08-20-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item No: 9 Meeting Date: August 20, 2003 Type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Review Council Priorities Regarding Possible Code Amendments Background: Through a series of goal-setting sessions and meetings to review priorities, the City Council identified possible amendments to the City Code, which are being presented to the Planning Commission for comment and possible action. The possible amendments are as follows: 1. Amend the City Code to increase the minimum square footage requirements for a single-family home. 2. Amend the City Code to support and encourage life-cycle housing and upper-end condominiums. 3. Amend the City Code to restrict or prohibit fast-food drive-throughs. 4. Amend Zoning Code with regard to permitted uses Discussion: The first proposed amendment is fairly straightforward—increase the minimum floor areas for new homes. Currently a one–story home is required to have at least 960 square feet of first floor area. A two-story home would need a minimum first floor area of 780 square feet. These areas do not include basements or upper stories. Should the area requirements be increased to prohibit smaller homes? The second proposed amendment is much more involved, in that there are a multitude of options that could be employed to encourage the development of life-cycle housing and upper-end condominiums. One option that was recently adopted was to eliminate the CUP requirement from townhomes. Other options might include density bonuses, fee reductions, local tax rebates, etc. Another idea would be to allow detached townhomes (single family detached dwellings with minimal setbacks on individually platted lots surrounded by common areas.) The third proposed amendment is to prohibit or restrict fast food drive-thrus. This could be done by requiring a CUP for drive-thrus so that the Commission and Council would have an opportunity to review the concept prior to allowing the development. While an outright ban is possible, I’m not sure that course of action would be advisable.