Laserfiche WebLink
Similarly there are a number of other Statutes (462.355 Interim Ordinance, <br />29 <br />462.358 Subdivision, 462.3595 Conditional Use Permits, 462.3597 Interim Uses, <br />30 <br />and 462.357 Variances) that dictate processes the Community Development <br />31 <br />Department must undertake, such as conducting public hearings and generating <br />32 <br />reports to the Planning Commission (established under 462.3585), which are then <br />33 <br />forwarded to the City Council for final action. <br />34 <br />The Zoning Ordinance also includes specific processes and requirements that <br />35 <br />need to be enforced that are not derived from any one specific Statute; signs, and <br />36 <br />the regulations and enforcement of them, is one such item that comes to mind. <br />37 <br />Another very important statute 15.99, or the 60-day rule, as it is referred to, is a <br />38 <br />law is designed to compel a city to act on specific formal requests (platting, <br />39 <br />subdivision, comp plan amendments zoning text and map changes, conditional <br />40 <br />use, interim use, and variances) in a timely manner or 60-days. This law is fairly <br />41 <br />strict in its application allowing extensions to the action timeline under certain <br />42 <br />circumstances, like for requesting additional information and/or details germane <br />43 <br />to the project and necessary to support or deny. <br />44 <br />With all of this in mind, the City Council should discuss the role they desire in the <br />45 <br />development decision and enforcement processes of the City, specifically through <br />46 <br />the Zoning ordinance. To the extent that there is interest, the role of staff and the <br />47 <br />limitations of the 60-day rule should also be kept in mind during this discussion. <br />48 <br />TAH <br />EXT MENDMENTISTORY <br />49 <br />As the Council may recall, the Planning Division, at the direction of the previous <br />50 <br />City Council, presented, at the February 11 City Council meeting, a detailed list <br />51 <br />of items that required amendments. This list included numerous zoning text <br />52 <br />amendments that the planning staff feels are needed as well as other sections of <br />53 <br />the zoning ordinance and City Code that have not been updated for many years <br />54 <br />(telecommunication and shoreland, wetland, and storm water requirements, <br />55 <br />subdivision, sexually oriented business, notification distance, and Twin Lakes). <br />56 <br />At this meeting, the City Planner reviewed with the City Council the list <br />57 <br />(attached) of 30 items and received direction to move forward. <br />58 <br />CI <br />URRENTTEMS <br />59 <br />On May 20, Councilmember McGehee removed five items from the Council’s <br />60 <br />docket, three for action, to allow for additional discussion and consideration, prior <br />61 <br />to final action and/or direction to the planning staff. The following three items <br />62 <br />are zoning code text amendments the Planning Division is desiring to have <br />63 <br />adopted. A brief synopsis of each is provided below: <br />64 <br />The zoning code exempts church steeples, water towers, flag poles, and many <br />65 <br />other tall structures from the maximum height limit in a given district, and <br />66 <br />Planning Division staff proposes to add industrial silos to the list of <br />67 <br />exemptions and will look further into other potential exemptions. <br />68 <br />The initiation process for seeking zoning text and/or map amendments is not <br />69 <br />consistent with State Statutes with respect to whom is allowed to seek such <br />70 <br />amendments. <br />71 <br />RCA_Discussion2_ZOAmdts_060313.doc <br />Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br />