6.1. SR 03-11-2002City
MEMORANDUM
Item # 6. I.
TO:
FROM:
Mayor and City Co~cil ~
Michele McPhersdl~_~Director
of Planning
DATE:
March I I, 2002
SUBJECT: Request by Mike Jones for Variance - Case No. V 01-08
Attachments
March 6, 2002 Memorandum from Peter Beck, City Attorney
Resolution 02-
· January 22, 2002 City Council Minutes
· Staff report
Analysis
Per the City Council's direction on January 22, 2002 the City Attorney has reviewed the
request by Mike Jones to allow slopes greater than 3:1 without a retaining wall. As Mr. Beck
points out in his memo, it is possible for the City Council to grant the variance with
conditions. He recommends that the Council approve a detailed resolution (attached) for
which outlines the conditions that must be met. The resolution would be recorded against
the property with the variance action.
The Council may want to change the resolution as the time lines contained within are
relatively short and only allows one growing season for the establishment of the vegetation.
Recommendation
The Board of Adjustments and staff have recommended that the Council deny the variance
request. If the resolution addresses the concerns of the Council to grant the variance, staff
recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution, require the applicant to sign it, and
authorize staff to record it with the variance action against the property.
S:\PLANNING\Case Files\V 01-08 Jones\3-11StaffReport.doc
GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY & BENNETT, P.A. ATTORNEYS ATLAW
3400 CITY CENTER
33 SOUTH SIXTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-3796
612 343-280O
FAX: 612 333-0066
www.gpmlaw.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Michele McPherson
FROM: Peter Beck
Mike Jones Application for Variance
DATE: March 6, 2002
This memorandum is in response to the Council's inquiry as to whether it is
feasible to approve the above-requested variance on condition that, if the applicant's
efforts to vegetate and maintain the hill are not successful, then a retaining wall will be
built.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, subd. 6(2) provides that the council "may
impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect
adjacent properties". The Minnesota Court of Appeals has interpreted this provision as
follows, "Implicit to this limitation is that the conditions assigned to the variance must
have a nexus to the improvements for which the building variance was granted". City of
Maplewood v. Valiukas, No. CO-96-1468, February 11, 1997.
In my opinion, a condition which requires the installation of a retaining wall in
the event that revegetation of the hill is not successful would protect adjacent properties
and have a nexus to the improvement for which the variance is requested. However, I
would caution the Council to be very clear in terms of what the condition is and what will
be required to meet the terms of the condition. I would also suggest that a Council
resolution approving the variance and imposing the condition be signed and agreed to by
the landowner and recorded against the property. Attached is a draft resolution for your
consideration as a starting point.
GP:872566 v 1
RESOLUTION 02 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER
A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS
WHEREAS, the owner of the property legally identified as Lot 2, Block 2,
Brentwood, County of Sherburne, State of Minnesota, has made application for a variance to
allow a slope greater than 3:1 without a retaining wall; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that approval of the requested
variance is appropriate, but only if the owner of the property can successfully establish and
maintain sufficient vegetation on the slope to prevent erosion from the slope onto adjacent
properties;
NOW, THEREFORE, the application for a variance is granted, subject to the
following conditions:
Applicant shall, during the 2002 growing season, establish sufficient
vegetation on the slope to prevent any erosion from the slope.
City staff shall inspect the property on or before September 15, 2002
to determine whether the property owner has successfully established
sufficient vegetation to prevent erosion.
