Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ord 773 Report <br />August 14, 2006 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />7) The following is excerpted from what Valerie Amundsen read Monday, June 26, 2006 at the City <br />Council meeting: <br /> <br />“Regarding section 1103.08 subd. 3, item b: The ordinance suggests that there be no setback <br />requirement for retaining walls. I would suggest however, that the following wording be added after <br />the words “but shall not otherwise be subject to a setback requirement"…UNLESS THE SAID <br />RETAINING WALL WILL BE DIRECTLY NEXT TO AN EXISTING FENCE SPECIFICALLY <br />INSTALLED TO MEET THE BUILDING CODE REQUIRING A MINIMUM 5 FOOT HIGH FENCE <br />AROUND A SWIMMING POOL” <br /> <br />Staff Response: Staff has discussed this point with both the Planning Commission and <br />City Council, and neither body supported such a requirement. While the intent of the <br />suggested change is understood, Staff, the City Attorney, the Planning Commission <br />and Council felt it was not appropriate to restrict what one property owner could do with <br />his or her lot because of what a neighbor has already done. In this case, because <br />Neighbor “A” has a swimming pool, it would not seem fair or appropriate to impose or <br />subject more restrictive setback requirements onto Neighbor “B”, who does not have a <br />swimming pool. The responsibility for maintaining the minimum fence height and <br />security requirements should always rest with the property owner with the pool. <br /> <br /> <br />Summary: <br /> <br />While we thank the Amundsens for their suggestions and appreciate their level of <br />involvement throughout this process, Staff, the City Attorney and the Planning Commission <br />do not feel any of the suggested changes are warranted or desired at this time. <br /> <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />After review and consideration of the suggestions, if the City Council determines that no <br />changes are necessary, the ordinance can be given its second reading and be adopted by a <br />roll call vote. If the Council believes some modifications are in order, the changes can be <br />made at the meeting prior to the adoption, or, if the changes are more substantial, staff <br />would bring a revised ordinance back for final Council consideration on August 28th. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />_____________________________________ <br />James Ericson <br />Community Development Director