Agenda Packets - 2006/07/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council June 12, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 17 1 Brian Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, stated he is here because he believes there are two areas 2 of concern. He said that 1104.01, Subdivision 5, which still refers to a terrace or “similar 3 structure” and can cause confusion. He questions what is considered an encroachment and the 4 issue of setbacks and believes that the current language does not specify whether or not retaining 5 walls are allowed on the property line. He believes that it would be more clear if “retaining 6 walls” were added to the 1104.01, Subdivision 5. 7 8 Mr. Amundsen stated the other piece he believes is short of information is protection if a 9 retaining wall is built too high. He said at the back of a property there is a retaining wall nearly 10 6-7 feet high and if a person were to step off, they could be injured. He stated he believes there 11 should be some place that the City requires a protective fence. He said it would help 1104.01, 12 Subdivision 5, if it was clarified and specifies setbacks. He also stated he questions the phrase 13 “similar structures.” He stated that, regarding his issue, he built 2 additional feet on his fence. 14 15 Director Ericson said the Planning Commission considered a necessity for terraces in the 16 definition and in the opinion of the Planning Commission that the present definition is adequate. 17 He said the Council could make the determination whether or not the word “terrace” needs a 18 different definition. He said the Planning Commission is comfortable with the way the word 19 Terrace has been applied. He said the Planning Commission felt it was not a necessity to make a 20 modification. 21 22 Director Ericson stated, regarding the retaining walls, the Planning Commission felt that in many 23 cases something would be warranted, but it was not necessary to put it in as a code requirement. 24 He said that it is in the City’s best interest to put in rails or warnings if the City is putting in a 25 high retaining wall and that the City has done so in the past. He explained it is not something the 26 Planning Commission believes citizens need to put in their own yards to protect themselves from 27 falling off their own property. 28 29 Councilmember Flaherty said this does stem from the Edmonson’s property and it did come from 30 the change in elevation from the Edmonson’s neighbors. He said the neighbors elevated their 31 property and it is an issue of privacy and security. He asked if the Planning Commission has 32 addressed this issue. 33 34 Director Ericson replied that the amendment does not address a change in elevation. He said if 35 the grade change would mean changes to storm water, the City would be involved, but said that 36 unless that happens, there would be no City involvement. 37 38 Councilmember Flaherty asked if there is no specific limit to the height of a retaining wall and 39 asked if a car could sit up on top of a retaining wall, looking over the neighbor’s fence. He asked 40 if Director Ericson could address such a scenario while making changes to the ordinance. 41 42 Director Ericson explained that when they looked at codes from other communities and did 43 research, no other municipality had any restriction on retaining walls. He said there are areas in 44 Northeast Minneapolis where there are 20-foot retaining walls in order to hold back soil instead 45