Agenda Packets - 2006/04/04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item No: 2D Meeting Date: April 3, 2006 Type of Business: Worksession Administrator Review : ____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Continued Discussion Regarding Request of Brian and Valerie Amundsen Regarding Alleged Code Violation Introduction: At the City Council’s last meeting on March 27, 2006, Brian and Valerie Amundsen appeared before the Council seeking Council action to require their neighbor at 7092 Pleasant View Drive to remove a retaining wall and fill material that was constructed last year. Discussion: Understandably so, the Amundsens believe that the retaining wall, located just inches away from their six-foot tall security fence, poses a safety hazard and security liability as it could allow someone easier access to their rear yard and potentially their in-ground pool. While staff acknowledges the Amundsens’ concern and strong desire to protect the health and safety of others, based on a legal interpretation of the situation, it was determined that the fence satisfied the intent of Code, which is to “…prevent the unauthorized entrance into the swimming pool by any person when said fence or barrier is locked.” A letter to this effect was sent to the Amundsens on March 10, 2006. At the Council meeting on March 27, 2006, the Amundsens indicated that staff is overlooking the fact that the work was done without a valid permit and not in accordance with Code. As explained at the meeting, the neighbor applied for a zoning permit to construct a two-foot tall fence. Upon inspection of what the neighbor was intending, it became clear that he was not constructing a fence but rather a retaining wall to allow for a leveling of the space alongside the garage. Staff consulted with the public works department which indicated it had no concern with the grading being proposed and work was permitted to proceed. While the permit may have been amended to reflect the actual work being performed, it remains a valid permit. Because there was no immediate plan to improve the surface, the neighbor was advised that the area could not be used to park a vehicle. The neighbor was also advised a permit for the surfacing would be required and that the parking area would need to maintain a five foot set back from the property line. The neighbor indicated he understood these requirements. The Amundsens point out that staff has ignored or overlooked Section 1104.01, Subd 5c of the City Code, which reads as follows: c. Terraces, steps, decks, stoops or similar features; provided, they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance less than two feet (2') from any lot line. They assert that what was built is in fact a “Terrace”, which would be subject to a two foot setback requirement.