My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 2006/06/26
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Minutes - 2006/06/26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2025 2:06:13 PM
Creation date
3/6/2025 1:58:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
6/26/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 4 <br />because an amendment such as what is being proposed would require significant work. He <br />suggested tabling the action would be the best option. <br />Director Ericson said that procedurally, the ordinance could go back to the Planning Commission <br />for further review, but that typically, after the first reading, an ordinance does not go back to the <br />Planning Commission. <br />Director Ericson stated that he talked with the Public Works Director regarding the retaining <br />walls, and that while there are some instances in which a railing or fence would be necessary, he <br />does not believe it should be legislated. He stated there may be a way to build some <br />discretionary review into the ordinance, but would have to research the issue with City Attorney <br />Riggs. <br />Community Development Director Ericson said the issues could be discussed with City Attorney <br />Riggs, the Amundsens, and Planning Commission, and then brought back to Council. He added <br />that he agrees with Amundsens that the ordinance should only be improved upon once. <br />Mayor Marty said he would like to take the time to straighten out the ordinance now rather than <br />amending or changing it later. He said he would like something more specific and safety - <br />related. He said he would be okay grandfathering in people who already have retaining walls and <br />believes in the future, adding more language will cover the Council. <br />Councilmember Thomas said the issues of 2-feet and under were brought up and said she does <br />not want to get too specific with the code. She said she does not want to over -legislate what <br />happens on private property. She added she would like to allow a City Staff person the discretion <br />to make decisions regarding these issues. She said all over -legislation will do is make people not <br />update these properties. <br />City Attorney Riggs said Community Development Director Ericson's recommendations would <br />be appropriate. Regarding the liability question, he said if something happens on private <br />property, the City's insurance is not liable. He added that the issues brought up before the <br />Council warrants further discussion. <br />Councilmember Gunn said she agrees with Councilmember Thomas. She asked if it is the City's <br />place to determine liability if people fall off one wall into a neighbor's yard. She said it is a <br />private property issue. She said she agrees that specific legislation will make people not update <br />their properties. <br />Councilmember Stigney asked about the railing, and what kinds of railings would have to be <br />legislated. IIe said he also believes the Council is over -legislating. <br />Mr. Amundsen commented that the building code already legislates specifics, including steps off <br />of decks. He stated that if decks require certain things, retaining walls should require them as <br />well. He said such legislation for retaining walls is well within the Council's ability. He added it <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.