If City staff determines that sufficient vegetation has been established
to prevent erosion, no further action shall be required of the property
owner during 2002. However, City staff shall periodically inspect the
slope in future years to ensure that the vegetation is being maintained
and remains effective in preventing erosion. If a future inspection
reveals that the slope is eroding, then the retaining walls required by
this Resolution shall be installed within 60 days as provided herein.
o
If City staff determines that the slope has not been successfully
vegetated, and either is eroding or is susceptible to erosion, notice
shall be sent to the property owner on or before September 30, 2002
advising the property owner of this fact and ordering that the
retaining walls required by this resolution be installed on or before
November 30, 2002.
o
If City staff sends said notice to the property owner, the property
owner shall install one or more retaining walls which shall restore all
slopes on the property to no greater than 3:1 on or before November
30, 2002. Prior to the installation of said retaining walls, a detailed
plan for the walls shall be prepared and approved by the City's
Department of Inspections.
S:\PLANNING\Case Files\V 01-08 Jones\Approval Resolution.doc
Failure of the property owner to install the required retaining walls as
directed by City staff shall constitute a violation of the conditions of
this resolution granting a variance and a violation of the City's Code
of Ordinances. City staff shall prosecute such violation as provided
by the City Code of Ordinances until such time as the required
retaining walls are installed and approved by the City Department of
Inspections.
This resolution shall have no force or effect unless and until the
property owner has indicated his consent to these conditions by
signing this resolution where provided below.
This Resolution adopted this 11th day of March, 2002.
Stephanie Klinzing, Mayor
Sandra Peine, City Clerk
The conditions set forth in this resolution granting a variance are hereby agreed to by
Mike Jones, owner of the Property identified herein.
Mike Jones
Drafted by:
Peter K. Beck, Elk River City Attorney
Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A.
3400 City Center
33 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
GP:872566 vl
S:\PLANNING\Case Files\V 01-08 Jones\Approval Resolution.doc
City Council Minutes Page 8
January 22, 2002
2. IF MORE THAN THREE PIECES OF EQUIPMENT, ASIDE ~F~E
TRUCK AND TRAILER, ARE TO BE STORED OUTSIDE~JSarE
APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FOR AN AMENDM~ THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. ~
3. PROWDE ADDmONAL SCUrJ: G BY P NT[N TUTU_ ?
NORTH PR~M THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO
THE ~OF THE POLE SHED.
RRIED 4-0.
6.3. Request by Mike Jones for a Variance, Public Hearing - Case No. V 01-08
Staff report submitted by Director of Planning Michele McPherson. Ms. McPherson
stated the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a slope greater than 3:1 to exist
without a retaining wall. She discussed the lot layout, the NSP easement, and the five
conditions that must be met in order to grant a variance. She stated that the applicant
would like to use erosion control blankets and a seed mix on the slope rather than
retaining wails. Ms. McPherson discussed the concerns of staff, the city engineer, and
stated that the Board of Adjustments voted to deny the variance request.
Mayor Klinzing opened the public hearing.
Mike Jones, 11740 200th Avenue - Discussed the five conditions of the variance and
why he felt that the request met each of these conditions. Mr. Jones stated that he
couldn't afford to build retaining walls on this slope. He felt that his situation was
unique due to the NSP easement over 90 percent of his property and he felt the city
should not have issued him a building permit. He stated that the retaining walls
required by the city would be to close to his house and would cause a water problem.
Mayor Klinzing closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Tveite stated that there is a hardship on Mr. Jones due to the limited
building area of the lot, the shape of the house, and the NSP easement. He felt that
Mr. Jones does meet the variance requirements.
Mayor Klinzing felt that Mr. Jones meets the variance requirements and he should not
have been issued a building permit. She stated that she is still concerned about drainage
issues on this property.
Mr. Maurer stated that the lot drains to the east of the home and drainage shouldn't be
an issue. Mr. Maurer stated that Mr. Jones would use a hydroseed mix if the retaining
wall were not required.
Councilmember Motin stated that he felt the applicant is borderline on meeting the
requirement of a variance. He suggested that some type of agreement be set up with
City Council Minutes
January 22, 2002
Page 9
the applicant that would be reviewed on an annual basis stating that if the
hydroseeding does not work within five years then the city can require a retaining
wall.
6.4.
COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN MOVED TO TABLE THIS ISSUE UNTIL
MARCH 18, 2002, SO IT CAN BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
IF IT IS FEASIBLE TO DRAFT A DOCUMENT THAT COULD BE
RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY AT 11740 200th AVENUE STATING
THAT IF THE HYDROSEEDING MIX FOR MAINTAINING THE HILL
BEHIND THE HOUSE IS NOT SUCCESSFUL THEN THE CITY CAN
REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO BUILD A RETAINING WALL.
COUNCILMEMBER TVEITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED 4-0.
Request by Cascade Land Co. for Preliminary. Plat Approval (Park Pointe'
Hearing - Case No. P 01-13
Councilmember Motin stepped down from this issue due to a conflict of
Staff report submitted by Planner Chris Leeseberg. Mr. Leeseberg st: that
Dynamics Design and Land Company is requesting preliminary p Pointe, a
subdivision of 95 lots. This plat was brought to and discussed fo approval on
December 17, 2001 but it did not meet the requirements for dedication fees. The
applicant has amended the park dedication requirements.
Mayor Klinzing opened the public hearing.
Jim Brown, Representative for Dynamics
regarding the dedication of land from the re
land area will be adjacent to the water's edge
Pointe should be excluded from the
that they do not own this parcel.
:d that the requirement
E equaling 10 percent of the
:the parcels given from Park
~s required for this plat. Mr. Brown stated
John Kuester, Park and Recreatiot
Recreation Commission
through Outlot E. He discusse
developer.
:~on Chair - Stated that the Park and
see a trail connection around Kliever's Marsh
different trail options that were discussed with the
Paul Motin, Motin
of the five acre Outk
lakeshore of this
- Stated that he is representing the Mitchell's, owners
and they are concerned with a path being put along the
in case they wish to build on it without platting additional lots.
Mayor
public hearing.
City
diSCUSS
~ Maurer stated at the next Council meeting there would be
on installing sewer and water along 175'h Avenue for this project
Tveite stated that the city shouldn't impose a restriction on land
E) that is not part of the preliminary plat before the Council.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council
Michele McPherson, Director of Planning
January 22, 2002
Case No. V 01-08
Request by Mike Jones to Allow a Slope Greater than 3: I
Without a Retaining Wall
Item
Request
The applicant requests that a variance be granted to allow a slope greater than 3 feet
horizontal to 1 foot vertical (3:1) to exist without a retaining wall.
Attachments
· Location Map
· January 3, 2002 Letter from Talberg Lawn and Landscape
· Memo from the City Engineer
· June 19, 2000 Letter from NSP
· October 23, 2001 Board of Adjustments Meeting Minutes
Location
11740 200th Avenue NW (Lot 2, Block 2, Brentwood)
Zoning/Land Use
Rla, Single Family Residential (2 ~ acre lot minimum) / LR, Low Density Residential
Analysis
The subject property is located at the end of 200th Avenue in the Brentwood Subdivision.
This is one of a few lots in Brentwood that are still vacant due to the fact that they are
encumbered by a 240' wide Northern States Power Company easement. In this case, the
easement covers approximately 90 percent of the lot. In order to construct the home, the
Memo to Mayor and City Council/V 01-08
January 22, 2002
Page 2
applicant received approval from Northern States Power Co. to allow location of the septic
system and retaining wall within the easement. The applicant is requesting that the existing
slope be allowed to remain and that any exposure of the slope be corrected by the use of
erosion control blankets and seed mix.
The applicant received a building permit to construct a home on the subject property in
August of 2000. A temporary certificate of occupancy was issued on January 11, 2001 until
June 1, 2001, based on the fact that the home needed landscaping, final grading, a driveway,
sidewalks and a retaining wall. The applicant's bank has escrowed money for the retaining
wall, final grading and the driveway. The applicant has requested a variance not to install a
retaining wall on the property and to allow a slope of greater than 3:1.
