Minutes - 2006/03/27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 15 • Councilmember Thomas stated it seems to be clear to all parties involved, even though they are diametrically opposed. She stated it is helpful to provide a definition of a terrace, but a definition of retaining wall is also needed. She stated not all of what State Code provides is necessarily the definition the City can use for its charter, because the City Code can define terms in regard to how it chooses to use them. Councilmember Thomas stated the Council needs to find out what the City definition is for a retaining wall and why it is different. She stated she needs more information to sort out this matter. Ms. Amundsen stated if she reads the Code and it says a terrace has a two foot setback, but there is no definition of a terrace in the City Code. She stated one does not need to know what a retaining wall is, one needs to know what a terrace is. She stated by the definition in State Code, it is a terrace. Councilmember Thomas stated the City still does not have a definition of a retaining wall and what might be the difference between them. Mr. Amundsen stated the term "retaining wall" only appears once in Code, when it references fences that are built next to retaining walls. He stated this is the single reference to a retaining wall. He stated if a use is not defined within Code, then it is prohibited. He stated a retaining wall next to a lot line is not a defined use, so it is prohibited. . Councilmember Thomas stated if there is a rule about a fence with a retaining wall, then it is a defined use and retaining walls next to fences are allowed. She stated the Amundsens have clearly discovered a hole in the Code that the City needs to fix with language. She stated if the Code is not good enough for residents to understand, it is not good enough. Ms. Amundsen stated they are not trying to be difficult neighbors, and it is not an issue with the neighbor, but is rather an issue with Code enforcement. She stated they want to hold the City responsible, just as they have been held responsible as they have built structures over the years. She stated the issue is that there are restrictions, and people cannot do whatever they want, wherever they want on their property. She stated they have laid out these restrictions fairly clearly, and if this had not happened already, it may have been seen more clearly. Ms. Amundsen stated it is becoming an issue because the poor gentleman has already built this, and this made it more complicated. She stated it is confusing because of the dilemma that a parry was allowed to do something and got this far. Mayor Marty stated his concern with someone that pulls a permit for a fence and does not build a fence. Ms. Amundsen asked the Council to take action fairly soon, as the liability is a huge concern. He asked the Council to take some time to discuss the matter and make a decision. Mayor Marty noted that Councilmember Flaherty visited the property, and indicated he would not have a problem giving a variance fora 10 foot fence and asked about the possibility of the City paying for additional fencing. Mayor Many stated that although it would be a nice thought,