Minutes - 2006/06/26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting PaLye 2 Community Development Director Ericson stated this action will update the zoning code regarding retaining walls, fencing, and landscaping. He said the Planning Commission discussed retaining walls and considered adding a definition for terraces and how the function of the code works in a practical sense, and recommended the amendment that was presented at the last City Council meeting. Community Development Director Ericson stated the ordinance adds definitions for landscaping and retaining walls, and clarifies that a retaining wall can be located in the same manner as a fence, cannot be located on a property line, but can be located without a setback. Community Development Director Ericson said Staff feels it is a good compromise and clarifies that a fence or retaining wall is not subject to a setback requirement. He noted the ordinance also prohibits certain kind of fencing, such as barbed wire or electrified fencing except in special cases such as water treatment facilities or those that need additional security. IIe said that such fences would be subject to public notifications and hearings. Community Development Director Ericson said the first reading of the ordinance was read at the last Council meeting and this is the second reading and adoption of the ordinance. Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m, Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, noted that she had two suggestions dealing with safety and liability issues that she feels should be the concern of the Council. Ms. Amundsen suggested that "unless the said retaining wall will be directly next to an existing fence specifically installed to meet the building code requiring a minimum 5-foot fence around a swimming pool" be added to the retaining wall language. She explained that her neighbor built a retaining wall next to her fence, which she feels compromised the intent of the code. She said because of her neighbors' action, she and her husband spent extra money and time to increase the height of their fence to bring it up to code. She said her family built the fence taller for safety's sake and asked the Council to keep safety a priority. Ms. Amundsen stated that her instance may have been isolated, but if something had happened, she and the City could have been sued. She said she does not want herself or the City to be subject to a liability because of outdated codes. She said she also does not think it is fair for residents to have to pay to update their property to meet new safety codes. Ms. Amundsen also suggested for language to be added requiring all retaining walls two feet or higher to have safety devices, such as a fence or railing. She explained that someone could fall off a high retaining wall and it is no different than having railings on stairs. She noted that off of County Road H2, there is a very large retaining wall without a fence, which she believes is an accident waiting to happen. She said the Council needs to consider safety and liability when making these decisions.