In preparation for this report, the City Engineer and staff observed the site and determined
that:
1) the slope is greater than 3:1, it is almost a 1:1 slope
2) that based on the extreme gravel content of the soil, an erosion control blanket and
seeding would not provide adequate slope stabilization for the site.
In order to grant a variance from the literal interpretation of the ordinance, the following
five conditions must be met:
1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship.
o
The hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances, which are peculiar to
the property and the structure involved and which are not characteristic of, or applicable
to, other lands or structure in the same area.
3. The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the petitioner of
rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance.
4. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the petitioner's own
action or inaction.
The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of
the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is located and will be in
keeping with spirit and intent of the ordinance.
Literal enforcement would require the applicant to spend additional money (currently
escrowed) on the retaining wall required by code.
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.
Literal application of the ordinance provisions would require the applicant to install the
retaining wall as required.
S:\PLANNING\Case Files\V 01-08 Jones\V01-08BA.DOC
Memo to Mayor and City Council/V 01-08
January 22, 2002
Page 3
The special conditions are a consequence of the applicant's site and home style selection.
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.
There are a number of lots remaining in the Brentwood Subdivision that are encumbered by
large power line 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.
Action by the Board of Adjustments
The Board of Adjustments voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request, as the
five conditions to grant a variance were not met by the applicant.
Review of the Applicant's Revised Information
The City Engineer has reviewed the revised information submitted by the applicant and is
recommending that the request by denied. The applicant has adequate room to build
retaining walls that would reduce the slope to 3:1 as required by the code. There are
numerous sites in the City that would be affected by a decision to allow slopes greater than
3:1 as requested by the applicant.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request to allow a slope greater than 3:1.
S:\PLANNING\Case Files\V 01-08 Jones\V01-08BA.DOC
Site
,JUNIOR
SCHOOL
River
Case NUmber:
Location Map
V01-08 Mike Jones
N
m r---I 11770 JUSTEN CIRCLE · MAPLE GROVE, MINNESOTA 55369
BERG
][AWN &
' lANDSCAPE
INC.®
PHONE: (763) 428-3550 · FAX: (763) 428-3419
EMAIL: info @ talberg-lawn.com
January 3,2002
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is in regard to the Mike Jones residence located at 11740 200~ Ave NW. Following a meeting with
Michele McPherson (City of Elk River Planning Commition), Frank Kriz (Howard R Green), and myseff Jeff
Hansen (Talberg Lawn & Landscape, Inc.) I have compiled the following data and I am proposing the
following solution to the erosion and slope issue at the above address.
Since the meeting we have had an as-built topographical survey done by John Oliver & Associates to
accurately determine the current slops. We also have received an 'As Built' of the septic system and
ovedaid it on the survey. I also meet with an erosion control expert on site and had several phone
conversations with the Anoka County Soil and Water experts.
After researching this matter with the above people it is my belief that no retaining wall of any size
should be required on this hillside. Installing a retaining wall would require that virgin soil be disturbed
for installation of the wall and its GEO grid. That would create the potential for increased erosion in
these disturbed areas. Other.reasons include, NSP will not allow a retaining wall over 4 ft on their
easement and that any variation of a wall 4ft or under will not change the over all slope of the hill.
My recommendation for erosion control of this hillside is to first remove as many surface rocks as
possible and fill any existing erosion areas, making the surface as smooth as possible. We will then
hydro-seed using MNDOT seed mix 5-B (as recommended by Mary Alice with Anoka county soil and
water) mixed with a bonding agent designed to adhere the seed to soil on embankments. Then we will
cover the entire hillside with a turf reinforcement mat made by North American Green. This mat
(SC250) is strong, long lasting, and will protect up to a 1:1 slope from high volumes of water flow. The
mat will provide support on the hillside dudng and after the germination and routing process of the
seed. Once developed the grass alone will provide enough support to prevent any erosion on this
slope.
