Laserfiche WebLink
-30- <br /> <br />Lance Van Norman, 8991 160th Lane NW, Ramsey, stated that condition #2 of the permit, <br />placing six inches of top soil on the berm, would disrupt what is there now. He explained that <br />there has been no erosion on the berm and it is very difficult to access it. Other than that one <br />issue, he was in agreement with everything else. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt inquired if they intended on planting vegetation on the berm. <br /> <br />Mr. Van Norman replied yes. <br />Chairperson Nixt inquired if there was anything presently growing on <br />Mr. Van Norman replied that there was some growth, but had been t~3~d by citY'~ff!tp wait on <br />doing anything else until the issue was resolved with the Ci~i:?'-He noted that he d'id':tnot see a <br /> with vegetation growing on the berm. ,:::~¢?? <br />problem <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt inquired as to what the requirements-'ar~:for establish/ng-berms in the City. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that there must be four to:~{'::in;hes of top soil placed over the <br />top of the berm and the berm must be seedeck ":~";~:~ <br /> *"-; / ~: ~ 5'< <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt questioned the significant~ dffferenc~e in:gm,de. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that in revie~iig the m~dh~;:~d~:.~ilding ordinance there is a lot <br />of inconstancy along shoreland, t.8~ percent slope are;P~rmitted in Some areas and other areas are <br />not to be greater than 12 pera'enf.--The. City does p_e..~r!Tn~ it a maximum slope of 1 to 4 or 25 percent <br />to assure that the berm can be mowed'.: :He stated that if the residents are proposing some type of <br />vegetation that wilt not_,~equire maintenance or oik!y:minimum maintenance, then the existing <br />slope wouldn't present a problem):- '~,"!!JankgycSk,i"also noted that when he observed the <br />condition of the be~:there hadL~no¢'be~n :an~::.~e~;dsion. The material is primarily sand, but <br />questioned if any type °fvegetafion will last without any organic material on top. <br /> ~) .:' : ' ' ~'.:2~- -~ .....2:_ <br />Chairpe~on ~i:~f-:Smted .that '~"portion of the berm encroaches onto other peoples property and <br />inquired as to what 'it. Would d6'-:t0-;the slope if they had to remove the dirt fi'om the other <br />property. <br /> <br />City'gngineer Jankowski. }~plied that it would make the slope steeper. He stated that he hoped <br />the Norfhf0rk HomeoWner~ Association would come up with a compromise on how the berm <br />could be landSdape&' <br /> <br />Mr. Van Normanl stated that Dennis Peck, North Fork, Inc., has indicated that the 80 foot <br />easement was created in order to construct a berm between the two properties. <br /> <br />Dennis Peck, North Fork, Inc., stated that North Fro:k, Inc. is still the record owner of the <br />property, not the Northfork Homeowners Association. He explained that the area was going to <br /> <br />Planning Commission/July 12, 2001 <br /> Page 6 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />