04-19-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn noted any audit by the insurance company would show the footage difference. He asked how far away the fence is from the pool. Mr. Amundsen replied if there is an incident and/or someone is injured, the insurance company would do an audit. He added the distance from the pool to the fence is 50 to 60 feet. Mr. Amundsen referenced a letter they received letter from Director Ericson stating the situation will be left as is. Director Ericson replied he appreciates the concerns the Amundsens are raising and previously asked the City attorney to review the issue from a legal standpoint. The City attorney’s position is that the fence, in its present condition with the retaining wall, is in compliance with code. It is still a six foot fence. The attorney added that the actions from one neighbor cannot restrict or prohibit another from doing something that is legal. A letter was sent to the Amundsens stating that their fence is in compliance with City code and indicated they could increase the height of their fence if they so desired, but did not suggest that they had to do this. He added the City cannot make their neighbor remove the retaining wall. Ms. Amundsen stated one neighbor’s action cannot obligate or restrict use of another’s property; however, the neighbor has restricted the use of their property because they cannot use the pool now due to the retaining wall. She added the City should err on who was there first and safety of the neighborhood. Commissioner Scotch stated they could bring a forward a motion to revisit the code. Director Ericson replied he appreciates the interpretation but the retaining wall does not restrict the Amundsens from using their pool. He added he does not want to suggest the City cares less for safety or for the Amundsens, but the law states the City cannot request the wall be removed. He suggested if they would like to pursue the issue, they could address City Council at their next meeting on March 27 with the City attorney present. Commissioner Zwirn noted whatever agreement the parties come up with is fine, but unless the insurance companies are involved in this process the agreement is null and void. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case CU2006-001. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Environmental Processing Center at 4889 Old Highway 8. Planning Associate Heller reviewed the staff report indicating the applicant, Merlin Brisbin of Star Environmental, Inc., is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for an Environmental Processing Center at 4889 Old Highway 8, site of the Skyline Motel. The applicant has a signed purchase agreement with the current owners of the motel. The applicant is proposing to construct an 11,200 square foot building and a small additional accessory building. Planning Associate Heller stated the subject property is currently zoned industrial. An environmental processing center would be allowed as a conditional use in an industrial district. With every Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning Commission is required to review and address any potential adverse effects which include the relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area, traffic, adequate utilities and access roads and the demonstrated need for such a use.