Laserfiche WebLink
ITEM ��6 <br />�� � � � <br />� % 1 � �� <br />'I'oo IVlounds View Planning Comrnission <br />�ro�: Pamela Sheldon�, Community Development Director <br />Subj�cto Pianning Case No. SP-014-97 <br />Ordinance Amendment: Revising th� criteria for famiIy foster homes having ei�hi <br />�hildren to include definitions from Sta�e of Minnesota Rules applicabte to boih the <br />Department af Humari Services and the Department of Corrections <br />1)ate: January 17, 1997 <br />Meeting of 7anuary 22, 1997 <br />�seaeo <br />Minnesota 5tate Law defines a sfiaie licensed residen�iai facility providing care of six or %wer <br />persons as a permiticed single family residential use, meaning that citie� must perrnit such uses in <br />residential districts wiihout special reguiation. The Minnesoia Depa.rkment of Correciions is on� <br />of the agencies wliich issues licenses for group homes and group foster homes for the purpose of <br />treating juveniles who have violated criminal staiutes. The rules goverrung the Department of <br />Cortectians define group homes and gra�ap foster homes as prvviding care for not more ihan eigh� <br />chiidren. They will only place six children in a group home or group %ster home unless the local <br />zoning code allows for tfie additiona.l two children. <br />In 1996, the Mounds View Zoning Code was amended to aliow a total of eight children in foster <br />family homes group homes. This amendment was initiated in response to a request from Mr. <br />Duane Waldoch, who operates a family fosier home for chiidren referred to him by #he <br />Department of Corrections. His license was for six children, and he wanted to obtain a license <br />aliowing him �o have eight children. This iicense could nofi be issued without the change in our <br />Zoning Code. <br />Mr. Waldoch appiied for the revised license and the Department of Corrections asked us for <br />evidence that our local Zoning Cade aliowed eighi chiidren. VVi�en we sent a copy of the <br />amendment, the Department of Corrections responded ihai the way the amendment was wri�ten <br />did not pernut them to approve the additional children. Staff is proposing � fiarther amendment <br />which wouid solve ihis problem. <br />`. <br />