Agenda Packets - 1986/07/07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r► MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. PAGF: THREE 3UNE 30, 1986 This conclusion seems to allude to the decision of the City Council to not assist in the development of the tax increment district at the intersection cf Trunk Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road through the use of condemnation. The fact is that a development district AS proposed by the Wuornns Report is not antirely similar to a tax increment district and, therefc.re, the conclusion of the Planning Commission has no basis in fact. A development district is a geographic area established by the Comprehensive Plan and znninq ordinance that limits development to the types of uses determined to be desireahle and establishing deveinpment/performance standards upon which all development proposals are judged. The designation and enforcement of a development district does not require that the City assemble the land and/or condemn property to assemble the site, but simply establishes a more restrictive guide for development of an area other than that currently available through a standard Comprehensive Plan or zoning code. 5. "Architectural Review Boards primarily serve to protect and/or preserve architectural themes within a community L or district. The City of Mounds View has not established an architectural theme, and may not care to do so; we rely on our standards of development to control structures erected in Mounds View." Unfortunately, the City's development standards do not address the issue of archi_ec'_ure and in the case of development along Trunk Highway 10, the ^:ty may find it to he in our best interest to regulate all aspects of the development including architecture. The establish- ment of an Architecture Review Board does not require that the City legislate certain architectural themes within all or part of the community but simply sOt forth quidelines for the types of architecture considered to be most acceptatle and desireable by the community for the area involved. The second finding of the Planning Commission charges that the Wuornos Report, "...supports its findinqs on selected goals and policy;". Although no specific detail is given in the Planning Commission Report with respecL to this finding, it would seem upon reviewing the Wuornos Report that it addresses the issues involved as directed by the City when the study was initially authorized. Finding number three of the Planning Commission states that the Wuornos Report, "...does not address adjacent areas impacted by the study area;". A careful review n' thepuornoslDeport tants tclearly reveals that great efforts were taken by h