Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 2 <br /> <br /> 1 <br />Community Development Director Ericson stated this action will update the zoning code 2 <br />regarding retaining walls, fencing, and landscaping. He said the Planning Commission discussed 3 <br />retaining walls and considered adding a definition for terraces and how the function of the code 4 <br />works in a practical sense, and recommended the amendment that was presented at the last City 5 <br />Council meeting. 6 <br /> 7 <br />Community Development Director Ericson stated the ordinance adds definitions for landscaping 8 <br />and retaining walls, and clarifies that a retaining wall can be located in the same manner as a 9 <br />fence, cannot be located on a property line, but can be located without a setback. 10 <br /> 11 <br /> 12 <br />Community Development Director Ericson said Staff feels it is a good compromise and clarifies 13 <br />that a fence or retaining wall is not subject to a setback requirement. He noted the ordinance also 14 <br />prohibits certain kind of fencing, such as barbed wire or electrified fencing except in special 15 <br />cases such as water treatment facilities or those that need additional security. He said that such 16 <br />fences would be subject to public notifications and hearings. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Community Development Director Ericson said the first reading of the ordinance was read at the 19 <br />last Council meeting and this is the second reading and adoption of the ordinance. 20 <br /> 21 <br />Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. 22 <br /> 23 <br />Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, noted that she had two suggestions dealing with 24 <br />safety and liability issues that she feels should be the concern of the Council. 25 <br /> 26 <br />Ms. Amundsen suggested that “unless the said retaining wall will be directly next to an existing 27 <br />fence specifically installed to meet the building code requiring a minimum 5-foot fence around a 28 <br />swimming pool” be added to the retaining wall language. She explained that her neighbor built a 29 <br />retaining wall next to her fence, which she feels compromised the intent of the code. She said 30 <br />because of her neighbors’ action, she and her husband spent extra money and time to increase the 31 <br />height of their fence to bring it up to code. She said her family built the fence taller for safety’s 32 <br />sake and asked the Council to keep safety a priority. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Ms. Amundsen stated that her instance may have been isolated, but if something had happened, 35 <br />she and the City could have been sued. She said she does not want herself or the City to be 36 <br />subject to a liability because of outdated codes. She said she also does not think it is fair for 37 <br />residents to have to pay to update their property to meet new safety codes. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Ms. Amundsen also suggested for language to be added requiring all retaining walls two feet or 40 <br />higher to have safety devices, such as a fence or railing. She explained that someone could fall 41 <br />off a high retaining wall and it is no different than having railings on stairs. She noted that off of 42 <br />County Road H2, there is a very large retaining wall without a fence, which she believes is an 43 <br />accident waiting to happen. She said the Council needs to consider safety and liability when 44 <br />making these decisions. 45