Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 16 <br />. the City cannot set a precedent by starting to pay to resolve neighbors' disputes. <br />Mayor Many asked if the League of Minnesota Cities was consulted. Director Ericson <br />commented that City Attorney Riggs and a Staff member spoke with someone at the League of <br />Minnesota Cities in regard to this matter. He deferred the question to City Attorney Riggs. <br />City Attorney Riggs stated that he discussed the matter with the League of Minnesota Cities, and <br />they did not see that the City is in a situation of liability based on the Code. He stated that <br />unfortunately, the Code does have holes. He stated there are a lot of potential solutions to correct <br />the issue. He stated Code is there for public safety to provide a minimum level of protection. <br />Ms. Amundsen stated she did not present the Code oversights in the packet because they have not <br />found all of them. She noted they have presented some additional Code violations in regard to <br />these setbacks and defining a terrace. She stated this is a stronger argument legally, while the <br />other area is gray. She stated the fact remains that there have been some Code violations, and the <br />City has the responsibility to enforce Code. <br />City Attorney Riggs stated the legislature has said that the City is immune even if Code is <br />improperly enforced, not that it was in this case. He stated there is wide latitude of how the <br />language is enforced by the City. He stated Staff has interpreted it one way, and he does not <br />know what the solution is. He stated there is not a perfect answer in this situation because both <br />. parties have a right to do something. He stated the Council could decide that the Code should be <br />interpreted from this day forward with a terrace definition. <br />Ms. Amundsen stated that when residents do things outside of Code, the City has the right to <br />correct the situation. She confirmed with City Attorney Riggs that he has not determined if there <br />has been a violation of Code. City Attorney Riggs stated this is correct. <br />City Attorney Riggs commented this is the way the Staff has interpreted the Code and that is the <br />difference. He stated he is going off Staff interpretation, case law, and the League of Minnesota <br />Cities position on the City's liability. <br />Mr. Amundsen stated their concern was that the permit department was informed by the <br />homeowner that they were hoping to build a parking pad. He stated there are setback <br />requirements that the permit department has said in the past that require a five foot setback. He <br />stated the homeowner approached the City to build a fence, and when the permit department goes <br />out, they find out what the homeowner really wants to do is build a parking pad. He stated the <br />permit department did not tell them about the five foot setback for the parking pad, which is <br />required for all other homeowners. <br />Councilmember Thomas stated Director Ericson stated he informed the resident that the setback <br />for the parking pad was five feet. She stated she is not sure any Code violation has taken place. <br />Mr. Amundsen stated that there is a record of the City citing this homeowner for parking a car <br />that was unlicensed and untagged on that parking pad. He stated not only has the homeowner <br />