My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-23-2001 BA MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Board of Adjustments
>
BOA Minutes
>
2001
>
10-23-2001 BA MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:09:51 AM
Creation date
7/23/2015 11:09:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
BAM
date
10/23/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. <br /> Mike Jones,applicant,reviewed the letter he received from NSP. He stated that the City <br /> was given the letter and approved a building permit for the house. Mr.Jones explained that <br /> he currently does not have a water problem and he felt that a retaining wall would create <br /> one. He questioned why the City issued a building permit when they were aware of NSP's <br /> restrictions. <br /> Commissioner Baker asked Mr.Jones to explain where the retaining wall would go. Mr. <br /> Jones showed where the wall would be if it were placed 5 feet into the easement. Mr.Jones <br /> felt that he should not have been issued a building permit and he would have chosen a <br /> different lot if he would have known the retaining wall would be a problem. <br /> Commissioner Franz asked if Mr.Jones has approached NSP to ask if they would consider <br /> allowing the retaining wall further into the easement. Mr.Jones stated that he has not asked <br /> and he did not feel he should have to. <br /> City Engineer Terry Maurer explained how the retaining wall could be built so that it would <br /> not create a water problem. <br /> Chair Pederson asked if the temporary Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) stated that the <br /> retaining wall was required. Ms.McPherson stated that the retaining wall and final grade <br /> were listed on the temporary C.O. as conditions for the final C.O. <br /> Mr.Jones stated that he felt that nothing would stop water from coming over the retaining <br /> • wall. He stated that the landscaping company he consulted does work for MN/DOT and <br /> they are confident the erosion control blanket and seeding will work to control erosion. <br /> There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. <br /> Commissioner Franz stated that he felt the ordinance was clear on this issue. He asked if the <br /> problem could have been foreseen. City Engineer Terry Maurer stated that it is not <br /> common to require installation of a retaining wall as a condition of the Certificate of <br /> Occupancy, which makes it clear this was an unusual circumstance. <br /> Commissioner Baker felt the request is not supported by Items 1 through 4 in the findings <br /> for granting a variance. He stated that the applicant was made aware that a retaining wall <br /> was required. He felt the issue was who is responsible for the dilemma in placement of the <br /> retaining wall. <br /> Chair Pederson asked Mr.Maurer to describe an erosion control blanket. Mr.Maurer stated <br /> that there are over 100 types of erosion control blankets and that they basically all let water <br /> run through them and seed to grow up through them. Mr.Maurer felt that the seed mix Mr. <br /> Jones was referring to is a"ditch mix" that MN/DOT uses. <br /> Chair Pederson felt that the letter from NSP and the bank escrow support the fact that Mr. <br /> Jones was aware that a retaining wall was required. He felt that the photographs show that <br /> erosion is already occurring. Chair Pederson agreed that the findings for granting a variance <br /> cannot be met and could not support approval of the variance. <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.