Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council May 23, 2016 <br />Regular Meeting Page 14 <br /> <br />that some communities do allow for accessory dwelling units with conditions. He provided the <br />Council with further information on this matter and asked how the Council wanted to proceed. <br />He indicated this matter could be addressed during the Comprehensive Planning process the <br />Council supported a change. <br /> <br />Mayor Flaherty was not in any hurry to modify the City’s current code. He believed the Planning <br />Commission should take a further look at this matter and make a recommendation to the City <br />Council. <br /> <br />Council Member Gunn supported the Council pursuing this matter further given the fact many <br />Mounds View residents had aging parents. <br /> <br />Council Member Mueller agreed. She was in favor of Roseville’s approach to ADU’s and <br />wanted to see Mounds View investigate this matter further. <br /> <br />Council Member Hull believed this issue was a sign of the times and should be considered by the <br />City Council. <br /> <br />Council Member Meehlhause concurred. <br /> <br />2. Review Recently Adopted Legislation Regarding Temporary Dwelling <br />Units <br /> <br />City Administrator Ericson stated the legislature approved an allowance that would provide <br />people the opportunity to have a temporary dwelling unit on their property for a physically or <br />mentally impaired family member. He discussed the intent behind these dwelling units noting <br />cities would be allowed to opt out if this was considered to be something outside what the City <br />would consistently allow. He reported staff did have some enforcement concerns regarding this <br />issue. <br /> <br />Council Member Meehlhause and Council Member Gunn supported the City opting out on this <br />matter. <br /> <br />Council Member Mueller believed the City should opt out and focus rather on the accessory <br />dwelling unit. <br /> <br />Council Member Gunn agreed. <br /> <br />Mayor Flaherty also supported the City opting out on this matter. He feared that the City could <br />lose control of this issue. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ericson commented on a State law that could force a property owner to pay <br />for a neighboring fence. He explained the City Council would be responsible for assigning a <br />fence viewer from the City Council members. He indicated the Council could opt out on this <br />matter as well and questioned how the Council wanted to proceed.