My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 07/12/2001
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
2001
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 07/12/2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/20/2025 2:09:18 PM
Creation date
5/14/2003 8:55:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
07/12/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
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 /> <br />Chairperson Nixt inquired if there was anything presently growing on the berm. <br /> <br />Mr. Van Norman replied that there was some growth, but had been told by City staff to wait on <br />doing anything else until the issue was resolved with the City. He noted that he did not see a <br />problem with vegetation growing on the berm. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt inquired as to what the requirements are for establishing berms in the City. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that there must be four to six inches of top soil placed over the <br />top of the berm and the berm must be seeded. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt questioned the significant difference in grade. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that in reviewing the mining and grading ordinance there is a lot <br />of inconstancy along shoreland, 18 percent slope are permitted in some areas and other areas are <br />not to be greater than 12 percent. The City does permit 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 will not require maintenance or only minimum maintenance, then the existing <br />slope wouldn't present a problem. Mr. Jankowski also noted that when he observed the <br />condition of the berm, there had not been any erosion. The material is primarily sand, but <br />questioned if any type of vegetation will last without any organic material on top. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated that a portion of the berm encroaches onto other peoples property and <br />inquired as to what it would do to the slope if they had to remove the dirt from the other <br />property. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that it would make the slope steeper. He stated that he hoped <br />the Northfork Homeowners Association would come up with a compromise on how the berm <br />could be landscaped. <br /> <br />Mr. Van Norman 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 Fork, 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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.