Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council May 23, 2016 <br />Regular Meeting Page 14 <br /> <br />Council with further information on this matter and asked how the Council wanted to proceed. 1 <br />He indicated this matter could be addressed during the Comprehensive Planning process the 2 <br />Council supported a change. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Mayor Flaherty was not in any hurry to modify the City’s current code. He believed the Planning 5 <br />Commission should take a further look at this matter and make a recommendation to the City 6 <br />Council. 7 <br /> 8 <br />Council Member Gunn supported the Council pursuing this matter further given the fact many 9 <br />Mounds View residents had aging parents. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Council Member Mueller agreed. She was in favor of Roseville’s approach to ADU’s and 12 <br />wanted to see Mounds View investigate this matter further. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Council Member Hull believed this issue was a sign of the times and should be considered by the 15 <br />City Council. 16 <br /> 17 <br />Council Member Meehlhause concurred. 18 <br /> 19 <br />2. Review Recently Adopted Legislation Regarding Temporary Dwelling 20 <br />Units 21 <br /> 22 <br />City Administrator Ericson stated the legislature approved an allowance that would provide 23 <br />people the opportunity to have a temporary dwelling unit on their property for a physically or 24 <br />mentally impaired family member. He discussed the intent behind these dwelling units noting 25 <br />cities would be allowed to opt out if this was considered to be something outside what the City 26 <br />would consistently allow. He reported staff did have some enforcement concerns regarding this 27 <br />issue. 28 <br /> 29 <br />Council Member Meehlhause and Council Member Gunn supported the City opting out on this 30 <br />matter. 31 <br /> 32 <br />Council Member Mueller believed the City should opt out and focus rather on the accessory 33 <br />dwelling unit. 34 <br /> 35 <br />Council Member Gunn agreed. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Mayor Flaherty also supported the City opting out on this matter. He feared that the City could 38 <br />lose control of this issue. 39 <br /> 40 <br />City Administrator Ericson commented on a State law that could force a property owner to pay 41 <br />for a neighboring fence. He explained the City Council would be responsible for assigning a 42 <br />fence viewer from the City Council members. He indicated the Council could opt out on this 43 <br />matter as well and questioned how the Council wanted to proceed. 44 <br /> 45