Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 30 <br /> <br />was informed of the code. He stated it does not nullify the grading or the retaining wall if a <br />violation was to occur again. <br /> <br />Mayor Marty wondered if the property owner could put in gravel instead of landscaping. <br />Director Ericson explained a resident can have some landscape rock along the property, but the <br />moment the area is used for parking, it becomes a parking area. <br /> <br />Mayor Marty asked if there is any leeway to bring the structure down. Director Ericson <br />explained the structure is 24 inches tall, and the fill is at that level or an inch, so he was not sure <br />what could be brought down. <br /> <br />Mayor Marty wondered if it came up as high as the structure. Mrs. Amundsen stated it does. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that the property owner is willing to cut off the 4x4 posts so it is level <br />with retaining wall. <br /> <br />Councilmember Stigney asked if the Planning Commission came up with any recommendations <br />regarding retaining walls up to edge of the property. Director Ericson reported that the Planning <br />Commission felt that a retaining wall up to the property line was appropriate, and that they would <br />make an amendment to explicitly permit that in the same section where fences are permitted and <br />defined as to where they are allowed and what the appropriate setback is. He stated the Planning <br />Commission felt that there was no difference as a fence in that regard and adding the definition to <br />the code would be a worthy amendment. <br /> <br />Councilmember Flaherty wondered if the adjacent property owner is willing to make any <br />movement or concessions. Director Ericson explained that the property owner indicated he <br />would cut down the 4x4 posts to make the area flush with the rest of the retaining wall. He <br />stated his position agrees with Staff’s position that the retaining wall and the grading is <br />consistent with City code, past practice and past policy. <br /> <br />Mr. Amundsen stated that they were hoping to have the structure moved back two feet. He stated <br />he is going to need to spend money to rebuild the fence as a result of the neighbor’s activity. <br /> <br />Mrs. Amundsen stated they will incur costs although they do not want to, because they are <br />concerned about safety. She stated it is annoying that they are put in this predicament when the <br />pool has been there over ten years. <br /> <br />Mayor Marty stated that he really does not see a solution that is going to make anyone happy. He <br />stated that unless the property owner starts parking his car in the area, the structure cannot be <br />moved back. <br /> <br />Mr. Amundsen stated that he continues to be frustrated because when he spoke to the neighbor, <br />he indicated that he wanted to build a parking space. He mentioned he talked to Director Ericson <br />about parking at the last meeting. He stated he is confused why the Council does not see the <br />same intent.