Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 29 <br /> <br />restrictive. She wondered how this phrase is being overlooked in this situation. She stated that <br />all parties agree that is a vague situation and there is no clear cut answer. <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs stated it is a policy decision in the interpretation, and it is something that <br />needs to be filled in. He stated that every code has that provision and no code is perfect. He <br />stated the courts will look at the past fact patterns of the community and the overall broad <br />interpretation of how the code has been utilized. He stated that this would be very strong for a <br />court to look at. <br /> <br />Mr. Amundsen stated a single sentence would be considered vague, and a strong position would <br />be that it is specifically included in the setback code. He stated the Council needs to make a <br />policy decision in regard to if a neighbor is dissatisfied with the way that the Community <br />Development Department has decided something and that the past practice is to deny zero <br />setback, what is the policy going to be. He wondered if zero setbacks will not be allowed or if <br />they will be allowed at the discretion of the City Administrator. He stated that the current <br />administrative variance allowance specifies that the City Administrator can determine up to two <br />feet. He wondered if the Council will follow the current policy or change policy this evening and <br />allow it to be at the discretion of Community Development department. <br /> <br />Councilmember Thomas stated past practice has been to allow retaining walls with zero setbacks, <br />so to do anything else would be the change of policy. She indicated the Council has given other <br />structures setbacks. She stated the City would have a significant amount of properties to deal <br />with if the policy was changed. <br /> <br />Mayor Marty recalled that several years ago, the Community Development department was given <br />some discretion so that everything would not have to come to the Council. He stated that <br />perhaps this is a point where setbacks need to be looked at, too. He stated he was under the <br />impression that even if the Community Development Department approves something, that it <br />still had to go before the Planning Commission for a cursory evaluation. <br /> <br />Director Ericson stated the administrative variance process is irrelevant in this situation. He <br />stated there are some checks and balances in regard to an administrative variance process, and it <br />does not give the Community Development Director any latitude to grant setback variances. He <br />explained it allows for a reduction to not less than 25 percent of the setback required, but <br />adjoining property owners have to be notified, and if there are no objections, Planning <br />Commission performs a cursory review. He stated if a property owner rejects the reduction, there <br />would be a full variance process. He stated this is only for setback variances. <br /> <br />Mayor Marty asked if it was acceptable that the area filled is not planted or sodded. He <br />wondered if it would nullify the process if the individual were to park a car there again. <br /> <br />Director Ericson stated that specifically with regard to the property owner on Pleasant View <br />Drive, if a vehicle is parked there, it would be in violation of City code, and the property owner <br />would receive a notice of violation. He stated this has not occurred since the property owner