As shown on the survey water flow should not be a concem for erosion on this hillside. As far as the
flow at the bottom of the hill we will be able to channel the water around the house in a swale with a
minimum grade of 1%.
Sincerely,
Jeff Hansen
Manager
Your Complete Outdoor Maintenance Contractor
ALBERG
-,
INC.®
11770 JUSTEN CIRCLE · MAPLE GROVE, MINNESOTA 55369
PHONE: (763) 428-3550 · FAX: (763) 428-3419
EMAIL: info @ talberg-lawn.com
January 3rd 2002
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO:
Mike Jones
11740 200th Ave NW
Elk River, MN 55330
JOB LOCATION:
Jones Residence
11740 200th Ave NW
Elk River, MN
We hereby submit specifications and proposals for:
2002 LANDSCAPE PROJECT~ 02-RI01...
Misc. Labor to Prep Hillside .............................................................. 2 .................................. $500.00
Hydro Seed with mix 5-B and Bonding agent ................................................................... $1,800.00
Install Mat SC250 ............................................................................................................... $3,970.00
Total ................................................................................................................................... $6,270.00
Notes:
A. Dirt in place by excavator unless otherwise specified.
B. We reserve the right to establish cost adjustments on any revisions to this proposal as originally written.
C. This proposal valid for thirty (30) days from date shown. Signed contracts received after that date subject to review
by contractor.
D. P~.nits not included in this quote unless otherwise specified.
E. All plant material warranted for one (1) year, one (1) time replacement.
F. Ali sod watered and rolled at the time of installation. No additional watering or maintenance of sod is included
unless otherwise stated.
G. Ali private utilities located by others.
Your Complete Outdoor Maintenance Contractor
MATERIAL SPECIFICATION ~
NORTH SC250
AMERICAN
GREEN®
The composite turf reinforcement mat (C-TRM) shall be a machine produced mat of 70% straw/30%
coconut fiber matrix incorporated into a permanent three-dimensional netting structure.
The matrix shall be evenly distributed across the entire width of the matting and stitch bonded between
UV stabilized top and bottom nets with 0.50 x 0.50 inch (1.27 x 1.27 cm) openings and a super heavy duty
UV stabilized, dramatically cuspated (crimped) intermediate netting with 0.50 x 0.50 inch (1.27 x 1.27
cm) openings. The middle cuspated netting shall form prominent closely spaced ridges across the entire
width of the mat. The three nettings shall be stitched together on 1.50 inch (3.81 cm) centers with UV
stabilized polypropylene thread to form a permanent three-dimensional structure.
All mats shall be manufactured with a colored thread stitched along both outer edges (approximately 2-5
inches [5-12.5 cml from the edge) as an overlap guide for adjacent mats.
The composite turf reinforcement mat shall be the North American Green SC250, or equivalent. The
SC250 permanent composite turf reinforcement mat shall have the following physical properties:
Material Content
Matrix
70% Straw Fiber
(0.35 lb/yd~) (0.19 kg/m2)
30% Coconut Fiber
(0.15 Ib/yd2) (0.08 kg/m2)
Netting
Top and Bottom UV Stabilized Polypropylene
(5.0 lbs/I,000 ft~ [2.44 kg/100 ms] approximate weight)
Mid - Super Heavy UV Stabilized Polypropylene
(24 lb/l,000 ft~ [11.7 kg/100 m2] approximate weight)
Thread
Black UV Stabilized Polypropylene
Physical Specifications (per roll)
English Metric
Width 6.50 ft 2.00 m
Length 55.50 ft 16.90 m
Weight 34.00 lbs + 10% 15.42 kg
Area 40.00 yd2 33.40 m~
Stitch Spacing 1.50 in 3.81 cm
A Revolutionary New
Way To Control Erosion
Compos t.e ReinForcement_ Ser es
Take Vegetation To Its Maximum Power/
North American Green is proud to introduce the Vmax3
Composite Reinforcement Series. This exciting new family
of turf reinforcement mattings offers shear stress protection
up to TEN POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT!
