Laserfiche WebLink
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