Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 APPROVED <br /> December 15, 1997 <br /> Mounds View City Council <br /> D. CONSENTAGENDA: <br /> MOTION/SECOND:Koopmeiners/Stigney to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. <br /> VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried <br /> E. RESIDENTS REQUESTSAND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR: <br /> Mayor McCarty explained that this is the time for residents to address the council with concerns on items that <br /> are not on the Agenda. <br /> Mr. Chad Harris,2085 Terrace Drive,explained that he has been experiencing moisture build-up in his attic. <br /> It is his understanding that the problem stems from the fact that the under-attic bypasses were not sealed. The <br /> home was remodeled in 1996 and inspected by Mr.Rick Jarson,City Building Inspector. He has requested <br /> Mr.Jarson's interpretation of the Minnesota Energy Code 7670 which has exclusive language regarding attic <br /> bypasses and vapor seals,and/or a re-inspection of the property. The purpose of this request was to make <br /> sure that the work was done in accordance with building codes. Mr.Jarson responded in a letter dated <br /> December 1, 1997 and indicated that a re-inspection of the property or an explanation of the building code was <br /> being denied. <br /> A discussion followed in regard to the City's role in this matter. Mr.Long,City Attorney,had advised Mr. <br /> Jarson that it would not be the city's responsibility to perform a second inspection. The inspection completed <br /> by a City Inspector prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy is simply a general inspection and does <br /> not involve in-depth examination of the attic,etc. If there is a contractor problem,there is a liability against <br /> the contractor or the private inspector who was hired to do a thorough inspection of the house. <br /> Mr.Harris explained that he would like to get an interpretation of the building code to see if the contractor can <br /> be held liable for necessary repairs. Mayor McCarty asked Mr.Harris to give the City two more weeks to <br /> look into the matter and respond to Mr.Harris'request. <br /> F. COUNCIL BUSINESS: <br /> Mayor McCarty asked that the Council consider Item F(5)at this time. <br /> 5. Consideration of Resolution No.5199,a Resolution Re-approving a Wetland Alteration Permit for <br /> Lot 2,Block 1,Downing Addition,(2760 Woodale Drive). <br /> Mr.Ericson,Planning Associate,explained that this request is to re-approve a wetland alteration permit to <br /> allow for the construction of a home at 2760 Woodale Drive. In order to allow for the construction,soil <br /> corrections and modifications to the lot will need to be completed,including filling a portion of the wetland <br /> area. Rice Creek Watershed has reviewed the application and has approved the plan,subject to their <br /> mitigation requirements. This case came before the Council in 1995,at which time they approved the <br /> Wetland Alteration Permit,per Resolution No.4852. He noted that the requirements have changed since that <br /> time,and the property owner is no longer required to go in and disturb the wetlands in order to create more <br /> wetlands. Mr.Ericson noted that Resolution No.5199 would re-approve the Wetland Alteration Permit <br /> subject to a few contingencies. (The legal description in Resolution 5199 will be changed to Lot 2,Block 1, <br /> Downing Addition,Ramsey County,Minnesota.) Mr.Ericson briefly went through the contingencies. It <br />