My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 2006/08/14 (2)
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Minutes - 2006/08/14 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2025 2:01:21 PM
Creation date
3/6/2025 1:58:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
8/14/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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 August 14, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 4 <br /> <br />under the same category, which will not be over legislative. He added that he was unable to <br />attend the last Planning Commission meeting to discuss his concerns. <br /> <br />Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. <br /> <br />Councilmember Thomas stated that the Council discussed some clarifying language regarding <br />when Staff would have to inspect a proposed retaining wall. She stated she would like some <br />language in the ordinance that allows Staff to address safety issues. <br /> <br />Director Ericson explained that the specific issue was not addressed with the Planning <br />Commission, but the problem that was discussed with the City Attorney is that the language <br />suggested is too vague. He stated that if the Staff feels there is a need to inspect the property, <br />they would do so. <br /> <br />Councilmember Thomas stated that she believed a trigger for the Staff inspection was the height <br />of the retaining wall. She added her concern is at what point the City should institute safety <br />guidelines. <br /> <br />Mayor Marty stated he recalled some discussion. He read from section 11.03.08 where fencing is <br />discussed and suggested “any retaining wall on property lines will be reviewed by Staff and be <br />decided on a case-by-case basis.” <br /> <br />Director Ericson replied that the language is too vague because it does not give any direction <br />about what will happen if there is a safety concern. Mayor Marty suggested adding language <br />stating, “it can be denied if there is a safety concern.” Director Ericson asked what would be <br />considered a safety concern. Director Ericson stated the code should be clear enough so citizens <br />can understand the requirements. He stated that adding a vague requirement is too ambiguous <br />and unfair and such language would cause confusion. <br /> <br />Councilmember Flaherty stated such language gives the City the ability to investigate such <br />instances. He stated the language at least allows the City to review the plan and if there is a safety <br />issue there can be some more discussion. He stated he would like language that at least gives the <br />City the opportunity to review the property. <br /> <br />Director Ericson stated the City currently has the ability to review permits. He stated that the <br />City should change the code explicitly explaining what the requirements are so it is easily <br />understandable. <br /> <br />Councilmember Thomas replied that she would like specific language that gives the City the <br />power to review the permit. She stated that her problem is that there is no specific point at which <br />such retaining walls could be deemed unsafe. She stated she would like the City to have recourse <br />for unsafe retaining walls. She stated she was hoping for language that allowed some recourse. <br />She stated language must be added allowing the City recourse for unsafe retaining walls. <br /> <br />Director Ericson stated when the issue was discussed with the City Attorney one of the concerns
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.