My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1988-01-26
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Minutes - City Council
>
Minutes 1988
>
1988-01-26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2005 6:15:06 AM
Creation date
8/10/2005 2:25:06 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
<br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />January 26, 1988 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />gineers for the ReWO) to evaluate what is going on in the area; <br />Harstad Companies will send the report to the city and to the <br />neighbors within the next few weeks. <br /> <br />Benke stated it would be helpful to have a fresh look; how do we <br />be sure it will not happen again. <br /> <br />Gunderman asked, if the drainage plan and the specifications are <br />all laid out, where the liability falls. <br /> <br />LeFevere stated New Brighton's mechanism is typical of most cities <br />ordinarily the enforcement mechanism and explained that, in the <br />initial stage, is in the building permit process. LeFevere fur- <br />ther commented that conditions attached to a plat typically are <br />not enforceable after the plat is approved, and it would take some <br />other enforcement mechanism to be sure the grading plan is not <br />changed in a way that is detrimental to the neighbors. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />LeFevere also stated cities are reluctant to get involved in what <br />are minor changes in grade, contour, or elevation in a way that <br />doesn't affect the public at large, but is really a private <br />nuisance, unless it actually blocks a waterway or interferes with <br />the city's drainage plan. LeFevere further stated that ordinarily <br />cities do not become involved in relationships between neighbors. <br /> <br />LeFevere stated there is a potential problem if the city gets in- <br />volved in minor changes in such a way that decisions don't protect <br />another owner, the city could be involved for issuing the permit <br />or not properly protecting another homeowner. LeFevere indicated <br />there a provision that prevents the blockage of a water course <br />which would be a public nuisance. <br /> <br />LeFevere stated the city issues permits for fill of more than 100 <br />cubic yards; if the city wishes to have more control, it can re- <br />duce to less than 100 cubic yards. <br /> <br />Benke stated it seems logically inconsistent that, if we have to <br />give approval then have no control of subsequent action, the con- <br />tract upon which we granted that approval is violated. <br /> <br />LeFevere stated you may have something to say about it when the <br />developer is still on the site; but noted the plat conditions are <br />not continuing conditions on the use of that land. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />LeFevere stated it is a potential problem, but the original idea <br />was that the city protects itself in a number of ways (underground <br />storm water run off systems and ponds which the city controls, and <br />the requirement for excavation and fill). <br /> <br />Gunderman stated a wheelbarrow full of dirt can block a drain; <br />LeFevere stated that would block a natural waterway or a water <br />course as established by the planning a drainage easement for the <br />city. <br /> <br />Page 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.