building this development. Stated he is willing to offer an exten- sion up to 90 days since the parent firm is Canadian and not domestic. Soukup: Noted that the terms of the development contract set out the requirement for a local bank. Stated her desire to keep the developer interested as they can benefit the City so is open to a 60 -day or 90 -day extension, but does not support a one -year extension. Myser: Asked the developer to explain the time request and queried why it is taking this long to get a LOC in place. 6 0404 11 City Cound meeting minutes