Agenda Packets - 2006/05/08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 28 in the code, and by strict interpretation of the code, it would not be allowed. He stated there are 1 features that may not be contemplated but they are not intended to be restricted because they do 2 not show in the code. He stated that certainly birdhouses are allowed in the City. 3 4 Director Ericson stated that the fact that there is not an interpretation or a definition of a retaining 5 wall in the code does not change the fact that this is something that is not unexpected in a 6 residential district or between property lines. He stated it is a feature that is commonly used in 7 landscaping as well as to demarcate where a property line is. He stated that because it is not 8 strictly permitted, the City has latitude to have the discretion to say that it is allowed by virtue of 9 the fact that it is same or similar or permitted as part of the residential landscape. He stated he 10 disagrees because it is not strictly defined that it not is permitted. 11 12 Councilmember Thomas stated that the situation is not just about the Amundsens, but rather that 13 the City needs to look at the situation across the board. She stated she does not believe the 14 provision applies to this particular situation. She stressed there is a strong implication in the 15 code that retaining walls are allowed at property lines, even though there may not be a definition. 16 She stated that if the issue goes to court, it will come down to what has been the City’s past 17 practice, the consistency of interpretation, and the implication of the code. She stated the City 18 does allow retaining walls on the property line, but the code does not say how it is applied. 19 20 Director Ericson explained the Planning Commission looked at whether there should be a 21 definition of a retaining wall in the code and if there should be a setback for a retaining wall in 22 the code. He mentioned they also looked at issues relating to fences and terraces, and they have 23 not taken official action, they have directed Staff to bring forward additional research. He stated 24 the Planning Commission’s intent is to add a definition of what a retaining wall is and indicate 25 that retaining walls are allowed up to the property line. He stated that the Planning Commission 26 felt that there was not a need to add the definition of a terrace, as it was defined similar to a patio 27 in the code. He stated the Planning Commission felt there should not be a setback for fences and 28 the code should remain as it currently states. He explained the Planning Commission will be 29 bringing forward a recommendation that addresses retaining walls, and the recommendation will 30 be that retaining walls are allowed up to the property line and a definition of a retaining wall will 31 be added. 32 33 Mrs. Amundsen stated the code makes references to ornamental items that can be moved. She 34 stated that there is a definition in the code that defines that a structure is permanently cemented in 35 the ground. She stated one has to be careful in comparing a birdhouse to a structure as they are 36 not similar. 37 38 Mrs. Amundsen asked City Attorney Riggs what his opinion is on the fact that the code states 39 that when something is not specifically allowed, that the City should err on the side of the more 40 restrictive. She wondered how this phrase is being overlooked in this situation. She stated that 41 all parties agree that is a vague situation and there is no clear cut answer. 42 43 City Attorney Riggs stated it is a policy decision in the interpretation, and it is something that 44 needs to be filled in. He stated that every code has that provision and no code is perfect. He 45