Agenda Packets - 2006/05/08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 29 stated the courts will look at the past fact patterns of the community and the overall broad 1 interpretation of how the code has been utilized. He stated that this would be very strong for a 2 court to look at. 3 4 Mr. Amundsen stated a single sentence would be considered vague, and a strong position would 5 be that it is specifically included in the setback code. He stated the Council needs to make a 6 policy decision in regard to if a neighbor is dissatisfied with the way that the Community 7 Development Department has decided something and that the past practice is to deny zero 8 setback, what is the policy going to be. He wondered if zero setbacks will not be allowed or if 9 they will be allowed at the discretion of the City Administrator. He stated that the current 10 administrative variance allowance specifies that the City Administrator can determine up to two 11 feet. He wondered if the Council will follow the current policy or change policy this evening and 12 allow it to be at the discretion of Community Development department. 13 14 Councilmember Thomas stated past practice has been to allow retaining walls with zero setbacks, 15 so to do anything else would be the change of policy. She indicated the Council has given other 16 structures setbacks. She stated the City would have a significant amount of properties to deal 17 with if the policy was changed. 18 19 Mayor Marty recalled that several years ago, the Community Development department was given 20 some discretion so that everything would not have to come to the Council. He stated that 21 perhaps this is a point where setbacks need to be looked at, too. He stated he was under the 22 impression that even if the Community Development Department approves something, that it 23 still had to go before the Planning Commission for a cursory evaluation. 24 25 Director Ericson stated the administrative variance process is irrelevant in this situation. He 26 stated there are some checks and balances in regard to an administrative variance process, and it 27 does not give the Community Development Director any latitude to grant setback variances. He 28 explained it allows for a reduction to not less than 25 percent of the setback required, but 29 adjoining property owners have to be notified, and if there are no objections, Planning 30 Commission performs a cursory review. He stated if a property owner rejects the reduction, there 31 would be a full variance process. He stated this is only for setback variances. 32 33 Mayor Marty asked if it was acceptable that the area filled is not planted or sodded. He 34 wondered if it would nullify the process if the individual were to park a car there again. 35 36 Director Ericson stated that specifically with regard to the property owner on Pleasant View 37 Drive, if a vehicle is parked there, it would be in violation of City code, and the property owner 38 would receive a notice of violation. He stated this has not occurred since the property owner 39 was informed of the code. He stated it does not nullify the grading or the retaining wall if a 40 violation was to occur again. 41 42 Mayor Marty wondered if the property owner could put in gravel instead of landscaping. 43 Director Ericson explained a resident can have some landscape rock along the property, but the 44 moment the area is used for parking, it becomes a parking area. 45