Minutes - 2006/03/27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 12 • Director Ericson ex lained the s' i n w p rtuat o as brought to the Planning Commission, the matter was discussed and forwarded on to the City Council for consideration. Director Ericson stated Staff sought legal counsel and indicated that Staff prepared a letter to the Amundsens which indicated that their fence and the presence of the retaining wall and grading area alongside of adjoining wall that are both in compliance with City Code. He stated two compliant issues side-by-side should not make one or the other non-compliant and should not prohibit or restrict a resident from doing something on their own properly. Director Ericson pointed out one of the issues that Mr. Amundsen has brought up is in regard to the definition of a terrace, and citing City Code that all yard terracing be set back two feet back from the property line. He stated the interpretation of a terrace is not a retaining wall, but rather is a reference to a patio or deck area. He stated the intent of the Code was more to restrict decks and patios away from a property line. He stated it is very common to have a retaining wall at the property wall and there are no setback requirements for retaining walls. Director Ericson stated Staff recommends taking no action on this matter. Valerie and Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated this has turned into quite a bigger issue. She stated when they talked to the Planning Commission, the major point was the fence • issue. She commented that Brian did find the part of the Code that states that terraces need a two foot setback. Ms. Amundsen commented that part of the City Code imports the State of Minnesota Code, and in the Minnesota Code, it says that if a word is not given a definition, one goes to the Merriam- Webster Collegiate Dictionary and that definition is to be used. She stated by this definition, what her neighbor has done is a terrace, and there is a two foot setback requirement stated in the City Code. Ms. Amundsen stated the fact is that in this county, one's property is to do with as one pleases to, as long as Code is followed. She stated there are some restrictions and one cannot do whatever one wants right up to the edge of the property because there are setbacks. She stated the neighbor stated that he decided to use the area for parking a vehicle, and she stated there is a five foot setback for this that is clearly laid out in Code. Ms. Amundsen stated it is the responsibility of City Staff to uniformly enforce Codes across all residents' property. She stated they are asking the City to enforce the existing Code. Ms. Amundsen explained that they went to City Hall to review the permit and it was found that the permit was for a fence. She stated if a fence had been built, it could have been right on the property line and nothing could be done about it. She stated grading was done, pulled dirt, and changed the contour of the land. She stated there was no permit to do grading work, and • commented she feels Staff is overlooking the fact that work was done without a valid permit and not within Code.