Agenda Packets - 2006/05/08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 25 that the building code is to ensure public health and safety within the neighborhoods and 1 properties. 2 3 Valerie Amundsen, stated this has become more of a bigger issue, and that a citizen of Mounds 4 View needs to be able to look at the code and it needs to be clear. She noted that they have been 5 to the Planning Commission twice and they have not dealt with it there. She stated that because 6 it is not clear, the code says the City has to go with the more restrictive and safe option. She 7 noted that City Attorney Riggs indicated that the code is not clear. She stated the code needs to 8 indicate that the setbacks can be waived with the variance process. She stated this is not going to 9 restrict the City that retaining walls cannot be where they are needed. She stated that in a case 10 such as this, it is the Council’s responsibility is to err on the side of safety. She stated they are 11 cautious and concerned about the neighborhood for its safety, and that should be the Council’s 12 concern. 13 14 Ms. Amundsen stated that some people think they can do whatever they want on their property 15 and this is not true. She stressed that she is very familiar with the restrictions of the code when 16 their home was built. She noted that because of the practice that retaining walls can go over the 17 property line as fences, should not mean that this has become code. She stressed that the issue 18 needs to be addressed or sent back to the Planning Commission. She asked the Council to be 19 responsible and watch out for the community. She stated that virtually nothing is allowed next to 20 the property line other than fences. 21 22 Ms. Amundsen stated she feels like they have researched the issue well and are confident that it 23 will hold up. She stated they are not trying to make trouble for the neighbor, but rather to protect 24 their pool area and also to protect the perimeter of people’s property. 25 26 Councilmember Thomas stated that the structure is a retaining wall. She stated at some future 27 time, a surface may be improved and become a parking structure, but for now it is a retaining 28 wall. She indicated she did a code search for retaining wall and there are a couple of references 29 to retaining walls. She stated there is no specific reference for a retaining wall setback, but there 30 is an implication that retaining walls are allowed straight up to the property line. She stated that 31 it is as not as clear as it could be, and it should be sent back to the Planning Commission to look 32 at some of the issues, but just because there are references to retaining walls at property lines, it 33 does indicate that retaining walls are to be allowed next to the property line. She stated she 34 cannot see any violation by the adjacent property owner. 35 36 City Attorney Riggs commended the Amundsen’s research, and stated that the issue is implicitly 37 covered in the code. 38 39 City Attorney Riggs pointed out that the parking surface is a different situation than the retaining 40 wall issue. 41 42 Mr. Amundsen asked Director Ericson if the applicant asked about parking when he showed the 43 space to the City. Director Ericson stated that he may or may not have, but at some point, the 44 setbacks for vehicles were discussed when there was a vehicle was parked at the location. 45