06-20-2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 6, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Commission felt the demolition option should be the focus rather than property acquisition. He reported the City Council concurred with this change. Director Ericson expressed that the intent of the criteria is to encourage the elimination of blighted property and replace it with higher value new construction. He explained that what is before the Planning Commission is an extensive rewrite to the document based on the Planning Commission’s input. He discussed the additions and changes to the guidelines and criteria. He commented the idea is not to issue a blank check to the property owner, but to reimburse them for demolition and tie it to the property. He stated Mounds View residents intending to remain in the community would be given priority. Director Ericson pointed out the Housing Resource Center would administer the program so as not to add additional workload onto City staff. He indicated the City Attorney reviewed the document and made minor changes. Discussion ensued on item 2F. Consensus by the Planning Commission was to strike item 2F at this time and discuss it when all members are present. Consensus was reached for “H” Program Priorities in that the recommended ranking would be changed to the following order: Move # 5 to 3, 1 ok, 2 ok, 3 to 4 and 4 to 5. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek questioned if a “mother-in-law” apartment or small duplex would qualify under the guidelines and criteria. Director Ericson replied it would not meet the criteria of the program guidelines for a single- family residence. He stated the current city code does not allow for “mother-in-law” apartments, but that it could be discussed over time as the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek questioned the use of the term “acquisition” in that the City would not be considering property for acquisition. Director Ericson replied the emphasis would be on demolition assistance. He stated there could be instances when it might be valid for the City to step in and acquire the property. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked if a definition of nuisance exists. Director Ericson replied that Chapter 607 of the City Code outlined the nuisance code. Director Ericson stated this would come back to the Planning Commission as a resolution recommending approval. C. Review Revisions to Zoning Code Relating to the former PF Zoning District Director Ericson stated the City Council had a discussion on a telecommunication tower that was proposed to be located in Groveland Park. He explained that in 2003 the City rezoned the City’s