10-23-2001 BA MIN • MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2001
Members Present: Chair Pederson,Commissioners Baker,Franz and Ropp
Members Absent: Commissioners Mesich and Schuster
Staff Present: Michele McPherson,Director of Planning; Steve Rohlf, Building and
Zoning Administrator;Scott Harlicker,Assistant Planner;Chris Leeseberg,
Park Planner/Planner; Debbie Huebner,Recording Secretary
1. Call Meeting To Order
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof,the meeting of the Elk River Board of Adjustments
was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Pederson.
2. Consider Board of Adjustments Agenda
THE OCTOBER 23, 2001
COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO APPROVE 2001,
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AGENDA. COMMISSIONER BAKER
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
3. Consider 9/25/01 Board of Adjustments Minutes
•
COMMISSIONER BAKER TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF THE
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES TO THE
NOVEMBER 27,2001 MEETING. COMMISSIONER FRANZ SECONDED THE
MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
4.1. Request by Mike Jones for Variance to Requirement for Retaining Wall,Public Hearing—
Case No. V 01-08
Staff report by Director of Planning Michele McPherson. Mike Jones,11740 200th Avenue
(Brentwood) requests a variance to allow a slope greater than 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot
vertical(3:1)to exist without a retaining wall. Ms.McPherson reviewed the site conditions,
noting that the property is encumbered by a large power line easement. The applicant
received permission from NSP to locate the septic system on the property,
as well as
permission ermission to locate a retaining wall 5 feet into the easement. Ms.McPherson reviewed
staff's observations of the site and recent photographs of the area where the retaining wall is
proposed to be located. She explained that the applicant's bank has escrowed money for the
retaining wall,final grading and the driveway. Ms.McPherson reviewed the five conditions
which must be met in order to grant a variance. Staff does not feel the request meets these
conditions an recommends that the Board of Adjustments deny the re q uest.
Commissioner Franz asked if there were restrictions on the type of wall Mr.Jones could
build. Ms. McPherson stated that there are several options for constructio n including
treated timbers,interlocking blocks or a poured concrete wall.
•
• Chair Pederson opened the public hearing.
Mike Jones,applicant,reviewed the letter he received from NSP. He stated that the City
was given the letter and approved a building permit for the house. Mr.Jones explained that
he currently does not have a water problem and he felt that a retaining wall would create
one. He questioned why the City issued a building permit when they were aware of NSP's
restrictions.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr.Jones to explain where the retaining wall would go. Mr.
Jones showed where the wall would be if it were placed 5 feet into the easement. Mr.Jones
felt that he should not have been issued a building permit and he would have chosen a
different lot if he would have known the retaining wall would be a problem.
Commissioner Franz asked if Mr.Jones has approached NSP to ask if they would consider
allowing the retaining wall further into the easement. Mr.Jones stated that he has not asked
and he did not feel he should have to.
City Engineer Terry Maurer explained how the retaining wall could be built so that it would
not create a water problem.
Chair Pederson asked if the temporary Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) stated that the
retaining wall was required. Ms.McPherson stated that the retaining wall and final grade
were listed on the temporary C.O. as conditions for the final C.O.
Mr.Jones stated that he felt that nothing would stop water from coming over the retaining
• wall. He stated that the landscaping company he consulted does work for MN/DOT and
they are confident the erosion control blanket and seeding will work to control erosion.
There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Franz stated that he felt the ordinance was clear on this issue. He asked if the
problem could have been foreseen. City Engineer Terry Maurer stated that it is not
common to require installation of a retaining wall as a condition of the Certificate of
Occupancy, which makes it clear this was an unusual circumstance.
Commissioner Baker felt the request is not supported by Items 1 through 4 in the findings
for granting a variance. He stated that the applicant was made aware that a retaining wall
was required. He felt the issue was who is responsible for the dilemma in placement of the
retaining wall.
Chair Pederson asked Mr.Maurer to describe an erosion control blanket. Mr.Maurer stated
that there are over 100 types of erosion control blankets and that they basically all let water
run through them and seed to grow up through them. Mr.Maurer felt that the seed mix Mr.
Jones was referring to is a"ditch mix" that MN/DOT uses.
Chair Pederson felt that the letter from NSP and the bank escrow support the fact that Mr.
Jones was aware that a retaining wall was required. He felt that the photographs show that
erosion is already occurring. Chair Pederson agreed that the findings for granting a variance
cannot be met and could not support approval of the variance.
•
COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST BY MIKE
• JONES TO ALLOW A SLOPE GREATER THAN 3:1 WITHOUT A RETAINING
WALL, CASE NO. V 01-08, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1. THE SITE IS UNIQUE IN THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY IS
ENCUMBERED BY A LARGE UTILITY EASEMENT;HOWEVER,THERE
ARE OTHER SITES IN THE AREA ENCUMBERED BY THE SAME
UTILITY EASEMENT. THE APPLICANT COULD HAVE CHOSEN A
DIFFERENT STYLE HOME TO PLACE ON THE LOT TO REDUCE THE
IMPACT ON THE EXISTING SLOPE.
2. LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE PROVISIONS WOULD
REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO INSTALL THE RETAINING WALL AS
REQUIRED.
3. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS ARE A CONSEQUENCE OF THE
APPLICANT'S SITE AND HOME STYLE SELECTION.
4. THE REQUEST WOULD NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT OTHER
PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY;HOWEVER, IT COULD ADVERSELY
IMPACT THE PROPERTY ITSELF IF THE EROSION INCREASED.
SEVERE EROSION WAS OBSERVED ON THE SITE DUE TO THE
ROCKY AND GRAVEL-LADEN SOIL.
5. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LOTS REMAINING IN THE BRENTWOOD
SUBDIVISION THAT ARE ENCUMBERED BY LARGE POWER LINE
III
EASEMENTS. STAFF FEELS THAT DUE TO THE SOIL TYPES,A
RETAINING WALL IS APPROPRIATE AND THAT A VARIANCE SHOULD
NOT BE GRANTED TO ALLOW A SLOPE GREATER THAN 3:1 TO BE
MAINTAINED WITH AN EROSION CONTROL BLANKET.
COMMISSIONER FRANZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED 5-0.
5. Other Business
No other business.
6. Adjournment
There being no further business,COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO ADJOURN
THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
The meeting of the Elk River Board of Adjustments adjourned at 7:08 p.m.
Res ectfully submitted,
( 1,V - V-6
• Debbie Huebner
Recording Secretary