But that's just the beginning. Important advantages of this bold,
new category include these features:
Our Vmax3 mattings combine a permanent three-dimensional
netting structure with a fiber matrix material. The netting
anchors and reinforces the root and stem systems of
vegetation, while the matrix material provides effective
erosion control. This patented composite construction
maximizes erosion protection and structural reinforcement
through all three phases of vegetation deVelopment:
(1) pre-germination (2) establishment (3) maturity
· Vmax3 mattings empower vegetation to replace rock
and concrete in high-flow applications once considered
too severe for "green" linings!
· All Vmax3 mattings meet or exceed Federal Highway
Administration standards for turf reinforcement mattings.
· Vegetated channels and shorelines add a natural beaut,,
that concrete and riprap just can't match.
· Unlike concrete or riprap, vegetated roadside channels
provide a safer environment for motorists and act as a
natural filter for stormwater runoff.
· Vmax3 mattings offer substantial cost savings compared
with traditional concrete and riprap!
· Vmax3 mattings require no costly soil in-filling. You simply
grade, seed and fertilize prior to installation.
With the Vmax~ Composite Reinforcement Series, we're
taking your next project to the third power: maximum
erosion protection, maximum turf reinforcement, with
the natural benefits only vegetation can provide!
Bare Soil SC250 C350
Unvegetated Unvegetated
P550 24" Tall Dens
Unvegetated Unreinforced V
SC250
C350
P550
Three UV Stable Nets
Top Net 5 lb. Black Medium to High Flow Channels 2.5 2 6* 6* Roadside Ditches;
~rrugated Center Net 24 lb. Black 1:! & Greater Slopes (120) (96) (287) (287) Golf Course Swales;
Bottom Net 5 lb. Black Streambank Protection
70% Straw / 30% Coconut 24 month grow in period
Matrix Material
Three UV Stable Nets
Top Net 8 lb. Black High Flow Channels 3.2 2.25 8 8 Drainage Ditches;
,rrugated Center Net 24 lb. Black 1:1 & Greater Slopes (153) (108) (384) (384) High Flow Areas;
Bottom Net 8 lb. Black Shoreline Protection
100% Coconut Fiber 36 month grow in period
Matrix Material
Three UV Stable Nets
Top Net 24 lb. Black Extreme High Flow Channels 3.5 2.5 10' 10' Spillways; Swales;
rrugated Center Net 24 lb. Black 1:1 & Greater Slopes (167) (120) (478) (478) High Flow Drainage
Bottom Net 24 lb. Black Areas; Shoreline
Protection
100% Polypropylene Fiber 36+ month grow in period or when
Matrix Material sparse vegetation stand is expected
Corru
* Values Based on Computer Modeling, Pending Independent Laboratory Confirmation.
'x
~-37.9
'0
Northern States Power Company
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1993
Telephone (612) 330-5500
June 19,2000
Mike Jones
11948 Nevada Avenue N.
Champlin, Mn 55316
E,"4CROACHM£N'~- - Septic Sys[em a~:d Retaining 'vVaii
Line 984
Section 22, Township 33, Range 26
Dear Mr. Jones:
Our Transmission Engineers have reviewed the septic system and retaining wall
encroachment. The proposed retaining wall cannot exceed 4 feet in height and must
not be greater than 5 feet into the easement. The encroachment for the septic
system it; acceptable to NSP under the following conditions:
(1) Excavation close to structure location.
A minimum distance of 20 feet of supported earth must be maintained from
any part of the line structure. Support of the ground beyond the 20 feet may
be provided by a Slope no greater than three feet horizontal to one foot
vertical. Support may also be provided by the use of cribbing, sheet piling,
retaining wall or tunneling. The specific plan for providing the required
support and the excavation plan for the proposed project must be submitted .
to NSP for review and approVal.
