Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 18, 2013 <br /> <br />Page 5 of 6 <br /> <br />The 2/3 (4/5) vote change for zoning amendments was discussed. State law only requires a supermajority vote for comprehensive plan amendments and rezoning from residential to commercial or industrial. Council Member Smith voiced her discomfort with changing the voting rules specifically in regards to the fence ordinance and the legality of the change. She wants to wait to vote on changing the voting requirements until the next meeting. City Administrator Zuleger explained that this proposal is important because it will govern the administration of the zoning code. The certificate of zoning compliance was discussed. It was explained that the purpose was to minimally regulate certain structures without requiring a permit. It is not intended to be burdensome on property owners, but instead provide city approval or sanctioning for smaller zoning issues. Home occupations and small accessory structures were discussed. There was a discussion of the broadness and scope of the proposed language. Mr. Zuleger explained the reasoning for this. One factor is to provide property owners proof of city sanctioned projects that do not fit neatly within permit process. Mr. Klatt gave tennis courts as example of the code requiring a permit but there is no current permit process. Striking 154.103(G) “Design Review; Demolition” and why it is being removed was discussed. Because the standards manual does not exist yet, it can be reinserted at later date when the manual is developed. Council consensus was to strike it for now. Council Member Bloyer asked about how process would work for zoning compliance permits. Mr. Klatt explained that applicants would be given handouts explaining process. Council Member Bloyer has issue with the term “disturbing” on Page 9, subsection (7). The role of the Planning Commission vis-à-vis the Council was discussed. Conditional use permits were discussed. Mr. Klatt explained that the new zoning re-write actually adds many current CUP businesses to the permitted use list. The remaining CUP businesses have some additional regulation, but for good reason. Council Member Nelson voiced his concern with the vagueness of 154.106(A)(7), (10), and (12). It was explained that some vagueness is required because not every situation or circumstance can be identified beforehand. It was noted that the term “excessive” would allow the council discretion. Council Members Bloyer and Nelson issues with the term “historic” in subsection (12) were discussed. Mr. Bloyer does not want to get into fights over what is considered “historic.” 154.110(C)(1) investigation. Council Members Bloyer and Nelson do not want Director of Planning to be able to investigate on property without first going through judicial process. Standard for obtaining judicial order was discussed. Mr. Zuleger noted that current practice is to pursue judicial process already. That is why it can take and is often taking so long. Council Members want to make sure the City is protecting the residents rights. <br />MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO POSTPONE UNTIL NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. Council Member <br />Bloyer seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0.