Minutes - 2006/04/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 25 structure that was requested for the parking area. He noted this action by the Council will support the code ordinance that is adopted and will support the primary objective and policy in that the building code is to ensure public health and safety within the neighborhoods and properties. Valerie Amundsen, stated this has become more of a bigger issue, and that a citizen of Mounds View needs to be able to look at the code and it needs to be clear. She noted that they have been to the Planning Commission twice and they have not dealt with it there. She stated that because it is not clear, the code says the City has to go with the more restrictive and safe option. She noted that City Attorney Riggs indicated that the code is not clear. She stated the code needs to indicate that the setbacks can be waived with the variance process. She stated this is not going to restrict the City that retaining walls cannot be where they are needed. She stated that in a case such as this, it is the Council’s responsibility is to err on the side of safety. She stated they are cautious and concerned about the neighborhood for its safety, and that should be the Council’s concern. Ms. Amundsen stated that some people think they can do whatever they want on their property and this is not true. She stressed that she is very familiar with the restrictions of the code when their home was built. She noted that because of the practice that retaining walls can go over the property line as fences, should not mean that this has become code. She stressed that the issue needs to be addressed or sent back to the Planning Commission. She asked the Council to be responsible and watch out for the community. She stated that virtually nothing is allowed next to the property line other than fences. Ms. Amundsen stated she feels like they have researched the issue well and are confident that it will hold up. She stated they are not trying to make trouble for the neighbor, but rather to protect their pool area and also to protect the perimeter of people’s property. Councilmember Thomas stated that the structure is a retaining wall. She stated at some future time, a surface may be improved and become a parking structure, but for now it is a retaining wall. She indicated she did a code search for retaining wall and there are a couple of references to retaining walls. She stated there is no specific reference for a retaining wall setback, but there is an implication that retaining walls are allowed straight up to the property line. She stated that it is as not as clear as it could be, and it should be sent back to the Planning Commission to look at some of the issues, but just because there are references to retaining walls at property lines, it does indicate that retaining walls are to be allowed next to the property line. She stated she cannot see any violation by the adjacent property owner. City Attorney Riggs commended the Amundsen’s research, and stated that the issue is implicitly covered in the code. City Attorney Riggs pointed out that the parking surface is a different situation than the retaining wall issue.