(2) Grade change within easement.
The ground elevation within the easement shall not be increased above the
existing grade. Stockpiling of soil and/or material within the easement will
not be permitted.
(3).. Clearances .to equipment.
A.working clearance of 25 feet between the electrical and any cranes or
digging equipment used in or near the easement, must be maintained at all
times. If this clearance cannot be maintained, the contractor' or developer
must arrange for a line outage by calling NSP's System Co;~trol depar[ment
(Carol Andrews 61~330-6135). At least two weeks advar~ced notice; must
be provider. J in order to schedule a line outage. There is a fee of
Page 2
6/19/2000
(4)
approximately $350.00 per day, per outage, for this service. This fee must
be paid prior to outage.
Landscaping within the easement.
Detailed plans for landscaping (including light standards) must be submitted
to NSP for review and approval. Generally shorter varieties of trees and
shrubs may be considered. If planting is permitted, the line's voltage and the
tree's mature height and the distance from the line must be considered. For
maintenance purposes there shall be no planting with 15 feet of structure
sites.
(5) Building on easements.
There shall be no permanent or temporary building allowed on the
easement.
It is the express condition of this consent that all other terms and conditions of that
certain easement granted by Oscar Jones by Final Decree and recorded as
Document No. 154099 shall remain in full force and effect.
To acknowledge receipt of and agreement with the terms of this consent, please
sign this letter and return to my attention.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Real Estate Assistant
612/330-6956
ACCEPTED:
By:
Its
C: Roger Johnson
Steve LaCasse
NH:33592-20
Str: 88
CITY OF ELK RIVER
P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · (612) 441-4900
~-.;ationofjob...////7z7/0 c.-~O0~/ /~/'//'C /'~/)/-'-) ,
. ' . % c~ ?. ,,'. .. : ' -~/. . ~
Signature ~,~___ ]~ ~ Date ~~'--~
~ (Show location of house, t~k, drainfield, prope~y line and well)
NOTE: On ALL replacements and additions, tanks must be exposed for baffle inspection:
COMMENTS:
New Work ~ Outside Lift
Replacement [3 Ejector ~
Addition D Gravity
Mound System
Tank Size / ;-~
Square Footage of Drainfield Area
'~,pth of Rock Under Pipe
_ pth of Rock Over Pipe
Graveless
Depth of Dirt Cover t [, ~
Number of Bedrooms
DATE
INSPECTOR
COMMENTS
THIS FORM MUST BE FILLED OUT BY A LIGENSED INSTALLER (ASBUILT)
(1) CITY COPY, (2) OWNER COPY, (3) LICENSED INSTALLER COPY
Howard Green Qompany
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
File:
Date:
Michele McPherson, Director of Planning
Frank Kriz, R.L.S.
Mr. Mike Jones Property / Final Grading
230273M-0325
January 17, 2002
We have reviewed the informational package from Mr. Jeff Hanson of Talberg Lawn and
Landscaping, Inc., regarding the final grading and restoration of the Mike Jones property located
at 11740 200th Avenue NW. As shown on the as-built drawing in this package, the house that
was built on this lot caused an existing 3:1 slope at the rear of the lot to be cut back to a 2:1
slope. It has been the City policy that 2:1 slopes are not acceptable and the solution is to build
retaining walls which would allow the slope to be restored to a 3:1.
Mr. Hanson's solution of stabilizing the 2:1 slope is not the issue. The issue is that 2:1 slopes
have not been permitted.
In the package is a letter from NSP which states that only one 4-foot high retaining wall is
permitted on their easement. As shown on the as-built drawing, only one-half of this 2:1 slope is
in the NSP easement, which means one-half of this 2:1 slope has no retaining wall restrictions.
As per the area in the NSP easement, it may be possible to have a tiered 8-foot high retaining
wall built with the lower 4-foot wall outside of the easement and the upper 4-foot wall being
inside the easement.
