Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 14 <br />Mr. Amundsen stated he now has additional liability because in the intent of the law, he has a <br />protective fence to keep the public away from having access to the pool, and if someone can walk <br />up on to a retaining wall with only 3.5 feet of resistance instead of the intended 5 feet, any <br />insurance claim would say he is negligent in not trying to enforce the rule of having 5 feet of <br />protection. He stated he does not have the proper restriction into his property. <br />Mr. Amundsen stated there has been both a looking aside at what the Code states, and also the <br />intent to preserve public safety, which is the responsibility of the permitting department. He <br />stated that when applying the Code, a more restrictive interpretation instead of a general <br />interpretation is to be used. He noted this is a quote out of the State Municipal Code that the City <br />has adopted. <br />Mr. Amundsen stated they really want to resolve this issue, and the neighbor has been <br />uncooperative when they tried to work with him. He stated they decided to assert their rights and <br />responsibilities to have the City look into why these Code violations have been allowed. He <br />stated there is a public safety issue that needs to be addressed. He stated the Planning <br />Commission did not want to deal with the matter. <br />Mayor Marty asked Director Ericson how much room there is from the fence/retaining wall back <br />into the yard or garage. Director Ericson stated he does not recall the exact dimension from the <br />garage to the property line, but recalled that a small vehicle could be parked alongside of the <br />• garage to maintain a five foot setback. He stated the requirement was clearly communicated to <br />the property owner, that if they chose to pave surface, they would need to come before the City to <br />have a five foot area for the parking area, and a vehicle would need to be parked five feet from <br />the property line. <br />Mayor Marty asked if the area is currently a finished surface. Director Ericson indicated it is not. <br />Mayor Marty confirmed that there can be no parking there. Director Ericson indicated that is <br />correct. <br />Mayor Marty stated he was concerned if someone tripped over a wall and then fell six feet, it <br />could be a problem. Director Ericson stated that Mayor Marty raised a good point; however, if <br />the Amundsens did not have a pool, that issue is still going to be there regardless. Director <br />Ericson pointed out that from a Staff perspective, it is a clear situation and a clear interpretation <br />of the Code. He stated a retaining wall was constructed, and there are no setback requirements <br />for a retaining wall. He stated when he indicated a common occurrence, it is because retaining <br />wails are often built alongside a property line. <br />Mr. Amundsen stated he was not sure when the retaining wall Code was changed, as he was told <br />a retaining wall had to have a five foot setback in 1984. He stated this does not negate the fact <br />that the Code has a two foot setback requirement for a terrace, which is any surface that extends <br />within two feet. He stated this may be a difference of how the Code is applied, but it is what the <br />current Code states. He stated he is asking the Council to enforce the setback because there is a <br />difference of opinion between what has been the practice and what the current Code states. <br />