Agenda Packets - 2006/09/11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council August 14, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 commented that building code provides for specific standards and his suggested language falls 1 under the same category, which will not be over legislative. He added that he was unable to 2 attend the last Planning Commission meeting to discuss his concerns. 3 4 Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. 5 6 Councilmember Thomas stated that the Council discussed some clarifying language regarding 7 when Staff would have to inspect a proposed retaining wall. She stated she would like some 8 language in the ordinance that allows Staff to address safety issues. 9 10 Director Ericson explained that the specific issue was not addressed with the Planning 11 Commission, but the problem that was discussed with the City Attorney is that the language 12 suggested is too vague. He stated that if the Staff feels there is a need to inspect the property, 13 they would do so. 14 15 Councilmember Thomas stated that she believed a trigger for the Staff inspection was the height 16 of the retaining wall. She added her concern is at what point the City should institute safety 17 guidelines. 18 19 Mayor Marty stated he recalled some discussion. He read from section 11.03.08 where fencing is 20 discussed and suggested “any retaining wall on property lines will be reviewed by Staff and be 21 decided on a case-by-case basis.” 22 23 Director Ericson replied that the language is too vague because it does not give any direction 24 about what will happen if there is a safety concern. Mayor Marty suggested adding language 25 stating, “it can be denied if there is a safety concern.” Director Ericson asked what would be 26 considered a safety concern. Director Ericson stated the code should be clear enough so citizens 27 can understand the requirements. He stated that adding a vague requirement is too ambiguous 28 and unfair and such language would cause confusion. 29 30 Councilmember Flaherty stated such language gives the City the ability to investigate such 31 instances. He stated the language at least allows the City to review the plan and if there is a safety 32 issue there can be some more discussion. He stated he would like language that at least gives the 33 City the opportunity to review the property. 34 35 Director Ericson stated the City currently has the ability to review permits. He stated that the 36 City should change the code explicitly explaining what the requirements are so it is easily 37 understandable. 38 39 Councilmember Thomas replied that she would like specific language that gives the City the 40 power to review the permit. She stated that her problem is that there is no specific point at which 41 such retaining walls could be deemed unsafe. She stated she would like the City to have recourse 42 for unsafe retaining walls. She stated she was hoping for language that allowed some recourse. 43 She stated language must be added allowing the City recourse for unsafe retaining walls. 44 45