It is our recommendation that the rear slopes be restored to 3:1 using retaining walls, and that a
detailed plan be prepared and approved prior to the work being done.
FSK:tw
Memo I-1%02 McPhcrson[1]
1326 Energy Park Drive · St. Paul, MN 55108 · 651/644-4389 fax 651/644-9446 toll free 888/368-4389
Northern States Power Company
414 Nico!let Mall
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1993
Telephone (612) 330-5500
June 19,2000
Mike Jones
11948 Nevada Avenue N.
Champtin, Mn 55316
=,,"~r'A,":.,~'-',:'.." Septic Sys!ern
Line 984
Section 22, Township 33, Range 26
a~-:d Retaining Wail
Dear Mr. Jones:
Our Transmission Engineers have reviewed the septic system and retaining wall
encroachment. The proposed retaining wall cannot exceed 4 feet in height and must
not be greater than 5 feet into the easement. The encroachment for the septic
system it; acceptable to NSP under the following conditions:
(1)
Excavation close to structure location.
A minimum distance of 20 feet of supported earth must be maintained from
any part of the line structure. Support of the ground beyond the '20 feet may
be provided by a slope no greater than three feet horizontal to one foot
vertical. Support may also be provided, by the use of cribbing, sheet .piling,
retaining wal'l or tunneling. The specific plan for providing ~he required
support and the excavation plan for the Proposed projeot must be submitted
to NSP for review and approval.
(2)
Grade change within easement.
The ground elevation within the easement shall not be i~creased' above the
existing grade: Stockpiling of soil and/or material within the easement will
not be permitted.
(3) Clearances to equipment.
A working clearance of 25 feet between the electrical and any cranes or
digging equipment used in or near the easement, must be maintained at all
times. If this clearance cannot be maintained, the contractor or developer
must arrange for a line outage by calling NSP's System Co;~troi depar!rnent
(Carol Andrews 612/330-6135). At least two '^.'eeks sd',/ar~ced not'icrc must
be provided in order to schedule a line outage. There is a fee of
Page 2
6/19/2000
approximately $350.00 per day, per outage, for this service. This fee must
be paid prior to outage.
(4) Landscaping within the easement.
Detailed plans for landscaping (including light standards) must be submitted
to NSP for review and approval. Generally shorter varieties of trees and
shrubs may be considered. If planting is permitted, the line's voltage and the
tree's mature height and the distance from the line must be considered. For
maintenance purposes there shall be no planting with 15 feet of structure
sites.
(5) Building on easements.
There Shall be no permanent or temporary building allowed on the
easement.
It is the express condition of this consent that all other terms and conditions of that
certain easement granted by Oscar Jones by Final Decree and recorded as
Document No. 154099 shall remain in full force and effect.
To acknowledge receipt of and agreement with the terms of this consent, please
sign this letter and return to my attention.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Real Estate Assistant
612/330-6956
C:
Roger Johnson
Steve LaCasse
NH:33592-20
Str: 88
ACCEPTED:
By:
Its
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER BOARD OF ADJUSTf4ENTS
HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 200 I
Chair Pederson, Commissioners Baker, Franz and Ropp
Commissioners Mesich and Schuster
Michete McPherson, Director of Planning; Steve Rohlf, Building and
Zoning Administrator; Scott Harlicker, Assistant Planner; Chris Leeseberg,
Park Planner/Planner; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary
4.1.
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.
Consider Board of Adjustments Agenda
COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 23, 2001,
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AGENDA. COMMISSIONER BAKER
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
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.
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 wkhout 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 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 and recommends that the Board of Adjustments deny the request.
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 construction 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 buik so that k 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 lek 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 lek 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:
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.
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.
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.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LOTS REMAINING IN THE BRENTWOOD
SUBDIVISION THAT ARE ENCUMBERED BY LARGE POWER LINE
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.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Huebner
Recording Secretary