Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff present major Century Code overhaul, highlights tree-preservation and new land‑disturbance rules
Summary
City planning staff summarized a proposed Land Development Ordinance that would consolidate zoning/subdivision/stormwater code, set a new 2,000 sq ft land‑disturbance threshold, and revise tree‑preservation permitting; councilors asked procedural and timing questions and the item drew mixed public comment from builders and tree advocates.
City planning staff presented a repeal-and-replace package of Titles 17–19 that would consolidate zoning, subdivision and stormwater regulations into a single Land Development Ordinance (LDO) and align the comprehensive plan language with the new districts.
Planning staff said the package creates a new land‑disturbance permit triggered at 2,000 square feet, expands the scope of erosion‑control and post‑construction stormwater measures, and integrates design manuals into the code so standards are enforceable rather than advisory. “One of the big things with this is a new permit … we were having some problems with small residential lots with erosion control,” staff said, noting the lower threshold is intended to address repeated problems on smaller sites. The proposal also revises zoning district names and parking/setback rules to enable more multifamily infill and qualify additional lot types for simplified review.
Staff described amendments to the tree‑preservation framework: a simplified permit pathway for cases affecting up to 10 high‑value trees and a 30% mitigation requirement (with options for on‑site replanting or a fee‑in‑lieu). Staff said the simplified permit would accept a licensed arborist’s diagram rather than a full survey in many cases. “By bumping up to 10, you’ve allowed more projects to go this route rather than the more detailed route with the tree preservation plan,” staff told council.
Council members pressed procedural questions about whether substantive amendments would require another planning commission review. City attorney Nick advised that if planning commission previously considered the same subject matter and issued a recommendation, the council could act; but new, substantive changes should return to the planning commission for public hearing and recommendation. Staff warned that new amendments could push the effective date and cleanup work into November; DNR floodplain edits were cited as one outstanding item.
Public commenters included local builders and business groups urging adoption to boost housing supply and affordability, and forestry professionals and residents urging careful implementation, stronger aftercare, and sufficient staffing for enforcement and mitigation. Staff said implementation tools and forms would be developed if council adopts the ordinance.
